Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

[OscarLevant]

Suppose they find “something” in 2013 or 2014 that could be considered fraud, or some other violation of the tax law. Would/should Congress move to impeach?

Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe, maybe not. I should think they would want a ton of evidence of egregious crimes, financial or otherwise, adding up to an unavoidable conclusion the President is a crook, and we must ask ourselves, do we want a crook to be rewarded with the most powerful job in the world, affecting policy, all the while profiting from the office ( and he is profiting from the office )?

My view is if we allow such a person to occupy that office, that is the point at which America will sink into decline, and has lost her way, and that would be a tragedy.

 

[Oborosen]

Another battle that the democrats want to lose...

Not going to deny that this crap is getting pretty old.

 

[Mycroft]

Indeed they do. The law just says "taxpayer" and Trump is a taxpayer.




"Shall" means "must" in legalese.

Very well.

But guess what...you'll never see it.

"shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

What do you think the odds are that Trump will consent to allowing his tax information getting out of the closed executive session?

I'm thinking we are going to see another Dem getting on TV, saying "We got the goods on Trump now.", implying it has something to do with a tax return...ala Schiffty...without ever telling the public what goods they have and without ever leveling a single charge.

After all, the Dems are bound and determined to prevent Trump from winning in 2020...even if they have to use their Congressional power to get it done.

The ends justify any means.

 

[Oborosen]

Trump should talk with them and simply tell them GO TO HELL!

They'll probably try and twist it to mean that he's telling that to everyone.

 

[Thingfish]

Prolly get leaked buy the IRS

 

[AliHajiSheik]

If Trump hadn't shared his tax returns with the government, then that would be a story.

 

[dcsports]

You aren't getting this yet. The Mueller report will MOST LIKELY absolve Trump of any crime. BUT, and this is a big one, the Muller report may uncover evidence of obstruction or abuse of power, which legally aren't crimes. But Congress doesn't need a crime with a smoking gun to impeach a president, all they need is probably cause to impeach.

lol. Technically they don't 'need' a criminal act to impeach, but precedent shows that from a practical standpoint and 200 years of history, it takes a significant criminal act to impeach.

But again, we're talking tax returns. This is only being done to in hopes they can embarrass Trump, not remove him.

 

[dcsports]

The Chairperson of the Ways and Means Committee has the legal authority to request anyone's tax returns. One doesn't have to show that said person is a target of a crime. The very reason this law was crafted was because of the Teapot Dome scandal, in which it wasn't known whether the president was involved. Congress didn't then have the authority to obtain tax returns. They changed the law.

26 U.S. Code SS 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

So again, what crime did Muller and the IRS miss?

This will set up a constitutional crisis. The president, like everyone else, has an expectation of privacy. Demanding returns not because of suspicion of a crime - but because they feel like it, and / or want to use it as a weapon against a political rival is not what that was intended for. It's going to be an issue. They may well end up with them, but it doesn't make it a moral act, and it has already shown how unethical the House Democrats can be.

 

[dcsports]

What an odd thing do have to pretend to oneself. Legally demanding his tax returns is 'unethical'?

Do you know what that word actually means?

Absolutely. Abusing the subpoena power given to this committee for political ends is unethical. Period.

 

[MTAtech]

So again, what crime did Muller and the IRS miss?

This will set up a constitutional crisis. The president, like everyone else, has an expectation of privacy. Demanding returns not because of suspicion of a crime - but because they feel like it, and / or want to use it as a weapon against a political rival is not what that was intended for. It's going to be an issue. They may well end up with them, but it doesn't make it a moral act, and it has already shown how unethical the House Democrats can be.

The law specifically gives the right to see ANYONE’S taxes to specific officers in Congress. It doesn’t require probable cause. You can’t make up your own law to suit your agenda.

You may argue it isn’t a good idea but even that’s a weak argument because of the out-in-the-open emoluments clause violations, which Congress has a duty to monitor.

There are also national security implications if a president has business dealings with foreign nations.

 

[haymarket]

Another battle that the democrats want to lose...

Not going to deny that this crap is getting pretty old.

The law is very clear. Why would the Dems lose this request?

 

[Middleground]

Let the court and public opinion battles commence.

By the time the court battles end, Trump would probably be either out of office, having lost in 2020 or starting his 2nd term. That or the Dems will have lost control of the House for being asswipes since they took power.

Did you truly expect the Dems to kiss Trump's ass when they took Congress? Of course not. They're simply doing the job that the fluffing Republicans did not do because they were appeasing their master leader.

 

[dcsports]

The law specifically gives the right to see ANYONE’S taxes to specific officers in Congress. It doesn’t require probable cause. You can’t make up your own law to suit your agenda.

You may argue it isn’t a good idea but even that’s a weak argument because of the out-in-the-open emoluments clause violations, which Congress has a duty to monitor.

There are also national security implications if a president has business dealings with foreign nations.

1) It's unethical. That's not a weak argument at all. The law was never intended to be used to demand personal information just because you want to see it, and think that it might have something that could embarrass the president.

2) It could very well be unconstitutional. You can bet that the President will argue that it's a violation of privacy and due process.

If they think there's and emoluments violation or national security issue, they should bring evidence of that. Tax returns aren't going to tell them anything new.

 

[marke]

They'll probably try and twist it to mean that he's telling that to everyone.

Of course. Lying about Trump for democrats is as natural as taking dumps on the toilet.

 

[KAG2020]

[h=1]Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS[/h]

They have no right to see them, and Trump should publicly tell them to F Off.

Nobody has any right to see other peoples' taxes.

The House Dems are Fascists.

 

[Obscurity]

So again, what crime did Muller and the IRS miss?

This will set up a constitutional crisis. The president, like everyone else, has an expectation of privacy. Demanding returns not because of suspicion of a crime - but because they feel like it, and / or want to use it as a weapon against a political rival is not what that was intended for. It's going to be an issue. They may well end up with them, but it doesn't make it a moral act, and it has already shown how unethical the House Democrats can be.

Oh give me a ****ing break. How many hearings on Benghazi?

The republicans are the most hypocritical voter block in this country.

Unethical? Trump is a lying, sleazing, and disgusting charlatan.

 

[Obscurity]

They have no right to see them, and Trump should publicly tell them to F Off.

Nobody has any right to see other peoples' taxes.

The House Dems are Fascists.

Pretty sure you're wrong, and I can't, for one, wait to see who owns our president, and how worthless he actually is.

 

[KAG2020]

Pretty sure you're wrong........

Pretty sure I am right.

 

[Carleen]

"should" is an opinion...not a requirement.

In any case, that is irrelevant to what I said.

Moving on...

You gave an opinion about him being a private citizen also. That is part of debating, so moving on too.

 

[Mycroft]

You gave an opinion about him being a private citizen also. That is part of debating, so moving on too.

In 2013, Trump was a private citizen. That is not an opinion, that's a fact.

 

[Obscurity]

Pretty sure I am right.

Trump's tax returns will be made public, as they should have been.

Have you ever told anyone what it feels like to support a scum sucking, self enriching, lying, sleazing, rude and obtuse man for president?

 

[Carleen]

In 2013, Trump was a private citizen. That is not an opinion, that's a fact.

You said “I think” about getting his returns, not that he was a private’s citizen. We all know that. Have a nice day.

 

[Mycroft]

You said “I think” about getting his returns, not that he was a private’s citizen. We all know that. Have a nice day.

Go back and read what I said. Try not to pick two words out of my posts and make up your own point. My point was clear.

 

[Mycroft]

Trump's tax returns will be made public, as they should have been.

Have you ever told anyone what it feels like to support a scum sucking, self enriching, lying, sleazing, rude and obtuse man for president?

If the Ways and Means Committee gets them, they will NOT be made public...unless someone breaks the law.

 

[Obscurity]

If the Ways and Means Committee gets them, they will NOT be made public...unless someone breaks the law.

Trump should never have refused to disclose them. There's a reason he did so, and I want to see the reason.

You guys are disgusting with how you excuse and defend this piece of filth.