Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

[Oborosen]

Have you ever thought about the improbability of someone being able to read, digest, and reduce a 400(ish) page report to the point where they can compose, dictate, proof read, edit, and release a four page summary of that report in 48 hours?

I don't say that it is impossible, but at a rate of 250 words per minute, it would take almost seven hours just to READ Mr Mueller's report. If you wanted to take notes, it would likely take around 14 hours. Then there would be the time taken to draft the summary, let's be conservative and say one hour. Up to 15 hours now. Then there would be the time taken to have the draft typed, another hour, bring us up to 16 hours. Then another hour for revision - 17 hours. Then the time for re-typing - 18 hours. Then the time for final review - 19 hours. Then the time to get the report prepared for distribution - 20 hours. Then the actual distribution of the report - 21 hours. I do, however, say that it is going to go a whole lot faster if you know what is going to go into the summary BEFORE you receive the report for review.

So you're suggesting that he had his mind made up about the report and possibly lied about it?

 

[Oborosen]

Have you considered the possibility that Mr. Mueller hasn't said that Mr. Barr was lying when he said that contradicted Mr. Barr's statements to the effect that:

1. the report DID NOT provide evidence that Mr. Trump (or even "Team Trump") had conspired with the Russians; and
2. the report DID NOT "exonerate" Mr. Trump with respect to any "obstruction of justice" BUT ONLY concluded that there was not (at the time of the report's preparation) sufficient evidence to establish a case for which there was any reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution that would establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" that any "obstruction of justice" occurred;

for the simple reason that that is exactly what the report did conclude?

I would accept that more readily, had it come from Mueller. But at this point we have people giving accounts that are possibly not even second hand accounts of what the report actually meant.

 

[haymarket]

Your reference still suggest that he has an ulterior motive for not coming forward and squashing any issues to be had with the Barr summery.

I have said that it is a matter of proper timing.

 

[j-mac]

Congress is indeed entitled to seek those tax returns. The GOP-led house used the same laws to demand the tax records of Obama officials and cabinet members.

"Back in 2013, Republicans thought the Internal Revenue Service under President Barack Obama was mistreating conservative groups that wanted to be recognized as tax-exempt nonprofits. So they asked the IRS to hand over tax information for conservative groups such as Crossroads GPS as well as a few liberal groups such as Priorities USA.

Congress has the power to ask for copies of anyone’s tax return thanks to a 1924 law enacted as a check on corruption in the executive branch.

In 2014, after getting the documents on the groups they requested, plus tax info relating to several dozen other organizations, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee made it all public. They believed it showed that an IRS official named Lois Lerner had unfairly plotted to deny tax-exempt status to Crossroads GPS and other conservative groups. The committee included the documents as an attachment to a letter asking the Justice Department to prosecute Lerner. During a closed-door hearing, the committee’s Republicans voted to make the letter public."

Nobody is above the law.

And in any case some of it will inevitably be leaked, as will stuff from the Mueller report. For those who leaked, yes they could be prosecuted. For the rest of us, meh, spilled milk: at least we'll know the truth.

As if we need more evidence Trump is a major crook.

Fishing won't help you.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So you're suggesting that he had his mind made up about the report and possibly lied about it?

I'm saying that I'm not ruling out the possibility of the first.

As for the second, "weasel wording" appears to cover the situation.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I would accept that more readily, had it come from Mueller. But at this point we have people giving accounts that are possibly not even second hand accounts of what the report actually meant.

I didn't say that that was the case, only that it is one possible explanation.

On the other hand, I do rank that possibility MUCH higher than the possibility that Mr. Mueller was told that his entire family would be killed if he opened his mouth and said anything whatsoever.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Fishing won't help you.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Are you saying that Congress has the legal power to do what it is doing but SHOULD NOT be exercising that legal power in the way that it is being exercised?

Or are you saying that Congress does not have the legal power to do what it is doing and by doing what it is doing is acting illegally?

 

[uptower]

Fishing won't help you.

Yes from the party of 'law and order' applying the law is now 'fishing'.

The law is clear. Mnuchin actually has to hand it over.

"Under Section 6103 of our tax code, Treasury officials “shall” turn over the tax returns “upon written request” of the chair of either congressional tax committee or the federal employee who runs Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. No request has ever been refused, a host of former congressional tax aides tell me.

There is, however, a law requiring every federal “employee” who touches the tax system to do their duty or be removed from office.

The crystal-clear language of this law applies to Trump, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Mnuchin and Rettig, federal employees all."

And while you're right they will probably get to circumvent or just plain ignore it because this admin is above the law as long as the senate is complicit, hiding the report won't help them much either: it's coming out one way or another.

Twump dodges the law by suppressing it; someone else will dodge the law by leaking it. We're going to get to see it one way or another.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Fishing won't help you.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

There is no 'fishing' going on here. The law is plain and has no wiggle room. Mnunchin is literally breaking the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ct-abject-lawlessness/?utm_term=.01bec064e924

 

[Oborosen]

I have said that it is a matter of proper timing.

Proper timing for what?

 

[Oborosen]

I'm saying that I'm not ruling out the possibility of the first.

As for the second, "weasel wording" appears to cover the situation.

So yes, lying?

Because you'd think that if he misstated anything. That Mueller would be there on his ass.

I'm going to wait for the report and read it myself, because I'll be damned if I'll trust any of the media to be completely up front with it. I would only trust two of them at this point and one of them is a foreign group.

 

[Oborosen]

I didn't say that that was the case, only that it is one possible explanation.

On the other hand, I do rank that possibility MUCH higher than the possibility that Mr. Mueller was told that his entire family would be killed if he opened his mouth and said anything whatsoever.

Which is another one of the conspiracy theories going around right now. Along with him being a Russian agent himself, or a secret Trump agent of some sort... I think it was someone on MSNBC who tweeted that Mueller was possibly compromised. But I think the tweet was deleted in about two hours and that in itself caused a ton of crap to go flying.

 

[marke]

Which is another one of the conspiracy theories going around right now. Along with him being a Russian agent himself, or a secret Trump agent of some sort... I think it was someone on MSNBC who tweeted that Mueller was possibly compromised. But I think the tweet was deleted in about two hours and that in itself caused a ton of crap to go flying.

We cannot help but wonder if Sessions, and possibly others, had been threatened or compromised somehow to make him ditch his responsibility to oversee the DOJ like he was appointed to do. Perhaps modern politicians do make threats and have supporting mob figures who carry those threats out. Leaders in crooked unions have mysteriously turned up dead, just like in criminal mobs. Bodies showed up in the wake of dealings with LBJ in his time, including the body of JFK. The Clintons have been associated with dozens of men and women who ended up dead under mysterious circumstances, and this for decades, including the death of Seth Rich and the disappearances of Eric Braverman and Mark Turi, to name a few.

Even Obama is plagued with the mysterious death problems that seem to have followed certain politicians in American history.

 

[haymarket]

Proper timing for what?

A proper response.

 

[Oborosen]

A proper response.

And if that response doesn't change anything about the summery. What then?

 

[haymarket]

And if that response doesn't change anything about the summery. What then?

Let us read the complete Report and then make pronouncements on its contents.

 

[Oborosen]

Let us read the complete Report and then make pronouncements on its contents.

Fair enough.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes from the party of 'law and order' applying the law is now 'fishing'.

What you have to remember is that the state of the law in the US is actually as follows:

1. "X" is a horrendous thing.
2. "A" has done "X".
3. "A" DOES NOT belong to the same political alignment as I do.
4. "A" must be punished.
5. "B" has done "X".
6. "B" DOES belong to the same political alignment as I do.
7. It is perfectly OK for "B" to do "X" because "A" did it.
8. The above applies even if Point 2. reads "There is a rumour that possibly there is a chance that 'A' has done something remotely similar to 'X'.".
9. The above applies even if Point 5. reads "There is absolutely unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence that 'B' has done 'X' AND 'B' has publicly admitted to actually and deliberately doing 'X'.".

​

The law is clear. Mnuchin actually has to hand it over.

No, the law only REQUIRES that he hand it over. Of course, if he does not hand it over then he would be subject to the penalties for non-compliance that are set out in the law BUT the law does not COMPEL him to actualy do anything.

And while you're right they will probably get to circumvent or just plain ignore it because this admin is above the law as long as the senate is complicit, hiding the report won't help them much either: it's coming out one way or another.

How much of a 128Meg thumb drive does 800000bytes of memory eat up. Can you hide it in the middle of a photo of you and your kids?

Twump

dodges the law by suppressing it; someone else will dodge the law by leaking it. We're going to get to see it one way or another.

To wit, the enormous "victory" that the US government achieved by having the ICC prosecutor refused permission by the ICC to investigate alleged "war crimes" committed in Afghanistan by letting the ICC know that the US government would "not cooperate" in any such investigation. Of course, that refusal also resulted in the ICC not investigating alleged "war crimes" committed by the Afghan government (which also let the ICC know that it would "not cooperate" [and also resulted in the ICC not investigating alleged "war crimes" committed by the Taliban and/or al-Qa'eda (which also let the ICC know that it would "not cooperate" ]) - but that is totally irrelevant, isn't it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So yes, lying?

Nope. "Weasel wording" means that you say something that is actually true, but looks like you have said something different than what you have actually said.

Because you'd think that if he misstated anything. That Mueller would be there on his ass.

Please go back and look at what I actually said. It is quite possible to be "factually correct" and still deliberately mislead people into thinking that something that you said means something completely different than what you actually said. There is no "false statement" involved at all, and if there is no "false statement" then there is no "lie".

I'm going to wait for the report and read it myself, because I'll be damned if I'll trust any of the media to be completely up front with it. I would only trust two of them at this point and one of them is a foreign group.

Just out of curiosity, what are those two?

I do agree that it is prudent to wait and see what is actually in the actual report. Most people, however, aren't prepared to do that, nor are they going to be prepared to actually read the report and draw their own conclusions as to what the actual report actually means.

 

[Oborosen]

Nope. "Weasel wording" means that you say something that is actually true, but looks like you have said something different than what you have actually said.



Please go back and look at what I actually said. It is quite possible to be "factually correct" and still deliberately mislead people into thinking that something that you said means something completely different than what you actually said. There is no "false statement" involved at all, and if there is no "false statement" then there is no "lie".



Just out of curiosity, what are those two?

I do agree that it is prudent to wait and see what is actually in the actual report. Most people, however, aren't prepared to do that, nor are they going to be prepared to actually read the report and draw their own conclusions as to what the actual report actually means.

BBC and Crowder.

 

[Glitch]

I just want to point out that that is a "policy" position and that is NOT what the law says. In fact, the law is silent on that point.

It is not a "policy position." It is, in fact, the law. The Supreme Law of the Land as a matter of fact. You might want to read Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

PS - Did you know that a case can be made out that, IF a President is impeached and convicted (or acquitted) because they did "X", THEN any further prosecution of that person for committing "X" was "double jeopardy"?

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.
​

In short, if your position was valid, if "President Smith" was impeached (because they were accused of raping, murdering, and eating the heart of six year old "Little Bobbie") and NOT convicted in a trial in the Senate (which is a "valid trial"), then would have a valid "double jeopardy" defence if a criminal prosecution was brought against them for raping, murdering, and eating six year old "Little Bobby" - even if there was unimpeachable video evidence showing them doing just that.

I really don't think that the Founding Fathers had that in mind, do you?

No, a case cannot be made that impeachment and then a criminal trial for the same charge as they were impeached is somehow double jeopardy because there is no penalty, or "risk of jeopardy," involved with an impeachment. Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate can only lead to removal from office, as the US Constitution states above. There is no jeopardy of losing their liberty, therefore no double jeopardy applies.

 

[Glitch]

Are you saying that Congress has the legal power to do what it is doing but SHOULD NOT be exercising that legal power in the way that it is being exercised?

Or are you saying that Congress does not have the legal power to do what it is doing and by doing what it is doing is acting illegally?

Congress is required to abide by the Fourth Amendment, which requires Congress to provide probable cause that a crime has been committed before they are entitled to any private documents. Congress cannot just violate the Fourth Amendment whenever it pleases them. Fascist Democrats have no problem violating the constitutionally protected rights of others. Do you really think a statute law overrides the US Constitution? Seriously?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

BBC and Crowder.

The BBC I already use in my "First Run 30" but "Crowder" is a new one to me. All I can find out about "Crowder" is that he is a Canadian-American conservative political commentator, actor, and comedian with a website on which he tells you what he thinks about the news that someone else has reported.

I did take a quick look at his website, and do have to agree that he could get a job writing headlines for ANY of the major media outlets. For example, in his article headlined "Rhode Island Teachers’ Union and ACLU Object to Bill Outlawing Sex with Students" it isn't until you reach the sixth paragraph that you actually find out that neither the Union nor the ACLU are advocating that it be OK for teachers to have sex with students but rather that their objection is to the fact that the legislation makes having sex with students illegal ONLY if one of the parties is a teacher. In short, a very "click bait" headline.

But, then again, Mr. Crowder doesn't make any pretense at being a journalist - serious or otherwise.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It is not a "policy position." It is, in fact, the law. The Supreme Law of the Land as a matter of fact. You might want to read Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution:

Yep, and "Double Jeopardy" is a defence that is available "according to law".

PS - Might I suggest that you learn what "make a case" means to a lawyer?

PPS - You might also want to consider that the Founding Fathers had absolutely ZERO intention that a sitting President COULD NOT be indicted, tried, convicted, and executed on a charge of "Murder" if that sitting President gunned down a child on the street - EVEN if that sitting President "controlled" enough votes in either the House or Senate to prevent them from being "impeached" (and if "impeached" subsequently "convicted").

No, a case cannot be made that impeachment and then a criminal trial for the same charge as they were impeached is somehow double jeopardy because there is no penalty, or "risk of jeopardy," involved with an impeachment. Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate can only lead to removal from office, as the US Constitution states above. There is no jeopardy of losing their liberty, therefore no double jeopardy applies.

Did you know that there is no requirement that a person be at risk of "losing their liberty" for the "Double Jeopardy" defence to kick it? That defence could be applied if some police officer continually wrote you parking tickets alleging that you parked at the same place and at the same time as had been alleged in the first parking ticket you received REGARDLESS of whether you have been convicted or acquitted with respect to that same set of facts.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Congress is required to abide by the Fourth Amendment, which requires Congress to provide probable cause that a crime has been committed before they are entitled to any private documents.

I would agree that that might be the case IF a warrant were required for Congress to obtain Income Tax returns.

Unfortunately for the position you advance, Congress does NOT require a warrant to do what it has the statutory authority to do.

Congress cannot just violate the Fourth Amendment whenever it pleases them.

And no one is saying that it can. The fact of the matter is that NO WARRANT IS REQUIRED.

Fascist Democrats have no problem violating the constitutionally protected rights of others. Do you really think a statute law overrides the US Constitution? Seriously?

Where the constitutional provisions do not apply (i.e. in a case where no warrant is required and where the items sought are already the property of the US government [which filed income tax returns are]) there is NO OVERRIDING involved at all.