N.Y. Senate passes bills on Trump's tax returns and pardon power

[OldFatGuy]

Take a look at the calendar, it is 2019 and the President is not getting indicted.

No, he would have been impeached, then indicted and convicted.

The AG's office had already drawn the paperwork for a conspiracy indictment when he announced his resignation hours before the filing.

The sitting president has not been indicted for lack of sufficient evidence, not because of the date.

 

[JasperL]

That would not pass constitutional testing, no different than passing a law repealing the 5th amendment would - since it is the same constitutional question.

The IRS needs no warrant to audit your tax return, and neither do the state taxing authorities. They pull returns for audit every minute of every day, some by random, some because the return tripped some red flag built into the system, didn't match the W-2 on file, etc. So there's no inherent warrant requirement for the government to pull your return and read it.

What you're suggesting is that the executive branch of any government should have access (they must, to administer the tax laws), but not the legislative branch of that same government. It would seem to me that's the proper prerogative of the lawmakers to decide, not the Constitution.

 

[Fletch]

Because it's the job of Congress to investigate and legislate. And their oversight is intended to ensure that there are no issues in the Executive Branch. Just because you wouldn't care if Trump is vulnerable to the risk of blackmail or may have committed a crime doesn't mean everyone else in the country doesn't care.

You would need to come up with some evidence first. And you havent. The claim that he is somehow subject to blackmail is just moronic liberal nonsense. Which explains why you believe it.

 

[JasperL]

They creating a law to target one person...lol.

States aren't excluded from the 4th and 14th Amendments.

Wrong, as usual. The law doesn't target one person, but establishes a requirement to release any return requested by the appropriate committees in Congress.

 

[Lutherf]

The "for purely political reasons" is your own partisan spin on it.

What you're suggesting as a principle is that it's OK for the WH to have access to any return it wants - it does, obviously, given the IRS is under the WH but also in Sec. 6103(g) per the link below - but that the Congress, with the power to tax and spend, and oversight duties, must ask permission from the WH to see tax returns as a group, or the tax return of a person or entity. It's not defensible as a principle that I can identify.

The law is also crystal clear.

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



Read the bolded. That's been the law since 1924.

Those interested can read more about the purpose of the law, why Congress gave itself the same access the President has, and more, here:

How to Get Trump’s Tax Returns—Without a Subpoena - POLITICO Magazine

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...0e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.633f578cfa99

Both articles are by George Yin, a UVa law professor and expert on the subject. There's nowhere in the law that says Congress must even state a reason, and certainly nothing in there says the Secretary gets to make the call whether the stated intent is sufficient reason.

You've done taxes for a while - what part of that law appears optional to you? In my experience dealing with the IRC, "shall" means shall, and "any" means any.

I've actually done presentations on 6103 and have been asked about the exceedingly broad reach afforded congress. Before this current incident my pat response had been that no sane politician would try anything stupid because doing so would be political suicide.

I was wrong.

From time to time someone figures out how to use loose language in one statute to do something another statute prohibits. In this case congress is using 6103 to get around the 4th Amendment. Unless this demand is challenged and overcome congress will have opened a Pandora's box. If this request is allowed then any congress can request any tax returns for any political purpose. It would, for example, be perfectly legal for congress to pull all the returns for every donor to an opposition candidate's campaign. It would be perfectly legal for congress to pull returns for every donor to THEIR campaign to see if any of those donors might be able to fork over a few more bucks.

 

[Cardinal]

You would need to come up with some evidence first. And you havent. The claim that he is somehow subject to blackmail is just moronic liberal nonsense. Which explains why you believe it.

We already know he was vulnerable to blackmail. Do I really need to remind you of what that is or are you just pretending that nothing in the past two and a half years has happened?

 

[JasperL]

What criminal behavior would be reported in a tax return? The man has been reported to have been audited multiple times.

So, does your tribe actually know what a tax return is?

Trump is a serial liar so who the hell knows if he's under audit or has been audited - what we know is what he said, which isn't worth anything.

But Nixon's returns were also 'audited' and after Congress got hold of them, they determined the audit wasn't very complete and Nixon owed an additional $500,000 in taxes over just a few years.

And tax returns are a very detailed set of financial information, and one in which the taxpayer has an obligation to report truthfully or be subject to penalties and interest. So the question "what would a tax return show" is nothing more than 'what would financial information show' - criminal or otherwise.

 

[JasperL]

No, it is the job of the Justice department to investigate and adjudicate pursuant to the legislation passed into law and approved by the Office of the President. Subsequent to conviction of a crime by the Justice dept. then congress must decide whether or not to impeach, remove a sitting president from office, but they are not the ones to determine guilt, only the qualification for remaining in office subsequent to a criminal conviction.

That's just not how it works, at all. The closest we've ever come to impeaching the President was Nixon, and the process simply was NOT initiated in the Justice department, then proceeded to Congress, nor is the standard - "subsequent to conviction of a crime." If the founders intended that to be the standard, they'd have made it the standard, but they didn't.

My goodness, by that theory, the Justice department, headed by POTUS appointees, is the only check on the President. It's absurd - contrary to the Constitution and common sense. And it also establishes a "if the President isn't convicted of it, it's OK!" standard, which is absurd.

 

[JasperL]

The right for a person to be secure in his papers and effects. Any other easy questions?

The executive branch doesn't need a warrant to look at your tax returns, so why must the legislative branch obtain a warrant for that purpose?

 

[Obscurity]

Here we go with political overreach. When will the haters aka the NY Senate Democrats realize that they cannot weaponize the senate to go after people they don't like, and in this case, Trump?

Tell that to the republicons trying to make criminals out of women for getting abortions.

Case rested.

 

[Taylor]

The law says Congress has a right to see these returns.

Nope, sorry. Not under these circumstances.

 

[JasperL]

Where and how exactly does the Justice convict a sitting president?

LOL, good point. The DoJ says it cannot indict a sitting President (for good reasons, IMO, actually) and OFG is saying that he must be convicted or else there's no grounds for impeachment. Pretty nice win/win standard for a corrupt POTUS!

 

[apdst]

Wrong, as usual. The law doesn't target one person, but establishes a requirement to release any return requested by the appropriate committees in Congress.

Yeah...ok!

It has NOTHING to do with President Trump? :lamo

Democratic state Sen. Brad Hoylman, who sponsored the legislation, told NBC News he was "very hopeful" it would be signed into law and said he discussed his bill personally with Cuomo. Though he declined to describe those discussions, he said he believes Cuomo "understands the importance" of the legislation.

"Given the current events, the impetus is even stronger to get Trump's taxes to the Ways and Means Committee," said Hoylman, who represents a Manhattan district. "This is a constitutional showdown that we see evolving before our eyes."

N.Y. state Senate passes bill allowing Congress to get Trump tax returns

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement that the bill "is a workaround to a White House that continues to obstruct and stonewall the legitimate oversight work of Congress."

"Americans have the right to know if the president is putting his business empire, or the interests of the public, first,” said Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause New York, a group that supports the legislation.

NY Closer to Allowing Congress to See Trump'''s State Taxes | Time

 

[JasperL]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A Constitutional right. States cannot overrule Constitutional rights.

But the executive branch needs no warrant to pull your tax return and look at it, audit it, etc. at the state or federal levels. The same federal law that provides Congress access to "any" return also provides that same access to the President. So you'll need to explain why access to the executive branch requires no warrant but that the legislative branch access MUST.

 

[apdst]

The law says Congress has a right to see these returns. Trump agreed to release them, remember? Trump has economic ties to Russia and seems unwilling to take steps to keep it from further interference in our elections. Plenty to see here, unless you prefer to blindly follow dictators who lie to you.

The law says Congress, that same law, infact, has to have a legitimate legislative purpose. What tax law are they working on?

 

[American]

He was a democrat.

Are you missing the point? They were elected. Voting Dem isn't the same, dude.

 

[Fletch]

We already know he was vulnerable to blackmail. Do I really need to remind you of what that is or are you just pretending that nothing in the past two and a half years has happened?

Please remind me. Most of what happened the last two years was liberals lying. So if there was some actual truth buried in there somewhere, lets hear it.

 

[Conservative]

Obama's tax returns have already been made public. Obama started out an an organizer, not an agitator. Not that I expect you to understand that sort of thing, There's nothing illegal in what he did. Also he lived in Illinois, not New York. Do brush up on your geography.

Didn't ask for Obama's tax returns and have never cared what someone earns or pays in taxes, I asked for his college transcript and how he paid for college?

Oh, I understand what community agitators do, the name organizer doesn't change reality of what they do

 

[JasperL]

The only "fact" I see regarding congressional oversight is when you mentioned that it "includes the investigation of the Executive Branch." That, right there, is the extent to which it has been discussed by you.

The New York law is specifically targeting Trump. I don't think this is even a debatable point and it is, in fact, the weaponization of the legislative process. This is very dangerous ground we're standing on, here.

I think the problem is one man's "weaponization of the legislative process" is another mans "legitimate oversight." We saw that with Benghazi, for example, or the Whitewater investigations or the most recent Russia related stuff.

So to me the relevant question is whether or not Congress (the legislative branch) has the authority to access tax returns as part of its oversight responsibilities, and if it does, who gets to make the call - Congress, the WH, or should everything go to the courts and let the Supremes make that call.

As I see it POTUS can pull any return he wants, and I don't see why Congress must ask permission from POTUS to do the same, especially given a 100 year old law that clearly gives Congress that power.

 

[iguanaman]

so if the State taxing authority were to publish everyone's tax returns in say a newspaper of general circulation, that wouldn't be a problem to you?

We are talking about public servants here. Yes that is what Trump is. He works for US. If we can't verify that our public servants are being honest what is left of our Republic?

 

[apdst]

I think the problem is one man's "weaponization of the legislative process" is another mans "legitimate oversight." We saw that with Benghazi, for example, or the Whitewater investigations or the most recent Russia related stuff.

So to me the relevant question is whether or not Congress (the legislative branch) has the authority to access tax returns as part of its oversight responsibilities, and if it does, who gets to make the call - Congress, the WH, or should everything go to the courts and let the Supremes make that call.

As I see it POTUS can pull any return he wants, and I don't see why Congress must ask permission from POTUS to do the same, especially given a 100 year old law that clearly gives Congress that power.

Looking for illegalities in private tax returns has nothing to do with oversight.

 

[JasperL]

If you want and do punish 1 person without a legal reason, that means you can punish literally all persons in the country on the same whim.

NY said, "If Congress requests returns, we'll provide them." Why isn't that a "legal reason?" You're assuming that Congress doesn't have that authority, and I've yet to see anyone make a coherent argument for that position. The WH clearly has that authority - why not Congress or the legislative branch in NY?

 

[Integrityrespec]

The problem is Trump may have received tax breaks from who???????

Corrupt Democrats - right????

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk

Democrats once again looking for something to try to swing the 2020 election. They realize Trump will get reelected because the economy is soaring and the democrats have poor candidates with stupid policy positions or no positions at all.

 

[JasperL]

Yeah...because they are totally going to uncover something that the IRS and Mueller missed. The delusion runs deep with some.

Please cite your evidence the IRS has audited the returns, what they found, and the same for Mueller's investigation. Thanks!

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Please remind me. Most of what happened the last two years was liberals lying. So if there was some actual truth buried in there somewhere, lets hear it.

Here:
Mueller report: How to read the doc online or download the PDF for free - CNET

It's FREE! Like FREEdumb.