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

[Fletch]

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.

So, the congress is looking for a crime, not investigating one. Are you sure thats the legal and political precedent you wish to set.

 

[Secular Heckler]

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.

Little early to be posing election theories, don't you think???

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk

 

[iguanaman]

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.

What lies? The Mueller report verified that the Trump campaign knew about the Russian interference in our elections and expected to benefit from it. That is what we have said all along.

 

[Fletch]

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

It's FREE! Like FREEdumb.

Quote the relevant part please. LInking to and entire document and pretending you have made your point is, well, dumb. LIke FREEdumb.

 

[Secular Heckler]

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

Haven't you heard, all of the filthy rich bastards are audited!

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk

 

[gdgyva]

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?

do you have any proof that this MAY has transpired?

did Mueller find anything in his two year investigation that leads you to this insane hypothesis?

or is this just another in a long line of "god there has to be something there....if we keep throwing enough crap at the wall something will stick" moments

you guys are really getting desperate

and there is this little thing in the law called probable cause....you need A to get B....which you dont have A, which is WHY the right thinks you all are dingbats

and you call us the "lawless" party....:shock:

 

[HumblePi]

I think this forum should probably require everyone to post their tax returns on the forum so we can be certain none are Russian operatives - no redactions or blocking out names, social security numbers or any info - until Congress passes a law that the IRS must post everyone's tax returns public to see on the Internet - along with copies of everyone's credit card transactions, banking transactions and any loans they have - just like they want with President Trump.

I want his social security number and bank account info like Congress demands, don't you? We all should have each other's social security number and bank account numbers too.

Anyone who wants to keep anything secret clearly is a criminal and probably agent of an adversarial foreign power trying to hide this.

I vow right here and now, with witnesses, that I will post -- not 6 years of my tax returns, but 30 years of my tax returns when and if I ever become the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. I have nothing shady to hide from public view and neither should any honest candidate.

 

[JasperL]

The thing that is extremely troubling to me is that the NY Democrats are now using their legislative power as a weapon against one individual, for political reasons. Laws are meant to be applied to all, and to set standards, over time. Is there a problem in NY State where the citizens are pushing for a change in the laws because they desire less privacy with their tax returns? Must be a real big movement for things to be changed this quickly.

Or, is this is a knee jerk political attack on one individual (though it could effect many others) by a State legislature to advance the political goals or their party? That answer is obvious. They are literally changing State law in order to attack an individual.

OK, but you need to also recognize Trump/Mnuchin are completely disregarding a law on the books since 1924. Why are they doing that if not for political reasons? And the question ultimately is does Congress have the right to get tax returns or not? The WH has that right, but you're arguing, essentially, that the legislative branch should not, unless POTUS wants them to. How does that square with the separation of powers and with Congress' oversight responsibilities?

 

[gdgyva]

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.

is the executive branch trying to get yours or someone else's they arent supposed to have?

i would rail against them also....

this is a PRIVACY issue...a 4th amendment issue

not a d vs r thing

 

[iguanaman]

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

LOL There was no need to ask. Obama willingly released all his returns like every other President for 50 years. What is Trumps problem? BTW Trump is hiding his HS and College transcripts too.

Coverdale confirmed the account to the Post on Monday, saying NYMA trustees wanted to take Trump's records. Coverdale refused, but said he did move the records "elsewhere on campus where they could not be released." That account lines up with the story Cohen told Congress last week: that he threatened Trump's high school and colleges "to never release his grades or SAT scores." Fordham University, where Trump went to college for two years, also confirmed to the Post it got one of Cohen's letters.

Trump wanted Obama to show his transcript. Someone tried to bury Trump's just days later.

 

[Secular Heckler]

What lies? The Mueller report verified that the Trump campaign knew about the Russian interference in our elections and expected to benefit from it. That is what we have said all along.

So, what was the Trump campaign supposed to do, report the Russians failed to breach the Republican servers? That is the responsibility of the GOP Convention. Did the Hillary campaign report the successful attack immediately, or did they even disclose the breach, because Hillary passed out again?
:lamo

 

[Rogue Valley]

I'd have to consider suggesting to my clients that they pay in whatever tax is due on their return but not actually file the return if this crap keeps up. If government, state or federal, can pull a person's tax return for purely political reasons AND if they can not protect the returns they have received from disclosure to the media then the people have no assurance that their personal information won't be similarly abused.

I don't want any of my clients to go to jail but when we see politicians pulling crap like this it's time to stop handing the hangman more rope.

It's well past time the Trump administration cease stonewalling Congress and honor legal subpoena's issues by committee's.

This is by far the most corrupt, lawless, anti-Constitutional, and power aggrandizing White House I've ever seen.

 

[jimbo]

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.

My post was a quote from the Constitution. The 4th, I believe. I'm not sure that any branch other than the IRS can pull tax returns at will.

I haven't looked at for a while, but I'm fairly sure that Congress cannot demand papers, including returns, just because. There procedures that must be followed. The words warrant and judge show up in these procedures.

 

[JasperL]

The purpose of an investigation is to gather facts and evidence and depending upon where the facts and evidence lead, charges may be brought. At this point it becomes a matter for the courts to decide.

Weaponizing the legislative process strips away the rights of the individual, undermines Judicial authority, and at a point, the presumption of innocence.

It's dangerous ground which has ramifications far beyond getting a peak at Trump's tax returns.

That ignores the principles involved. You can call it "weaponization" if you want, but using inflammatory words doesn't change the principles involved. I don't see it as a weaponization. Seems to me there's plenty of legitimate reasons Congress might want to see the tax returns for POTUS, such as the testimony of his lawyer that he engages in tax fraud. But no matter who our opinions are, who decides what Congress can see - POTUS or Congress, given a law that clearly gives Congress and not POTUS the right to decide?

 

[iguanaman]

is the executive branch trying to get yours or someone else's they arent supposed to have?

i would rail against them also....

this is a PRIVACY issue...a 4th amendment issue

not a d vs r thing

No this is a Banana Republic issue. If our public servants don't answer to us then we have one.

 

[JasperL]

The people who cannot get over the 2016 election results don't care or think about the long term damage their petulant attempts to undo the election are going to cause

OK, and you can't see the long term risks in the WH deciding Congress has no right to documents or testimony if POTUS decides he's rather not provide it to them? There's no long term damage in allowing POTUS to interpret a law that says, "shall" to mean "if POTUS doesn't mind, we might do it?"

 

[Cardinal]

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.

Trump lied about not having business dealings in Russia. While pushing for a pro-Russia agenda during his campaign, he hid the fact that he was secretly pursuing the Trump Tower Moscow deal.

Putin of course knew about all of this and that Trump was lying to the American people, and could have used that to damage Trump politically at any time.

Trump and everybody in his campaign lied 100% of the time about their contacts with Russians.

Putin of course knew about all of this and that Trump was lying to the American people, and could have used that to damage Trump politically at any time.

The Trump campaign obscured the Trump Tower meeting in which campaign members met with members of the GRU.

Putin of course knew about all of this and that Trump was lying to the American people, and could have used that to damage Trump politically at any time.

If you reject that any of the above happened then you're just screwing with me.

 

[Cardinal]

do you have any proof that this MAY has transpired?

did Mueller find anything in his two year investigation that leads you to this insane hypothesis?

or is this just another in a long line of "god there has to be something there....if we keep throwing enough crap at the wall something will stick" moments

you guys are really getting desperate

and there is this little thing in the law called probable cause....you need A to get B....which you dont have A, which is WHY the right thinks you all are dingbats

and you call us the "lawless" party....:shock:

It's not illegal to lie to the American people (unless under oath, of course), nor is it illegal to make oneself vulnerable to blackmail. That's why Mueller didn't conclude crimes on those fronts.

 

[iguanaman]

So, what was the Trump campaign supposed to do, report the Russians failed to break the Republican servers - that is the responsibility of the GOP Convention. Did the Hillary campaign report the successful attack imediately, or did they wait, or did they even disclose the breach, because Hillary past out again?

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk

They were supposed to listen to the FBI and report any incidents with Russians attempting to infiltrate their campaign. Instead they lied about over 200 Russian contacts and Trump spent the entire campaign denying any contacts with Russians and even denying that Russians were responsible for the Wikileak dumps.

 

[TurtleDude]

You know damn well that I am not a Hillary fan and why would she need to steal anything when she had 3 million more votes, so spare me the partisan b ull crap.

Who else would vote for a saint like Trump?

Yea, stupid people always think they are smarter than the other guy.

Still haven't figured out how the presidential elections are won or lost? Populas vote MEANS NOTHING. NEITHER Candidate campaigned on that.

Those of us who didn't want gun banning judges voted for Trump; Those of us who were tired of the left wing media telling us how great Hillary was, voted for Trump. Those of us who figured Trump MIGHT be better than the crap we had for 8 years voted for Trump. And those of us who were tired of leftwing collectivists pretending being a teat suckling liberal is smarter than actually paying your own way, voted for Trump.

I don't recall anyone I know or saw on this board, claim Trump is a saint. I think he's a bit of a egotistical blowhard. But the fact is, the judges he has appointed are sure better than what Hillary wanted.

 

[JasperL]

You might want to look into the indictment of Andy Jackson for murder during his second week in office, thwarted because the court rejected the indictment as a state issue, and dueling had not yet been outlawed in Tennessee. As well, the indictment of Andrew Johnson as a traitor (for attempting to carry out Lincoln's reconstruction policies), the basis for his failed impeachment.

While improbable, there is no protection, constitutionally, legislatively or by case law, for a sitting president from indictment and conviction of a true crime. Nixon was facing an indictment for ordering the Watergate burglary when he resigned, knowing he would be convicted and subsequently impeached.

You're conveniently ignoring the DoJ position that they cannot indict a sitting President. So when the DoJ, headed by POTUS, says that they cannot indict POTUS, you simply cannot assert that indictment and conviction is the proper standard for impeachment, because under rules advanced by the DoJ under the control of POTUS that standard CANNOT BE MET.

 

[TurtleDude]

OK, and you can't see the long term risks in the WH deciding Congress has no right to documents or testimony if POTUS decides he's rather not provide it to them? There's no long term damage in allowing POTUS to interpret a law that says, "shall" to mean "if POTUS doesn't mind, we might do it?"

Why don't you tell us why the Democrats want those tax returns

 

[Fletch]

What lies? The Mueller report verified that the Trump campaign knew about the Russian interference in our elections and expected to benefit from it. That is what we have said all along.

Bull**** Thats not the same as colluding, conspiring or coordinating which is what the lying left claimed for the last two years.

 

[gdgyva]

No this is a Banana Republic issue. If our public servants don't answer to us then we have one.

Trump has the same exact rights as you, me, or the guy next door

I dont want my tax information given to anybody....you can spread yours out if you want to

There is NO REQUIREMENT as of this moment in time for a president to disclose....

now, we as a nation can decide to change that law

if 75% of the states decide they want ALL presidents to disclose, fine...lets make it a LAW

just like the age of 35, and the other requirements

you wont have any businessman running....but maybe that is what the nation wants...career politicians and lawyers....no one new

i am good either way....but trying to get the info after the fact because you think it "might" show something is fishing

and our constitution precludes those types of actions as illegal search and seizure

 

[JasperL]

There is no 'suspicion' of that other than by loony liberals. Plus, is that really how you want the justice system to work? Do you want the state to change is standard from probable cause to mere suspicion when its time to investigate you? I doubt it,

IRS and the states do not need anything like "probable cause" to look at your tax return, they don't even need suspicion. If you make a lot of money, the odds are they'll eventually pull your return just to see, and that is fine. And Congress isn't the justice system. You're making up standards to suit your argument.