OLC determines that Trump's tax returns DO NOT have to be disclosed

[CharisRose]

What harm comes to Trump if his tax info were released?

Would you give your enemy a bullet to put in their empty gun to take a shot at you?

Roseann

 

[vegas giants]

Would you give your enemy a bullet to put in their empty gun to take a shot at you?

Roseann

Trump promised to release them.


Was he lying?

 

[BlueTex]

So it would seem the right of the people (According to the 4th amendment) 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 would apply here.

Tax returns are not the property of the person...

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Would you give your enemy a bullet to put in their empty gun to take a shot at you?
Roseann

You think that there's something Trump's taxes which is potentially fatal to Trump.

What lethal thing do you suppose is in there?

 

[Lutherf]

Sure.
But are you making the case that the Constitution excludes Trump's taxes from the scope of legislative investigation?

I'm saying that if the ONLY reason for seeing Trump's returns is a political one than that is prohibited by the Constitution. Furthermore, concocting some hairball "legislative purpose" can also be a political act. Congress has no good reason to review Trump's returns unless the IRS of some other investigative agency comes to them with a solid reason for them to do that.

 

[ecofarm]

His tax attorney says otherwise. BTW, why is it important to you for Trump to release his taxes?

Why was it important for every other President to do it? I guess we were just crazy all those years. And now we're not crazy anymore.

(That's called gas-lighting)

 

[Lutherf]

Based on any or all of these arguments?

1. Congress only wants the material to use for harassing the President, degrading him in the eyes of the country.
2. Congress lacks the powers to investigate the President, except during impeachment.
3. Allowing Congress to do this would establish a precedent dangerous and embarrassing to all future presidents of any party.

Numbers one and three would absolutely apply but they would likely be only part of the reason for a 9-0 decision.

 

[Lutherf]

How is access to tax records unconstitutional? Are you aware of why the 1924 law was passed? Teapot Dome ring a bell?

Are you talking about the Tax Refor Act of 1924 which no longer exists? Didn'y wee already cover that in some significant detail?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So it would seem the right of the people (According to the 4th amendment) 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 would apply here.

Is there something which prevents Congress's whole rigmarole from being sufficient due process?

Given due process, it is not an "unreasonable" search.

How many other due processes require a pack Congresscritter's to agree to act?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Numbers one and three would absolutely apply but they would likely be only part of the reason for a 9-0 decision.

All three are objections the SCotUS has already ruled are insufficient cause for the Courts to go against Congress in matters of Congressional inquiry.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I'm saying that if the ONLY reason for seeing Trump's returns is a political one than that is prohibited by the Constitution. Furthermore, concocting some hairball "legislative purpose" can also be a political act. Congress has no good reason to review Trump's returns unless the IRS of some other investigative agency comes to them with a solid reason for them to do that.

You may be right that the decision to view Trump's taxes was based solely on political considerations.

But it seems that when this objection was made by a President before, the SCotUS decided that it didn't matter so long as legislation "could be had" on the matter.
They decided that was the test they would apply.

The Courts decided to stay out of it.

We can vote out the offending Congresscritters though,.

 

[ecofarm]

Looks like just about everyone ignores you.

47 notifications when I logged in yesterday. 30-something today. 2/3 quotes, 1/3 likes.

Those all from between 5am and 3pm (10 hours).

 

[BlueTex]

Are you talking about the Tax Refor Act of 1924 which no longer exists? Didn'y wee already cover that in some significant detail?

Ummm... I'm not sure what version of the United States Code you are looking at but the provision for congressional committees being able to assess tax returns (added with the Tax Reform Act of 1924) has not been repealed... Are you not aware of how laws are created?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I am not familiar with that ruling. Could you provide a link for educational purposes.

Here is one
McGrain v. Daugherty :: 273 U.S. 135 (1927) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
McGrain v. Daugherty :: 273 U.S. 135 (1927) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

As I am not convinced the Ways and Means committee can decide on what is and what isn't a legislative purpose

I am getting that.
The Legislative Branch gets to decide though.
We can vote out the folks who decided in ways we disagree with.

...I am not convinced they can simply ignore the 4th amendment or existing rights to privacy...

Do you find it odd that Trump's lawyers the OLC failed to bring up the Fourth Amendment in their case for why Congress can be denied these documents?
Why do you suppose they left that out?

It could potentially be related to a Congressional inquiry counting as reasonable due process.
If that were true, then the search/seizure would not be an unreasonable one.
That is the only kind of searches and seizures which are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment — unreasonable one.

...just for a political purpose of haranguing a President...

President Buchanan made the case that Congress was just trying to harass him.
The ScotUS said, that's beside the point.

...on a document that is not required to be produced by any presidential candidate.

Trump is no longer a candidate.
This is about a President instead.
[Not sure why so many Tump supporters are still all hung up about the election.]

Its going to be interesting though but here is the scary part. I am sure you remember during the Obama years when Democrats decided to change the Senate rules from 60% to 50% to confirm a SCOTUS and how it came back to bite them in the ass during the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh confirmations. Are we not opening the very same door just for a quick fix because we hate a president.

This door has been open for at least more than a century.
So, we've already been living with the consequences for your entire life.

Isn't it obvious to most (If successful) this is going to be used by EVERY sitting gavel holder on the committee from here to eternity. We are comfortable with allowing these politicians the power to just supersede any existing privacy laws so they can get dirt or inside information on any opponent?

Buchanan made that same argument to the ScotUS.
In actuality, this sort of thing happens so infrequently that a sizable portion of the Electorate thinks this is something new.

 

[Bullseye]

Constitutional Authority

Congress's investigatory powers are rooted in the Constitution.
By default, Congress gets to decide what matters are fit for Congress to investigate.
The test the Courts have created to see if Congress is overstepping is whether or not legislation could be had on a subject.
The Courts have ruled that the existence or possible existence of an ulterior motive on the part of the Legislative Branch is superfluous.
The critical question is whether or not legislation could be had.




4th Amendment







Congress's whole rigmarole is likely reasonable due process.
( And therefore is not an unreasonable search. )

How many other due processes require a pack Congresscritter's to agree to act?

By what stretch of the imagination is seizing tax returns without reason "due process"? The whole intent of the Fourth Amendment was to constrain government from baseless witch hunts. Even the law in question came about because of reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior during Tea Pot Dome Scandal. Seizing Trump's returns after Mueller's report of no crimes committed would be grossly unconstitutional.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

[/B]
It truly baffles me that many do not understand that statement in bold. Or, if understood that there still would be a willingness to take the risk just to hurt Trump.
Roseann

Thing is this is not new.
It is at least a century old.
So w/e damage there is was already done before you were born.
:shrug:

 

[BlueTex]

By what stretch of the imagination is seizing tax returns without reason "due process"? The whole intent of the Fourth Amendment was to constrain government from baseless witch hunts. Even the law in question came about because of reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior during Tea Pot Dome Scandal. Seizing Trump's returns after Mueller's report of no crimes committed would be grossly unconstitutional.

Can congress propose legislation making a sitting presidents tax returns public information? Do pursue such legislation it could be argued that reviewing existing presidential tax returns would be an appropriate function of a legislative body considering such legislation. No criminal intent required and not unconstitutional in the slightest...

 

[Simon W. Moon]

By what stretch of the imagination is seizing tax returns without reason "due process"? The whole intent of the Fourth Amendment was to constrain government from baseless witch hunts. Even the law in question came about because of reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior during Tea Pot Dome Scandal. Seizing Trump's returns after Mueller's report of no crimes committed would be grossly unconstitutional.

Due process refers to the steps associated with making something happen.
Due process is not a reflection on the motivations of those who perform those steps.
Due process can be carried out by folks who have corrupt motivations.

It seems likely that the rigmarole around the steps a Congressional committee must take to make this sort of an official request could count as due process.

It's therefore likely that the request is not an unreasonable one.


Do you find it odd that the OLC did not mention the Fourth Amendment in this statement?

It seems that if this easy to understand objection held water that they would have brought it up.

Maybe they just overlooked it?
Maybe we should send them an email to let them know they forgot to object on these grounds?

 

[Condor060]

Is there something which prevents Congress's whole rigmarole from being sufficient due process?

Given due process, it is not an "unreasonable" search.

Violating Privacy rights and the constitution without probable cause is the first one that comes to mind. I guess hiding behind the guise of needing to review how the IRS is administering tax law and all you need is 6 years of your biggest Nemesis tax return to alleviate all your IRS tax law suspicions would be a pretty big give away.

 

[marke]

The morons who voted for Trump did not have any concerns for integrity, intellect and competence either.

Hillary saw 70 million morons in the US and had the dumb idea of telling them they were deplorable in her estimation. She should have kept her stupid mouth shut about her disrespect for the American people - at least until after the election if not before.

 

[Condor060]

Tax returns are not the property of the person...

Prove it. The IRS disagrees.

 

[marke]

No they voted for him because they are way too stupid to understand what they did and are still doing by kissing his ass.

Leftists have no respect for any man who does not support legalizing anal sex between men and teaching school kids how to enjoy it.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Violating Privacy rights and the constitution without probable cause is the first one that comes to mind. I guess hiding behind the guise of needing to review how the IRS is administering tax law and all you need is 6 years of your biggest Nemesis tax return to alleviate all your IRS tax law suspicions would be a pretty big give away.

"Probable cause" applies to criminal investigations.
This is a legislative investigation — different rules.

 

[CharisRose]

What harm comes to Trump if his tax info were released?

His "base" voters won't like it.

I'm guessing his "base" didn't like it when he caved and said he would release them.

Since, his "base" weren't the ones and his opposition were the ones asking for him to release his taxes, I rather doubt they care about it today.

I think, the harm is not what can actually be found in his taxes.

But, the harm his resistors may cause, that I stated in my post you responded to "what I suspect will follow is the "by any means necessary tactic" will come into play"

You know the kind of tactic used by his resistors using the dirty politics kind of :bs:spin: they use on him and his supporters.

Roseann

 

[marke]

Why do you spout moronic drivel?

Drivel? I guess you never heard Mueller had Manafort arrested for a crime he committed years before he became involved with Trump? I suppose you have no idea who Tony Podesta is and what he did that Mueller ignored?