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

[Condor060]

In your research, who did you determine it is who decides what is or is not a legitimate legislative purpose?

It isn't a decision made by anybody. If you have some legal legislative purpose to expose a personal tax return such as an ongoing criminal investigation with probable cause that would have a reasonable suspicion that a tax return would reveal criminal activities, you can make a request to receive the return.

 

[marke]

Congress's investigatory powers are rooted in the Constitution.

And yet abuse of those oversight provisions is what has turned this nation into an unconstitutional war zone by warring democrats seeking to pervert justice in their ungodly attempt to overthrow the republican president impeding their drive to seize control of America by hook or crook.

 

[Condor060]

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

Sorry, jumped on the wrong post

 

[marke]

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

Why is access to tax records limited at all? Don't ask a democrat seeking to invade the privacy of any and every republican standing in the way of future democrat overthrow of freedom in America.

 

[Condor060]

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

The constitution does not grant Congress a standalone investigation power. Congress can conduct investigations only to further some other legislative power enumerated in the constitution. Kilbourn vs Thompson 103 U.S.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It isn't a decision made by anybody.

If no one makes the decision about what is or is not a legitimate legislative purpose ( one on which "legislation could be had"), what are to do now when Congress says they have legitimate legislative reasons and the PotUS says that they do not?

Do you think that the SCotUS should be involved to settle the discrepancy in the two assessments of what is or is not a legitimate legislative purpose?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

And yet abuse of those oversight provisions is what has turned this nation into an unconstitutional war zone by warring democrats seeking to pervert justice in their ungodly attempt to overthrow the republican president impeding their drive to seize control of America by hook or crook.

I'm sure you're a great guy.
But your world view is a little too far removed for me to feel like discussion would be fun.

 

[Condor060]

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

Allow me to clear up a lot of misinformation.

All legislative request for tax returns must have a legitimate legislative purpose. All legislative investigations must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.
Watkins vs The Untied States 354 U.S.

The constitution does not grant Congress a standalone investigation power. Congress can conduct investigations only to further some other legislative power enumerated in the constitution.
Kilbourn vs Thompson 103 U.S.

The Supreme court ruled on and told the Un-American Activities Committee decades ago, There is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure, Especially not the private affairs of individuals and Congress cannot use investigations to exercise the functions of the executive or act like a law enforcement or trail agency.
Watkins vs The Untied States 354 U.S.

Now I am sure Nadler will push back but these arguments have been ruled on already and have been adjudicated by the Supreme court. Unless Nadler can come up with a legislative purpose he isn't going to get the SCOTUS to reverse there precedents and he certainly isn't going to get Trumps tax returns.

 

[CharisRose]

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

What lethal thing do you suppose is in there?

I have no clue what's in Trump's taxes. Those who seek to see his taxes also have no clue what's in Trump's taxes.

Those who seek to see his taxes>>>merely Suspect based on their hatred of him that they can get a bullet for their empty gun hoping they can use it to take their fatal shot at him and then they can get their hearts desire to remove A Duly Elected POTUS from office.

Roseann

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The constitution does not grant Congress a standalone investigation power. Congress can conduct investigations only to further some other legislative power enumerated in the constitution. Kilbourn vs Thompson 103 U.S.

I thought we were past this already.

I thought we were discussing who gets to determine what is or is not a legitimate legislative porpoise.

 

[marke]

Of which they are now trying to state they need to see if the IRS is following the laws properly and need 6 years of Trump returns to verify that fact.

Not going to happen.

If they were truly interested in seeing if the IRS was doing its job properly they would have hauled Lois Lerner's butt in and forced her under oath to explain why she should not be charged with violating federal laws for weaponizing the IRS against republicans leading up to the 2012 election.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I have no clue what's in Trump's taxes. Those who seek to see his taxes also have no clue what's in Trump's taxes.
Those who seek to see his taxes>>>merely Suspect based on their hatred of him that they can get a bullet for their empty gun hoping they can use it to take their fatal shot at him and then they can get their hearts desire to remove A Duly Elected POTUS from office.
Roseann

Would the duly elected Congress be using their duly granted powers to remove the duly elected PotUS?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If they were truly interested in seeing if the IRS was doing its job properly they would have hauled Lois Lerner's butt in and forced her under oath to explain why she should not be charged with violating federal laws for weaponizing the IRS against republicans leading up to the 2012 election.

Why didn't the GOP Congress do this last year?
Perhaps their faith in these sorts of charges wavers.

 

[marke]

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.

With democrats in charge no American is safe from their midnight search and seizure armed swat team raids and immediate imprisonment in solitary prison cell confinement until persecuting prosecutors are good and ready after a period of time to defend their accusations in court.

 

[marke]

Trump promised to release them.
Was he lying?

Trump changed his mind after he found out what the dirty democrats were crookedly doing to unjustly undermine his legitimate presidency. Trump is not as stupid as Hillary and her sycophant democrat subjects thought.

 

[vegas giants]

Trump changed his mind after he found out what the dirty democrats were crookedly doing to unjustly undermine his legitimate presidency. Trump is not as stupid as Hillary and her sycophant democrat subjects thought.

Then he can change his mind about anything. Why should I believe anything he says?

 

[marke]

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

Your private tax returns are not supposed to be available for public disclosure at the whim of crooked politicians.

 

[marke]

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

What lethal thing do you suppose is in there?

There is something about seizing and exposing the tax returns of Americans at will which is potentially fatal to the freedoms of all Americans.

 

[marke]

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.

They want past tax returns? Let them ask for Tim Geithner's or Al Sharpton's, both known democrat tax cheats.

 

[Lutherf]

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,.

The only legislation that could possibly come from a demand for Trump's returns in the manner they have been demanded would be ex post facto law and such laws are specifically unconstitutional.

 

[marke]

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)

If presidents volunteered to release private information in the past and democrats fault Trump for withholding some info from the public then why don't we use this opportunity to ask again that Obama allow his cloistered birth certificate to be forensically examined by unbiased experts, and ask Obama for proof of his purported training at Harvard?

 

[ecofarm]

...why don't we use this opportunity to ask again that Obama allow his cloistered birth certificate to be forensically examined by unbiased experts, and ask Obama for proof of his purported training at Harvard?

:lol:


That's whataboutism. Crazy CT whataboutism.

 

[Condor060]

If no one makes the decision about what is or is not a legitimate legislative purpose ( one on which "legislation could be had"), what are to do now when Congress says they have legitimate legislative reasons and the PotUS says that they do not?

Do you think that the SCotUS should be involved to settle the discrepancy in the two assessments of what is or is not a legitimate legislative purpose?

Here is the real problem. Nadler is just an idiot. If he would just shut up and listen to the battery of DC attorneys he has access to instead of asserting his ego driven power, he could get Trumps tax returns. Nadler is looking for TV promotion instead of doing the job. This is unfortunate.

They have burned down their opportunity with Mueller as that investigation is now over to include direct contact with Deutsche bank over the 2 billion loaned to Trump over the last two decades. So they can't revitalize that dead horse.

If I were on the committee I would go back to his ex lawyers testimony (even though he is now incarcerated for lying) and get his claims of Trump overstating his real estate values for investments while undervaluing those same properties for tax purposes. Not saying what he is claiming is true but it would be enough to take the next step.

I would bring in an independent counsel (Which would be easy to do with a Liberal Federal Judge) and order the FBI to question these people Cohen claims (OUT OF THE PUBLIC SPOTLIGHT). I guarantee you they can produce a probable cause issue. Have that Independent counsel make a criminal recommendation to Congress for suspicion of tax fraud (Like that would be hard to do given the current environment) and subpoena the documents from the IRS.

If the IRS tries to stonewall under those conditions, it would be contempt of court.

Lets say for argument sake, this all works as planned and now you have 4 years of Trump returns. What the hell do you really have? Federal tax returns audited and prepared by an accounting firm who is liable for any fraud issue you might find coupled with you can't hold a president accountable for conflict on interest.

Honestly, either Nadler is very dumb or he is very smart. The other side of the coin is he knows he will never get the returns but going through the process makes Trump look like he is hiding behind his office and Democrats get the win for all of the Nixion comparisons for the next 17 months.

You tell me brother. Which one sounds more probable.

 

[marke]

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

SCOTUS has ruled that Congress can seize the tax returns of any American it wishes to look into? I am not aware of that ruling.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

There is something about seizing and exposing the tax returns of Americans at will which is potentially fatal to the freedoms of all Americans.

How long will it take to kill our freedoms?

It's been at least 140 years so far?

When will our freedoms finally keel over from this?