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

[CharisRose]

You're confused. It can't be whataboutism when it's completely and totally on topic and subject of the OP.

post # 11

Originally Posted by Common Sense 1

They want his tax returns so they can try to smear him and spread gossip over his tax returns.
They have zero legitimate reason to have access to them. The Supreme court won't allow this to happen!
------------------------------------------------------
Your post # 13 in response to common sense 1 post ^

Originally Posted by ecofarm

Playing the victim card to avoid the fact that he lied to everyone to become elected.

No personal responsibility for Trump. Not even when he lies in your face.
----------------------------------------------
My post # 174 in response to your post ^

Whataboutism alert!!!

Candidate Trump didn't lie.

After, becoming President he had an epiphany and changed his mind following in the footsteps of some of his Presidential predecessors.

Roseann
----------------------------------------
Your post # 196 in response to my post ^

Originally Posted by ecofarm

Are you lost? This thread is about Trump and his tax returns and that's the subject of my post.
-------------------------------------------
My post # 238 response to your post ^

Not lost. I was referencing the tax return statement he made while he was a Candidate running for President.

Reworded for clarification follows....

Whataboutism Alert

Candidate Trump didn't lie when he said he stated he planned to release his tax return after an audit was finished under the advice of his Tax Lawyer.

After, becoming President he had an epiphany and changed his mind following in the footsteps of some of his Presidential predecessors.

Do you know the status of that audit?

Roseann
---------------------------------------
Your post # 239 to my response ^

You're confused. It can't be whataboutism when it's completely and totally on topic and subject of the OP.
-------------------------------------------------

Hopefully this post will clear up the misunderstanding.

I was not saying your post had anything to do whataboutism.

Your post had nothing to do with whataboutism.

I was alerting you in my original post that I was the one deliberately using whataboutism to make a point and I decided to use flowery talk just for the fun.

(using plain talk) Past Presidents who as Candidates made promises that they did not keep and they changed their minds just like Trump did after taking office.

Roseann

 

[ecofarm]

:lamo

 

[OscarLevant]

https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1173756/download



Here's the part I like -



The request "raised a serious risk of abuse". Damned straight it did.

Opinions | OLC | Department of Justice

And, with every president since Nixon revealing their tax returns, of all those, how many tax returns were abused?


See, when you really look at the thing, it's a bogus argument, and any smart judge will not agree with AG Barr, you know, the guy who wrote the 19 page memo declaring that the prez should be King, or close to it,.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yes, for high crimes and misdemeanors while in office via impeachment.
Since, the polls say the majority of Americans will not be happy about impeachment in The House of Congress.
Some of the Duly Elected Congress needed a purely political alternative place to spread some dirt around outside of The House.
That place I'll call the Public Square.
So we are experiencing a Public Square Impeachment by multiple members of Duly elected but not by ALL Duly Elected Members of Congress so they can spread their Democrat/Socialist on the verge of Communism "by any means necessary" dirty politics in The Public Square.
Using the guise of Congressional oversight of some but not ALL Duly Elected Members of Congress.
Public Square Impeachment totally eliminates the Senate voice by taking the "Impeachment" process out of The House of Congress and the follow up process of the Senate's participation in the impeachment process via The not quite an "Impeachment" of the Duly Elected POTUS in the Public Square.

By what mechanism does this Public Square Impeachment actually "remove A Duly Elected POTUS from office"?

The ballot box?

Or what exactly?

The Granted Powers are Impeachment for crimes while in The POTUS is in Office.
Not by using 6 years of taxes of a business man when he was merely a private citizen.
A citizen, who the IRS has been doing their job of checking his taxes for years for any violations of tax law.
The IRS is capable of taking any action needed for any violations.
Does the some of The Duly Elected Congress think the IRS was incapable of finding any tax related violations when they audited Trumps tax forms for years?
Some of the Duly Elected Congress doesn't want to check Trump's tax returns to find any mistakes made by the IRS.
They want political fodder....
Like did Trump lie when he bragged about his Great Wealth Numbers. An accusation that was made in The Public Square.
Check out his charitable contributions. Compare the charitable $ amount compared to the $ amount he kept for himself.
It will be a fishing expedition looking for anything they can use to further personally harm him in the public arena to turn voters against him in 2020 and it has nothing to do with legitimate oversight.
It is simply political tactic to help their Candidate in 2020 and hurt Trump in 2020 election.

You make the Public Square Impeachment sound not at all like impeachment at all.
You make it sound like appealing to the Electorate.

I find it hard to fault someone for an appeal to the Electorate. [ ymmv ]
The Electorate's consent is the ultimate source of government authority after all.


It seems bit extra and wholly unnecessary to bring up impeachment when you're really just talking about attempts to sway voters.

 

[cabse5]

Mueller raided Manafort's home at night and threw him into solitary confinement in prison, yet he gave Manafort's partner, Herr Tony Podesta, a kiss and a wave goodbye in spite of his clear involvement in the same crime. Why? Because Podesta was a democrat and Manafort was tied to Trump. This is a clear example of third world style politically motivated Marxist brutality.

Not to mention a violation of Manafort's civil rights via the fourth amendment. Mueller raided Manafort because he was, shortly, campaign manager for Trump. Mueller didn't have any prior evidence Manafort had helped the Trump campaign collude with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 election.

Mueller also violated Cohen's civil rights via the fourth amendment. Mueller raided Cohen's office because he was the lawyer for Trump and not because Mueller had any evidence that Cohen had information that showed the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 election.

 

[cabse5]

You will find if you ever are at risk for a Federal Prosecution that unlike Civil Tort or the State Attorney's office a Federal Prosecutor will not likely Indict unless he has you by the balls. They Indict not because they think they will achieve a guilty verdict or a guilty plea but because they know they will. Even at that, it ain't like falling out of bed in the morning. Took all of 1 screwball jury member and 1 whacky judge to kill of 10 of the 18 charges against Manafort even though he was dead to rights DEAD on all 18.

If they ever Indict Podesta it will be because they have HIM by the balls.

I guess evidence found of narcotic use found from a traffic stop search is prosecutable, for example. Even if the traffic stop was for a broken tail light?

Illegal search and seizure. Fourth amendment violation.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Do you forget what you post? I was responding to the damage you spoke of before I was born and had nothing to do with Trump.
Roseann

I do sometimes.
Especially, if I have been making a bunch of posts in a day.
My apologies.


I've kinda forgotten the thread of the argument and am currently uninterested.
So, more apologies from me.
It's nothing personal at all.
It's just this whole process is voluntary. So, I only do what I feel like.

 

[BlueTex]

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.

Are you suggesting that if congress passed a law making tax returns past, present and future that there would be a constitutional issue? How so?

 

[BlueTex]

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

Congress determines the confidentiality of tax returns...

 

[Trump]

Are you suggesting that if congress passed a law making tax returns past, present and future that there would be a constitutional issue? How so?

why haven't they done it long ago?

 

[poweRob]

Let's see...

The kind of smear you just used... the smear that he must be hiding "something" sinister in his tax returns because you suspect that is the real reason he broke a promise.

Instead of accepting the reason he stated, which was that his tax Lawyer advised him not to release his tax returns as long as they were being audited.

Roseann

The kind of smear I just used? You're not making any sense. If it is released, like he promised he'd do, there would be no "hiding" to smear him with as you put it.

 

[Lutherf]

Are you suggesting that if congress passed a law making tax returns past, present and future that there would be a constitutional issue? How so?

There would have to be an amendment. The eligibility requirements for president are already laid out in the Constitution. If congress wants to add requirements then they need to do so via the amendment process.

 

[BlueTex]

Prove it. The IRS disagrees.

Do a search on "public record" in this IRS publication...

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4639.pdf

 

[BlueTex]

There would have to be an amendment. The eligibility requirements for president are already laid out in the Constitution. If congress wants to add requirements then they need to do so via the amendment process.

How would adding a provision to the tax code disclosing the president's tax returns impose an eligibility requirement for president?

 

[Rogue Valley]

The request "raised a serious risk of abuse". Damned straight it did.

Said toadies in Barr's now partisan Justice Department.

 

[marke]

Congress determines the confidentiality of tax returns...

Correction. Democrats in Congress have decided among themselves that no tax returns are off limits if they want to see them for whatever political reason.

 

[vegas giants]

Correction. Democrats in Congress have decided among themselves that no tax returns are off limits if they want to see them for whatever political reason.

Sorry you hate democracy

 

[Lutherf]

How would adding a provision to the tax code disclosing the president's tax returns impose an eligibility requirement for president?

Would it be required that the president's returns be released? If so, that's an eligibility requirement in addition to those in Article II. There is no good reason for the president's tax returns to be a public record. Heck, there is no good reason for ANYONE's tax returns to be a public record.

The president already has to produce a detailed financial disclosure every year. Here's his for 2018 - http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00023864_2018.pdf - Why is that disclosure not sufficient?

 

[marke]

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?

The freedom to pray at public events in Jesus' name? The freedom to influence elections through Christian organizations? The freedom to teach creationist exposures of erroneous evolutionist theories in school? The freedom to teach children that God opposes homosexuality and sexual promiscuity and perversion? The freedom to spank children in obedience to instruction from God? And so forth,.

 

[marke]

Have you seen obummas (*edited) birth certificate?

It looks like a forgery. Obama should have it forensically examined to prove it is not a forgery if it really is not a forgery in spite of what government investigators have suggested.

 

[marke]

Have you seen trumps birth certificate?

I don't need to see his certificate to know he is not a god, and since nobody claims he was not born in America I see no urgency to see his documentation.

 

[marke]

Sorry you hate democracy

I hate democrat Marxism.

 

[Condor060]

Do a search on "public record" in this IRS publication...

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4639.pdf

Sorry, I am not researching your claim. If you have information you can post it.

You account of Tax returns not being the property of the filer has nothing to do with its contents and there isn't anything in the IRS code that even supports that theory.

What the IRS does state is the following:

10.5.1.2.7 (03-23-2018)
Privacy Act Information

The Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act) forms the core of IRS privacy policy. It provides certain safeguards for an individual against an invasion of personal privacy by requiring federal agencies to:

(a) Collect, maintain, use, or disseminate any record of identifiable personal information in a manner that ensures that such action is for a necessary and lawful purpose.

Your identifiable personal information and the right to personal privacy precludes any claim of who owns the document.

The term “record” includes, but is not limited to, education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a fingerprint or a photograph is protected under the Privacy Act of 1974.

And under such Privacy Act information protected includes:

10.5.1.2.4 (03-23-2018)
Tax Information

The term tax information refers to a taxpayer’s return and return information protected from unauthorized disclosure under IRC § 6103. The law defines return information as any information the IRS has about a tax return or liability determination. This return information includes, but is not limited to, a taxpayer’s:

Identity.

Income, payments, deductions, exemptions, or credits.

Assets, liabilities, or net worth.

Tax liability investigation status (whether the IRS ever investigates or examines the return).

Constitutionally Required Disclosures — Some situations require disclosure of information, including SBU data, such as criminal cases where the IRS has a constitutional obligation to disclose, upon the defendant's request, evidence material either to guilt or punishment (exculpatory evidence). For more details, refer to IRM 11.3.35, Requests and Demands for Testimony and Production of Documents.

So in short, Without a criminal case or a legislative purpose, (and as SCOTUS has already ruled) Congress doesn't get anyone's tax returns they want just because they ask for it and the information contained is the personal property of the filer.

 

[Condor060]

Congress determines the confidentiality of tax returns...

Wrong;

SCOTUS Quotes:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 trial agency.
Watkins vs The Untied States 354 U.S.

 

[vegas giants]

I don't need to see his certificate to know he is not a god, and since nobody claims he was not born in America I see no urgency to see his documentation.

He is your god?

Explains everything