Steven Mnuchin Refuses to Release Trump’s Tax Returns to Congress

[Mycroft]

Maybe you should consider being a bit more critical of your government. It's our job as citizens to make this thing called "Democracy" work. Unless you consider yourself a subject of a monarchy, which I believe would make your guy very happy.

I am critical of our government. That's why I object to the actions of the House Dems. That's why I want to see justice served for the illegal, corrupt actions of the Obama administration.

I am HIGHLY critical when I see people use their government powers for political purposes.

 

[Mycroft]

Question was premised on taking it to court
So feel free to vote

No thanks. I'll wait till I see the Dems file a suit.

But I won't be holding my breath.

 

[tres borrachos]

Well, that’s one thing Congress probably cannot do even if it manages to get them. Returns subpoenaed by Congress can only be used for a legislative purpose. Slamming somebody’s tax returns into the public domain does not meet that definition.

What makes you think that Congress would slam anyone's tax returns into the public domain?

 

[Crystal]

What makes you think that Congress would slam anyone's tax returns into the public domain?

Are you for real? Adam Schiff would leak it in a New York minute.

 

[Napoleon]

In the 1975 Supreme Court ruling in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, National Review writer David French has noted.

In that case, an anti-war group challenged a congressional subpoena. The high court determined the subpoena was “immune to judicial interference.”

“The power to investigate and to do so through compulsory process plainly falls within that definition,” the majority opinion held. “This Court has often noted that the power to investigate is inherent in the power to make laws … .”

Take a closer look at the decision in that case. The subpoena in that case was considered lawful because it was “essential to legislating.” The most important part of this being the following: “We have made it clear, however, that Congress is not invested with a “general power to inquire into private affairs." McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 173 (1927). The subject of any inquiry always must be one "on which legislation could be had."

The Democrats haven’t identified any legislative purpose behind this request.

 

[Huey Freeman]

The Supreme Court narrowed the application of this law to a legitimate legislative purpose decades ago. The Democrats haven’t done a good job of establishing any reason for this request other than a fishing expedition driven by animus. They certainly haven’t established any legislative purpose for it.

It's like conservatives live on a different planet. First, investigations are a legitimate legislative purpose of Congress. Second, when the House Republicans bullied AG Holder for his "Fast and Furious" non-scandal, the Court ruled that he had to provide the documents. The best thing we can do is fast-track this to the Supreme Court. However, Republicans would rather mire this process in litigation.

 

[Taylor]

Then change the law.

No need.

 

[prometeus]

No need.

Right, in your world is so much better to obey only those that suit you.

 

[Taylor]

A) The law is clear. Congress has a legal right to review anyone's taxes.

Congress has powers, not rights. There is no constitutional power that allows them to review anyone's taxes for any reason (in this case, political gain).

 

[prometeus]

Congress has powers, not rights. There is no constitutional power that allows them to review anyone's taxes for any reason (in this case, political gain).

There is the law and only to the really intellectually or integrity impaired is it not clear.

 

[MTAtech]

Take a closer look at the decision in that case. The subpoena in that case was considered lawful because it was “essential to legislating.” The most important part of this being the following: “We have made it clear, however, that Congress is not invested with a “general power to inquire into private affairs." McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 173 (1927). The subject of any inquiry always must be one "on which legislation could be had."

The Democrats haven’t identified any legislative purpose behind this request.

I think the Democrats have. Thus, we need to agree to disagree.

 

[Taylor]

Trump has credibly been accused of engaging in criminal activity for decades. It’s undisputed that he is still profiting from his businesses, in possible violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. There is substantial information in the public record suggesting that he is for sale (or subject to blackmail) and that many of his public policy decisions have been made for corrupt reasons. The tax returns may help provide information that sheds light on his motives. It’s an indispensable part of congressional oversight.

Perhaps they should pass their concerns along to someone who works in law enforcement.

Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the power of the United States Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations and that nothing in the United States Constitution gives it the authority to expose the private affairs of individuals.

 

[MTAtech]

Congress has powers, not rights. There is no constitutional power that allows them to review anyone's taxes for any reason (in this case, political gain).

Would you rather me use the word "authority?" Then, "A) The law is clear. Congress has a legal authority to review anyone's taxes."

 

[Taylor]

There is the law and only to the really intellectually or integrity impaired is it not clear.

I wouldn't sell yourself short like that.

 

[MTAtech]

Perhaps they should pass their concerns along to someone who works in law enforcement.

Only the House has the authority to impeach, not law enforcement. As such, they have the authority to investigate the president for crimes.

 

[prometeus]

I wouldn't sell yourself short like that.

I did not sell myself, only pointed out the stupidity and lack of integrity in your post.

 

[Taylor]

Would you rather me use the word "authority?" Then, "A) The law is clear. Congress has a legal authority to review anyone's taxes."

Show me the law that would allow them to pull up your taxes tomorrow and make them public.

 

[MTAtech]

Show me the law that would allow them to pull up your taxes tomorrow and make them public.

Once again, you are debating dishonestly. The House having access to Trump's taxes doesn't mean they will become public. In fact, the law specifically states that they cannot be disclosed publicly, which undercuts any concerns about privacy.

 

[prometeus]

Show me the law that would allow them to pull up your taxes tomorrow and make them public.

More ignorant crap from you.

 

[Taylor]

Only the House has the authority to impeach, not law enforcement. As such, they have the authority to investigate the president for crimes.

Yes, that becomes relevant when impeachment proceedings begin on an offense related to tax returns. No impeachment, no authority to investigate.

 

[MTAtech]

Yes, that becomes relevant when impeachment proceedings begin on an offense related to tax returns. No impeachment, no authority to investigate.

That's among the most tortured arguments I have read on DP. What is clear is that you are out to defend Trump having his taxes secret at all costs. Why such a devotion to what you wouldn't believe if it was a Democratic president under the same circumstances?

 

[apdst]

Once again, you are debating dishonestly. The House having access to Trump's taxes doesn't mean they will become public. In fact, the law specifically states that they cannot be disclosed publicly, which undercuts any concerns about privacy.

They'll absolutely be leaked to the press. :lamo

 

[apdst]

That's among the most tortured arguments I have read on DP. What is clear is that you are out to defend Trump having his taxes secret at all costs. Why such a devotion to what you wouldn't believe if it was a Democratic president under the same circumstances?

What do you expect to find in his tax returns?

 

[JANFU]

I think your fear is proving to be more and more real with each passing day. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer (which is better than a Debbie Does Dallaser).

They have and will continue to do so. What many Republicans will reap this political legacy well past 2020.

 

[apdst]

I voted no for practical reasons. What is Congress going to do with it? Refer what they find to Barr? :lol: Let NY handle it.

NY can't get Federal tax returns.