U.S. Treasury's Mnuchin defies House subpoena for Trump's tax returns

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Keep calm citizen! No reason to panic.
BAHAHAAAAA

No prob Waco, I only panic when the comedy script is so bad that it's painful.... Oh wait as min....

[txdot-guy]

Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) reads:
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

As far as legitimate reasons to ask for the returns, how about

1: To determine if U.S. national security is at risk of being compromised by the president’s financial conflicts of interest.
2: To determine if Trump has conflicts of interests bearing on his trade and tariffs policies.
3: To determine whether the president is violating the U.S. Constitution by receiving benefits from foreign countries without Congress’ consent.
4: To determine whether he is benefiting from his tax policies despite his many public assertions to the contrary.
5: To determine whether the IRS is adequately auditing the president.
6: To inform the consideration of additional disclosure requirements for candidates and officeholders.

By refusing to release control of his business interests into some kind of blind trust or at least to someone not in his direct family, then maybe an argument could be made that the need to have oversight could be lessened. He didn't do that.

Seeing and auditing his taxes is in my opinion a reasonable request to make.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I don't necessarily think Trump is legally bound to cough up his returns, but it is obvious to me that he is concerned about what could be revealed......

... let me explain it to you, if you care to open your mind.

The IRS audit is ongoing ... the Secretary would know that as well ... and the "conclusions" on his returns have not been resolved from the point of view of the auditors, whose decisions must be approved by supervision, and adjusted up or down with respect to his income and "deductions" to reduce the income.

As a consequence his returns ARE NOT FINAL and ANY AND ALL "INFORMATION" CONTAINED ON THEM which would be the source of remarks and/or criticism would be inaccurate and disputed by either Trump and/or the agency. And either Trump or the agency might want to litigate issues.

Of course, that "assumes" you and others desire "accurate" info.

You do want "accurate" information to throw at him don't you?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) reads:
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

As far as legitimate reasons to ask for the returns, how about

1: To determine if U.S. national security is at risk of being compromised by the president’s financial conflicts of interest.
2: To determine if Trump has conflicts of interests bearing on his trade and tariffs policies.
3: To determine whether the president is violating the U.S. Constitution by receiving benefits from foreign countries without Congress’ consent.
4: To determine whether he is benefiting from his tax policies despite his many public assertions to the contrary.
5: To determine whether the IRS is adequately auditing the president.
6: To inform the consideration of additional disclosure requirements for candidates and officeholders.

By refusing to release control of his business interests into some kind of blind trust or at least to someone not in his direct family, then maybe an argument could be made that the need to have oversight could be lessened. He didn't do that.

Seeing and auditing his taxes is in my opinion a reasonable request to make.

Fishing expedition. The reasons you gave are NOT LEGITIMATE, because ....

There is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SUCH SPECULATION. REMEMBER?

This country has a "Presumption of Innocence" and it applies to Trump.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) reads:
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

As far as legitimate reasons to ask for the returns, how about

1: To determine if U.S. national security is at risk of being compromised by the president’s financial conflicts of interest.
2: To determine if Trump has conflicts of interests bearing on his trade and tariffs policies.
3: To determine whether the president is violating the U.S. Constitution by receiving benefits from foreign countries without Congress’ consent.
4: To determine whether he is benefiting from his tax policies despite his many public assertions to the contrary.
5: To determine whether the IRS is adequately auditing the president.
6: To inform the consideration of additional disclosure requirements for candidates and officeholders.

By refusing to release control of his business interests into some kind of blind trust or at least to someone not in his direct family, then maybe an argument could be made that the need to have oversight could be lessened. He didn't do that.

Seeing and auditing his taxes is in my opinion a reasonable request to make.

You should have read the link posted about this. let's recap shall we?


But over the years, the courts have imposed limits on what information Congress can seek.

“Broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited,” the Supreme Court said in 1957. “There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress.”

So! you know more than the Supreme Court? right!! this issue has already come up, decades ago. it did go to the Court. in 1957. and probably other cases too. But all it takes is one to set precedent. And it HAS BEEN SET.


NO CARTE BLANCHE ALLOWED!!

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You should have read the link posted about this. let's recap shall we?

But over the years, the courts have imposed limits on what information Congress can seek.

“Broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited,” the Supreme Court said in 1957. “There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress.”

So! you know more than the Supreme Court? right!! this issue has already come up, decades ago. it did go to the Court. in 1957. and probably other cases too. But all it takes is one to set precedent. And it HAS BEEN SET.

NO CARTE BLANCHE ALLOWED!!

You are right, there is no carte blanche allowed. You however dismiss all of the reasons the American public has to investigate Trump.

I believe this will go to court. I also believe that the Supremes will rule in favor of congress's power to investigate the executive branch.

Trump is a Draft Dodging, Tax Cheating, Wife Cheating, Gluttonous, Liar who surrounds himself with other people of low moral character. These include but are not limited to

Paul Manafort
Rick Gates
Michael Cohen
Michael Flynn
George Papadopoulos

Trump gave up his presumption of innocence a long time ago.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

You are right, there is no carte blanche allowed. You however dismiss all of the reasons the American public has to investigate Trump.

I believe this will go to court. I also believe that the Supremes will rule in favor of congress's power to investigate the executive branch.

Trump is a Draft Dodging, Tax Cheating, Wife Cheating, Gluttonous, Liar who surrounds himself with other people of low moral character. These include but are not limited to

Paul Manafort
Rick Gates
Michael Cohen
Michael Flynn
George Papadopoulos

Trump gave up his presumption of innocence a long time ago.

my .. list .. is bigger than yours.


BAHHAAAAAAAAAAA


https://www.theepochtimes.com/strzok...d_2624607.html


Strzok now joins the ranks of more than 25 FBI and DOJ officials who have been forced out—largely in disgrace. Here is a list of the notable Trump-era firings, demotions, and departures:
FBI Departures:

1. James Comey, director (fired)
2. Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
3. Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
4. Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
5. James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
6. James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
7. Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
8. Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
9. James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
10. Greg Bower, assistant director for office of congressional affairs (resigned)
11. Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
12. John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)

DOJ Departures:

1. Sally Yates, deputy attorney general (fired)
2. Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general (twice demoted)
3. David Laufman, counterintelligence chief (resigned)
4. Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general (resigned)
5. Trisha Beth Anderson, office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
6. John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general (resigned)
7. Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
8. Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (resigned)
9. Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
10. Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. Attorneys)
11. Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
12. Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
13. Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
14. Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)

so .. you were making a point about individuals of low moral character? please continue!


BAHHAHAAAAA

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

You are right, there is no carte blanche allowed. You however dismiss all of the reasons the American public has to investigate Trump.

I believe this will go to court. I also believe that the Supremes will rule in favor of congress's power to investigate the executive branch.

Trump is a Draft Dodging, Tax Cheating, Wife Cheating, Gluttonous, Liar who surrounds himself with other people of low moral character. These include but are not limited to

Paul Manafort
Rick Gates
Michael Cohen
Michael Flynn
George Papadopoulos

Trump gave up his presumption of innocence a long time ago.

Cause you said so...GOTCHA!!

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

my .. list .. is bigger than yours.


BAHHAAAAAAAAAAA


https://www.theepochtimes.com/strzok...d_2624607.html


Strzok now joins the ranks of more than 25 FBI and DOJ officials who have been forced out—largely in disgrace. Here is a list of the notable Trump-era firings, demotions, and departures:
FBI Departures:

1. James Comey, director (fired)
2. Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
3. Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
4. Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
5. James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
6. James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
7. Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
8. Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
9. James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
10. Greg Bower, assistant director for office of congressional affairs (resigned)
11. Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
12. John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)

DOJ Departures:

1. Sally Yates, deputy attorney general (fired)
2. Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general (twice demoted)
3. David Laufman, counterintelligence chief (resigned)
4. Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general (resigned)
5. Trisha Beth Anderson, office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
6. John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general (resigned)
7. Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
8. Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (resigned)
9. Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
10. Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. Attorneys)
11. Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
12. Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
13. Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
14. Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)

so .. you were making a point about individuals of low moral character? please continue!


BAHHAHAAAAA

Presidential hopeful departure:
You forget and most notable...Hellery * low moral character...(run off in disgrace.)

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

You however dismiss all of the reasons the American public has to investigate Trump.

I believe this will go to court. I also believe that the Supremes will rule in favor of congress's power to investigate the executive branch.

Trump is a Draft Dodging, Tax Cheating, Wife Cheating, Gluttonous, Liar who surrounds himself with other people of low moral character. T


Trump gave up his presumption of innocence a long time ago.

The above bullshit is not a "legal argument"! It's hysterical bullshit.

"The American People" .... elected Trump. And rejected your favorite.

BTW: Bill Clinton is a ..

"..a Draft Dodging, Tax Cheating, Wife Cheating, Gluttonous, Liar who surrounds himself with other people of low moral character (in fact he married one and supported her candidacy for POTUS)"

And now that the "American Voters" rejected their asses, AGAIN, Trump is the POTUS.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

... let me explain it to you, if you care to open your mind.

The IRS audit is ongoing ... the Secretary would know that as well ... and the "conclusions" on his returns have not been resolved from the point of view of the auditors

let me explain it to you. I don't believe a God Damn word of that. Trump says he is under audit, but he is a continuous liar. he doesn't want ANY returns released. on the stump he said the previous 3 years were under audit. besides, I don't care if IRS has finalized the returns, I want to see what Trump reported, whether accepted or not.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

let me explain it to you. I don't believe a God Damn word of that. Trump says he is under audit, but he is a continuous liar. he doesn't want ANY returns released. on the stump he said the previous 3 years were under audit. besides, I don't care if IRS has finalized the returns, I want to see what Trump reported, whether accepted or not.

And your "right" to see that is based on what?

You just want to, like the House bullshit? Got it...

It continues to just be a distraction.

Trump weathered the storm of Mueller without an indictment and the rest becomes desperation to acquire any dirt on Trump they can.

Mnuchin is doing the right thing in making this a court issue and not some free reign request from upset partisan House members trying to politicize their "need" for the information.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

let me explain it to you. I don't believe a God Damn word of that.

That's not an "explanation." That's just a confession.

And it's meaningless as valuable in a debate. Your "beliefs" are not relevant.

[Hotrod511]

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eccielover

And your "right" to see that is based on what?

You just want to, like the House bullshit? Got it...

Like the little pukes who disclose RW information on rub girls on this website by reviewing them ..... Tran would scream bloody murder if some IRS agent posted a link to the last 6 years of returns on Eccie to determine his "credibility" to criticize Trump (or anyone for that matter).

But rather than be honest he'd rather spew off about his "beliefs"!

As far as just wanting to see them .... anyone "believing" that's okay .... is too simple minded to understand what was on them if they were coughed up. So it's a waste of time and a bad precedence, which the simple-minded SocialLiberalAntiTrumpers would reject if their favor (like HillariousNoMore or John Kerry) had to cough up ALL THEIR RETURNS reflecting ALL OF THEIR INCOME!!!!!!!!!!!)