Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why not invoke executive privilege?? Trump tax return story

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why not invoke executive privilege?? Trump tax return story

    Yesterday, the FAKE NEWS!! Washington Post revealed a legal opinion drafted by the Office of Chief Counsel for the IRS back in the Fall regarding the 1924 law that states that the IRS "shall furnish" tax records of any individual when requested by Congress. The law was an anti-corruption measure passed following the Teapot Dome scandal.

    We know now that Mnuchin refuses to furnish Trump's tax returns by claiming that Congress is not serving a "legitimate" legislative purpose.

    However, the legal opinion drafted by the office back in the fall--before Trump appointed a new lawyer to lead the office*--says that the IRS must follow the law and should not try to decipher Congress's ends. From the opinion:

    "[T]he Secretary’s obligation to disclose return and return information would not be affected by the failure of a tax writing committee . . . to state a reason for the request... [the] only basis [for] the agency’s refusal to comply with a committee’s subpoena would be the invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege."
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.55f8744a1b4d


    *That new fellow Trump appointed, Michael J. Desmond, had once briefly advised the Trump Organization. Trump knew him. Reporting says that Trump told McConnell that confirming Desmond should be a higher priority than confirming Barr (or confirming appointees to other cabinet seats currently filled by "acting" secretaries). Since stepping in, Desmond has opined that the IRS should NOT provide Trump's tax returns, which appears to be a direct violation of that 1924 law.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/u...smond-irs.html

    So the IRS is using some highly questionable reasoning to wriggle out of the law, reasoning that was struck down by a judge this week in regards to Mazars handing over Trump's financial history, and before Trump's appointee got into the office, the IRS lawyers had drafted an opposite opinion.

    My main question is: Why doesn't the president just invoke executive privilege? What is the danger in executive privilege? Trump supporters would totally support it. Most voters wouldn't know what it means, and they aren't following this story anyway. Perhaps only historians and political junkies would understand what's going on. But I'm kind of a political junky (on this forum every day yeknow), and I don't understand why "executive privilege" would be more troubling than these nonsensical legal opinions.
    Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-22-2019, 09:54 AM.
    For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
    https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


    My (old dead) band!:
    www.steelphantoms.com/
    PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

  • #2
    It's getting really difficult to hide stuff these days.
    "Loyalty to the Nation all the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it."

    Comment


    • #3
      I have read several articles which refer to this as black letter law which I assume is some term of art, saying that the meaning is plainly written in the words.

      in this case the word "shall".
      __________________________________________________

      Is This Thing On?

      https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

      Comment


      • #4
        be a crying shame if it got leaked.
        RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING!
        To you I'm an atheist; but to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

        Originally posted by -NPC-;n32500008

        Trump is not creepy. He is lovable and charming.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Wikipedia entry for Executive Privelege
          The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.
          Congress has legitimate oversight of the presidency. It appears his "Executive Privilege" is impotent against congressional subpoenas. Congress doesn't need a "legislative purpose" for this because they have other duties besides legislation.
          This space left intentionally blank.

          Comment


          • #6
            So maybe they're avoiding using executive privilege for everything because they saw Nixon fail in that, and hence Trump's lawyers are trying a more novel approach??

            For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
            https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


            My (old dead) band!:
            www.steelphantoms.com/
            PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

            Comment


            • #7
              If only Mueller had reviewed his tax returns for evidence of collusion and other wrongdoing we wouldn't be having this conversation.

              Those tax returns must be given to Congress so they can examine them for whatever Mueller failed to find.

              Do you think Trump will sign the bill approved by the House requiring future presidential candidates to provide their tax returns?

              In-Peach now!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post
                If only Mueller had reviewed his tax returns for evidence of collusion and other wrongdoing we wouldn't be having this conversation.

                Those tax returns must be given to Congress so they can examine them for whatever Mueller failed to find.

                Do you think Trump will sign the bill approved by the House requiring future presidential candidates to provide their tax returns?

                In-Peach now!
                You may be somewhat correct that we might not need to have this conversation right now. However, four things:

                1. The investigation by Mueller (which happened mostly during time when Republicans held both houses) was an investigation by the executive branch. As we have seen this past month, the executive branch has controlled the info from the investigation. Hence it is not the same as oversight by the independent legislative branch. If you learned about separation of powers as I did growing up, this would be apparent.

                2. Mueller himself did not present any findings regarding tax returns or financial records. We don't know if he ever sought or looked at them. The investigations sent to district prosecutors may look into those; they might have already looked at them; we don't know. Regardless, those investigations by district prosecutors are still not the same as oversight by the legislative branch.

                3. Even though Trump himself may not sign any such bills, that does not mean that another president in two years would not sign a bill drafted by the House right now, nor does it mean that the House would be prevented from an impeachment* investigation or vote.

                4. As the judge stated this week, it is not the executive's or judicial branch's right to determine the purpose of the legislature's subpoenas.

                *It's spelled "impeach." Why do you always spell it with an n?

                And why do you think the Trump team is using their current line of defense rather than invoking executive privilege?
                Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-22-2019, 11:35 AM.
                For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                My (old dead) band!:
                www.steelphantoms.com/
                PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post
                  If only Mueller had reviewed his tax returns for evidence of collusion and other wrongdoing we wouldn't be having this conversation.

                  Those tax returns must be given to Congress so they can examine them for whatever Mueller failed to find.

                  Do you think Trump will sign the bill approved by the House requiring future presidential candidates to provide their tax returns?

                  In-Peach now!


                  If only Republicans had held the House of Representatives in the midterms instead of losing 40 seats or whatever it was, Ds would not have committee chairmanships and subpoena powers.

                  ask for the Mueller report, Trump has gone back and forth calling it both a Witch Hunt and The Bible.

                  the attitude from the right towards the Mueller report seems more than a little bit schizophrenic.
                  __________________________________________________

                  Is This Thing On?

                  https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post
                    If only Mueller had reviewed his tax returns for evidence of collusion and other wrongdoing we wouldn't be having this conversation.

                    Those tax returns must be given to Congress so they can examine them for whatever Mueller failed to find.

                    Do you think Trump will sign the bill approved by the House requiring future presidential candidates to provide their tax returns?

                    In-Peach now!
                    Where is it written that Mueller pored over the Trump tax returns?
                    Oh! Nowhere!

                    And Ned chooses Option #1
                    • in-peach
                    • TDS
                    • grassy knoll
                    • mkay
                    Last edited by RogueGnome; 05-23-2019, 11:26 AM.
                    To you I'm an atheist; but to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

                    Originally posted by -NPC-;n32500008

                    Trump is not creepy. He is lovable and charming.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RogueGnome View Post

                      Where is it written that Mueller poured [sic] over the Trump tax returns?
                      Hopefully nowhere.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

                        You may be somewhat correct that we might not need to have this conversation right now. However, four things:

                        1. The investigation by Mueller (which happened mostly during time when Republicans held both houses) was an investigation by the executive branch. As we have seen this past month, the executive branch has controlled the info from the investigation. Hence it is not the same as oversight by the independent legislative branch. If you learned about separation of powers as I did growing up, this would be apparent.
                        The special counsel is independent regardless of what party controls congress. Remember this is why democrats where giddy when Rosenstein (a republican) appointed him.

                        Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                        Mueller himself did not present any findings regarding tax returns or financial records. We don't know if he ever sought or looked at them. The investigations sent to district prosecutors may look into those; they might have already looked at them; we don't know. Regardless, those investigations by district prosecutors are still not the same as oversight by the legislative branch.
                        Think about what you're saying. The first place Mueller apparently went with some of those he indicted were tax returns. Mueller would be woefully incompetent if he didn't review Trump's returns as one of the first things he looked into for evidence of a crime. I want my $40million back if he didn't do that right off the bat.

                        Why do you think Naddy-boy wants the "underlying evidence" so bad? Answer: It probably includes tax returns.

                        Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                        . Even though Trump himself may not sign any such bills, that does not mean that another president in two years would not sign a bill drafted by the House right now, nor does it mean that the House would be prevented from an impeachment* investigation or vote.
                        For democrats that seem so butthurt over Trump's tax returns, they sure seem disinterested in fixing the problem with legislation.

                        Maybe it's just Trump's tax returns they want so bad.

                        The real reason is they want to pick some element out of them that shows something they can leverage politically while knowing 99% of the public is too ignorant to really understand the complex nature of his returns, the applicable laws, and best accounting practices applied.

                        I'll say this much..if/when the courts decide Trump's tax returns are subject to subpoena, the democrat heads of the subpoenaing committees should be held criminally and civilly liable if those tax returns are "leaked" to the media.

                        Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                        4. As the judge stated this week, it is not the executive's or judicial branch's right to determine the purpose of the legislature's subpoenas.
                        That's one Obama appointed judge's opinion. Remember this cuts both ways. Would you want a republican congress randomly subpoenaing a democrat president's personal finances for purely political reasons?

                        Much more on this to come in the courts.



                        Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                        *It's spelled "impeach." Why do you always spell it with an n?
                        It's one of those great cosmic mysteries. You know...like black holes, dark matter, and gravity.

                        Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                        why do you think the Trump team is using their current line of defense rather than invoking executive privilege?
                        Who knows? I know this much, he never once cited any privilege when cooperating with Mueller for over 2 years.

                        It's kind of funny how the dems have themselves in a box on this. Saying he can't claim executive privilege..because ummmm he never claimed executive privilege....so he must be hiding something!


                        Last edited by nedezero1; 05-22-2019, 01:08 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This is so much fun! I can't wait 'till November of 2020.
                          Newmanism:
                          First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.
                          https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...terson/550859/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

                            The special counsel is independent regardless of what party controls congress. Remember this is why democrats where giddy when Rosenstein (a republican) appointed him.



                            Think about what you're saying. The first place Mueller apparently went with some of those he indicted were tax returns. Mueller would be woefully incompetent if he didn't review Trump's returns as one of the first things he looked into for evidence of a crime. I want my $40million back if he didn't do that right off the bat.

                            Why do you think Naddy-boy wants the "underlying evidence" so bad? Answer: It probably includes tax returns.



                            For democrats that seem so butthurt over Trump's tax returns, they sure seem disinterested in fixing the problem with legislation.

                            Maybe it's just Trump's tax returns they want so bad.

                            The real reason is they want to pick some element out of them that shows something they can leverage politically while knowing 99% of the public is too ignorant to really understand the complex nature of his returns, the applicable laws, and best accounting practices applied.

                            I'll say this much..if/when the courts decide Trump's tax returns are subject to subpoena, the democrat heads of the subpoenaing committees should be held criminally and civilly liable if those tax returns are "leaked" to the media.



                            That's one Obama appointed judge's opinion. Remember this cuts both ways. Would you want a republican congress randomly subpoenaing a democrat president's personal finances for purely political reasons?

                            Much more on this to come in the courts.





                            It's one of those great cosmic mysteries. You know...like black holes, dark matter, and gravity.



                            Who knows? I know this much, he never once cited any privilege when cooperating with Mueller for over 2 years.

                            It's kind of funny how the dems have themselves in a box on this. Saying he can't claim executive privilege..because ummmm he never claimed executive privilege....so he must be hiding something!

                            I’ll give you a full response tomorrow. For right now, let me just ask: Do I recall correctly that you’ve said a few times that Mueller works for Barr and that what Barr says is the final word, superseding Mueller’s words??
                            For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                            https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                            My (old dead) band!:
                            www.steelphantoms.com/
                            PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              WGAF anyway? Trump could release his tax returns that showed he cheated and lied on his taxes and all his fans would turn a blind eye anyway and continue to make excuses for the pos-in-chief. He is a garbage human being.
                              Originally posted by Daryl Flynn;n32409120
                              There is no chance of Trump losing. Deep down you know this.

                              Daryl Flynn - Dec 3 2018

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X