Straight Dope Message Board

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

What could possibly lead you to believe this, considering how frequently and blatantly members of this administration have lied? Barr lied openly about the Mueller report, even presumably knowing his lies would be exposed in a matter of days.

I believe that the DOJ probably did give this advice, as they are as invested in protecting Trump as the rest of the executive. I further believe that they will stand behind that position all the way to the Supreme Court, and will win.

None of which has anything to do with the intentions of the writers of the law, or the morality of Trump hiding his tax returns. 51

[bobot]

The law is simply the law. It requires no DOJ interpretation.

As for this:

Originally Posted by Steophan

...The Democrats in Congress may well be able to make Trump look bad ....

Leave that up to Trump. 52

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Unless I'm missing something, the IRS or Treasury Department has never before denied a request from Congress to see tax documents. It's the Trump administration that is violating precedent, not Congress.

Well, that's what I'm asking. How often, and for what stated purpose, are these requests made? Is this a theoretical power that's never been tested, one that's used uncontroversially on a regular basis, one that's been used occasionally in exceptional circumstances, or something else?

I'm asking this because I don't know, and a very quick Google search hasn't answered the question. 53

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Steophan

What pending legislation will seeing Trump's tax returns affect? If this law is meant to allow Congress to investigate and oversee the Executive, it seems that only allowing it for legislative purposes is a bad way of doing it.

The part that your missing is that the law doesn't "only allow it for legislative purposes." That's the part that Mnuchin and the DOJ are pulling out of thin air. The law makes no mention of any purpose, need, requirement or whatever. It just says congress can ask, and the treasury department shall deliver, full stop. And if you read up on the history of the law, the debates that were had, the language that was considered, you'll realize that the fact that it doesn't require any reason was entirely intentional.

What Sec Mnuchin (and apparently the DOJ) are going to argue, here, is that the law is unconstitutional because congress shouldn't have such broad powers to view tax information, and hope that SCOTUS throws it out. I don't see how they'll get past a plain reading of the text but I'm not a lawyer. But if you're going to continue to argue in favor the Trump administration here, you need to understand two things -- one, congress has the upper hand because of the plain language of the law, and two, the administration's defense is a hail mary pass straight to SCOTUS, because the law is not on their side. 54

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by bobot

The law is simply the law. It requires no DOJ interpretation.

The law always requires interpretation, that's why lawyers and judges exist.

That Congress has the power to subpoena tax returns does not mean they can do so when it's illegal for them to do so, and the Supreme Court has held that there must be a legitimate legislative purpose before they investigate private financial affairs, and also that any demand for information must be for a legitimate Congressional task, which does not include investigating crimes. This article goes into much more detail, with cites to the rulings.

A further article from the same site, but by a different lawyer, claims that the law has not been tested by the courts, and so it is far from clear that these precedents do not apply.

In short, the legal situation is not as clear cut as people are making out, and will almost certainly need to be decided by the courts. Which, with the current Supreme Court, means it will be decided in Trump's favour.

None of which touches on the question of whether Trump's tax returns should be revealed. My personal opinion is that it's pretty much irrelevant, and that Congress should use the avenues available to it to remove Trump via impeachment or incompetence, or failing that ensuring there's a better candidate in 18 months time. Then he can be investigated fully for the alleged crimes without hindrance. 55

[Ravenman]

Steophan - when you first heard that Nixon claimed that he didn't have to turn over the White House tapes, and his DOJ argued that he had absolute executive privilege, did you assume that Nixon was in the right and he would win in court?

ETA: Also, when the Supreme Court ruled that demands by Congress for information must relate to a legislative purpose, did you assume that that controversy was related to Congress seeking documents or testimony from a co-equal branch of government? Do you know the context of that court case? 56

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Well, that's what I'm asking. How often, and for what stated purpose, are these requests made? Is this a theoretical power that's never been tested, one that's used uncontroversially on a regular basis, one that's been used occasionally in exceptional circumstances, or something else?

I'm asking this because I don't know, and a very quick Google search hasn't answered the question.

Rarely, but not never, based on this (no details that I could find): https://www.npr.org/2018/10/11/65661...rns-here-s-how

As to the legality of Congress's demand, according to these 11 legal experts, the law is clear that Congress can demand and obtain these tax records, and there is no legal way to deny them: https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/1829680...-legal-experts

We'll see in the courts. Hopefully the courts are considering how they're viewed in terms of legitimacy; if Americans cease to have confidence that our courts are legitimate, then it doesn't really matter what the law says -- power becomes the only rule.

Out of curiosity, why do you parrot the Trump administration, as if their assertions about law are necessarily correct? You obviously don't appear to be certain. But when you just say "Congress has no legitimate reason for asking for them", you're just parroting Trump. Why would you do that? 57

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The reason the IRS hasn't released Trump's tax returns is that it would be illegal for them to do so, as Congress has no legitimate reason for asking for them.

Emoluments. Deutsche Bank. Russia.

There is no legitimate reason to withhold them.

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Are you aware that Trump's lawyer testified under oath to congress that Trump almost certainly committed tax fraud?

Never mind that; he himself just confessed to it with his tweet calling it "sport". 58

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The reason the IRS hasn't released Trump's tax returns is that it would be illegal for them to do so, as Congress has no legitimate reason for asking for them.

If Congress starts holding people in contempt for not breaking the law on their behalf, they would be acting no better than Trump.

Originally Posted by Steophan

In short, the legal situation is not as clear cut as people are making out, and will almost certainly need to be decided by the courts. Which, with the current Supreme Court, means it will be decided in Trump's favour.

Having trouble squaring the confidence of your first post here with the caveat in your last. 59

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Steophan

I doubt he's lying

Why?

Seriously, stop giving these people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to honesty. They lie constantly, intentionally, shamelessly, and knowingly. They lie to the press. They lie to the public. They lie when they know their lies will be revealed days later. They lie about trivially observable reality. They lie and lie and lie and lie and keep fucking lying.

Why would you doubt that he's lying?

When you say "I doubt <insert Trump administratino figure here> is lying", I read that the same way as, "I doubt the sun will rise in the morning" - you'd better offer a damn good reason, or your pattern recognition skills have failed you quite thoroughly. 60

[Railer13]

Originally Posted by Steophan

...Congress should use the avenues available to it to remove Trump via impeachment or incompetence...

And just how, pray tell, can Congress remove a president because he's incompetent? If there was a way to do so, Trump should have been out of office before the end of January 2017. 61

[Chronos]

And only one side is saying something that is consistent with what the law actually says. Just because you don't like a law, doesn't mean that you get to pretend that it doesn't exist. Laws don't work that way. 62

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Railer13

And just how, pray tell, can Congress remove a president because he's incompetent?

Impeachment can be for any cause Congress wants it to be. Don't we all know that by now?

(The right to abortion comes under constructive due process, btw). 63

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Railer13

And just how, pray tell, can Congress remove a president because he's incompetent? If there was a way to do so, Trump should have been out of office before the end of January 2017.

They need the Vice President on side as well. 64

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by steronz

Having trouble squaring the confidence of your first post here with the caveat in your last.

I should probably have said in the first post that the reason they were giving is that it's illegal. Point being, they are not simply ignoring Congress's demand but claiming that they may not legally fulfil that demand.

I still think it's extremely likely that the Supremes will side with Trump and the DOJ, and the demand will, in fact, turn out to be illegal. 65

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Steophan

I should probably have said in the first post that the reason they were giving is that it's illegal. Point being, they are not simply ignoring Congress's demand but claiming that they may not legally fulfil that demand.

Yes, you probably should have. But of course, if all you're doing is relaying what Mnuchin has said, then that doesn't really add much to the conversation that we couldn't all read for ourselves in pretty much any news coverage of the topic.

Originally Posted by Steophan

I still think it's extremely likely that the Supremes will side with Trump and the DOJ, and the demand will, in fact, turn out to be illegal.

That's all well and good, obviously others disagree. At best, we've got a president who claims he did nothing wrong, but refuses to release exculpatory evidence to the oversight committee in violation of an apparently lawful request, and is prepared to take this refusal all the way to the supreme court in order to avoid having to clear his name. How Trump comes out of this looking better than congress is beyond me. 66

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Emoluments. Deutsche Bank. Russia.

There is no legitimate reason to withhold them.

Never mind that; he himself just confessed to it with his tweet calling it "sport".

Indeed. From an analyst after the questioning of Cohen about Trump's creative valuation of his properties:

"“Fundamentally, this is a question of Trump’s attitude toward taxes,” says Steve Rosenthal, senior fellow for the Urban–Brookings Tax Policy Center. “Does he believe that taxes are a shared responsibility? Or does he believe that taxes are a game of hide and seek?”

And now we know the answer to that question, directly from Trump himself. Paying taxes is "a sport", one that presumably you can cheat to win at, just like Trump does with golf. 67

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Steophan

I still think it's extremely likely that the Supremes will side with Trump and the DOJ, and the demand will, in fact, turn out to be illegal.

Are you aware that the Supreme Court found that forcing Americans to testify before the House Un-American Affairs Committee to interrogate them about possible Communist sympathies was found to be a "legitimate legislative purpose?"

On your scale of legitimate purposes, where does routine oversight of tax laws as they apply to the President rank in relation to a witch hunt for Communists? It sounds like lower, but I just want to be sure. 68

[drad dog]

leg·is·la·tive
/ˈlejəˌslādiv/
adjective
having the power to make laws.
"the country's supreme legislative body"
synonyms: law-making, law-giving, judicial, juridical, jurisdictive, parliamentary, congressional, senatorial, deliberative, governmental, policy-making, administrative; rarelegislatorial
"a legislative assembly"
relating to laws or the making of them.
"legislative proposals"
relating to a legislature.

There is no "non-legislative" activity in congress. It all has to do with lawmaking. We haven't written the laws yet, but does anyone doubt that the turnp administration will necessitate future lawmaking? 69

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike

Hey, Shodan!. Ever hear of Teapot Dome? Read a book or google it or something. It was quite the thing, back in the day!

I fully support your efforts to see Warren G. Harding's tax returns. It could be the break the Eugene V. Debs campaign needs!

Regards,
Shodan 70

[Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

They lie constantly, intentionally, shamelessly, and knowingly. They lie to the press. They lie to the public. They lie when they know their lies will be revealed days later. They lie about trivially observable reality. They lie and lie and lie and lie and keep fucking lying.

A parody of "Rainy Day Women ♯12 & 35" is in there somewhere... 71

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I fully support your efforts to see Warren G. Harding's tax returns. It could be the break the Eugene V. Debs campaign needs!

Regards,
Shodan

It's good to finally see you supporting presidential accountability. What brought you around? 72

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

It's good to finally see you supporting presidential accountability. What brought you around?

He is laboring under the impression that Harding was a Democrat. 73

[ElvisL1ves]

Musta been a Fox chyron. 74

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Are you aware that the Supreme Court found that forcing Americans to testify before the House Un-American Affairs Committee to interrogate them about possible Communist sympathies was found to be a "legitimate legislative purpose?"

On your scale of legitimate purposes, where does routine oversight of tax laws as they apply to the President rank in relation to a witch hunt for Communists? It sounds like lower, but I just want to be sure.

My scale of legitimate purposes is entirely irrelevant here, as is yours. It's the opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court judges that matters here, and as it stands they will almost certainly find for Trump and the Republicans if there's a fig leaf of precedent to hide behind (and quite possibly even if there isn't).

It was the aftermath of the HUAC situation that lead to the Supreme Court decision I referred to earlier, which placed limits on Congressional investigations, including that their job is not to investigate crimes.

My opinion, ultimately, is that Congress should not be investigating allegations of crimes, and that it has avenues open to removing an unacceptable or incompetent President without needing to do so, and that any protections that President has against investigation or prosecution will end when that happens. The problem is, Congress does not agree that the President is unacceptable or incompetent.

As for your actual question, as to which is worse, there's not much difference. In both cases, those being investigated were accused of being traitors with ties to Russia. The problem with HUAC is that it kept catching people who weren't communists, not with it's stated purpose. 75

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Steophan

My opinion, ultimately, is that Congress should not be investigating allegations of crimes, and that it has avenues open to removing an unacceptable or incompetent President without needing to do so, and that any protections that President has against investigation or prosecution will end when that happens. The problem is, Congress does not agree that the President is unacceptable or incompetent.

Hold up. If the president commits "high crimes and misdemeanors", and the house chooses to impeach him for those crimes, how on earth will they do that without investigating allegations first? 76

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by steronz

How Trump comes out of this looking better than congress is beyond me.

He comes out of this looking good to his supporters because he is getting one over on "the man", or trying to. Sadly, those supporters don't realise that Trump is now part of the group they see as "the man", and before that did far worse things than they do.

Trump is a terrible President and a terrible human being, that will get very little argument on this board. But in America as a whole, there's a huge amount of people who disagree. And if you want to successfully oppose them, or even understand what's happening, simply classing their worldview as beyond you won't cut it. 77

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by steronz

Hold up. If the president commits "high crimes and misdemeanors", and the house chooses to impeach him for those crimes, how on earth will they do that without investigating allegations first?

I'll link again to the aricle from earlier, which goes into detail about this, but the short answer is that impeachment is not a criminal sanction, and so isn't treated the same - but Congress has made clear that this is not an impeachment investigation.

In the specific case of Trump, Congress has the right to investigate whether he should be impeached, but does not have the right to take on the role of the executive or the judiciary and launch a criminal investigation simply because it doesn't like the jandling of the Mueller report. The main difference being that its oversight function is fundamentally negative - that is, it can remover someone by impeachment, but can't actively compel the exectutive to investigate something, or the judiciary to rule on it, and nor can it usurp those functions. It's supposed to be a check on the powers of the other branches, not a right to bring those powers in house. 78

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Steophan

I'll link again to the aricle from earlier, which goes into detail about this, but the short answer is that impeachment is not a criminal sanction, and so isn't treated the same - but Congress has made clear that this is not an impeachment investigation.



In the specific case of Trump, Congress has the right to investigate whether he should be impeached, but does not have the right to take on the role of the executive or the judiciary and launch a criminal investigation simply because it doesn't like the jandling of the Mueller report. The main difference being that its oversight function is fundamentally negative - that is, it can remover someone by impeachment, but can't actively compel the exectutive to investigate something, or the judiciary to rule on it, and nor can it usurp those functions. It's supposed to be a check on the powers of the other branches, not a right to bring those powers in house.

By precedent and history, it's incredibly common for congress to investigate possible wrongdoing by the executive branch. Nothing congress is doing currently is unusual, in terms of investigations into Trump and his world. 79

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Steophan

I'll link again to the aricle from earlier, which goes into detail about this, but the short answer is that impeachment is not a criminal sanction, and so isn't treated the same - but Congress has made clear that this is not an impeachment investigation.

I'm not clear what incredibly thin line you're trying to walk here. Congress must investigate allegations in order to impeach, but you're saying they can't do so unless they decide at the outset that it's an "impeachment investigation?" I'm not sure the government works that way. 80

[Hari Seldon]

Originally Posted by Quartz

But but but, Trump's a criminal, because YOU SAY SO. And that's good enough.

You know, I thought that in America you had the principle of presumption of innocence. Or doesn't that apply to people with an R after their name?

Tell me, have all the Democrat Senators and Representatives released their tax returns? If not, why not?

The view from 4000 miles away is that they're just playing politics, keeping the issue bubbling. They don't want push to come to shove. It's win-win for them as they keep the issue bubbling and they follow the adage of never stopping your opponent when he's making a mistake. Quite clever, really.

Don't you know the difference between presumption of innocence and presumption that there is something to investigate. The law on tax returns says that the congressional committees can look at anybody's tax return, not anybody except someone with an "r" in their name. And it was passed at a time that the president was directly in their cross-hairs.

Another point. They are not asking him to release his returns; only to allow them to look at them, in accordance with an explicit law. They would remain a closely guarded secret. Unless they became a basis for impeachment. 81

[Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Steophan

I'll link again to the aricle from earlier, which goes into detail about this, but the short answer is that impeachment is not a criminal sanction, and so isn't treated the same - but Congress has made clear that this is not an impeachment investigation.

Not so fast. Pelosi is deliberately clamping down on talk of impeachment so they can properly investigate first. 82

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Hari Seldon

The law on tax returns says that the congressional committees can look at anybody's tax return, not anybody except someone with an "r" in their name.

And when it has been found by the courts that the law does, in fact say that, and is constitutional, then they can see the tax return. Which would mean the Supreme Court going against its own precedent, and (sadly) more importantly going against its partisan bias.

There's a strong implication from people in this thread that Trump should be subject to an illegal or unconstitutional investigation because he's dangerous and evil. That's not a great precedent to set. 83

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Steophan

And when it has been found by the courts that the law does, in fact say that, and is constitutional, then they can see the tax return. Which would mean the Supreme Court going against its own precedent, and (sadly) more importantly going against its partisan bias.

What precedent? SCOTUS has never denied the use of this Congressional power, as far as I can tell.

There's a strong implication from people in this thread that Trump should be subject to an illegal or unconstitutional investigation because he's dangerous and evil. That's not a great precedent to set.

I see no such implication. I see a lot of implication that Congress should investigate possible wrongdoing by the President and his administration, which is about as common and precedented as passing bills in Congress. 84

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Steophan

There's a strong implication from people in this thread that Trump should be subject to an illegal or unconstitutional investigation because he's dangerous and evil. That's not a great precedent to set.

There you go being super confident again. Remember our exchange from a few posts up where you admitted you shouldn't do that? 85

[Translucent Daydream]

Originally Posted by Steophan

And when it has been found by the courts that the law does, in fact say that, and is constitutional, then they can see the tax return. Which would mean the Supreme Court going against its own precedent, and (sadly) more importantly going against its partisan bias.

There's a strong implication from people in this thread that Trump should be subject to an illegal or unconstitutional investigation because he's dangerous and evil. That's not a great precedent to set.

Dude what? Since when is it okay to just disobey a law? Oh wait, never mind. 86

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Steophan

My opinion, ultimately, is that Congress should not be investigating allegations of crimes

Your opinion is bad and should be disregarded. Please look into civics 101.

Again, this is one of those baffling "so wrong it drives me to drink" statements. There seem to be an awful lot of those flying around with regards to Trump. Wonder why. 87

[bobot]

Originally Posted by Steophan

...
There's a strong implication from people in this thread that Trump should be subject to an illegal or unconstitutional investigation because he's dangerous and evil. ...

No there isn't. Right now Trump and those in his sway are obstructing a legal and constitutional investigation. And further, by refusing the tax information, actively breaking the law. There's the illegal part. 88

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

What precedent? SCOTUS has never denied the use of this Congressional power, as far as I can tell.

The cite from a lawyer I've provided say otherwise, as does the opinion from the DOJ. Congress is not supposed to investigate crimes, it is supposed to use its powers of investigation for legislative purposes. As a general rule, it is not the business of the legislature whether people are following the laws it makes, that's the business of the executive and judiciary.

Really, there are two things that can happen now. Either the IRS supplies Trump's tax returns, hets sued by Trump, and the Supremes eventually decide whether it was legal, or they don't, and the Supremes eventually decide whether they have to. The best solution for the IRS is to not provide them until the matter is decided, as if they do provide them and it turns out to have been illegal, that can't then be reversed. 89

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Your opinion is bad and should be disregarded. Please look into civics 101.

Again, this is one of those baffling "so wrong it drives me to drink" statements. There seem to be an awful lot of those flying around with regards to Trump. Wonder why.

So, a Supreme Court ruling that Congress should not be investigating crimes is "so wrong it drives you to drink"? That ruling has stood for over 100 years, so it's not a recent partisan ruling. 90

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

Dude what? Since when is it okay to just disobey a law? Oh wait, never mind.

Originally Posted by bobot

No there isn't. Right now Trump and those in his sway are obstructing a legal and constitutional investigation. And further, by refusing the tax information, actively breaking the law. There's the illegal part.

Mueller's investigation was legal and constitutional. Congress's, well, that's a different matter. The DOJ have said it would be illegal for the IRS to comply with the demand for the tax returns, and there's Supreme Court rulings that Congress should not investigate allegations of criminality, and should only use their investigative powers for legislative purposes.

So why is OK for congress to disobey the law? Because you don't like Trump? If you actually believe that, you're as bad as him. 91

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The cite from a lawyer I've provided say otherwise, as does the opinion from the DOJ. Congress is not supposed to investigate crimes, it is supposed to use its powers of investigation for legislative purposes. As a general rule, it is not the business of the legislature whether people are following the laws it makes, that's the business of the executive and judiciary.



Really, there are two things that can happen now. Either the IRS supplies Trump's tax returns, hets sued by Trump, and the Supremes eventually decide whether it was legal, or they don't, and the Supremes eventually decide whether they have to. The best solution for the IRS is to not provide them until the matter is decided, as if they do provide them and it turns out to have been illegal, that can't then be reversed.

The last several decades show that what the congress is doing in entirely normal and well within their duties. Seriously - were you unaware that every recent president had had investigations by congress? None of those investigations were stopped by any court. 92

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Steophan

As a general rule, it is not the business of the legislature whether people are following the laws it makes, that's the business of the executive and judiciary.

Where did you get such nonsense? I mean seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

Congress has held investigations of Trump’s collusion with Russia, Benghazi, gunwalking, a blowjob and coverup, Iran Contra, Watergate, and so much more. You’re clearly living on some other planet. 93

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by steronz

There you go being super confident again. Remember our exchange from a few posts up where you admitted you shouldn't do that?

When I see anyone here saying that, if the congressional investigation turns out to be illegal and/or unconstitutional as both the DOJ and some lawyers are saying, it should be stopped, then I'll accept that they don't want an illegal and unconstitutional investigation.

Alternatively, have the fucking balls to say that you want Trump gone by any means that people can get away with, and that you're prepared to accept the damage to your institutions that will cause. But don't just say it can't possibly be illegal because... well, actually, no-one's yet given a "because". 94

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Where did you get such nonsense?

Supreme Court rulings, laws, customs, precedents, articles by lawyers, all the stuff I've cited.

Where do you get yours from? 95

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

The last several decades show that what the congress is doing in entirely normal and well within their duties. Seriously - were you unaware that every recent president had had investigations by congress? None of those investigations were stopped by any court.

I suppose the current Congressional investigation is as justified as the investigations into Obama's ancestry or Clinton's debauchery. The stupid thing is, if the House had framed this as an impechment rather than criminal investigation, these questions wouldn't have arisen, but they have emphatically said it isn't. So, they need a legitimate legislative purpose for seeing his tax returns. What is it? 96

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Steophan

When I see anyone here saying that, if the congressional investigation turns out to be illegal and/or unconstitutional as both the DOJ and some lawyers are saying, it should be stopped, then I'll accept that they don't want an illegal and unconstitutional investigation.

Alternatively, have the fucking balls to say that you want Trump gone by any means that people can get away with, and that you're prepared to accept the damage to your institutions that will cause. But don't just say it can't possibly be illegal because... well, actually, no-one's yet given a "because".

This is a sovereign citizen level of cognitive dissonance, I'm not sure how to respond. I'm out. 97

[bobot]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Mueller's investigation was legal and constitutional. Congress's, well, that's a different matter. ...

No,it isn't a different matter. It is clearly constitutional, justified, warranted, and necessary.

Originally Posted by Steophan

...If you actually believe that, you're as bad as him.

We're not in the pit? OK. Then, Bless Your Heart. 98

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by Steophan

That's what one side claim. The other side claim that the law does not allow that demand, and the side that make the latter claim is the Department of Justice. This will probably end up in the Supreme Court in a few years, and that Court will probably side with the DOJ.

According to the Revenue Act of 1924, Congress is authorized to request anyone's tax returns for investigative or legislative purposes. Granted SCOTUS is thoroughly tilted and politicized now, but it would be very surprising if they decided they just didn't like this law anymore. 99

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Supreme Court rulings, laws, customs, precedents, articles by lawyers, all the stuff I've cited.

Where do you get yours from?

Non-imaginary sources. 100