Straight Dope Message Board

[skdo23]

NYT broke the story, buy there’s no paywall on CNN.https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/polit...ion/index.html 1

[gytalf2000]

Excellent! 2

[DinoR]

Just to clarify, this is a ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It's not the district court for DC; this was the appeal of that court's ruling. 3

[skdo23]

Originally Posted by DinoR

Just to clarify, this is a ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It's not the district court for DC; this was the appeal of that court's ruling.

Sorry, should’ve been more clear. I went to law school in DC and we always would just call it the “DC Circuit” for short. 4

[QuickSilver]

So how many more appeals and court rulings to go before it gets to SCOTUS? Because you know Trump isn't about concede defeat and hand over his tax returns. 5

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

So how many more appeals and court rulings to go before it gets to SCOTUS? Because you know Trump isn't about concede defeat and hand over his tax returns.

This should always be the first question in such threads. 6

[Exapno Mapcase]

The Times article makes it clear that the tax returns are in a separate case, and that these records pertain only to investigations of conflicts of interest.

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed records from Mazars in April. They include documents from 2011 to 2018 that the House wants for investigation into the president's reporting of his finances and potential conflicts of interest. The list of documents makes no mention of Trump's tax returns, which are the subject of separate legal disputes. ...

"Contrary to the President's arguments, the Committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply," Judge David Tatel wrote, joined by Judge Patricia Millett. Tatel was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Millett is an appointee of President Barack Obama....

The case is one of several working its way through courts in which Trump is fighting with Congress over records. The House Ways and Means Committee has sued the Trump administration over access to the president's tax returns . In New York, Trump sued to prevent Deutsche Bank and Capital One from complying with House subpoenas for banking and financial records. A judge ruled against him, and Trump appealed. Trump also is in court trying to stop the Manhattan District Attorney from obtaining his tax returns.

I think you should ask a mod to change the title, since it's misleading about the actual decision. 7

[Hari Seldon]

SCOTUS is virtually certain to overrule, taking a year to do so. And even if they uphold it, how will they enforce it? It still requires people to follow the law and since the AG is all-in with trump, it ain't gonna happen. 8

[Saint Cad]

Maybe this is the wrong thread to ask this but are the tax returns actually linked to some sort of crime or is this just a fishing expedition by the Dems? 9

[Lance Turbo]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Maybe this is the wrong thread to ask this but are the tax returns actually linked to some sort of crime or is this just a fishing expedition by the Dems?

False dichotomy.

Richard Neal's letter to Charles Rettig (IRS Commissioner) gives a reason for the request.

Consistent with its authority, the Committee is considering legislative proposals and conducting oversight related to our Federal tax laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against the President. Under the Internal Revenue Service Manual, individual income tax returns of a President are subject to mandatory examination, but this practice is IRS policy and not codified in the Federal tax laws. It is necessary for the Committee to determine the scope of any such examination and whether it includes a review of underlying business activities to be reported on the individual. income tax return.

The tax returns requested are probably, "linked to some sort of crime," but that is not the reason for Richard Neal's request since the House Ways and Means Committee is not a criminal investigative organization. The request was made for a legitimate legislative purpose. 10

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Maybe this is the wrong thread to ask this but are the tax returns actually linked to some sort of crime or is this just a fishing expedition by the Dems?

Fishing expedition, clearly.

And quite a pathetically obvious one. 11

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

Fishing expedition, clearly.

And quite a pathetically obvious one.

Trump seems to try awfully hard to conceal the presence of any fish. 12

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by running coach

Trump seems to try awfully hard to conceal the presence of any fish.

So? Because someone doesn’t want to show you some shit it gives you the right to use the full weight of the government to try and get it?

It’s pretty disgusting the lengths y’all will go to “get” someone you don’t like. 13

[snfaulkner]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

So? Because someone doesn’t want to show you some shit it gives you the right to use the full weight of the government to try and get it?

It’s pretty disgusting the lengths y’all will go to “get” someone you don’t like.

Like extorting a foreign government, you mean? 14

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

So? Because someone doesn’t want to show you some shit it gives you the right to use the full weight of the government to try and get it?

It’s pretty disgusting the lengths y’all will go to “get” someone you don’t like.

You mean like Hilary's emails and Benghazi?

If this was a Democrat, you'd be all for using the full weight of the government to try and get it. 15

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

So? Because someone doesn’t want to show you some shit it gives you the right to use the full weight of the government to try and get it?

Good point. It's not relevant what Trump wants or doesn't want. The right of congressional oversight flows directly from the Constitution and has been affirmed by the courts. 16

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible

Good point. It's not relevant what Trump wants or doesn't want. The right of congressional oversight flows directly from the Constitution and has been affirmed by the courts.

But does it extend so far as to demand any documents from anyone for any reason? ISTM that subpoenaing documents should be based on other evidence being present like on a search warrant or is Congress exempt from the 4th Amendment? 17

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

But does it extend so far as to demand any documents from anyone for any reason?

Why are you framing this question about "anyone for any reason"? You know that Congress is doing the investigating, and the target is the the President, head of the Executive branch. This is authorized and required by the Constitution.

It's not about Nancy Pelosi shaking you down at a roadblock for your 1040's (unless you are part of the Executive Branch, and if so, you should tell us). 18

[Lance Turbo]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

But does it extend so far as to demand any documents from anyone for any reason?

They are not requesting any documents. They are requesting tax returns which they have been specifically authorized to do under U.S. Code § 6103 (f).

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 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.

19

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Lance Turbo

They are not requesting any documents. They are requesting tax returns which they have been specifically authorized to do under U.S. Code § 6103 (f).

Quick question then. Is there any punishment if information from those tax returns get leaked to the press or other people? 20

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Quick question then. Is there any punishment if information from those tax returns get leaked to the press or other people?

Depends on what you mean. If someone pulled a Pentagon Papers, and read it into the official public record, then probably not.

If some staffer meets a reporter in a back room and gives it over, then probably. 21

[guizot]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Quick question then. Is there any punishment if information from those tax returns get leaked to the press or other people?

That's a silly question. Of course there is punishment.

It's also silly to think anyone would want to leak them. Why would they do that? It will just show us what we already know: Trump is the biggest most bestest most wonderfulest most smartest most honest businessman ever, who is always making the most bestest deals ever. 22

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Quick question then. Is there any punishment if information from those tax returns get leaked to the press or other people?

The question I'm wondering about is related. Suppose, for the sake of wild speculation, something turns up in those tax returns that looks fishy. Payments made to women who've claimed to have affairs with Trump. Or payments not properly accounted for in the returns, payments that have shown up elsewhere. Or shell corporations that are used for fishy purposes. Or, I dunno, something that I as a tax amateur can't predict.

What are the constraints around legislators who find out about shenanigans? Can they report in general terms what they've learned? Specific terms? Can they report shenanigans at all? 23

[Lance Turbo]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Quick question then. Is there any punishment if information from those tax returns get leaked to the press or other people?

There does not appear to have been any fallout the last time that that happened.

Karl Rove and Miss America have something in common: Organizations affiliated with each of them had their confidential tax information made public last month by the House Ways and Means Committee.
What's more, there's probably nothing those groups -- or more than a dozen others in the same boat -- can do about it.

The mass disclosure happened April 9, when Ways and Means voted along party lines to refer former IRS official Lois Lerner to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

Ways and Means Chair Dave Camp, R-Mich., chose to submit that referral to Attorney General Eric Holder by letter, which the committee posted online.

24

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by running coach

Trump seems to try awfully hard to conceal the presence of any fish.

He assures us that there's lots of fish— fantastic fish, the best fish— and covers the entire pond with a tarp. 25

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

What are the constraints around legislators who find out about shenanigans? Can they report in general terms what they've learned? Specific terms? Can they report shenanigans at all?

Thanks for clarifying my question. My question would be are there legal consequences if they leak the information to third parties or would it be House punishment (censure, expelled, etc. in theory). Also, could they report suspected illegal acts to the FBI, Department of the Treasury, state AGs, etc.* based on what they find in the tax returns?


*Ignore the theory the President can't be indited and assume it is the tax return of an indictable citizen/resident

ETA: read Lance Turbo's cite and noted

One exception is within section 6103(f), which stipulates that the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees may access confidential taxpayer information in closed executive session and may publicly share that information only after obtaining taxpayer consent.

26

[Lance Turbo]

This was answered in my last post.

The last time the Ways and Means Committee used U.S. Code § 6103 (f) and then subsequently both forwarded private info to the DOJ and published private info to a public website, there were no legal consequences whatsoever. 27

[Lance Turbo]

In similar, but not identical circumstances, the IRS paid $50k to the National Organization for Marriage to settle a lawsuit over disclosing confidential tax information. This was also related to the IRS targeting controversy, but didn't have anything to do the House Ways and Means Committee's handling of information.

link

So it looks like the penalty may be somewhere between a stern look and $50k fine. 28

[Projammer]

Originally Posted by Lance Turbo

The tax returns requested are probably, "linked to some sort of crime," but that is not the reason for Richard Neal's request since the House Ways and Means Committee is not a criminal investigative organization. The request was made for a legitimate legislative purpose.

I forget. Which form is used to report bribes from foreign governments?

Originally Posted by running coach

Trump seems to try awfully hard to conceal the presence of any fish.

Thereby keeping the dem's focus there instead of making any serious efforts investigating something that might actually merit investigation. 29

[Lance Turbo]

Originally Posted by Projammer

I forget. Which form is used to report bribes from foreign governments?

I don't know. Do you thinks it's relevant? You're the first one to mention bribes in this thread. Do you think he has taken bribes? 30

[RioRico]

DJT has a long history of hiding records, and more recently of destroying records in the White House. He goes to great effort to maintain non-transparency. Why hide his financials? Because they'll show he's owned by hostile interests and he doesn't want to die in prison? Congress can issue all the subpeonas they want; who will actually retrieve subpoenaed documents from a most obstructive POTUS? 31