That’s why I didn’t say that this was definitively settled. But I don’t know who he’s going to appeal to in order to stop it.
The SC has no problem telling the Executive branch what to do or not do under various circumstances. I don’t see why the Legislative branch is exceptional.
There’s no law prohibiting Congress about keeping the returns private, but the returns were submitted to the IRS and there is a law about what they can release. So it could be argued that that restriction should be extended to any other part of the Federal government that legally acquires access.
Who exactly was in charge of this facet at the Dept of the Treasury, and what sort of legal or professional peril could they be in for not actually doing their job?
I’d love to see some followup on this one…
Is Congress part of the Federal government?
Of course it is.
I thought of another problem with the committee releasing Trump’s return: the precedent it sets. If the D’s set the precedent of not honoring the confidentiality of the tax return, there could be significant repercussions. For example, when the R’s get control of the committee (which they will in a couple weeks) the chairman could request the returns of any number of people, such as major donors to the Democratic party, and then release them. This is not a desireable consequence.
Just to note, there is a law prohibiting the disclosure of tax information.
However, from my reading of it (I am not a lawyer or other expert in tax law) it is pretty specific in who it applies to. And a member of Congress is not an officer or employee of the US or a specific state. (An employee is someone hired into a job, as I am an employee of Washington State, and an officer is someone appointed like a judge, ambassador, or cabinet member.) Elected officials aren’t subject to this law, nor is anyone else who isn’t an federal or state employee or officer unless they acquired that information from an employee or officer in the course of their duties.
So, let’s say a government clerk gets someone’s tax return information from their work and posts it on a web site. They might be in violation. Let’s say that clerk instead gives that to their buddy, or a reporter. If that person publishes the info, they might be in violation.
If someone carelessly throws away their tax returns in an overflowing garbage can and someone out for a jog sees it sitting on the sidewalk and picks it up, they can probably do whatever they want with it.
And in this case, the SCOTUS said that Congress can have it, likely knowing full well that they can later choose to make it public if they wanted to. So that fight seems to be over.
Again, IANAL, but that explains why there is no huge outcry (from anyone credible at least) over this being illegal. It just ain’t.
The bad precedent that was set was Trump doing away with longstanding tradition and not volunteering his tax returns like his predecessors. I think that making this public helps restore a good precedent. You’re looking at this backward.
This is “avoid pissing off the abusive bully” logic.
Precisely. Trump’s original refusal to do what even Nixon would do was one of his first attacks on our norms and institutions.
Not at all worried about the privacy concerns. If you want your taxes private, don’t fucking run for President. Otherwise, tough titty: to run this country, prove that, at the very least, you don’t cheat it.
This is at the bottom of the list of problems I am worried about concerning this. If the Republicans thought there was political hay to be made attacking tax returns of Democrats or those to contribute to Democrats, they would make it, regardless of precedent. That isn’t what stops them. What stops them is the saying, “those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
Besides, if there is anything illegal there, I think it should be investigated, regardless. If Pelosi’s taxes are crooked, let’s look at them. I strongly suspect the Republicans would lose that game.
If this leads to weaponized tax leaking going forward, that doesn’t sound bad to me. Public servants should be subject to this kind of scrutiny.
IIRC, TFG promised to hand over the returns but reneged on that promise like he did with so many other promises.
Correct. But he couldn’t because they were under IRS audit. Of course it was BS, the IRS had no such restriction and said so. The conman said it was so and the rubes believed it because the IRS is the jackbooted arm of the gooberment and stamps out Freeeedumb!!!
At least he said they were under audit. But now it turns out that was also a lie, regardless of IRS restrictions either way.
It’s always a fractal lie with these schmucks. No matter how finely or coarsely you look at the details, there’s just another layer of lies.
ISWYDT
It’s lies all the way down.
And now this, about a MAGAhead newly elected to Congress:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/20/politics/nassau-county-republicans-george-santos/index.html
Great observation!
Yep. This needs to be part of the U.S. Code. (Well, maybe not the “tough titty” phrasing, but…something equivalent.)
This MAGA Republican drive to make tax avoidance, or even actual cheating, into a virtue, must be stopped. Of course the Murdochs are working to promote the ‘it’s totally cool to avoid contributing to the nation that makes your wealth possible’ point of view:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1605586432256487425
The admiration for Trump’s lack-of-contribution just jumps off that FoxNews graphic.
If only our loser army had manned the air better, rammed the ramparts with more rams, and taken over more airports, then, maybe, there’d be enough for Trump…
Another loss in court for him:
I posted this in the Fox are liars thread, but I think it also belongs here.