# Has Trump Made Himself Impervious to Impeachment Now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 27, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397 "2017-04-27T21:54:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Barrett\_Bonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@Barrett\_Bonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barrett_Bonden)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/101 "2017-05-02T00:26:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is that the history of the Clause doesn’t support that interpretation. For Congress to gin up an impeachment on grounds like that would simply never happen. It’s possible, in the sense that no legal mechanism prevents it; it’s not in any way a viable scenario in terms of realism. When you say “that interpretation,” are you talking about receiving gifts of business and trademarks rather than your traditional suitcase of bribe money and/or a puppy? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/102 "2017-05-02T00:28:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You must, at some level, know this. Dude, in my hypothetical, I specified that the Democrats do so well in 2018 that _they win seats that weren’t up for election._ I don’t know how much more I could have done to make it clear that I wasn’t describing a scenario that actually might happen. But apologies for missing your answer to my question from earlier in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/103 "2017-05-02T00:30:34Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > You would acknowledge though that the current president is considerably more likely to resign or be impeached than previous recent presidents considering the active investigations surrounding him though, right? Your statements here seem to be rooted in the present, which is fair, but considering how much surveillance there has been of Trump’s circle, there is a non-zero chance that the intelligence community is building a case (or already has built a case) that would destroy him. In fact the betting markets put this at about even odds right now. So the specific market I have found so far… Trump is impeached in 2017: > **[PredictIt](https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/2972/Will-Donald-Trump-be-impeached-in-2017)** ## That’s a 93-7 against. (A share that pays a dollar if he’s impeached can be bought for seven cents right now.) Democrats control the Senate after 2018 mid-terms: > **[PredictIt](https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/2703/Which-party-will-control-the-Senate-after-2018-midterms)** # That’s 80-20 against. (A share that pays a dollar if the Democrats control can be bought for twenty cents right now.) Democrats control the House after 2018 mid-terms: > **[PredictIt](https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/2704/Which-party-will-control-the-House-after-2018-midterms)** That’s 65-35 against. (A share that pays a dollar if the Democrats control can be bought for thirty-five cents right now.) Which specific proposition was 50-50? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/104 "2017-05-02T00:31:35Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Dude, in my hypothetical, I specified that the Democrats do so well in 2018 that _they win seats that weren’t up for election._ I don’t know how much more I could have done to make it clear that I wasn’t describing a scenario that actually might happen. > > But apologies for missing your answer to my question from earlier in the thread. Yup, I missed that obvious clue – sorry. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/105 "2017-05-02T00:33:51Z")
> [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > When you say “that interpretation,” are you talking about receiving gifts of business and trademarks rather than your traditional suitcase of bribe money and/or a puppy? Yes, and the idea that a trademark granted to a daughter’s business or a business in which the President has ownership but no control are constructive gifts for the purposes of the Clause. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/106 "2017-05-02T00:34:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Have you tried meditation? Or, in your case, prayer? Those can help rid the mind of distractive influences. I self-medicate with Macallan. ---
**Author:** ![Barrett\_Bonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@Barrett\_Bonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barrett_Bonden)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/107 "2017-05-02T00:47:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, and the idea that a trademark granted to a daughter’s business or a business in which the President has ownership but no control are constructive gifts for the purposes of the Clause. I want to be clear that I’m not arguing the overall likelihood of impeachment, because that rests not on the merits of an impeachment case, but whether Trump makes the Republicans in power happy or unhappy, and I have no idea how that’s gonna turn out. That said, there’s very little precedent for modern economic interpretations of the “don’t take bribes” clause only because there haven’t been that many opportunities to test it in a modern economy. Most folks who are rich enough to be tempted by such opportunities don’t need to run for office; they’ve already [DEL]purchased their Congresspeople[/DEL] made PAC donations. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/108 "2017-05-02T01:01:19Z")
> [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > The fact that Trump is uniquely unqualified to be President is not a partisan idea. Notable non-Democrats who opposed his election include (short list) > [ul] > [li]Condoleezza Rice[/li][li]Colin Powell[/li][li]Ross Douthat[/li][li]George Will[/li][li]Richard Armitage[/li][li]Ari Fleischer[/li][li]Hank Paulson[/li][li]Michael Chertoff[/li][li]Michael Hayden[/li][li]John Negroponte[/li][li]Tom Ridge[/li][li]George P. Shultz[/li][li]Paul Wolfowitz[/li][li]Robert Gates[/li][li]Michael Chertoff[/li][li]Michael Medved and [/li][li]John Yoo[/li][/ul] These are people of the highest integrity, whose opinions are to be cherished and principles worshipped. Also, were they a UN committee formed to preserve an endangered species from extinction, every last animal of that species would be dead before sundown. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/109 "2017-05-02T01:26:42Z")
> [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > I want to be clear that I’m not arguing the overall likelihood of impeachment, because that rests not on the merits of an impeachment case, but whether Trump makes the Republicans in power happy or unhappy, and I have no idea how that’s gonna turn out. > > That said, there’s very little precedent for modern economic interpretations of the “don’t take bribes” clause only because there haven’t been that many opportunities to test it in a modern economy. Most folks who are rich enough to be tempted by such opportunities don’t need to run for office; they’ve already [DEL]purchased their Congresspeople[/DEL] made PAC donations. Bribery, if proven, is a separate legal issue, and a crime, and could easily serve as the basis of an impeachment. But the reason we hear “Emoluments Clause,” and not “violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” when discussing impeachment is that the acts alleged don’t fit into the bribery statutes. The helpfully vague Emoluments Clause is used for this reason. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/110 "2017-05-02T02:23:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I self-medicate with Macallan. Even better! ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/111 "2017-05-02T02:51:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So the specific market I have found so far… > > Trump is impeached in 2017: > [PredictIt](https://www.predictit.org/Contract/5470/Will-Donald-Trump-be-impeached-in-2017#data) > > ## That’s a 93-7 against. (A share that pays a dollar if he’s impeached can be bought for seven cents right now.) > > Democrats control the Senate after 2018 mid-terms: > [PredictIt](https://www.predictit.org/Market/2703/Which-party-will-control-the-Senate-after-2018-midterms) > > # That’s 80-20 against. (A share that pays a dollar if the Democrats control can be bought for twenty cents right now.) > > Democrats control the House after 2018 mid-terms: > [PredictIt](https://www.predictit.org/Market/2704/Which-party-will-control-the-House-after-2018-midterms) > > That’s 65-35 against. (A share that pays a dollar if the Democrats control can be bought for thirty-five cents right now.) > > Which specific proposition was 50-50? [http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-impeachment-bets-234931](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-impeachment-bets-234931) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/112 "2017-05-02T08:06:23Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > [http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-impeachment-bets-234931](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-impeachment-bets-234931) That’s a link to a Politico story. When I actually search the [Ladbrokes](https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/international/us-elections/) site mentioned in the story, in the “US Elections section,” I don’t see the contract for “Trump’s chances of leaving office via resignation or impeachment and removal.” Can you help? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/113 "2017-05-02T12:30:46Z")
> [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > Why do you ask? Because - > [@doorhinge](#): > > There are people who are calling for impeachment. In order to have an impeachment, you’ll need to supply evidence of an impeachable offense. Them’s the rules. And you’ll need to convince your U.S. Congressman that they should put your wishes above their re-election. Good luck with that. > [@running\_coach](#): > > You don’t pay much attention to the news, do you? > > [China OKs 38 Trump Trademarks; Critics Say It Violates Emoluments Clause](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/08/519247480/china-okays-38-trump-trademarks-critics-say-it-violates-emoluments-clause) > [China OKs trademarks for Ivanka Trump’s company on day she met with Xi](http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/18/news/ivanka-trump-trademarks/) Actually I pay pretty close attention to the news. I tend, however, to disregard spin. Your first link says right in the header that the idea that the trademarks violate any law comes from critics, meaning partisans. Also I pay attention to the fact that Ivanka Trump’s companies have filed for 173 foreign trademarks, and that Ivanka left the company when her father became President. I also pay attention to **Bricker** , and he has pretty clearly explained how these things work. Or, from the point of view of Democrats, don’t work. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/114 "2017-05-02T13:28:48Z")
**Emoluments Clause** - isn’t that what those hip-hoppity kids glue to their fingernails? Maybe all those Faithless Electors will finally show up and vote to impeach. IMHO, at present and in the near future, Trump is popular enough with his base (not necessarily Republicans/conservatives but there is overlap) that any Republican Congressman who appears to support impeachment would have their re-election prospects endangered. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/115 "2017-05-02T14:24:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The thing is, y’all are pushing for impeachment without any evidence that Trump conspired with Russia to undermine the elections. > It is, in fact, a partisan thing. Because you go on to say - > Exactly. You are hoping for impeachment because you don’t like Trump’s policies, and you would feel the same about any conservative President. So it **is** partisan, and that’s why you are pushing for impeachment. Not because of any evidence of collusion or law-breaking - you don’t have any. Note that you took that one line out of context. If you had read the rest of my post, you would have seen how I explained that while I would not be ecstatic with any republican in office, that I would be much happier with any republican in office than with Trump. So your accusation of partisanship is directly contradicted by evidence that you conveniently left out of your quote. You do realize that just taking a line out of context is not actually a valid strategy of creating a good argument, right? > [@](#): > > Philip II of Macedon sent a message to the Spartans sometime around 350 BC, saying that the Spartans had better surrender to him, because if he conquered them, he would kill all their men, enslave their women, and burn their city to the ground. > > The Spartans sent back a reply that was one word long. > > “IF.” And if paid any attention my post, and most of the posts in this thread, you would see that they usually start with an “if”, as in these are hypothetical scenarios, and we realize that they are hypothetical, and that we realize that they are not highly likely. So you pointing out that these are hypothetical scenarios, and not necessarily likely is redundant, at best. > [@](#): > > Regards, > Shodan > [@Shodan](#): > > Actually I pointed out that she was calling for impeachment on partisan grounds. I don’t care how many times you mention Michael Chertoff - he isn’t calling for impeachment AFAIK. One, “he”, not “she”. Two, Like I pointed out, the only way to get that out of my post is to take it out of context, removing the parts of the post that explain that, while I would prefer to not have a republican in office, I would prefer any republican over trump. The only way to get what you did out of my post is to, whether through your error or disingenuous intent, ignore the bulk of my post, and concentrate only on a couple of lines out of context. > [@](#): > > I asked for something specific. What is your evidence that Trump, while President, accepted a present from some foreign Prince? TIA. Is it only princes that are covered by the emoluments clause? But, yeah, be careful what you ask for, we don’t know the detail of the dealings between trump and foreign powers, but those details are being investigated, and will be coming out. Obviously, any speculation as to what those details are is just that, speculation, but if (and I did say “if”) the investigation does conclude that Trump and co acted inappropriately and/or illegally, will you continue to stand by him? > [@](#): > > Regards, > Shodan And you, my very good friend, have a great day! K9 > [@Bricker](#): > > If you believe that Congress can use the Emoluments Clause to sustain an impeachment, you’re simply wrong. Interpreting the Clause to forbid a sitting president from deriving income from his ownership of overseas assets in this manner has never been done and has zero support in existing caselaw. Have we ever had a president with income deriving from overseas assets in this manner? Most presidents have divested their investments into blind trusts long before. There may be no caselaw to deal with this situation, but that may be because this situation has never come up before. “We don’t have a precedent to deal with this unprecedented situation.” does not, to me, make a good defense. I thought the entire point of the enrolment clause was to prevent the president from being swayed due to the efforts of foreign actors. It does seem as though Trump is receiving payments from foreign actors, and I have no reason to think that those payments would not sway him in any way. > [@](#): > > In short: no. Not gonna happen. > > Now, if you want to spin a narrative that begins, "AFter the FBI gets solid evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. . . " then I certainly agree you’ve described facts that could support an impeachment. Your example narrative is stronger worded than most of the posters here, as you begin with “after”, and most of the posters here wishing to see trump go are starting their scenarios with “if”. > [@](#): > > What I don’t agree with is any sense that this has yet happened, or will happen. Obviously, this is a guess about what the future may churn up. But right now, the claim that the FBI _WILL_, fer suresies, find such evidence is merely hopeful speculation. Then you agree with the majority of the posters in this thread who would like to see trump get the boot. > [@Bricker](#): > > Part II: > > What frustrates me about these types of threads is that there is zero accountability to these predictions. When challenged, seldom if ever will anyone wager actual money on their predictions coming to pass. And when those predicted events don’t come to pass, returning to this thread to highlight the erroneous predictions is met with strong disapproval at the “gloating,” and loud indignant cries wondering why the questioner doesn’t “get a life” and how pathetic it is to rub peoples noses in their wrongness when they just wanted the right thing to happen. > > None of that strikes me as the correct method for fighting ignorance. That there is zero accountability to speculation frustrates you? I get that sometimes, people make concrete predictions that they cast in stone, and browbeat others with. But if you are saying that it is wrong to make any predictions whatsoever, even if they are begun with a conditional “if”, and it is clear that these are hypotheticals, then you simply don’t want any discussion of the future, not just years or months down the road, but even what tomorrow holds. > [@Bricker](#): > > This dynamic reminds me of an Isaac Asimov short story, one of his robot, Three Laws series. > … > These “Then Trump will get impeached, after the Democrats sweep to power in 2018!” threads read very much like they were written by Herbie. The only way to get that analogy would be to assume that all the trump threads are speaking with an air of absolute authority, rather than idle speculation on a messageboard. Rather than a mind reading robot that everyone is convinced is a mind reading robot, these are taken about as seriously as horoscopes, and I hope you don’t right a letter to the editor complaining every time that your horoscope turned out wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/116 "2017-05-02T17:16:13Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > The only way to get that analogy would be to assume that all the trump threads are speaking with an air of absolute authority, rather than idle speculation on a messageboard. Rather than a mind reading robot that everyone is convinced is a mind reading robot, these are taken about as seriously as horoscopes, and I hope you don’t right a letter to the editor complaining every time that your horoscope turned out wrong. Air of absolute authority, or idle speculation? > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Eventually, Trump is going to be found doing something too egregious, like covering up for Flynn and others who were in collusion with Russian agents, and impeachment will essentially be inevitable, with McConnell, Ryan, et al disclaiming any responsiblity for having bolstered Trump, and we’ll either have a trial, or he’ll just resign one way or another to avoid responsiblity and blaming everyone in sight via Twitter about how unfair it is. And then…we’ll have President Pence, who also won’t talk to Angela Merkel, not because he is a supercilious dickhead but his wife won’t let him. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/117 "2017-05-02T17:23:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Air of absolute authority, or idle speculation? Even better (from upthread): “But it doesn’t matter; I’ll wager he doesn’t last long enough to even be impeached, and if noises started coming out of Mitch McConnell’s excuse for a face about impeachment hearings, Trump would resign faster than a Trump casino goes bankrupt, and if for some reason he tried to fight it he’d go down harder than Joe Pesci in a mob movie.” I wonder if “I’ll wager” means he’s open to an actual wager? ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/118 "2017-05-02T17:45:29Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Is it only princes that are covered by the emoluments clause? > > But, yeah, be careful what you ask for, we don’t know the detail of the dealings between trump and foreign powers, but those details are being investigated, and will be coming out. Obviously, any speculation as to what those details are is just that, speculation, but if (and I did say “if”) the investigation does conclude that Trump and co acted inappropriately and/or illegally, will you continue to stand by him? It’s entirely possible his charitable self-named Foundation accepted millions from such bastions of freedom as Saudi, Qatar, UAE, and the late much-missed President Karimov. If so I fully expect him to be prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/119 "2017-05-02T18:04:45Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > I agree with your entire assessment; if the 2018 midterm election polls start indicating that GOP candidates are being kneecapped by their association with Trump, it will suddenly start being very important to the leadership to see that Trump goes. The problem with that is that, as we’ve repeatedly seen, the GOP “leadership” couldn’t lead sailors to a whorehouse. They’d have to get Democratic help, which would presumably come with strings attached (the Dems are inept, but not _that_ inept). ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/120 "2017-05-02T18:13:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Would that be constitutional? I think it might fly if a state required it, but the feds? What part of the constitution allows Congress to do that? I’m going to assume that you’re not posting from a survivalist bunker with a treatise about [Ohio not being properly admitted to the Union in 1803](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1115/is-u-s-income-tax-invalid-because-ohio-wasnt-legally-a-state-when-the-16th-amendment-was-ratified) open in another window – i.e. I’m going to assume that you stipulate the income tax itself, and the associated reporting requirements imposed upon taxpayers, to be constitutional. That being the case, the administrativia of the income tax (i.e. which items of reported data do, and do not, enjoy legally mandated confidentiality) is within the legislative purview of Congress. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397.md?page=7)