One thing I’ve wondered about: Trump has all along said he can’t/won’t release his tax return because it’s under audit. Has anyone ever followed up with “OK then, how about releasing the previous years’ returns, or other ones that are no longer under audit?”
Notwithstanding the whole excuse is BS, and what ever might spew forth would be just so much more BS, that seems like an obvious next question. But I don’t recall ever hearing it specifically asked.
[Trump “reasoning”] If one return is under audit, they all are. [/Trump “reasoning”]
The IRS has stated than an audit wouldn’t prohibit him, either. He’s just a fucking liar, which endears him to Republicans.
Sarah Sanders:
“And frankly… I don’t think Congress, particularly this group of congressmen and women, are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that I would assume President Trump’s taxes will be,” Sanders said. “My guess is most of them don’t do their own taxes, and I certainly don’t trust them to look through the decades of success the president’s had and determine anything.”
Try them, genius. I dare you.
This has got to be the dumbest quote I’ve heard out of Trumpworld in recent memory.
For the life of me I cannot imagine why nobody doesn’t get the IRS chief on the record to say “his taxes aren’t under audit, it wouldn’t matter if they were, he’s asked me 20 times to sit on them, and I’ll joyfully comply with a proper subpoena to get this monkey off my back”.
Sort of the opposite reasoning to what they want to do with sanctuary cities.
“Give them what they want. Send them the immigrants. They won’t be able to handle it. That’ll show 'em!”
VS
“Don’t give them the tax returns. They won’t be able to handle it.”
Sarah, might I suggest punishing Congress by burdening them with the impossible task of understanding Trump’s tax returns? If it’s a good idea for Los Angeles, it’s a good idea for Congress.
Not strictly relevant to this thread, but this piece from The Daily Beast on Trump’s taxes, Congress, and the law, by Pulitzer Prize winner David Clay Johnston, was really, really informative.
Because Congress has made it illegal for him to say such things. He’d go to jail. *The IRS cannot disclose any Taxpayer personal info. * It’s actually a crime to do so. Now yes, Congress can get the tax returns, as provided by law, but the Commissioner can not speak on what they contain. All he can do is send them.
This was apparent during the IRS is Evil Senate hearings, where Taxpayers can sit their and lie their assess off about how the IRS persecuted them, but the IRS was prevented from responding with actual facts. They had no more defense than a pinata.
This is an excellent idea.
(Mainly because it would put SS to the trouble of thinking up some OTHER ridiculous excuse for Trump keeping his returns secret—because of course ‘burdening’ Congress in that way is not going to occur.)
Rather than not wanting stupid people to look at his tax returns, it’s just the opposite. Trump knows that if those returns ever saw the light of day, they’d be combed over more than the back of his head by the smartest tax people in the world, like David Cay Johnson.
But I was actually wondering about the question in the OP: Has Trump or a surrogate ever been asked to why not release a prior return that is no longer under audit? It just seems like such an obvious question, I feel like I must be missing something.
Post #2- that’s just what Trump would contend.
I’m not interested in suppositions about “would contend” if asked. I’m looking for “has contended” when asked.
Since no one has brought anything forth, I suppose I should suppose no one has asked.
Yes, that has been asked… and dodged.
The reason no one has asked, (or the reason no one remembered it even though someone did ask) is that given that the audit excuse is itself an utter fabrication that has no merit, there is no reason that that question won’t just be waved away with a similar fabrication, resulting in no significant effect.
Any of these responses could be given without anyone changing their opinion on Trump
“All years of my taxes are under audit”
“Revealing last years taxes would negatively affect this year’s audit”
“Last years taxes are no longer relevant so there is no reason to release them”
“All previous tax years have been shredded as part of my increase in government efficiency”
“If I release my tax documents I’ll have to release everyone’s”
“There are no Wookies on Endor”
I imagine it’s a subset of congressional members and/or their aides with the actual expertise, but Kate Bolduan on CNN pointed out that if Congress can write the tax law, shouldn’t they be able to read a tax return?
And claiming that Congress wouldn’t understand the returns is not a legal justification for withholding them from Congress.
“Your honor, I move that the DNA evidence me be discarded on the grounds that you don’t understand it!”
This is going to go to the courts. Nobody in Treasury is going to authorize their release, and if they refuse to do so and get in legal trouble, they will get a pardon. It will go to the Supreme Court, which will rule that the law and the demand for the returns is valid. Then the administration will continue to refuse to release them, ignoring the Supreme Court. Susan Collins will protest half-heartedly.
Did Congress make it illegal for him to confirm or deny what the President has said publicly countless times, that he is under audit?
The letter from Trump’s tax attorneys back in March 2016 asserts that the returns that are being audited (i.e., 2009 forward) “report items that are attributable to continuing transactions or activities that were also reported on returns for 2008 and earlier. In this sense, the pending examinations are continuations of prior, closed examinations.”
So, I think that’s probably how they would respond if asked.
If things go down that way, wouldn’t that be a constitutional crisis? I assume that the next step should things reach that point would be for John Roberts to issue cite Steve Mnuchin for contempt of court or to back down. Here’s how I see the options.
1a. John Roberts backs down. This is seen as admitting the SCOTUS is powerless.
1b. John Roberts cites Mnuchin as being in contempt of the SCOTUS, move on to 2.
2a. To enforce the contempt, Roberts orders federal marshals to arrest Mnuchin. The marshals refuse to do so, again basically neutering the SCOTUS.
2b. The marshals do arrest Mnuchin, or Mnuchin backs down before it gets to this point. I’m not sure I even want to think things would reach this point, or what would happen if they did. Would Trump try to resist by force? Either way, I think we would be moving into extremely dangerous territory.
ETA. I hope that Sanders resorting to name calling means that even Trump realizes how bad it would be if things went down this way, and that he is posturing for the sake of his base but already knows that he will give in before it gets this far.
Is “Constitutional Crisis” a legal term that forces Trump to release his tax returns and/or cost him any money and/or remove him from office? If not, then he won’t give a flying fuck if there is a “Constitutional Crisis”.