How is that any of our business?
It occurs to me that selling privileged information for personal gain could possibly be against the law. More or less so than lying on a national security check I cannot say.
Well, in the first place, the whole issue of Trump’s tax records is our business because President Trump made it our business, by declaring that he would release his tax returns. He stated that he would abide by a protocol that all other Presidents in the past several decades have followed, and he shouldn’t renege on that commitment.
In the second place, the general principle of Presidents disclosing their tax returns is a good one for the sake of political transparency, and has exposed irregularities in the past (in tax returns of Nixon and the Clintons, for example).
If somebody doesn’t want their personal finances and financial interests to be the business of the American people, then they are free not to run for the office of President of the nation of the American people. But if they expect us to entrust the leadership of our nation to them, then they should be prepared to disclose to us whom they’re in bed with financially and what financial influences they’re subject to.
Stop acting like this is an extraordinary request. Having the president show the American people their taxes has been a basic requirement for quite some time. That the White House is fighting tooth and nail to avoid this most basic of requirements means that it is safe to assume that there is reason that Congress deserves a look. To paraphrase Nixon, the American people deserve to know if the president is a crook.
I’m torn because I want Trump out by any legal means and Republicans play filthy all the time. But none of what you mentioned is justification for Congress demanding the returns. There should be some justification given.
Neal gave a couple of reasons in an interview a couple of days ago:
“This was not motivated by malevolence,” he said. “Our intent is to test a federal law that has been on the books since 1924 and to apply the full tenor of that law to the request that we’ve made and to make sure that that law under again the magnifying glass stands up.”
"Oversight responsibility for legislative function dates at least to Magna Carta. It is part of the Jeffersonian notion of how the legislative branch might oversee the executive branch,” Neal said. “Congress is mentioned as the first branch of government for that very purpose.”
Oversight, sure. But it would have been helpful if he had stated some reason other than “because we can,” instead, he almost went the other way:
“We did not link this to the Mueller report. We did not link this to some nefarious undertaking. Instead I think we took a very measured position, as I insisted that we would, from day one.”
Just like Barr’s opinion of whether there was criminal obstruction is irrelevant because Trump wouldn’t have been charged anyway, Trump’s “inclination” not to release his returns is irrelevant; it’s gonna be between Congress and the IRS commissioner.
Imagine this scenario. You have a tradition in your house that all the kids come in and show their report cards. It’s been that way for a while. You’ve never told them they have to do it, but they do it anyways.
But, one day, it’s report card day, and little Timmy doesn’t show his report card.
Do you not assume that Timmy is trying to hide something?
Now throw in that you know Timmy has been hanging around with a lot of sketchy kids at school, who have gotten in trouble for various things, even though Timmy has kept his nose clean. Do you not start to suspect he’s involved, too? Heck, maybe seeing the classes he’s failing will lead you to go talk to that teacher and find out some things Timmy has been hiding from you.
The President is not only not above the law, but also just not above the way reality works. When you act suspicious, people suspect you.
(Note, all "you"s in this post are general.)
Who BTW has said he doesn’t think thump needs to release the returns. Round and round the mulberry bush…
No, he’s said that it would be unwise for Trump to voluntarily release the returns. Advice which, amazingly, Trump seems to be taking.
AOC elicited some reasons for the request during her brief questioning of Michael Cohen.
Have you been reading the reports about Kushner being rejected for a security clearance until his father in law intervened?
If you google the letter requesting the returns and read it, there’s a much fuller explanation of Neal’s reasons than what seems to be address in the interview. The letter literally has a “Frequently Asked Questions” section to it. Now you may disagree with those reasons, sure, but the explanations of the reasons for the letter are longer than the letter itself.
You’re right to question this. How indeed is it any of our business that a debt-ridden building (the infamous 666 Fifth Avenue building) that threatened to send the Kushner real estate empire into bankruptcy, was bought out by a company (thus saving the Kushners’ collective asses) that frequently makes big real estate purchases through joint partnerships with countries such as Qatar and Dubai, an area of the world where Kushner has been actively running U.S. foreign policy in a rather interesting way, to say the least.
The citizens of the United States of America have no business investigating this to assure ourselves that there’s no quid pro quo going on here. Why would we? :dubious:
I just read the letter and Neal’s statement. I don’t see a FAQ in the letter and I couldn’t find one on the Ways and Means Committee website, unless you are talking about the bullet points in the letter itself.
In any case, after reading those things, what they are doing is citing a need to find out whether the IRS is properly auditing the returns of presidents and vice presidents as per its own policy. That’s a fairly thin reed, but OK.
Which is fine with me. I want a fucking showdown with a Supreme Court ruling in hand. Mueller blew the chance to have one with Trump. Maybe Neal can get one with the IRS commissioner. This shit needs to get resolved.
Do you think Kushner’s finances will be part of Trump’s returns?
Good thing that the law allows Congress to look at those too.
For all the “concern” about setting precedent, I for one am fine with setting the precedent that the president and all of his close advisors have a requirement for 100% transparency with their finances.
If there is evidence or suspicion of a crime, we have a different branch of government specifically designed for investigation.
Except that that branch of government is under the Executive, and therefore is poorly equipped to exercise oversight over the President and those closest to him.
And we have a law on the books for Congress to review as well.
Yep, which is what Dave Camp (R) should have kept in mind when he invoked the same rule while he was head of the committee in 2014. Hmm.
Camp might even have broken the law by making the information public.