I think that is probably the fastest way to get Trump to release his taxes, if there’s any way at all (it’s a long shot, IMO). But if there’s a way, it would be to find people who have seen his taxes or who know intimate details about his private business, and then try to get them to testify publicly. If there are some sensational charges, then the public might actually get curious enough to want his tax returns made public.
But the other way is a collapse in public opinion brought on by a national emergency such as a major recession or a military adventure that goes awry. Donald Trump is a political emergency. The only way to defeat him is to weaken his political standing. That is most likely the only way to get him and the plutocrats out of power.
There are opportunities the Democrats have to hammer away about how things like rising rents, rising tuition, rising healthcare costs, and taxcuts for the rich are basically stealing the American dream from the middle class and Trump has done absolutely nothing to solve these problems. In fact he’s done everything to make them worse. The Dems need to be focusing on that shit instead of his damn tax returns.
Got a citation that isn’t Steve Mnuchin covering for his boss? Or are you still somehow laboring under the constantly-refuted delusion that when someone from the Trump administration says something, they aren’t most likely lying?
The idea that congressional oversight is not a “legitimate legislative purpose” is such bald-faced bullshit that I cannot believe anyone takes it seriously. It is literally the reason the law was crafted in the first place - it was a response to the Teapot Dome scandal.
We’ll find out the answer to that if and when it reaches the Supreme Court. However, as the official response is that the DOJ says it would be illegal to release the returns, it would be hugely wrong for Congress to hold anyone in contempt for following that advice.
Precedent may well be important here. Under what circumstances have Congress subpoenad tax returns in the past?
I doubt he’s lying that the DOJ has given that advice. It’s not impossible, but unlikely, as there’s no good reason to think the DOJ wouldn’t do so.
What pending legislation will seeing Trump’s tax returns affect? If this law is meant to allow Congress to investigate and oversee the Executive, it seems that only allowing it for legislative purposes is a bad way of doing it.
Unless I’m missing something, the IRS or Treasury Department has never before denied a request from Congress to see tax documents. It’s the Trump administration that is violating precedent, not Congress.
What could possibly lead you to believe this, considering how frequently and blatantly members of this administration have lied? Barr lied openly about the Mueller report, even presumably knowing his lies would be exposed in a matter of days.
That’s what one side claim. The other side claim that the law does not allow that demand, and the side that make the latter claim is the Department of Justice. This will probably end up in the Supreme Court in a few years, and that Court will probably side with the DOJ.
The Democrats in Congress may well be able to make Trump look bad for hiding behind lawyers and courts to keep his tax returns private (if it’s even possible to make him look worse) - but attempting to hold people in contempt for following legal advice should not be acceptable.
I believe that the DOJ probably did give this advice, as they are as invested in protecting Trump as the rest of the executive. I further believe that they will stand behind that position all the way to the Supreme Court, and will win.
None of which has anything to do with the intentions of the writers of the law, or the morality of Trump hiding his tax returns.
Well, that’s what I’m asking. How often, and for what stated purpose, are these requests made? Is this a theoretical power that’s never been tested, one that’s used uncontroversially on a regular basis, one that’s been used occasionally in exceptional circumstances, or something else?
I’m asking this because I don’t know, and a very quick Google search hasn’t answered the question.
The part that your missing is that the law doesn’t “only allow it for legislative purposes.” That’s the part that Mnuchin and the DOJ are pulling out of thin air. The law makes no mention of any purpose, need, requirement or whatever. It just says congress can ask, and the treasury department shall deliver, full stop. And if you read up on the history of the law, the debates that were had, the language that was considered, you’ll realize that the fact that it doesn’t require any reason was entirely intentional.
What Sec Mnuchin (and apparently the DOJ) are going to argue, here, is that the law is unconstitutional because congress shouldn’t have such broad powers to view tax information, and hope that SCOTUS throws it out. I don’t see how they’ll get past a plain reading of the text but I’m not a lawyer. But if you’re going to continue to argue in favor the Trump administration here, you need to understand two things – one, congress has the upper hand because of the plain language of the law, and two, the administration’s defense is a hail mary pass straight to SCOTUS, because the law is not on their side.
The law always requires interpretation, that’s why lawyers and judges exist.
That Congress has the power to subpoena tax returns does not mean they can do so when it’s illegal for them to do so, and the Supreme Court has held that there must be a legitimate legislative purpose before they investigate private financial affairs, and also that any demand for information must be for a legitimate Congressional task, which does not include investigating crimes. This article goes into much more detail, with cites to the rulings.
A further article from the same site, but by a different lawyer, claims that the law has not been tested by the courts, and so it is far from clear that these precedents do not apply.
In short, the legal situation is not as clear cut as people are making out, and will almost certainly need to be decided by the courts. Which, with the current Supreme Court, means it will be decided in Trump’s favour.
None of which touches on the question of whether Trump’s tax returns should be revealed. My personal opinion is that it’s pretty much irrelevant, and that Congress should use the avenues available to it to remove Trump via impeachment or incompetence, or failing that ensuring there’s a better candidate in 18 months time. Then he can be investigated fully for the alleged crimes without hindrance.
Steophan - when you first heard that Nixon claimed that he didn’t have to turn over the White House tapes, and his DOJ argued that he had absolute executive privilege, did you assume that Nixon was in the right and he would win in court?
ETA: Also, when the Supreme Court ruled that demands by Congress for information must relate to a legislative purpose, did you assume that that controversy was related to Congress seeking documents or testimony from a co-equal branch of government? Do you know the context of that court case?
We’ll see in the courts. Hopefully the courts are considering how they’re viewed in terms of legitimacy; if Americans cease to have confidence that our courts are legitimate, then it doesn’t really matter what the law says – power becomes the only rule.
Out of curiosity, why do you parrot the Trump administration, as if their assertions about law are necessarily correct? You obviously don’t appear to be certain. But when you just say “Congress has no legitimate reason for asking for them”, you’re just parroting Trump. Why would you do that?
Seriously, stop giving these people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to honesty. They lie constantly, intentionally, shamelessly, and knowingly. They lie to the press. They lie to the public. They lie when they know their lies will be revealed days later. They lie about trivially observable reality. They lie and lie and lie and lie and keep fucking lying.
Why would you doubt that he’s lying?
When you say “I doubt <insert Trump administratino figure here> is lying”, I read that the same way as, “I doubt the sun will rise in the morning” - you’d better offer a damn good reason, or your pattern recognition skills have failed you quite thoroughly.