I’ve viewed the whole Trump tax thing with the same “Meh, whatever” attitude I took regarding Obama’s birth certificate/college transcript/“documentation” noise.
But out of curiosity, what is everyone hoping to find documented in it if it ever is released?
If anyone is starting a pool, I’m betting it winds up another veggie burger like the Mueller report. Not completely nothing, but certainly no meat.
This is a completely nonsensical comparison, because we already have evidence of Trump committing crimes. It’s spelled out in the Mueller report. His tax returns could turn up nothing interesting, or they could turn up embarrassing material about ethically questionable tax avoidance or business dealings, or it could turn up actual evidence for criminal conduct - any would be relevant to the public.
Does anyone actually believe the IRS has not specifically examined his taxes? While I’m sure there is something in there he doesn’t want people to see, I strongly doubt criminal activity is going to be highlighted in there, if for no other reason than it would take an idiotic tax preparer to include criminal activity in a tax return. I know his “hiring only the best” is a joke, but his accountants probably ARE among the best.
They have a Constitutional mandate for oversight. And there’s tons of precedent – Congress investigated the last several presidents and their administrations on many, many different fronts (much more than “ancestry” and “debauchery”). In this case, their justification is to evaluate the effectiveness/fairness of IRS audits into sitting presidents. That’s a legitimate oversight purpose – the IRS is part of the executive branch.
What’s happening now in terms of Congressional investigations is not unusual in the least. This is mundane, standard stuff.
“Hoping”? I dunno. But his own lawyer testified under oath that Trump’s tax returns contain shady practices, which is sufficient justification for Congress to request and review them for potential tax fraud. The fact that Trump has so adamantly refused to release them (particularly after promising to do so) merely adds to the likelihood that he has something to hide.
He is a rich White man. They will let a White man play with the system and Constitution. Everyone else - pull out the shackles and jail time. They’ve been getting away with shit since they stole this country from the Spanish and Indians. It’s been the American tradition for years.
Well, we shall find out if that’s true as it goes through the courts. Maybe the Supreme Court will rule that way. I rather doubt it, and I suspect that the House will find its right to investigate anything significantly limited as a result of this, because the Court will both uphold its precedents and create further restrictions, due to its partisan bias.
The original question in this thread was " Why does Congress pussyfoot around with Trump’s taxes?" This is why, because if they overstep their clear legal rights even slightly, they will get absolutely hammered due to the current makeup of the Supreme Court.
I think there’s a possibility that Congress won’t get the tax returns. But how on Earth would SCOTUS restrict their ability to investigate? I don’t believe that has ever happened before. Talk about unprecedented! Calling witnesses, requesting documents, and holding hearings has been part of Congress’s routine since the very beginning.
Just curious … during the 276 investigations of Benghazi, how many times was the prospect of impeaching Secretary Clinton raised? I mean, it must have been a lot, otherwise those investigations were completely illegal. :smack:
:rolleyes: The Mueller report isn’t a veggie burger but a fish sandwich during Lent: plenty of meat as that word is normally defined, except the Church* has declared it not meat.
*In this analogy, the DOJ doctrine that it will not charge a sitting President with crimes. Cite. Cite.
As others have said, this is weak. Very weak.
Yes, you found a link where a lawyer makes a ‘plausible’ argument that Congress is not entitled to the tax returns; he even cites law. But it is not a winning argument. Yes, it is enough to get the case into the courts, and up to the Supreme Court. But the issue is hardly as contentious as you claim, and the Supremes would be ridiculous if they denied the right to obtain the tax returns.
Now, why is it such a weak argument? As others have stated, the power of Congress to investigate is pretty wide-ranging, and the need for a legit legislative purpose is a very low bar to get past. Do you recall congress holding hearings on steroids in baseball? Yeah, that went to the issue of baseball’s antitrust exemption. It’s pretty easy to show a legislative reason.
Moreover, the cases your article cites don’t really serve to undermine this position.
Kilbourn v. Thompson, from the 1880s, was a case where a company was indebted to the US government, went into bankruptcy, and settled its debts at a loss to the government. Congress held hearings to investigate the bankruptcy. When a witness refused to testify about the decision, he was arrested by the Sargent-at-Arms and put in jail for 45 days. He sued for false imprisonment.
The court ruled that while Congress has the power to punish its own members, it does not have the power to punish private citizens. Thus, contempt should have been referred to prosecutors for punishment. More broadly, a dispute over money is resolved in the courts.
Most importantly, though, in distinguishing this case from the issue of the President of the United States, the IRS, and the effective regulation of taxes - which is to say, legislative purposes - is this little nugget:
In other words, Kilbourn says that congress can’t conduct its own trials. This is a far different thing than investigating issues over which the Congress can pass laws. And it is plainly distinguishable from congress’ inherent power to investigate people who hold office (such as, I don’t know, the President).
The other case you (or, rather, the article you found) relies on is a 1950’s case called Watkins v. U.S. which sought to limit the abuses of the Red Scare. But in so doing it laid out some basic fundamentals, which you’re refusing to acknowledge
Yet again, though, the court was concerned about congress’ power to punish those who did not cooperate with its investigations. In making this analysis, it refers back to the earlier Kilbourn case. In so doing, does it represent nuance? Does it bend the ‘precedent’ you seem to believe that the court is bound by? Let’s see…
So, yeah, the court does draw a line. But it’s not where you think it is.
Ultimately, the court was careful to not second guess the congress - if they say that they have a legit legislative purpose, then they do. But what they will require are procedural safeguards akin to a court hearing when compelling testimony (e.g. right to a lawyer, right to remain silent).
So I laugh at your confident claim that the law compelling disclosure of Trump’s taxes is obviously improper or unlawful, or that the courts are hamstrung and will be compelled to deny this request as obviously unconstitutional. Nothing of the sort is reasonable.
It seems like Trump’s taxes vis-a-vis emoluments concerns are a prima facie case of sound legislative purpose. The House could probably fight it in court. Would the House maybe find it easier to just introduce some bill relating to presidential tax returns, and use that as the pretext? It wouldn’t even need to be voted or debated.
Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney walked right into this one: He claimed in an interview that the Democrats are asking for Trump’s returns “to make the president look bad.”
Asked the obvious follow-up question “what’s embarrassing about his tax records?” Mulvaney was a deer in headlights:
Guess it’s back to the drawing board for GOP theories on why the Democrats are requesting to see those Trump tax records…
Trump does not have the capacity for embarrassment, anyway.
It’s a question of semantics, perhaps. It’s certainly true that he has no shame whatsoever.
He doesn’t like to have people saying less-than-admiring things about him, though. It clearly bothers him.
Challenging a law in court is exactly not pretending that it doesn’t exist.
Well, I’ve cited them doing so, so unless those articles I linked to are full of lies then you have no reason not to believe that.
How they do it is that someone sues, claiming that Congress is illegally or unconstitutionally investigating them, the case gets to the Supreme Court, which then rules that the investigation is unlawful/unconstitutional. As they did in response to HUAC, eventually.
Maybe this won’t happen. Maybe the judges Trump chose will find that the investiagtions can continue.
So, you think the Supreme Court, including Trump’s chosen judges, will decide that way? The point is that there is precedent that will give them a fig leaf to cover their decision in Trump’s favour.
This is factually incorrect. The court never ruled that HUAC was unconstitutional - it persisted into the 1970’s. Did you read my post? The court ruled that people are entitled to an attorney and the right to plead the 5th when subpoenaed by congress. Under no circumstances did the court shut down the committee or its investigation power.
Only 5 votes are needed. There are 4 liberals (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer) and John Roberts. Remember him? He upheld the ACA because he cares about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Precedent has gone out of its way to affirm the power of congress to conduct investigations of office holders and to research issues over which it might regulate. The House has the power to pass laws regarding spending - you can’t plausibly argue that they don’t have the ability to investigate taxes and the activities of the IRS with regard to the President, especially given testimony concerning his tax impropriety (to say nothing of Trump’s own statements on his shady finances).