Republicans (ways & means committee) refuse to release Trump's tax returns over Russia investigation

[oreo]

Republicans are in charge of the Way & Means committee of congress, and can easily get to Trump's income tax returns. The American public has a right to now what is going on with him and Russia. These income tax returns would show any financial ties to Russia and other foreign countries that he may be held hostage by.

Of course this over the two ongoing Senate investigations over Russia hacking into the DNC databases, and General Flynn's firing.
Senate Committee May Use Subpoenas in Russian Hacking Investigation
Senator: Investigation of Trump and Russia, including Flynn's conversations, is moving forward

"Coming on top of credible information from America’s intelligence agencies that Russia tried to destabilize and influence the 2016 presidential campaign, these latest revelations are more than sufficient reason for Congress to investigate what Moscow has been up to and whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.

Given that context, one might expect Mr. Trump to be clamoring for details that would eliminate any suspicion that his administration is in league with an enemy. Instead he has waged an unhinged attack on the intelligence agencies themselves, praising President Vladimir Putin of Russia at every turn and pointing fingers everywhere but at himself, while refusing to take a single step to resolve questions about his administration’s ties to Russia.

Admittedly, this is hoping for a lot from a Republican leadership whose natural inclination is to protect the president. This week, for instance, congressional Republicans closed off one avenue to forcing the release of Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which he has refused to divulge and which could help prove to Americans that he is not indebted to Russian financial entities. (It bears repeating, in this regard, that Mr. Trump didn’t fire Mr. Flynn this week for chummily discussing American sanctions on Russia with Moscow’s ambassador, or for lying about it. Mr. Trump knew all that for weeks. He fired Mr. Flynn after both of them got caught.)

Here is the article, and this is the reason that the New York Times was banned from attending White House briefings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/...nvestigate-mr-trumps-ties-to-russia.html?_r=0

And it's clearly falling apart on Trump


Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

You're in for a very rough 8 years.

I doubt Trump even makes it to 4 years. Democrats will be taking over both houses in 2018, and if Republicans can do 8 separate investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in office, it's not too hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason.

 

[Reasonable]

Still waiting on THE DNC to show us their so called evidence of Russian Hacking any day now.

Why won't they show this to anyone?

This is information that had they shown it to even one person should have gotten leaked, and had they shown it to The Public would have won Them The Presidency!

It was known back inDecember fool. Vladimir Putin likely gave go-ahead for U.S. cyberattack, intelligence officials say

 

[ding]

 

[Meathead]

I doubt Trump even makes it to 4 years. Democrats will be taking over both houses in 2018, and if Republicans can do 8 separate investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in office, it's not too hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason.

You really have no idea of what crap you're spewing. You think the Dems will win 27 of the 33 senate seats up for grabs?

I hate dealing with uninformed fools and don't suffer them gladly.

 

[Reasonable]

Republicans are in charge of the Way & Means committee of congress, and can easily get to Trump's income tax returns. The American public has a right to now what is going on with him and Russia. These income tax returns would show any financial ties to Russia and other foreign countries that he may be held hostage by.

Of course this over the two ongoing Senate investigations over Russia hacking into the DNC databases, and General Flynn's firing.
Senate Committee May Use Subpoenas in Russian Hacking Investigation
Senator: Investigation of Trump and Russia, including Flynn's conversations, is moving forward

"Coming on top of credible information from America’s intelligence agencies that Russia tried to destabilize and influence the 2016 presidential campaign, these latest revelations are more than sufficient reason for Congress to investigate what Moscow has been up to and whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.

Given that context, one might expect Mr. Trump to be clamoring for details that would eliminate any suspicion that his administration is in league with an enemy. Instead he has waged an unhinged attack on the intelligence agencies themselves, praising President Vladimir Putin of Russia at every turn and pointing fingers everywhere but at himself, while refusing to take a single step to resolve questions about his administration’s ties to Russia.

Admittedly, this is hoping for a lot from a Republican leadership whose natural inclination is to protect the president. This week, for instance, congressional Republicans closed off one avenue to forcing the release of Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which he has refused to divulge and which could help prove to Americans that he is not indebted to Russian financial entities. (It bears repeating, in this regard, that Mr. Trump didn’t fire Mr. Flynn this week for chummily discussing American sanctions on Russia with Moscow’s ambassador, or for lying about it. Mr. Trump knew all that for weeks. He fired Mr. Flynn after both of them got caught.)

Here is the article, and this is the reason that the New York Times was banned from attending White House briefings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/...nvestigate-mr-trumps-ties-to-russia.html?_r=0

And it's clearly falling apart on Trump


Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

You're in for a very rough 8 years.

I doubt Trump even makes it to 4 years. Democrats will be taking over both houses in 2018, and if Republicans can do 8 separate investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in office, it's not too hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason.

According to deplorables treason is not as bad as having your own private server.

 

[Reasonable]

Be careful what you wish for lefties. There are no allegations of wrong doing by Trump or his staff concerning Russia. The unintended consequence, however, is somebody in the "intelligence community", probably a member of the leftover Obama administration, will probably be perp-walked into federal prison on felony charges related to leaking Lynch's phone calls. .

So what were the Trump aides talking to the Russians about on a daily basis? What presents to send Putin?
God damn man... THINK.

 

[JQPublic1]

I never understood how racist neo nazi republicans could demand obama release his fucking birth certificate but they dont see a problem with trump not releasing his tax returns.

That is because the Constitution confuses you.

You don't know a damn thing about the Constitution do you? If trump has done things with Russia in the past that might undermine National Security, congress can release his tax returns whether he agrees with it or not. SInce Congress won't do it for partisan reasons. That leaves it up to the voting public to decide. And since this issue is a growing concern among voting Republicans, Trump may lose his congressional supporters when they get voted out of office. But I thinkTrump would resign before he would release his tax returns. He just couldn't take the heat!

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, it has to do with law and no congress can't release a damned thing. They are allowed to view the returns in executive session. Meaning in a closed door meeting with only essential people involved. Privacy laws prevent them from releasing his returns.

Well, no
H.R. 10612 (1976 ) has nothing to do with the Constitution but your friend JBOND thinks it does. I was responding to his ignorance.

I see you are burdened by ignorance too.

The "privacy laws" you are referring too are ensconced within the Act of 1976 to wit:
The principal change made by the Committee was to require non-tax committees to sit in “closed executive session” when submitting any confidential tax information to the House or Senate. The same restriction was not imposed on the tax committees.

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

 

[usmbguest5318]

For a POTUS who has a long history of deceptiveness, selfishness and misrepresentations of fact, and who also refuses to divest of his personal business holdings while in the office of the President, disclosing his tax returns would be about the best possible way for him to at least provide the information the public needs to have so they can at least know whether his positions are apt to be personally profitable to him.

For me, it's a matter of scale. The man's a billionaire. If he advocates a position that happens to yield him a few hundred grand, I don't care so much. If it's a few million, well, I sort of care. If it's hundreds of millions, I care. If it turns out that his policies form a pattern of consistent gains great and small, well, I definitely care and I'd be inclined to think he's abusing the privilege of being POTUS.

I could take a somewhat less strident position were he to divest truly of his holdings, but he's not done that and shows no indication that he will. Moreover, his kids are on his staff and running the companies. That's just too cozy for us to also have no very detailed visibility to what's what.

It doesn't matter if he put them in his kids names, he will still protect those assets no matter what. The only way he could be 100% conflict of interest free was to sell off those assets which he has not done, and has no intention of doing.

When will you demand the same of all the Dems in congress? Their spouses and kids. Bet you won't .

Independence isn't a matter of politics. It's a matter of one's either having no actual or apparent conflict of interest or one's having one. How individuals entrusted to make choices on behalf of the nation go about establishing their independence from the apparent and existential conflicts of interest is not a matter of adhering to "cookie cutter" rules, but rather of doing what is necessary given one's own circumstances.

At the POTUS level, the closest analogue I can think of to Trump is Jimmy Carter, who had a completely closely held and self-built handsomely profitable peanut farming business. He sold it upon becoming POTUS. "W" sold the Texas Rangers prior to commencing his bid for the WH. The only material difference between Carter's million-dollar peanut business and Trump's collected billion-dollar businesses is that Trump's span the globe and are in sectors rife with occasions for self-profit, bribery, graft, etc. from foreign and domestic individuals/groups/entities. The man is primarily in the business of land and hospitality, after all.

The conflict of interest exemptions that apply to Trump applied to them as well; however, they made their choices to avoid the appearance of having a conflict. Trump has no concern for what may appear to be; he just denies it and, essentially, dares people to prove otherwise, which, of course, without subpoenaing his records or receiving leaked information, they cannot do.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Selling them off is the only way he can be conflict of interest free. PERIOD

I'm not sure how THAT works ---- Sasha Obama went from 9 years old to worth $19 million in the eight years her dad was in the WH. I don't remember her writing any books.

So much for that transparency thing, huh?

Of course you have a LINK to that.

I think that is a bit on the high side.

A Kenyan lawyer has offered 50 cows, 70 sheep, and 30 goats for her.

How Much Is Obama’s Daughter Worth? Kenyan Lawyer Offers Livestock For Malia Obama

You need to widen the circumference of you ass--because something very big is going to get shoved up it. If Republicans are refusing to use the (ways & means) to access Trump's tax returns, be assured that Democrats will when they take over in 2018.

"Numerous scholars on the Constitution have cited Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power."
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc. Obtaining his income tax returns would allow the public to see which foriegn countries he's held hostage by.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Remind me again why Clinton shut down her "charitable" foundation? She hates poor people, right? Hypocritical idiot.

Faulty comparison. A charitable foundation and a business are not at all the same things. Charities exist to give away resources; businesses exist to amass resources.

 

[bripat9643]

I never understood how racist neo nazi republicans could demand obama release his fucking birth certificate but they dont see a problem with trump not releasing his tax returns.

That is because the Constitution confuses you.

You don't know a damn thing about the Constitution do you? If trump has done things with Russia in the past that might undermine National Security, congress can release his tax returns whether he agrees with it or not. SInce Congress won't do it for partisan reasons. That leaves it up to the voting public to decide. And since this issue is a growing concern among voting Republicans, Trump may lose his congressional supporters when they get voted out of office. But I thinkTrump would resign before he would release his tax returns. He just couldn't take the heat!

Feel free to highlight the portions of the Constitution that you are referring to.

"Numerous scholars on the Constitution have cited Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power."
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc. Obtaining his income tax returns would allow the public to see which foriegn countries he's held hostage by.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

How does owning a hotel with paying customers constitute an "emolument?"

 

[bodecea]

Republicans are in charge of the Way & Means committee of congress, and can easily get to Trump's income tax returns. The American public has a right to now what is going on with him and Russia. These income tax returns would show any financial ties to Russia and other foreign countries that he may be held hostage by.

Of course this over the two ongoing Senate investigations over Russia hacking into the DNC databases, and General Flynn's firing.
Senate Committee May Use Subpoenas in Russian Hacking Investigation
Senator: Investigation of Trump and Russia, including Flynn's conversations, is moving forward

"Coming on top of credible information from America’s intelligence agencies that Russia tried to destabilize and influence the 2016 presidential campaign, these latest revelations are more than sufficient reason for Congress to investigate what Moscow has been up to and whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.

Given that context, one might expect Mr. Trump to be clamoring for details that would eliminate any suspicion that his administration is in league with an enemy. Instead he has waged an unhinged attack on the intelligence agencies themselves, praising President Vladimir Putin of Russia at every turn and pointing fingers everywhere but at himself, while refusing to take a single step to resolve questions about his administration’s ties to Russia.

Admittedly, this is hoping for a lot from a Republican leadership whose natural inclination is to protect the president. This week, for instance, congressional Republicans closed off one avenue to forcing the release of Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which he has refused to divulge and which could help prove to Americans that he is not indebted to Russian financial entities. (It bears repeating, in this regard, that Mr. Trump didn’t fire Mr. Flynn this week for chummily discussing American sanctions on Russia with Moscow’s ambassador, or for lying about it. Mr. Trump knew all that for weeks. He fired Mr. Flynn after both of them got caught.)

Here is the article, and this is the reason that the New York Times was banned from attending White House briefings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/...nvestigate-mr-trumps-ties-to-russia.html?_r=0

And it's clearly falling apart on Trump


Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

Definitely hiding something.

 

[bripat9643]

Selling them off is the only way he can be conflict of interest free. PERIOD

I'm not sure how THAT works ---- Sasha Obama went from 9 years old to worth $19 million in the eight years her dad was in the WH. I don't remember her writing any books.

So much for that transparency thing, huh?

Of course you have a LINK to that.

I think that is a bit on the high side.

A Kenyan lawyer has offered 50 cows, 70 sheep, and 30 goats for her.

How Much Is Obama’s Daughter Worth? Kenyan Lawyer Offers Livestock For Malia Obama

You need to widen the circumference of you ass--because something very big is going to get shoved up it. If Republicans are refusing to use the (ways & means) to access Trump's tax returns, be assured that Democrats will when they take over in 2018.

"Numerous scholars on the Constitution have cited Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power."
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc. Obtaining his income tax returns would allow the public to see which foriegn countries he's held hostage by.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Remind me again why Clinton shut down her "charitable" foundation? She hates poor people, right? Hypocritical idiot.

Faulty comparison. A charitable foundation and a business are not at all the same things. Charities exist to give away resources; businesses exist to amass resources.

In the case of CGI, they exist to accept bribes from foreign powers.

 

[JBond]

Selling them off is the only way he can be conflict of interest free. PERIOD

I'm not sure how THAT works ---- Sasha Obama went from 9 years old to worth $19 million in the eight years her dad was in the WH. I don't remember her writing any books.

So much for that transparency thing, huh?

Of course you have a LINK to that.

I think that is a bit on the high side.

A Kenyan lawyer has offered 50 cows, 70 sheep, and 30 goats for her.

How Much Is Obama’s Daughter Worth? Kenyan Lawyer Offers Livestock For Malia Obama

You need to widen the circumference of you ass--because something very big is going to get shoved up it. If Republicans are refusing to use the (ways & means) to access Trump's tax returns, be assured that Democrats will when they take over in 2018.

"Numerous scholars on the Constitution have cited Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power."
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc. Obtaining his income tax returns would allow the public to see which foriegn countries he's held hostage by.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Remind me again why Clinton shut down her "charitable" foundation? She hates poor people, right? Hypocritical idiot.

Faulty comparison. A charitable foundation and a business are not at all the same things. Charities exist to give away resources; businesses exist to amass resources.

How many resources did she gather?

 

[bripat9643]

Republicans are in charge of the Way & Means committee of congress, and can easily get to Trump's income tax returns. The American public has a right to now what is going on with him and Russia. These income tax returns would show any financial ties to Russia and other foreign countries that he may be held hostage by.

Of course this over the two ongoing Senate investigations over Russia hacking into the DNC databases, and General Flynn's firing.
Senate Committee May Use Subpoenas in Russian Hacking Investigation
Senator: Investigation of Trump and Russia, including Flynn's conversations, is moving forward

"Coming on top of credible information from America’s intelligence agencies that Russia tried to destabilize and influence the 2016 presidential campaign, these latest revelations are more than sufficient reason for Congress to investigate what Moscow has been up to and whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.

Given that context, one might expect Mr. Trump to be clamoring for details that would eliminate any suspicion that his administration is in league with an enemy. Instead he has waged an unhinged attack on the intelligence agencies themselves, praising President Vladimir Putin of Russia at every turn and pointing fingers everywhere but at himself, while refusing to take a single step to resolve questions about his administration’s ties to Russia.

Admittedly, this is hoping for a lot from a Republican leadership whose natural inclination is to protect the president. This week, for instance, congressional Republicans closed off one avenue to forcing the release of Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which he has refused to divulge and which could help prove to Americans that he is not indebted to Russian financial entities. (It bears repeating, in this regard, that Mr. Trump didn’t fire Mr. Flynn this week for chummily discussing American sanctions on Russia with Moscow’s ambassador, or for lying about it. Mr. Trump knew all that for weeks. He fired Mr. Flynn after both of them got caught.)

Here is the article, and this is the reason that the New York Times was banned from attending White House briefings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/...nvestigate-mr-trumps-ties-to-russia.html?_r=0

And it's clearly falling apart on Trump


Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

Definitely hiding something.

There's no hiding the fact that you're a dumbass. The government isn't authorized to go on fishing trips through your tax returns.

It's truly pathetic that you believe the President of the United States doesn't have the same rights as any carpenter or janitor. You're a fascist bonehead who will wipe her ass with the Constitution if that's what's required to give power to your despicable party.

 

[OKTexas]

That is because the Constitution confuses you.

You don't know a damn thing about the Constitution do you? If trump has done things with Russia in the past that might undermine National Security, congress can release his tax returns whether he agrees with it or not. SInce Congress won't do it for partisan reasons. That leaves it up to the voting public to decide. And since this issue is a growing concern among voting Republicans, Trump may lose his congressional supporters when they get voted out of office. But I thinkTrump would resign before he would release his tax returns. He just couldn't take the heat!

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, it has to do with law and no congress can't release a damned thing. They are allowed to view the returns in executive session. Meaning in a closed door meeting with only essential people involved. Privacy laws prevent them from releasing his returns.

Well, no
H.R. 10612 (1976 ) has nothing to do with the Constitution but your friend JBOND thinks it does. I was responding to his ignorance.

I see you are burdened by ignorance too.

The "privacy laws" you are referring too are ensconced within the Act of 1976 to wit:
The principal change made by the Committee was to require non-tax committees to sit in “closed executive session” when submitting any confidential tax information to the House or Senate. The same restriction was not imposed on the tax committees.

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

 

[JQPublic1]

You don't know a damn thing about the Constitution do you? If trump has done things with Russia in the past that might undermine National Security, congress can release his tax returns whether he agrees with it or not. SInce Congress won't do it for partisan reasons. That leaves it up to the voting public to decide. And since this issue is a growing concern among voting Republicans, Trump may lose his congressional supporters when they get voted out of office. But I thinkTrump would resign before he would release his tax returns. He just couldn't take the heat!

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, it has to do with law and no congress can't release a damned thing. They are allowed to view the returns in executive session. Meaning in a closed door meeting with only essential people involved. Privacy laws prevent them from releasing his returns.

Well, no
H.R. 10612 (1976 ) has nothing to do with the Constitution but your friend JBOND thinks it does. I was responding to his ignorance.

I see you are burdened by ignorance too.

The "privacy laws" you are referring too are ensconced within the Act of 1976 to wit:
The principal change made by the Committee was to require non-tax committees to sit in “closed executive session” when submitting any confidential tax information to the House or Senate. The same restriction was not imposed on the tax committees.

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

 

[Spare_change]

Trump's income tax returns would actually be too challenging for them at this point in time. We'll have to wait until 2018 when Democrats take over both houses to get a peak at Trump's income tax returns.

Challenging my ass. There are swarms of tax accountants and lawyers, particularly forensic accountants, or even run of the mill CPAs who don't routinely specialize in tax or corporate tax ,who know exactly where to look and for what. It wouldn't take them more than an hour, if that, to find out whether there's something at least questionable afoot. Ticking, tying, and tracing the figures may take some time, but not that much with the subpoena power of the government.

Dreamer.

I'm nowhere near Trump's league, and there are about 45 people who work on my taxes every year. None of them are qualified to do it all.

 

[Spare_change]

LOL ---- I'm not a billionaire, and my tax return was over 300 pages.

Can you imagine what distortions, half truths, and misleading assumptions a hostile press could come up with his?

You can't blame him for not loading the guns for the idiots in the press.

Believe it or not, there are people in this country that are smart enough to go through Trump's income tax returns to see what conflicts of interest he has. No one gives a rats ass about how much money he's made.

It's in the constitution, that any elected office holder be conflict of interest free. Trump isn't.

Is that right? Could you quote that part of the Constitution for us? I'd be real interested in that.

 

[Spare_change]

I never understood how racist neo nazi republicans could demand obama release his fucking birth certificate but they dont see a problem with trump not releasing his tax returns.

Very good point!

Actually, it's no point at all ...

1) Obama's eligibility for the office needed to be proven.

2) Trump's tax records have nothing whatsoever to do with his eligibility for the office.

Apples and kumquats ....

Trump's tax returns could tell us what type of personal and business connections he has with Russia. When it comes to conflicts of interest that's the motherload of all conflicts of interest.
I totally get why you and your type are petrified that the country and world could find out the dirty truth about Trump.
If ANY of the allegations turn out to be true it will make Watergate look like a Sunday afternoon garden party.

Yeah, I just lay awake nights worrying about snowflake hysteria --- you have no idea how it bothers me.

But, then, you said it yourself .... If ANY allegations turn out to be true .... tell me, since you don't have proof, why are you making allegations in the first place? Just makin' that shit up, huh?

 

[Spare_change]

Oh, so the wittle pathetic snowflake was deflecting? You know the FBI already said there was no collusion between the campaign and the Ruskies, right?

You lie so easily. You've must have had a lot of practice.

Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did sayRussia was behind hacking

Vladimir Putin likely gave go-ahead for U.S. cyberattack, intelligence officials say

You mean an Obama hack said so. That's all you got, the word of someone who took orders from Obama.

I can always count on you saying something stupid and you never disappoint.
Our patriotic nonpartisan intelligence officers are lifers and serve under democratic and republican presidents.

You lied and got caught and you tried to wing it but failed badly.

There's no such thing as a "nonpartisan" employee in the Obama administration. No one in the Obama regime got promoted or appointed unless they held the right political opinions

How did I lie?

You didn't know that they were lifers and when a new president comes in he inherits the same intelligence community.
Your Obama fairy tale was comical and proved you don't know shit.

Actually, that's not quite accurate. In virtually every government agency, the first two levels of management serve at the discretion of the president -he appoints who he wants in those positions. Some agencies - the CIA is one - the level of presidential appointment goes much lower (as much as 5 levels, depending on the area).

There is a core of "lifer" employees, but they usually are not in higher level positions (unless they rise up to get appointed by a sitting president - and then they are limited to the end of his term).