Viktor
Diamond Member
I wonder how much the Red Chinese are paying Uncle Jojo to sabotage this country. He is going to be awarded the Mao Zedung medal for promoting China.
Committee Votes To Release Trumps' Taxes 24-16. Tell Me Why ThisI isn't Partisan Bullsh#T
- Thread starter White 6
- Start date
Flopper
Diamond Member
Trump is not required to release tax returns but the IRS is when it is part of a House investigation and ordered by the courts.
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,478
- 12,757
- 1,290
The top of page 22 points to Rule 11 as its justification for the committee being able to release things obtained in closed executive session by vote, but Rule 11 in the 117th congress Rule guide doesn't mention that.
Even still....Congress cannot simply make rules to go around the law. Closed executive session means secrecy, they can't vote to release tax information, especially when the person they are releasing the information about hasn't been convicted of any tax crime....even still, they'd have to demonstrate a reason it would be in the public interest, which they haven't yet.
The court case you linked appears to be nothing more than the committees appeal to the court for urgency to release his tax documents.
My question still remains...since they were obviously requesting personally identifiable information, was the committee in closed executive session when that request was made...were they in closed executive session when the tax documents were furnished? If any other committee requests those documents, are they in closed executive session?
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,478
- 12,757
- 1,290
Not release them, they don't
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,478
- 12,757
- 1,290
Questions would arise if income exceeded expected normal levels, given their congressional salaries..etc.
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,478
- 12,757
- 1,290
Only to one of the listed committees, while in closed executive session
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,478
- 12,757
- 1,290
Laws were broken, just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,795
- 127,346
- 3,645
I.E., precisely what happened.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,795
- 127,346
- 3,645
False. No laws were broken. Repeating your incorrect claim will not make it more correct. Nor ae you able to describe any law or how ir was broken.
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,478
- 12,757
- 1,290
No, it doesn't. How did he give aid to an insurrection? He simply didn't react in time. Not reacting is not helping them. Again, it was crappy, but not disqualifying.
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,478
- 12,757
- 1,290
Ok, was the committee in closed executive session when the request was made? Were.they on closed executive session when they were furnished with the documents? No, they weren't, therefore tax code 6103 was broken. When they released them to the public, it was broken again.
I'm not arguing that congress can't get them, I'm arguing that they way they went about getting them was against the law..
BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 105,192
- 38,781
- 2,250
Don't worry about me. I have plenty of shirts.
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,478
- 12,757
- 1,290
Were they in closed executive session?
Tumblin Tumbleweed
Platinum Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 29,737
- 11,250
- 465
Partisan as SHIT. Bad, bad president to make. Revenge politics on behalf of Democrats. You had your chance and blew it.You folks know, I am not a Trump supporter, not a party member and have stated my Independent status many times. That said, what is this action other than partisan bullsh#t? While quite aware, it has become tradition for a candidate before an election, but this crap is about him not doing it before the 2016 election and whether I liked or you liked it or not, he was elected, anyway. That was then. This is now. I am aware, the Supreme Court the Supreme Court ordered that he release the information to Congressional scrutiny. I am good with that, but they never said release it to the public, that I am aware of. This is just a spitefull, partisan action and I tend to think, public release at this point is an undue release, an invasion of privacy (even if he's an asshole) and possibly illegal. My representative is on that committee and voted against. Barring him not doing something stupid (which he doesn't have much history of) I shall vote for him again, next time he runs.
House panel votes to release Trump tax returns after multiyear Democratic quest
The House Ways and Means Committee voted Tuesday to release former President Donald Trump’s tax returns, a major win for Democrats who have been seekingwww.washingtonexaminer.com
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 55,527
- 16,970
- 2,250
Nonsense. Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th congress, Page 19, column 3, (k), (7)
(7) Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, and proceedings conducted in executive session, may be released or used in public sessions only when authorized by the committee, a majority being present.
And the committee voted when a majority was in session. 26 to 16. Meeting the requirement laid out in the Rules of the House of Representatives, and affirmed by the appellant court as relevant to the committee's authority to release those documents.
Remember, you don't know what you're talking about. The federal appellant court does. Which is why they're a legal authority, and you're not. Well, that and the Judicial Power, which they hold. And why their ruling was upheld by both the full federal appellant courts and the Supreme Court, without a single dissent.
Your entire argument has devolved into ignoring the Ways and Means Committee, ignoring the Rules of the House of Representatives, ignoring the 3 judge appellant court ruling, ignoring the full appellant court that upheld that ruling and ignoring the Supreme Court which upheld that ruling UNANIMOUSLY.
All while insisting that you know better than all of them.
You don't.
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,478
- 12,757
- 1,290
Read tax law 6103...section f and beyond...all of it, not just the part you want.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 55,527
- 16,970
- 2,250
Debatable on whether or not they should have. I'm ambivalent.
But the question of whether or not the Ways and Means Committee had the authority to release said documents is settled. They did.
As affirmed by the Ways and Means Committee, the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 3 judge appellant ruling, the full appellant court, and unanimously upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 55,527
- 16,970
- 2,250
The court explicitly addressed 26 U.S.C § 6103(f)(1) word for word, and found that the Rules of the House of Representatives DID allow the Ways and Means Committee to release the documents with a vote of the committee.
Which the committee did.
You're literally ignoring the appellant court's explicit findings, directly contradicting your assertion word for word down to the section you're citing, and insisting you know better.
Nope.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 55,527
- 16,970
- 2,250
The appellant court wasn't subtle about it either. (bold added for emphasis)
"The Trump Parties insist that the Request imposes too great a burden because it threatens to expose private financial information of the Trump Parties and will deny the Trump Parties their due process rights by interfering with an ongoing audit. These certainly are burdens on the Trump Parties. As discussed above, should the Committee find it necessary, it is possible that the information turned over to the Chairman might be made public. This is certainly inconvenient, but not to the extent that it represents an unconstitutional burden violating the separation of powers. Congressional investigations sometimes expose the private information of the entities, organizations, and individuals that they investigate. This does not make them overly burdensome. It is the nature of the investigative and legislative processes.
Despite what Dunning-Kruger might tell our arm chair lawyers, the courts have settled this particular issue thoroughly and clearly. A ruling upheld by the full appellant court and upheld by the Supreme Court itself, without a single dissent.
Legally, the issue is resolved.
"The Trump Parties insist that the Request imposes too great a burden because it threatens to expose private financial information of the Trump Parties and will deny the Trump Parties their due process rights by interfering with an ongoing audit. These certainly are burdens on the Trump Parties. As discussed above, should the Committee find it necessary, it is possible that the information turned over to the Chairman might be made public. This is certainly inconvenient, but not to the extent that it represents an unconstitutional burden violating the separation of powers. Congressional investigations sometimes expose the private information of the entities, organizations, and individuals that they investigate. This does not make them overly burdensome. It is the nature of the investigative and legislative processes.
Despite what Dunning-Kruger might tell our arm chair lawyers, the courts have settled this particular issue thoroughly and clearly. A ruling upheld by the full appellant court and upheld by the Supreme Court itself, without a single dissent.
Legally, the issue is resolved.
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,478
- 12,757
- 1,290
What evidence do they have? Of what crime? What testimony? Of what crime? As of yet, they don't have one. If all they have is a desire to release someone's private information to the world, just because they don't like the man, that is not a reason to do so...and....
....this section refers to executive session. There is a difference between executive session and closed executive session. Closed executive sessions are used when the issue requireds secrecy, which is exactly what section 6103 clause f of the tax code says must happen. It has to be in closed executive session..because it is regarding personally identifiable informarion.
You're right, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not ignoring the ways and means committee, I agree they have full authority to request tax information...but they are also bound to the law.
What you are suggesting is that...for whatever reason, apparently the courts and congress can just ignore the laws as they see fit.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
🚨 BREAKING: Major Cities In Iran FALL From IRGC Control - Tehran CAPTURED By Iranians- Started by Chuz Life
- Replies: 0
-
-
Tucker Carlson Is Now Advising Military Members To Disobey Trump's Unlawful Orders In Iran
- Started by Alicia J
- Replies: 3
-
It looks like TRUMP'S cease fire is not holding. (3.7.26)- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 11
