Committee Votes To Release Trumps' Taxes 24-16. Tell Me Why ThisI isn't Partisan Bullsh#T

[ThisIsMe]

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.

I don't see that. Rule 11 does not appear to authorize ways and means to publicly disclose information, if that information was acquired in CLOSED executive session.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.

So, It's approved by court decision. But it doesn't seem very beneficial to release them so late in the game to me. Releasing Trump's personal tax returns to the public at this current point in time seems academic. Thus, I wonder what's really going on? And I end up on Democrats are trying to cull sentiment (dirt) to keep negative pressure on the '24 campaign. More revenge.

I can think of no other plausible scenario.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So what?

Did the IRS say he broke the law?

As for what you want to see, we’ll it ain’t none of your business unless you get a law passed requiring him to show them!

Simple as that!

In the works. Definitely the last time you dopes get a say. Be gone.

 

[meaner gene]

No candidate is required to release their tax returns. I would think you would know that, but upon reflection, you are a Dim.

No candidate is required to debate either. But people want to know a candidates positions and background.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The Rules of the House of Representatives have no such limitation nor distinction between the committee's authority to make public evidence in 'closed' vs. non-closed executive sessions.

The authority extends to executive sessions. Period.

You added an imaginary requirement that neither congress, the committee nor the courts recognize as limiting the committee's authority to release these documents.

And you're nobody.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

.

The House Committee is just trying to remain relevant ...

.​

Showing you why you aren’t.

 

[Skylar]

I don't see that. Rule 11 does not appear to authorize ways and means to publicly disclose information, if that information was acquired in CLOSED executive session.

Neither the committee's authority nor the court's ruling are bound to what 'you see'. You are not a standard in this case.

Both the committee and the courts recognize the committee's authority to vote for the release of evidence taken in executive session with a majority present.

(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.


The committee voted, 26 to 16, to release evidence to the public that had been taken in executive session.

Meeting the requirements laid out in the Rules of the House of Representatives AND affirmed by the appellant court. A ruling upheld by the Supreme Court itself, unanimously.

Our sources are not equal.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Rules of the House of Representatives have no such limitation nor distinction between the committee's authority to make public evidence in 'closed' vs. non-closed executive sessions.

The authority extends to executive sessions. Period.

You added an imaginary requirement that neither congress, the committee nor the courts recognize as limiting the committee's authority to release these documents.

And you're nobody.

The text you posted specify executive session...there is a difference. Please show us where congress can ignore the requirements of closed sessions? Or that they can, at their whim, ignore secrecy requirements, for any reason they choose.

Congress has to abide by laws, just as everyone else. Just because they have trumps tax information doesn't mean they suddenly can just ignore the law.

It says they can vote to release informsrion acquired in executive session, not closed executive session...there is a difference. Please show us where congress has complete authority to ignore the limitations of the closed session. There is a reason the tax code specified it had to be a closed executive session. If any executive session would suffice, then they would have worded it that way.

Also, please demonstrate what need the congress used to justify releasing someone's personal information to the public.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Rules of the House of Representatives have no such limitation nor distinction between the committee's authority to make public evidence in 'closed' vs. non-closed executive sessions.

The authority extends to executive sessions. Period.

You added an imaginary requirement that neither congress, the committee nor the courts recognize as limiting the committee's authority to release these documents.

And you're nobody.

You added an imaginary requirement that neither congress, the committee nor the courts recognize as limiting the committee's authority to release these documents.

I didn't add anything, I'm reading the tax law verbatim, there is a difference between the two sessions, one of them REQUIRES secrecy...there is no law that allows congress to bypass laws.

And you're nobody

Lol, resorting to attacks are ya?

 

[Kilroy2]

Lol, bless your heart. Trump paid taxes in advance and in the end he had to pay an additional $750. I bet you were heart broken when Maddow released them and it showed. He paid his fair share.

Lol, bless your heart. Trump paid taxes in advance and in the end he had to pay an additional $750. I bet you were heart broken when Maddow released them and it showed. He paid his fair share.

The report quotes is as its net tax paid for the year in question which would include any taxes paid in advance. In 2020 he paid zero net share.

Fair share I doubt it.

and yes I want to know why the IRS did not audit him as they were suppose to for the years the committee says he was not audited.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Neither the committee's authority nor the court's ruling are bound to what 'you see'. You are not a standard in this case.

Both the committee and the courts recognize the committee's authority to vote for the release of evidence taken in executive session with a majority present.

(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.


The committee voted, 26 to 16, to release evidence to the public that had been taken in executive session.

Meeting the requirements laid out in the Rules of the House of Representatives AND affirmed by the appellant court. A ruling upheld by the Supreme Court itself, unanimously.

Our sources are not equal.

again..executive session is not closed executive session.

also, this is talking about evidence...or testimony...obvioulsly were not talking about testimony, since none has been given, so, it must be evidence. so, what crime haa trump been charged with that would make his taxes be cinsidered evidence, hell, the committe even admitted they just wanted to see them for the purpose of suring up the presidential audit requirement, so if thats the case, their inquiry should be purely legislative and not criminal.

are you seriously trying to say that congress, for any reason they so choose can vote to release anyones personal information to the public? you believe congress has that power? thats scary....

 

[White 6]

That;s the point. Keeping information, like who a candidate is beholden to, that people would use, to make a wise decision.

The idiots that voted for him should have known from his history deals and leaving investors and contractors high and dry, that he was withholding release of his taxes to avoid people finding out more clues as to how he does business, and not voted for him. He was never required to, so he was just covering up by not releasing and the trump supporters were just too dumb to realize it, or simply didn't care.

 

[Skylar]

The text you posted specify executive session...there is a difference.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

Neither the Rules of the House of Representatives, nor the Ways and Means Committee nor the appellant court recognize any limitation on the committee's authority tor release evidence taken in executive session if the executive session is 'closed' or not.

You imagined it. And your imagination has no legal relevance.

 

[BlackSand]

Showing you why you aren’t.

.

Okay ... How did you possibly come to that stupid conclusion?

.​

 

[Skylar]

again..executive session is not closed executive session.

Again, there is no limitation recognized by congress or the courts in the committee's authority to release data based on your assertions of 'closed' vs. non-closed executive sessions.

You've invented a limitation that doesn't exist on the committee's authority, citing yourself.

And you're irrelevant.

Is this really it? Just you making up limitations to congressional authority that neither congress nor the courts recognize pulled sideways out of your ass?

If so, this just got boring fast.

 

[White 6]

They broke the law, several actually. Let's see if the ******* Democrats on here demand justice.

It will play out in court whether the Democrats on this board demand it or not. Also, there will be an investigation of why the head of the IRS stopped the rule that all presidents income taxes are automatically audited ever year, back to after Nixon proved that even presidents cheat on taxes. That is all presidents since, except Donald Trump, as his hand picked IRS head made it go away, while he was in office.

 

[Skylar]

It will play out in court whether the Democrats on this board demand it or not. Also, there will be an investigation of why the head of the IRS stopped the rule that all presidents income taxes are automatically audited ever year, back to after Nixon proved that even presidents cheat on taxes. That is all presidents since, except Donald Trump, as his hand picked IRS head made it go away, while he was in office.

Nah. The courts already ruled on this.


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.


The committee voted, exactly as the court recognized they had the authority to do....26 to 16. Legally, the issue is resolved.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

.

Okay ... How did you possibly come to that stupid conclusion?

.​

Exactly.

Your clueless nature betrayed you again.

 

[Skylar]

I didn't add anything, I'm reading the tax law verbatim, there is a difference between the two sessions, one of them REQUIRES secrecy...there is no law that allows congress to bypass laws.

You invented a limitation to the committee's authority to release evidence taken in executive session based on whether the session were 'closed' or not closed.

There is no such limitation. You made it up, citing yourself. Neither Rules of the House of Representatives, nor the Ways and Means Committee, nor the appellant court recognize your pseudo-legal limitation.

It is completely imaginary and invented by you, citing yourself.

Is that it?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Questions would arise if income exceeded expected normal levels, given their congressional salaries..etc.

So how did Brandon make millions on $400,000 a year?