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

[Hutch Starskey]

That would be a great use of this new investigative ability.

You should first prove there is indeed “millions”,
Given that none of you are privy to any statements that might indicate such.

 

[Skylar]

Show me where it says they have no limitation?

Laughing.....your argument has devolved into "disprove whatever pseudo-legal gibberish I make up"?

Show us where in the Rules of the House of Representatives or the Ways and Means Committe, or the appellant court ruling where the Ways and Means Committee is limited in its authority to release evidence take in executive session based on if the ssession is closed or not.

You can't. You made it up. There's no such limitation recognized by ANYONE. Not the House Rules. Not the Ways and Means Committee. Not the courts.

Its just you, citing you.

You say I'm imagining it, when I've given you sound reasoning every time. Your argument is just "congress can just ignore the distinction"...

The law is written specifically to include closed session, your rule just specifies executive session.

Here...I'll lay it out for you:

From congresses own website: (it's from the Senate, but should be the same. The house glossary list isn't very comprehensive)

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

404 Error Page

www.senate.gov

You're citing Senate rules as binding the House?

Oh, my sweet summer child.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not the Rules of the House of Representatives, not the Ways and Means Committee. Not the appellant court. Nor the Supreme Court, which affirmed the appellant court ruling unanimously.

Your source for your imaginary limitation of congressional authority is just you....citing yourself.

And you're nobody.

Is this genuinely it? Just you impotently insisting that your imagination trumps congress and the judiciary? If so, that was easy.

This is you dodging. Support your argument ...post links...quotes...LAWS. I have done this to support my argument, you just want us to take your word for it because you post a single link to a court case? A case that ultimately was just about congress urging the courts to expedite their ruling?

The supreme court didn't side with anyone about ways and means being able to publicly release the information. They just said that ways and means had the right to get the information it requested.

The link you posted simply is the appelate court pointing to a house rule that doesnt cover the law in question, and your explanation is simply that YOU say the congress doesn't have to recognize the limitation? And you say "I" am the one making stuff up?


Post YOUR evidence that says the house can lose the distinction between executive and closed executive session.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Laughing.....your argument has devolved into "disprove whatever pseudo-legal gibberish I make up"?

Show us where in the Rules of the House of Representatives or the Ways and Means Committe, or the appellant court ruling where the Ways and Means Committee is limited in its authority to release evidence take in executive session based on if the ssession is closed or not.

You can't. You made it up. There's no such limitation recognized by ANYONE. Not the House Rules. Not the Ways and Means Committee. Not the courts.

Its just you, citing you.





You're citing Senate rules as binding the House?

Oh, my sweet summer child.

Bless his heart.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You should first prove there is indeed “millions”,
Given that none of you are privy to any statements that might indicate such.

Well, we just use the same power that the dems have just created recently....we get the documents and comb through them to see if we can find how much money and where it came from, you know...get the documents to see if we can find a crime. Seems to be the norm these days.

 

[Skylar]

This is you dodging. Support your argument ...post links...quotes...LAWS.

I've quoted the appellant court recognizing the authority of ways and means committee to release the information to public.


"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."


Your argument is to ignore the appellant court and to make up an imaginary limitation to congressional authority that exists no where in any Rule of the House or the appellant ruling.

I'm quoting the appellant court. You're citing yourself.

Our sources are not equal.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well, we just use the same power that the dems have just created recently....we get the documents and comb through them to see if we can find how much money and where it came from, you know...get the documents to see if we can find a crime. Seems to be the norm these days.

You mean his taxes? Given the felonious state of his other business entities you feel they will be his redemption?

 

[BlackSand]

I can only point. I am not able to narrate your madness.

.

Again ... Nothing of substance ... Damn dude, sack up and actually say something ...

.​

 

[ThisIsMe]

Laughing.....your argument has devolved into "disprove whatever pseudo-legal gibberish I make up"?

Show us where in the Rules of the House of Representatives or the Ways and Means Committe, or the appellant court ruling where the Ways and Means Committee is limited in its authority to release evidence take in executive session based on if the ssession is closed or not.

You can't. You made it up. There's no such limitation recognized by ANYONE. Not the House Rules. Not the Ways and Means Committee. Not the courts.

Its just you, citing you.





You're citing Senate rules as binding the House?

Oh, my sweet summer child.

those arent senate rules, its just a glossary of terms, which would be the same for both houses, even one of the definitions ive provided even says it can be used for the house or senate.

ive shown you the difference between the sessions, and the language used in both the tax law and the house rule you linked YOU are the one asserting that they dont have to make the distinction between the two, im asking YOU to prove where you got that from and where it says that there is no distinction between the types of sessions.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You mean his taxes? Given the felonious state of his other business entities you feel they will be his redemption?

Nah, well subpoena bank records, wire transfer logs, phone call records, electronic communication logs. They don't really need to have an alleged crime...they'll just sift through his life until they find one....you're OK with that, right?

 

[Skylar]

those arent senate rules, its just a glossary of terms, which would be the same for both houses, even one of the definitions ive provided even says it can be used for the house or senate.

ive shown you the difference between the sessions, and the language used in both the tax law and the house rule you linked YOU are the one asserting that they dont have to make the distinction between the two, im asking YOU to prove where you got that from and where it says that there is no distinction between the types of sessions.

Says who? You citing yourself again. And you're the same guy that cited Senate rules as binding the House.

You've demonstrated no difference in the Ways and Means Committee's authority to release information taken in executive sessions based on whether the session was closed or not.

Nor is that imaginary 'limitation' recognized by the House Rules. Nor are they recognized by the Ways and Means Committee. Nor were they recognized by the courts.

No one is under any obligation to 'disprove' your imagination. You're still stuck at the same place you were when we started: The appellant court ruling that obliterates your claims that the ways and means committee lacks the authority to release to the public:


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.



Ignore as you will. Your willful ignorance is gloriously irrelevant to any legal outcome.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I've quoted the appellant court recognizing the authority of ways and means committee to release the information to public.


"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."


Your argument is to ignore the appellant court and to make up an imaginary limitation to congressional authority that exists no where in any Rule of the House or the appellant ruling.

I'm quoting the appellant court. You're citing yourself.

Our sources are not equal.

You've quoted the appellate court pointing to a house rule that isn't even regarding the proper issue. Also...it's a HOUSE RULE...meaning a rule the house uses to conduct their business. I'm citing tax LAW. The house cannot make a rule allowing itself to ignore laws....

You do realize that courts are not perfect..right? They do make mistakes...that's why other courts will overturn them.

All I'm doing is reading the tax law for what it is, and the definitions of sessions given by congress themselves. You seem to be of the mindset that congress can ignore the secrecy requirements of closed executive sessions...which really means, what you are saying is, if Congress wanted to, they could legally release secret national security information to the public, if they all just vote to do so...

Word have meaning...especially in the law..

 

[Skylar]

You've quoted the appellate court pointing to a house rule that isn't even regarding the proper issue. Also...it's a HOUSE RULE...meaning a rule the house uses to conduct their business. I'm citing tax LAW.

The law in question was directly addressed by the court, word for word. And the court found that the House Rules allowed the Committee to disclose to the public with a vote.


"However, despite no guarantee of confidentiality in the Chairman’s Request, the statute does address the Trump Parties’ concerns. “[A]ny 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.C. § 6103(f)(1). What occurs during an executive session of a committee may not be disclosed to the public without a vote of the committee. Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Cong., Rule XI, cl. 2(k)(7) (2021).


You're literally ignoring the appellant court ruling and insisting that you know better.

That's adorable

 

[Hutch Starskey]

.

Again ... Nothing of substance ... Damn dude, sack up and actually say something ...

.​

Can’t make you question your own relevance.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nah, well subpoena bank records, wire transfer logs, phone call records, electronic communication logs. They don't really need to have an alleged crime...they'll just sift through his life until they find one....you're OK with that, right?

That’s not how taxes work, bro.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

Maybe we should check Obama's, since his gross grew 100%.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Says who? You citing yourself again. And you're the same guy that cited Senate rules as binding the House.

You've demonstrated no difference in the Ways and Means Committee's authority to release information taken in executive sessions based on whether the session was closed or not.

Nor is that imaginary 'limitation' recognized by the House Rules. Nor are they recognized by the Ways and Means Committee. Nor were they recognized by the courts.

No one is under any obligation to 'disprove' your imagination. You're still stuck at the same place you were when we started: The appellant court ruling that obliterates your claims that the ways and means committee lacks the authority to release to the public:


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.



Ignore as you will. Your willful ignorance is gloriously irrelevant to any legal outcome.

I've proven it explicitly, by using definitions and the wording of the law.

And again...what crime is Trump being investigated for? The text you just shared says that sometimes documents obtained in the course of an investigation can be made public.

What investigation is Trump under by the ways and means committee? The house rule you posted mentions evidence and testimony...of what crime?

Also, they have not demonstrated the need for public release. Regardless of what scotus says, or congress says, or the appellate court says, privacy is still protected, and there has to be a public need to release someone's personal information...and, the constitution still says that you can be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, which means they have to have probale cause and basically know what it is they are looking for.

If this really was just about trying to strengthen the audit mandate, there was no reason to make his records public, and if it is a criminal investigation (which Congress has no authority to do), then they would have to satisfy the 4th ammendment.

All this is about is a vendetta from the dems going back to 2016 when trump didn't release his taxes like he said he would, and ever since then, the dems have been, "he must be hiding something!, we have to get those returns!"....and so for 6 years, they have been fighting to get them....

Oh, also, I came across this in a yahoo news article:

The two-page form doesn’t reveal the sources of Trump’s income, which has been the primary reason for Democrats to call on Trump to release his returns.

Yep, they just want to see the source of trumps income...too bad..it's not any of their business. If they want to investigate a potential crime as regards to his income sources, then tell the doj to start an investigarion and use subpoena power to attain the information.

Congress does not possess the power to conduct criminal investigations, so finding out the source of his income when he was a private citizen is not in their power. The irs only has the power to do mandatory audits of his taxes while he is in office, not before, not after.

 

[jknowgood]

That’s not how taxes work, bro.

With Trump yes it has. We need to go after Biden the same way.

 

[jknowgood]

IKR?

We need his tax returns, and Hunter's for the past 6 years.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That’s not how taxes work, bro.

Who said anything about taxes..you all just set the precedent..now it's up to the repubs to take it to a new level. They think a crime must have been committed, so they need to overturn every stone until they find that crime.

That's how it works...now..

I mean, at first it will be taxes, but then that tax information, which will surely be released to the public, down to the complete history of all his income sources...but if they find anything in there that looks even slightly...off..well, that's going to spur a whole host of new investigations which will require a complete picture of his financial life, from every bank record from every account, to every piece of electronic communication, to every wire transfer, every stock transaction, every investment account, every tie he has to any business, foreign government...I mean, the information required to get this picture will be substantial. If there is a crime there..I'm sure they'll find it!