Justice Dept. issues memo backing Mnuchin’s refusal to give Trump’s tax returns to Congress

[The Purge]

The Justice Department on Friday released its legal rationale for refusing to provide President Trump’s tax returns to Congress, arguing that House Democrats want to make the documents public, which “is not a legitimate legislative purpose.”

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin refused to hand the documents over early last month, writing in a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) that the committee’s demand was “unprecedented” and could “have lasting consequences for all taxpayers.” After getting legal advice from the Justice Department, Mnuchin said he had determined the request should be refused.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

 

[Timmy]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

 

[Auld Phart]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

If they all had jumped off a bridge, should he?

 

[Care4all]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

If they all had jumped off a bridge, should he?

Well I am sure that is exactly how President Trump views showing his own taxes... even worse than jumping off a bridge!

wonder why?

He's told so many lies about them, God only knows what's in them!

He sure is costing us tax payers a bundle of money with all of these law suits that end up taking place because of him not wanting to follow regulations and laws and protocols, that all other Presidents and administrations had to abide by... and keeping our justice department busy with him and his self centered ego instead of other crimes and criminals .... imo.

 

[Mike Dwight]

The Justice Department on Friday released its legal rationale for refusing to provide President Trump’s tax returns to Congress, arguing that House Democrats want to make the documents public, which “is not a legitimate legislative purpose.”

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin refused to hand the documents over early last month, writing in a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) that the committee’s demand was “unprecedented” and could “have lasting consequences for all taxpayers.” After getting legal advice from the Justice Department, Mnuchin said he had determined the request should be refused.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

NO! Government has infinite debts for that sort of thing. And if we all got naked like the birds with Jesus people look at you funny! So, stand around, make a sign.

 

[Thinker101]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

If they all had jumped off a bridge, should he?

Well I am sure that is exactly how President Trump views showing his own taxes... even worse than jumping off a bridge!

wonder why?

He's told so many lies about them, God only knows what's in them!

He sure is costing us tax payers a bundle of money with all of these law suits that end up taking place because of him not wanting to follow regulations and laws and protocols, that all other Presidents and administrations had to abide by... and keeping our justice department busy with him and his self centered ego instead of other crimes and criminals .... imo.

Yea, pretty sure the IRS hasn't quite reached God status yet.

 

[The Purge]

The provisions in 26 U.S.C. S: 6103 protecting confidentiality of tax returns prohibited the Department of the Treasury from complying with a request by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee for the President's tax returns. The text of section 6103(f), the statutory exception under which the request was made, does not require the Committee to state any purpose for its request. But Congress could not constitutionally confer upon the Committee the right to compel the Executive Branch to disclose confidential information without a legitimate legislative purpose. Under the facts and circumstances, the Secretary of the Treasury reasonably and correctly concluded that the Committee's asserted interest in reviewing the Internal Revenue Service's audits of presidential returns was pretextual and that its true aim was to make the President's tax returns public, which is not a legitimate legislative purpose.



Because section 6103(a) prohibited the disclosure of the tax returns sought in the Chairman's request, as well as in the corresponding subpoenas, the Department of the Treasury's refusal to provide the information did not violate either 26 U.S.C. S: 7214(a)(3) or 2 U.S.C. S: 192.

(Excerpt) Read more at justice.gov ...

 

[Rustic]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

Lol
Quit falling down the well...

Tax returns are a personal thing... No one else’s business but the individual. So shut the fuck up you silly little fucker

 

[LeeOnLido]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

Lol
Quit falling down the well...

Tax returns are a personal thing... No one else’s business but the individual. So shut the fuck up you silly little fucker

we owe 22 Trillion, and the rats are worried about Trumps tax history?

 

[Darkwind]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

What is 'unprecedented' is requiring a private citizen to hand over private and confidential information prior to holding the job on the basis of a political whim. Voluntary disclosure is fine, but a legal requirement for it is out of bounds. Regardless of the party.

Congress legislates. Congress has oversight on the OFFICE of the President. ONLY the office of the President.

They do NOT have oversight on private citizens.

 

[Timmy]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

What is 'unprecedented' is requiring a private citizen to hand over private and confidential information prior to holding the job on the basis of a political whim. Voluntary disclosure is fine, but a legal requirement for it is out of bounds. Regardless of the party.

Congress legislates. Congress has oversight on the OFFICE of the President. ONLY the office of the President.

They do NOT have oversight on private citizens.

Oh. Like Hillary’s private emails ?

 

[Auld Phart]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

What is 'unprecedented' is requiring a private citizen to hand over private and confidential information prior to holding the job on the basis of a political whim. Voluntary disclosure is fine, but a legal requirement for it is out of bounds. Regardless of the party.

Congress legislates. Congress has oversight on the OFFICE of the President. ONLY the office of the President.

They do NOT have oversight on private citizens.

Oh. Like Hillary’s private emails ?

Hillarys emails were part of an investigation.

Are you trying to claim it was just a whim?

 

[LeftofLeft]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

Is it a legal requirement for Presidents to release their taxes to the public? Even if Trump is the first not to, what is the legal, constitutional, moral, ethical, or other rationale aside from appeasing Democrat political reasons?

 

[LeftofLeft]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

What is 'unprecedented' is requiring a private citizen to hand over private and confidential information prior to holding the job on the basis of a political whim. Voluntary disclosure is fine, but a legal requirement for it is out of bounds. Regardless of the party.

Congress legislates. Congress has oversight on the OFFICE of the President. ONLY the office of the President.

They do NOT have oversight on private citizens.

Oh. Like Hillary’s private emails ?

It wasn’t Hillary’s private emails that were the issue. It was State Department emails and data routed through and stored on Hillary’s PRIVATE SERVER.

 

[imawhosure]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

What is 'unprecedented' is requiring a private citizen to hand over private and confidential information prior to holding the job on the basis of a political whim. Voluntary disclosure is fine, but a legal requirement for it is out of bounds. Regardless of the party.

Congress legislates. Congress has oversight on the OFFICE of the President. ONLY the office of the President.

They do NOT have oversight on private citizens.

Oh. Like Hillary’s private emails ?

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

What is 'unprecedented' is requiring a private citizen to hand over private and confidential information prior to holding the job on the basis of a political whim. Voluntary disclosure is fine, but a legal requirement for it is out of bounds. Regardless of the party.

Congress legislates. Congress has oversight on the OFFICE of the President. ONLY the office of the President.

They do NOT have oversight on private citizens.

Oh. Like Hillary’s private emails ?

Hillarys emails were part of an investigation.

Are you trying to claim it was just a whim?

Hillary's e-mails are SUPPOSED to be archived as long as she holds office. So are Trumps, as long as he holds office. The e-mails in question were requested, in the time frame she held the SOS position, so therefore are actually OUR PROPERTY!

Were it NOT that way, nobody would ever know how decisions were made, etc, throughout history. What, do youthink our history is just a bunch of educated guesses by a bunch of pointy heads?

Nope! They go through the NATIONAL ARCHIVES, and I am sure you heard of those before, or at least I hope you did...…..look at correspondence, look at personal papers, then can tell us what happened, and why. Hillary threw that all out the window, and oh by the way...…..it is LAW! When you take a position in the Federal Government, you agree to the terms!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

What is 'unprecedented' is requiring a private citizen to hand over private and confidential information prior to holding the job on the basis of a political whim. Voluntary disclosure is fine, but a legal requirement for it is out of bounds. Regardless of the party.

Congress legislates. Congress has oversight on the OFFICE of the President. ONLY the office of the President.

They do NOT have oversight on private citizens.

Oh. Like Hillary’s private emails ?

She was using a homegrown server,so it's on her.

 

[Care4all]

The provisions in 26 U.S.C. S: 6103 protecting confidentiality of tax returns prohibited the Department of the Treasury from complying with a request by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee for the President's tax returns. The text of section 6103(f), the statutory exception under which the request was made, does not require the Committee to state any purpose for its request. But Congress could not constitutionally confer upon the Committee the right to compel the Executive Branch to disclose confidential information without a legitimate legislative purpose. Under the facts and circumstances, the Secretary of the Treasury reasonably and correctly concluded that the Committee's asserted interest in reviewing the Internal Revenue Service's audits of presidential returns was pretextual and that its true aim was to make the President's tax returns public, which is not a legitimate legislative purpose.



Because section 6103(a) prohibited the disclosure of the tax returns sought in the Chairman's request, as well as in the corresponding subpoenas, the Department of the Treasury's refusal to provide the information did not violate either 26 U.S.C. S: 7214(a)(3) or 2 U.S.C. S: 192.

(Excerpt) Read more at justice.gov ...

Well that's just a honky dory lie... because the returns for the committee are already under law, kept within the congressional committee, private, and not released to the public....

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats don't like being told NO. I predict and and

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It’s “unprecedented “ because prior presidents released their taxes .

If they all had jumped off a bridge, should he?

Well I am sure that is exactly how President Trump views showing his own taxes... even worse than jumping off a bridge!

wonder why?

He's told so many lies about them, God only knows what's in them!

He sure is costing us tax payers a bundle of money with all of these law suits that end up taking place because of him not wanting to follow regulations and laws and protocols, that all other Presidents and administrations had to abide by... and keeping our justice department busy with him and his self centered ego instead of other crimes and criminals .... imo.

It’s also unprecedented that a non politician became President.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The provisions in 26 U.S.C. S: 6103 protecting confidentiality of tax returns prohibited the Department of the Treasury from complying with a request by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee for the President's tax returns. The text of section 6103(f), the statutory exception under which the request was made, does not require the Committee to state any purpose for its request. But Congress could not constitutionally confer upon the Committee the right to compel the Executive Branch to disclose confidential information without a legitimate legislative purpose. Under the facts and circumstances, the Secretary of the Treasury reasonably and correctly concluded that the Committee's asserted interest in reviewing the Internal Revenue Service's audits of presidential returns was pretextual and that its true aim was to make the President's tax returns public, which is not a legitimate legislative purpose.



Because section 6103(a) prohibited the disclosure of the tax returns sought in the Chairman's request, as well as in the corresponding subpoenas, the Department of the Treasury's refusal to provide the information did not violate either 26 U.S.C. S: 7214(a)(3) or 2 U.S.C. S: 192.

(Excerpt) Read more at justice.gov ...

Well that's just a honky dory lie... because the returns for the committee are already under law, kept within the congressional committee, private, and not released to the public....

After the spying campaign by the opposition why would DJT trust his returns in Adam Schiffs hands?