The IRS ***denies*** The House Request For DJT's Tax Returns

[Billo_Really]

Oversight of government means to see how government is functioning not investigating individuals in government. It's the executive branch that investigates individual crimes and we just learned from a special counsel that there he found no evidence of crime by the President.

All you learned is a Trump homer is trying to hide the facts of the report.

 

[Meister]

Oversight of government means to see how government is functioning not investigating individuals in government. It's the executive branch that investigates individual crimes and we just learned from a special counsel that there he found no evidence of crime by the President.

All you learned is a Trump homer is trying to hide the facts of the report.

Well....whutchya got, Billo? I'm curious.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oversight of government means to see how government is functioning not investigating individuals in government. It's the executive branch that investigates individual crimes and we just learned from a special counsel that there he found no evidence of crime by the President.

All you learned is a Trump homer is trying to hide the facts of the report.

Gee, and Muller is staying quiet all this time. Funny how that is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not quite. It must be relevant either to Congress' legislative function or its oversight of government function. Trump's taxes are relevant to neither, therefore Congress has no right to demand them.

The law doesn't say anything about relevancy.

Yes it does, read the link I posted.

 

[jc456]

The left would be wise to drop this or it will come back to bite them the left won't control the Ways and Means Committee forever

Psst, dummy, Democrats don't have a problem with crooked candidates trying to conceal their tax returns.

Are you implying that "concealing tax return" is a crime, or you're just butthurt because you can't get what you want?

 

[jc456]

Damn soon they will be down to trying to defeat him with a democrat that acts normal and actually has an idea for running the government.

Lol can't help it I could not keep myself from almost laughing myself to death at the thought of a dem acting normal and with an idea.

...normal? Oh yea that’s when you RELEASE YOUR TAX RETURNS WHEN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

“Crooked Hillary” released a decade of her tax returns when she ran. Trump is fighting tooth and nail to keep you from seeing his. Ever wonder why?

Is it "normal" to be the subject of an FBI investigation while running for President?

It is if obammy is president

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And Yet Trump Will Never Be Impeached, and You Will Cry In Your Pillow Nightly Knowing This!

Thats a stupid ass prediction considering Trump is almost certain to be impeached in the House if he wins 2020.

If Trump win in 2020 what are the Chances the House Stays Blue?

What will he be impeached for?

He can be impeached for just about anything Democrats will say he ought to be impeached for. The legal standard is wide open and with a pathological liar and anything-goes opportunist like Trump you don't have to look very far.

They can impeach if they want, but even Piglosi knows that's a bad route to go. Besides, what goes around comes around, and there will eventually be another Democrat President in the future with a Republican Congress.

That's irrelevant. Of course republicans are going to try to impeach the next democrat president. It doesn't matter who he is or what he does. They tried to impeach the last one and got a bill of impeachment against the previous one.

The Republicans are not going to try to impeach anybody unless there is just cause like in the Clinton case. However even in that case, it really didn't meet public approval in spite of the evidence.

But if Democrats are going to try to impeach Trump on a personal or political vendetta and nothing more, I suspect the Republicans would do the same when given a chance.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="Ame®icano, post: 22181357, member: 11420"]

Still refusing, why not simply agree that with which you ought to?

Because you are wrong!

You have no right to see his tax returns!!

Quote me saying I have a right to see his tax returns or retract.

Holy shit!

So why are you bitchinh about not seeing them if you do not believe you have the right to see his returns?

Just because he is not legally required to publicise his tax-returns, does not mean that Trump shouldn't do the right thing in releasing them. Duh.

I don't understand why you seem to keep shutting down a part of your brain when it comes to Trump.

Why is releasing his tax returns "the right thing to do"? Because you want to see them, or because you say so?[/QUOTE]

 

[jc456]

Thats a stupid ass prediction considering Trump is almost certain to be impeached in the House if he wins 2020.

If Trump win in 2020 what are the Chances the House Stays Blue?

What will he be impeached for?

He can be impeached for just about anything Democrats will say he ought to be impeached for. The legal standard is wide open and with a pathological liar and anything-goes opportunist like Trump you don't have to look very far.

They can impeach if they want, but even Piglosi knows that's a bad route to go. Besides, what goes around comes around, and there will eventually be another Democrat President in the future with a Republican Congress.

That's irrelevant. Of course republicans are going to try to impeach the next democrat president. It doesn't matter who he is or what he does. They tried to impeach the last one and got a bill of impeachment against the previous one.

son you so full of shit you gonna splode.

I bet his eyes are brown

 

[mikegriffith1]

I thought in America tax returns were private and could only be released with the person's consent. Now, of course, if members of Congress were to get a copy of his tax returns from the IRS, they would be legally bound not to release them, but every sentient person knows they would leak them.

 

[jc456]

Looks like the dems want to keep the IRS as a weapon even when there is no crime.
Perhaps they should run it through FISA to get a warrant because of some "damning" information obtained
by Guido's ex-brother-in-law.

I think it’s the dogs

 

[jc456]

I thought in America tax returns were private and could only be released with the person's consent. Now, of course, if members of Congress were to get a copy of his tax returns from the IRS, they would be legally bound not to release them, but every sentient person knows they would leak them.

Not unless you’re a leftist crybaby then it’s. I want hem gots to have them sniff sniff

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Even if Congress gets them, you won't.

They’ll release what is in public interest to know.

Not legally they won't, it is a FEDERAL Felony to release someones tax info without consent.

Yes they can, if it's in the pubic interest to know.

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

There is NOTHING in that regulation that allows disclosure of specific persons information for anything other then CRIMINAL proceeds and then those proceeds must be specified before hand and no disclosure may occur to the PUBLIC. Try again.

Congress is not asking Trump to turnover his tax returns. They are asking the IRS. A 1924 law allows the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to examine anyone’s tax returns in private, without their permission. Secondly, congress has a responsibility to oversea the executive branch and to audit it's performance. In this case it is the IRS. According to Trump the agency has been auditing his returns now for 3+ years some over 5 years. Typically audits run 3 to 6 months and more complex cases they can run a 1 to 2 years but 3 to 5 years years would be very usually. Some of these returns go back over 7 years. Is the IRS sitting on those returns because the tax payer is the president?

Congress will get his tax returns. However, it may not help democrats at all. First because it may be too late to effect the election and secondly because there may be nothing there democrats can use against Trump. In which case it may help Trump. Proving Trump is unethical is not going to sway his base. That's one of the things they like about.

If they get Trump's tax returns they are violating a court ruling. They have zero grounds for looking at his returns other than political motives. As the court ruled, the law doesn't allow that.

 

[Billo_Really]

Slow down and read! Where did I say anyone subpoenaed Trump's tax returns?

I forgot you're just a troll.

"...that is not who subpoenaed the Trump tax returns."

"...that is not who subpoenaed the Trump tax returns."

"...that is not who subpoenaed the Trump tax returns."

 

[Billo_Really]

Well....whutchya got, Billo? I'm curious.

I got the same you have.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes it does, read the link I posted.

It doesn't say anywhere if the request is not relevant, then the taxpayer doesn't have to provide the returns. You're full of shit!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gee, and Muller is staying quiet all this time. Funny how that is.

Get back on topic Cleveland boy!

Perfectly on topic. If anything Barr said was misleading or inaccurate, Mueller would be the first to be in contact with the MSM. However Mueller and Barr (who have mutual respect for each other) are working together on the redaction copy which will be presented to Congress.

Remember Mueller's team were mostly anti-trump clowns that would have first sounded the alarm if Barr was hiding something.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes it does, read the link I posted.

It doesn't say anywhere if the request is not relevant, then the taxpayer doesn't have to provide the returns. You're full of shit!

Sure it does. One more time:

In the 1881 case Kilbourn v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that Congress can’t use its powers to delve into someone’s private financial matters unless there is a proper legislative purpose.

 

[jc456]

Slow down and read! Where did I say anyone subpoenaed Trump's tax returns?

I forgot you're just a troll.

"...that is not who subpoenaed the Trump tax returns."

"...that is not who subpoenaed the Trump tax returns."

"...that is not who subpoenaed the Trump tax returns."

How is that evidence? Oh yeah u leftists can’t figure that stuff out

 

[jc456]

Yes it does, read the link I posted.

It doesn't say anywhere if the request is not relevant, then the taxpayer doesn't have to provide the returns. You're full of shit!

Sure it does. One more time:

In the 1881 case Kilbourn v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that Congress can’t use its powers to delve into someone’s private financial matters unless there is a proper legislative purpose.

Ray, it’s a rock