AND gave them to the Kenyan Military…
1 Like
Oh no! Trump’s not “petty” or childish, @loppar…
He’s a “counter-puncher” who fight’s back…
(His opponent may be dead…but who cares about technicalities, right?)
1 Like
Well, no. Without getting into a 10 volume dissertation on how to interpret federal statutes, generally speaking, you have to read a statute not with just the bare words, but in context and subject to the confines of the Constitution.
So, to pull a given person’s tax return you have to have a reason related to taxes, not just “over site” as to one person. Moreover, much of the tax returns are commingled with other peoples’ tax returns (being partnership returns). They have a right to privacy (both Constitutional and under the statute and IRS regs) So you’d have to redact the portions related to other people, which may not be possible in a partnership return.
Just for example, smart drug cartels file tax returns that say “$100000000000 from drug dealing” and pay their taxes. This can’t be used against them by the DEA, for example. It’s designed that way so people pay their taxes. (Ask Al Capone if he should have followed that.)
Further, because there is a statutory and Constitutional right to keep tax returns private, you have to have some sort of predicate to pull them — like, for example, reasonable suspicion that someone cheated on their taxes. Not exactly “probable cause”, but closely related concept.
So while I believe Trump is a scum bag and is certainly the type to cheat on taxes, that’s not a predicate. That’s like pulling over 4 scummy looking black guys in a white neighborhood just because they look like they are up to no good. Certainly happens, and it’s probably logical in a lot of cases, but its not legal.
It’s what is called legally a “fishing expedition”. You don’t know of a discrete crime, but think you’ll find one by dragging a net through stuff. It’s not Constitutional, even if you probably are right.
So, no, just because the statute is plain, it has to be read in context of the other statutes and the Constitution.
And, yes, as noted upthread, this is a bad policy choice. I’d like to see Nancy Pelosi’s tax returns. I am pretty damn confident she’s a scum bag. So I’d like to go fish through her tax returns and
And, yes, if this is the interpretation that gets upheld, it will become a weapon on both sides of the isle. The Senate will go subpoena other private citizens tax returns. Then the House.
There’s an old saying “hard cases make bad laws.” Yes, Trump is a scum bag. Yes, looking through his tax returns will probably find some really interesting dirt. But Congress (and the Courts) need to look at the big picture and see what the next move is.
The solution is, as agreed by everyone here, is to make all Congress, all top Executive Branch, and all the SCOTUS tax returns public – by statute. If you don’t like the disclosure – don’t run.
But don’t screw up the country to “get” one idiot.
2 Likes
Wasn’t the ship named for Admiral McCain? Not junior?
Edit:
Looks like Sen. McCain was III. The boat is named after TWO admirals McCain (one being Jr.).
What information does any tax return show that isn’t on a financial statement? Particularly when combined with the fact that IRS audits demand verification of stated reportings.
What exactly is missing?
Well, they’re different things.
Tax returns show taxable income. Financial statements can show taxable income, but generally show wealth, cash flow, and, maybe, taxable income (depending on how they are done).
It’s like the annual outrage when Amazon (or whatever) makes tons of money, but has little taxable income – because of depreciation or investment or growth. Remember the stories: “Amazon (or Apple or whatever the outrage target of the day is) made $ XYZ, but paid $.01 in taxes!” They happen every year.
Trump, being a real estate guy, probably has huge tax losses, despite increase in wealth (due to nonrealized appreciation), because real estate is a really effective tax shelter.
Personally, I’d be most interested in his cash flow statements.
In general, tax returns are of limited use when trying to figure out someone’s business dealings, so much so they are generally not discoverable in most civil (and even non-tax related criminal) litigation.
What they can be useful for though, is getting a list of businesses someone is involved in, and harassing the crap out of the partners, organizing a boycott, or the like.
Or, showing that someone had huge tax losses and then saying (to the ignorant) “hey he sucks at business, look at these losses!” (In reverse of the Apple/Amazon/whatever outrages.)
2 Likes
Heh. In any event, I don’t need a dissertation on how to interpret federal laws, but thanks anyway.
No, you don’t - Congress has to have a legitimate legislative purpose, so something within the purview of a Congressional role. Here, with a public servant - not a private citizen - that threshold is met. Congress has the right not to oversee one private man, but yes, it has the right to oversee the man in the White House. And legislative purpose could be impeachment, it could be looking at conflict of interest laws, and perhaps the strongest argument of all: it could be in furtherance of potential legislation requiring future presidents to disclose tax returns.
And the point is - the judiciary isn’t there to substitute its judgment on whether that legislative purpose is good or bad. Its inquiry ends when it is satisfied there’s a legit reason, which is a low standard. Here, it’s met.
For prosecution of tax crimes? Sure. For Congress to consider in furtherance of a legislative purpose? No. That’s not the standard at all.
No it isn’t - because we’re not talking about discovery in a lawsuit, which while liberal, hems in attempts to simply “fish” for wrongdoing. We’re talking about broad investigatory powers by the U.S. Congress - they’re entitled to a lot of fishing.
We don’t have to manufacture prenumbras here - the case law has already set the standard: can Congress claim a legitimate legislative purpose? If yes, then there’s nothing else to consider. And here, Congress has. Trump is more than a scumbag and a potential tax cheat - he’s a man that occupies the most powerful public executive office in the world, and there is credible evidence he has private interests that constitute conflicts of interest, possibly violate the Emoluments Clause, and may compromise national security because of corrupt entanglements.
Example? How about Trump thumbing his nose at Congress’ objection to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen and Trump then unlawfully using the emergency provision in the statute to do the deal (in an obvious non-emergency), all the while Trump has baldly advertised he has deep financial ties to the Saudis? Congress is supposed to sit still? Of course not.
Congress doesnt have to wait on a (compromised) DOJ or anyone else to take action on these things - it’s entitled to review and do something about it pursuant to its constitutional powers (impeachment, legislation).
If they do, the courts will stop them, because Congress can’t justify a legislative reason to obtain them. Congress can’t pass a law punishing that private individual for something he did on his taxes (see ex post facto).
What you fail to understand is this current exercise isn’t targeting a private citizen - it’s checking an elected official.
2 Likes
In other news, Trump has announced tariffs against Mexico…
2 Likes
So does this delay the ratification of the USMCA? My understanding is that it doesn’t go into effect until all 3 countries ratify.
Five stars for the real legal arguments being presented.
3 Likes
They (Mexico) should just create a federal labor agency and start billing for Everybody that comes over.
That would be some bigly business covefe.
1 Like
So, Trump and his team put a bunch of effort into renegotiating NAFTA for a better trading relationship with Mexico, only for Trump to arbitrarily wreck the trading relationship by raising tariffs as a tool to get something else.
This is Exhibit A (or maybe Z at this point?) as to why Trump is a horrible dealmaker - he simply can’t be trusted to keep his word.
2 Likes
So many facepalms I just can’t keep track… I’m likely to suffer a mild concussion at this point
2 Likes
Trump, Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway?
It’s a little ridiculous how long it has taken them to pay for the wall. It seems like he told us in 2016 that they would. That’s way more than enough time for them to transfer the money.
1 Like
100%. @Jewbacca and @thunderbolt23 sparring is endlessly entertaining.
2 Likes
“The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has just published a deep dive into the economic impact of the cuts in their first year, and emerges from the water with a different picture.”
“The CRS finds that the cuts have had virtually no effect on wages; haven’t contributed to a surge in investment’ and haven’t come close to paying for themselves. Nor have they delivered a cut to the average taxpayer”.
That dam “Deep State” and Fake News…
At it again…
1 Like
I have no words
1 Like
This is typical authoritarian behavior
Anyone who grew up under communism will remember how everything that the Great Leader might have laid his eyes on had to be vetted, approved and triple checked so that he couldn’t have seen anything that might have disagree with him. Otherwise, tempter tantrums would ensue and (literal) heads would roll.
Of course, after decades of toadying this is how it looks like:
1 Like
