Author Topic: Investigations into Trump - obstruction, campaign, taxes, business, etc  (Read 6136 times)

Bean

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 3865
    • View Profile
RTG, it seems you might be missunderstanding legislative purpose.   Legislative purpose is for congress to explore legislation (in this case tax law), and not to examine specific violations of law.

Weasels wake

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
But only if there exists a legitimate legislative purpose.

In this case "Neal predominantly grounds his request in oversight authority of the IRS, assessing whether the agency is fulfilling its duty to enforce the laws fairly against President Trump and whether to revise the laws relating to presidential tax duties."

Clearly, the stated reasons are politically motivated.
Recent testimony, past and current litigation provides ample reason to look. If there is nothing amiss, why fight it? I think congress is well within their rights to investigate overrides for security clearance. When millions of dollars of campaign money are unaccounted for, I think there is an obligation for an investigation. A skeleton in every closet, it seems...
I find it funny that most on the left have no trust in the IRS finding anything wrong with Trump's tax returns.  So I guess they have more trust in congress (who's poll numbers are chronically in the trash can), than they do the IRS.
Also we always hear that congress has the right to do what they are trying to do, which is correct, "a duty for oversight", yep, which also goes back to the same thing, no trust in anybody but themselves, no trust in the Mueller report, no trust in the IRS.  Does the lack of trust mean they HAVE TO go down the same roads that are already well traveled?  This is why people on the right think congress is wasting their time, those things have been or are being taking care of already.  No reason to spend tax payers money on repetitive motions.
Keep feeding the beast, Godzilla is real, the next Godzilla movie will prove it this time!
It takes a quiver to do that.

RideTheGlide

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
    • View Profile
    • Email
But only if there exists a legitimate legislative purpose.

In this case "Neal predominantly grounds his request in oversight authority of the IRS, assessing whether the agency is fulfilling its duty to enforce the laws fairly against President Trump and whether to revise the laws relating to presidential tax duties."

Clearly, the stated reasons are politically motivated.
Recent testimony, past and current litigation provides ample reason to look. If there is nothing amiss, why fight it? I think congress is well within their rights to investigate overrides for security clearance. When millions of dollars of campaign money are unaccounted for, I think there is an obligation for an investigation. A skeleton in every closet, it seems...
I find it funny that most on the left have no trust in the IRS finding anything wrong with Trump's tax returns.  So I guess they have more trust in congress (who's poll numbers are chronically in the trash can), than they do the IRS.
Also we always hear that congress has the right to do what they are trying to do, which is correct, "a duty for oversight", yep, which also goes back to the same thing, no trust in anybody but themselves, no trust in the Mueller report, no trust in the IRS.  Does the lack of trust mean they HAVE TO go down the same roads that are already well traveled?  This is why people on the right think congress is wasting their time, those things have been or are being taking care of already.  No reason to spend tax payers money on repetitive motions.
Keep feeding the beast, Godzilla is real, the next Godzilla movie will prove it this time!

The IRS does not consider the sources of income giving a foreign government possible influence over Trump. I don't always trust the IRS but that isn't relevant in this case; they are not looking for a tax violation. They need to make sure that sources of income are not a problem even if they are reported and taxed properly.

They do trust the Mueller report in which he gave pretty clear guidance for congress to pursue the obstruction charges that he could not bring, not because of lack of evidence but because the JD could not prosecute it. The report does anything but clear Trump's name. If he thinks it does, then it would make sense for him to encourage congress to speak to Mueller.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2019, 10:56:06 AM by RideTheGlide »
2016 Naish Glide 14x30 GTW
2017 GoPlus 9'9" x 6" iSUP (generic low end all around)

RideTheGlide

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
    • View Profile
    • Email
RTG, it seems you might be missunderstanding legislative purpose.   Legislative purpose is for congress to explore legislation (in this case tax law), and not to examine specific violations of law.
Nope.

In requesting Trump’s tax returns, Neal is relying on a 1924 law (now found in 26 USC 6103(f)(1)), passed in the wake of scandals such as Teapot Dome, that explicitly authorizes the House Ways and Means Committee chief to obtain any taxpayer’s tax return information by asking for it in writing. The law is clear and direct, stating that the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” any information requested. The plain language places no condition on Neal’s action, says nothing about the need for any specific purpose or justification and doesn’t enumerate any circumstances under which Mnuchin may decline to comply.

Above is taken from an article by a legal scholar. You can look up the law by the listed code and it really is that plain. So whether Trump thinks they have done enough or not, a law is being broken if the tax returns are not provided and it is one that is explicitly to prevent executive over reach.
2016 Naish Glide 14x30 GTW
2017 GoPlus 9'9" x 6" iSUP (generic low end all around)

eastbound

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2509
    • View Profile
thx RTG--saved me the research--i just read the statute itself.

NO SUCH LANGUAGE, BEAN--i know you well enough to assume you didnt invent this fallacy--but, sorry to say, you swallowed a fake news lie and regurgitated---all emboldened and underlined, which just makes the falsehood more glaring...

when you go to blanket dismiss a concept, check your facts

and this law has been invoked a dozen or so times, without any of the current republican resistance

there's a stinky turd under so many trumpian and republican stones these days--all you have to do is look--shameful--threatening the very fundamentals of our democracy

Portal Barra 8'4"
Sunova Creek 8'7"
Starboard Pro Blue Carbon  8'10"
KeNalu Mana 82, xTuf, ergoT

Bean

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 3865
    • View Profile
Neal's requirement to state his legislative purpose comes form the interpretation, at least in part, of the following provision.

Miscellaneous Provisions Section 6103.

(3) Other committees
... Any resolution described in this paragraph shall specify the purpose for which the return or return information is to be furnished and that such information cannot reasonably be obtained from any other source.

As I said above, "Neal predominantly grounds his request in oversight authority of the IRS, assessing whether the agency is fulfilling its duty to enforce the laws fairly against President Trump and whether to revise the laws relating to presidential tax duties."

In other words, there has to be a legitimate "legislative" purpose for the request.

RideTheGlide

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
    • View Profile
    • Email
Neal's requirement to state his legislative purpose comes form the interpretation, at least in part, of the following provision.

Miscellaneous Provisions Section 6103.

(3) Other committees
... Any resolution described in this paragraph shall specify the purpose for which the return or return information is to be furnished and that such information cannot reasonably be obtained from any other source.

As I said above, "Neal predominantly grounds his request in oversight authority of the IRS, assessing whether the agency is fulfilling its duty to enforce the laws fairly against President Trump and whether to revise the laws relating to presidential tax duties."

In other words, there has to be a legitimate "legislative" purpose for the request.

That's funny. You start with "(3) Other committees" when just a little above that is a different parargaph:

(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any 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.


So your "other committees" crap explicitly does not apply to this situation. The committee has to be in a closed session unless Trump says that they can do it in the open (fat chance).
2016 Naish Glide 14x30 GTW
2017 GoPlus 9'9" x 6" iSUP (generic low end all around)

eastbound

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2509
    • View Profile
saw the language and sections myself

Bean, youre disingenuously cherry-picking the statute--hoping no one will check your "work"---credible much?

how come you dont want way and means to see trump's tax return??--such that you'll misrepresent the appropriate statute to claim access would be illegal??
Portal Barra 8'4"
Sunova Creek 8'7"
Starboard Pro Blue Carbon  8'10"
KeNalu Mana 82, xTuf, ergoT

eastbound

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2509
    • View Profile
i trust the mueller report fully, WW---

but i dont trust barr and his redacters, and his bs about mueller's report, as far as a can take a dump--

republicans dont trust that the release of the full, unredacted report will serve their interests---so theyre standing behind their excellent president!!
Portal Barra 8'4"
Sunova Creek 8'7"
Starboard Pro Blue Carbon  8'10"
KeNalu Mana 82, xTuf, ergoT

Bean

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 3865
    • View Profile
Not trying to cherry pick Eastie.  I certainly don't know the exact foundation that Neal relied upon.

In addition to the law, there are also constitutional issues as well as case law to consider.  Clearly Neal believes it does apply, otherwise he (and his legal team) would not have provided his stated legislative purpose.

assessing whether the agency is fulfilling its duty to enforce the laws fairly against President Trump and whether to revise the laws relating to presidential tax duties[/i]
« Last Edit: May 07, 2019, 01:14:03 PM by Bean »

Bean

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 3865
    • View Profile
Clearly, any report related to a broad reaching investigation should be expected to have considerable redactions before being made public in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information related to active investigations/cases.


lucabrasi

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1766
    • View Profile
Keep feeding the beast, Godzilla is real, the next Godzilla movie will prove it this time!
I hope so, that last one kind of sucked but I did find the last King Kong movie pretty entertaining.

I don't know all the details of the Mueller report stuff...really have not researched, followed or done anything more than click on a few things here or there. Lots of screaming, lots of finger pointing, lots of shit is all I see and it's everywhere so beyond knowing it's going on and what a casual observer would know...….
Ok, so this was an investigation into the 2016 presidential election and to see if there was any collusion between Trump and Russia to sway the election? Right? To check out the election and to see if Trump paid Russia to influence/rig/whatever the election?
Isn't that the bottom line of the whole thing?
So.....a couple things I have wondered.
Doesn't anyone really realize what it really says if collusion did happen?
If there was collusion to sway an election that is major embarrassment to our entire government that this was able to happen, under the watch of the former president.
I think it would actually say more about the former administration and national security, especially at that point, than it would about Trump. We already know Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself.
It wouldn't be some grandious, elaborate deal like some spy movie shit. It would go something like....Boris and Don Jr are out to lunch....Hey, we can make Hillary look worse than she does...hahhaha, really! How?..........facebook......hmmmm, interesting.....

Investigating the election. You don't think the other side didn't pull out all the stops? We already know it was shady and sneaky with the shenanigans of how Hillary got in over Bernie on the ticket with the dnc....I wonder if there was anything to stumble upon from that side?
Ohhhhhh hell no, of course not.....nothing would be there...…

Do you really wish and hope there was collusion going on in the election? That only one side is capable of shenanigans? It seems that many really hope so. I just don't get it.

Probably should be in the other thread but what is probably more broke than anything is the stupid ass two party system and nothing else even gets a fair look. The divisiveness, finger pointing, and all else it is creating especially with the onset of social media is just backing itself into a corner that it can't back out of. How did that go...…..snake eating it's tail?

I think the most interesting thing in Trumps tax returns would be how much he has contributed to Democrats over the years and how broken our taxation is for corporations and mega earners.
I don't know about this 1924 tax thing but I think it's a good thing we can't just pull someones tax returns out of thin air for all to see.....I think it's a good thing they are private.

I'm just naive and too simple I am sure.......


SUP Leave

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
    • View Profile
My advice to the D's: TAKE THE L. If you don't like Trump figure out how you are going to beat him in 2 years.

Coordinate your platform into a popular one and get the W in 2020. Trump has enough legitimate issues that they could take him down without a bunch of irresponsible hyperbole, but just can't help themselves.

Trump is the low hanging orange fruit. The media and most of the left politicians can't get enough of "Orange Man Bad", but America is getting bored with it. Democrats are going to have to start bringing something solid to the table sooner or later. Investigations, demands for tax returns, doxing, public shaming is all but guaranteeing that only low life, corrupt, narcissists,  will ever run for office. Chasing all the best talent right into private industry where they pull the strings in anonymity from their penthouse.
Make paddleboarding great again!

RideTheGlide

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
    • View Profile
    • Email
Not trying to cherry pick Eastie.  I certainly don't know the exact foundation that Neal relied upon.

In addition to the law, there are also constitutional issues as well as case law to consider.  Clearly Neal believes it does apply, otherwise he (and his legal team) would not have provided his stated legislative purpose.

assessing whether the agency is fulfilling its duty to enforce the laws fairly against President Trump and whether to revise the laws relating to presidential tax duties[/i]
You start out saying you certainly you don't know the exact foundation, even though that has been quoted to you straight out of the code.  It was referenced in Neal's request also.

Then you start talking about case law? What case? Where in the constitution is the relevant bit you are referring to? Suddenly it is clear to you that Neal thinks these nebulous concepts you vaguely refer to apply. What laws relate to "presidential tax duties"?  The "agency" doesn't revise laws, congress does. The agency is bound by them.

I am trying hard to be polite, but your side of the debate seems to be baseless nonsense.
2016 Naish Glide 14x30 GTW
2017 GoPlus 9'9" x 6" iSUP (generic low end all around)

TourmoSUPr

  • Waikiki Status
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Bean,

If you look at section (f)(3), the first section in parenthesis states "other than a committee specified in paragraph (1)". As a result, any request under f(1) is not subject to the provisions of f(3).

Your analysis of statutory law is misguided. What I would like to know is where this interpretation of 6103(f)(1)(3) comes from?

Would you be willing to identify the source? I believe it is crucial that we know if a source is providing misleading information, no matter what side it is on.