Trump's lawyers question Congress' power to investigate him, battle House over demand for financial

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
full title:
Trump's lawyers question Congress' power to investigate him, battle House over demand for financial records
Trump's lawyers question Congress' power to investigate him, battle House over demand for financial records
Lawyers for President Donald Trump and the House clashed Tuesday in federal court over the extent of Congress' power to investigate him in the first legal test of Trump's effort to block sprawling probes of his finances and private business.

Trump wants a judge to prevent a congressional committee from obtaining financial records from his longtime accountant, Mazars USA. It is the first court test of how much information the half-dozen committees conducting investigations of Trump and his businesses might be able to obtain.

Trump and his namesake businesses filed a lawsuit last month asking U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to revoke a subpoena issued by the House Oversight and Reform Committee. Trump's lawyers accused the Democratic-controlled committee of abusing their power and said there was no legislative purpose for the request.

Mehta cited three possible reasons Tuesday to block the subpoena: that Congress has no general authority to investigate the president’s private life, that it can’t investigate for the sake of exposure; and that Congress can’t encroach on the powers of the other two branches.


Mehta didn't indicate whether he found those reasons sufficiently persuasive to block the House subpoena. But he suggested history might not be on the president's side, saying courts had not found that Congress overstepped its subpoena authority since 1880 and questioning Trump's lawyers about the basis for previous investigations of presidents.
tulc(sipping coffee, watching the fight) :coffee:
 

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian

This happened before, I think...

Oh, yes...

Bv12alNCQAET8eo.jpg:large


Here we are again. Same attempt to cover up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacobKStarkey
Upvote 0

HannahT

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,027
2,422
✟458,831.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here we are again. Same attempt to cover up.

(Shrugs) I would like to know what they think they Trump's group is covering up personally. It wasn't that hard to figure out with your past example.

Is there a legislative purpose? Did the Mueller report hint at something?

I wouldn't want every President going forward to have to deal with this in the future. That is how the political ball tends to bounce.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
(Shrugs) I would like to know what they think they Trump's group is covering up personally. It wasn't that hard to figure out with your past example.

Is there a legislative purpose? Did the Mueller report hint at something?

I wouldn't want every President going forward to have to deal with this in the future. That is how the political ball tends to bounce.

Every other recent presidential candidate turned over his records before being elected. So it's a problem only for people who have something really bad to hide.
 
Upvote 0

HannahT

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,027
2,422
✟458,831.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Trump, HannahT, is not above the law, not above checks and balances.

Since the DOJ will not indict a sitting President, Trump will wait until 2021 to be charged and tried in federal court.

I never said he was above the law.

I asked if the report hinting at something, and if there was a legislative purpose for it.

If he is going to be tried and charged after office? What part does the financials have to do with it?
 
Upvote 0

JacobKStarkey

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
1,220
714
64
Houston, Texas
✟40,347.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
I never said he was above the law.

I asked if the report hinting at something, and if there was a legislative purpose for it.

If he is going to be tried and charged after office? What part does the financials have to do with it?
Whatever the DA decides the financials have to do with it.
 
Upvote 0

HannahT

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,027
2,422
✟458,831.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Every other recent presidential candidate turned over his records before being elected. So it's a problem only for people who have something really bad to hide.

There is no requirement to do so. It has been voluntary.

We don't know if he has something to hide or not. I asked what the legal purpose of this is. Where is the smoking gun? That is what I was asking.

Neither you or JacobKStarkey answered that. You both just put speculation of some mystery cause out there, and people should just be okay with it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JacobKStarkey

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
1,220
714
64
Houston, Texas
✟40,347.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
IOW, HannahT, you have no clue, and we will leave that to the DA.
What clue am I leaving out? You can't even answer a question, and I have no clue? lol!
If you have no clue about Mueller's report and findings, then best leave it to the DOJ in the next administration.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barbarian observes:
Every other recent presidential candidate turned over his records before being elected. So it's a problem only for people who have something really bad to hide.

There is no requirement to do so. It has been voluntary.

Of course. It was merely each candidate showing he had nothing to hide.

If the shoe fits, why wear sneakers?


Or at least nothing so bad that it would hurt him/her more than hiding it from the public would hurt. Trump made the same calculation, but came up with a different answer.

We don't know if he has something to hide or not.

Of course we don't. He keeps promising to do it, but each time, a new excuse. Would someone with something hide act like that?


I asked what the legal purpose of this is.

Since he's clearly desperate to keep it hidden, I'm thinking it's illegal purposes.

Where is the smoking gun?

With a room full of smoke, it's going to take a while. Nixon didn't release his stuff until the Supreme Court ordered him to do it. Probably going to take the same for Trump. Probably for the same reasons.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacobKStarkey
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This happened before, I think...

Oh, yes...

Bv12alNCQAET8eo.jpg:large


Here we are again. Same attempt to cover up.

Yeah but that guy had some shame. Total shamelessness has a kind of stun effect, Trump will push it all back with legal ploys and bs so that none of it goes anywhere.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HannahT

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,027
2,422
✟458,831.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Barbarian observes:
Every other recent presidential candidate turned over his records before being elected. So it's a problem only for people who have something really bad to hide.

It seems more of a problem for people who want them, because he refuses to hand them over voluntarily. I have never cared about the tax returns since they started to be released, and it never swayed me one way or the other when they did. Majority of people didn't pay much attention.

If there was a clear reason besides opinions on how there must be something to hide if you refuse? Something of substance? Fine. Otherwise, I really wouldn't care one way or the other. At this point since no reason has come up? I think it is more being nosey.

If the shoe fits, why wear sneakers?

Or at least nothing so bad that it would hurt him/her more than hiding it from the public would hurt. Trump made the same calculation, but came up with a different answer.

Trump said during the campaign that he wasn't going to release them until the audit was done. Since then I have heard nothing about that audit. He didn't have to wait for the audit, but he was his choice to do so.

People didn't seem to mind, and voted for him anyway. So, it didn't seem to hurt him that bad at the time. Still don't see any gain or lose today.

I don't know what you are referring to with the shoe/sneaker deal.

Of course we don't. He keeps promising to do it, but each time, a new excuse. Would someone with something hide act like that?

I only remember the audit excuse, and then his refusal. What were the other excuses? I don't remember them. People seem to feel he has some connection to Russia still, and Mueller would have found it. Since people were terribly wrong about the whole Russia deal? I'm not so sure I would hand over anything either.

Since he's clearly desperate to keep it hidden, I'm thinking it's illegal purposes.

Speculation isn't a legal reason to force someone to do it.

With a room full of smoke, it's going to take a while. Nixon didn't release his stuff until the Supreme Court ordered him to do it. Probably going to take the same for Trump. Probably for the same reasons.

Nixon was found to have underpaid his taxes. Trump is getting audited - was the time of the campaign. That's where you find it. He isn't refusing the IRS - just Democrats.

Politicians didn't release tax returns during Nixon's time, and so in infer that he didn't show them for the same reason? That isn't the case. A IRS employee did leak them. Candidates did it voluntarily. Ford released a summary for example. Nixon and the Clintons - remember they got nailed for underpaying with WhiteWater - both paid their back taxes.

Audits tend to do the same thing - you pay if they are found you didn't pay what you should. That tends to be the purpose of audits.

Personally? I would rather them work on healthcare, immigration, etc. It seems others care more about this issue than things that affect most of us.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
It seems more of a problem for people who want them, because he refuses to hand them over voluntarily.

Apparently, he's willing to risk impeachment or jail over it. Whatever it is he doesn't want known must be ... interesting.

But there is an authoritarian lawlessness that is far more common in the 21st century, and next time I teach the course, I will have the most precise example of this second version I have ever seen: the dispute over 26 U.S. Code § 6103(f)(1), which reads: “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 [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request,” subject only to a requirement that the return be considered in closed session.

Served with a proper demand by Representative Richard Neal, the Ways and Means Committee chair, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin responded, “I have determined that the Committee’s request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose,” and that he therefore would not comply.

Let’s begin at the beginning: To paraphrase Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny, Section 6103 is what we lawyers call a “statute.” It was adopted by Congress as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976. The final Senate vote on the bill was 81–1; in the House, it was 405–2. It was signed by President Gerald Ford (for those scoring at home, a Republican). Under the United States Constitution, Article VI, Section 2, it, like all statutes, is “the supreme law of the land.” It contains no provision requiring a “legislative purpose” at all. That’s not an oversight. Congress isn’t always legislating. It has other functions; one of them is to investigate officials and even private citizens, which has been part of Congress’s mission since its 1790 inquiry into the financier Robert Morris’s management of federal revenue during the Revolution.

I can’t find any mention of “legislative purpose” in the statute’s legislative history; the Senate report notes only that congressional committees “would continue to have access to returns and return information.” Nor is “legislative purpose” mentioned in the two Office of Legal Counsel opinions I have found that deal with disclosure of returns to congressional committees. “While Congress was concerned about the citizens’ right to privacy, it was also concerned about the Government’s need for the tax information, and was very much aware of its own needs,” an opinion stated in 1977. “The legislative reports, in addressing this issue, simply state that the committees will have access to tax information ‘upon written request of their respective chairmen.’”

Finally, the text contains no provision empowering the secretary of the Treasury to determine whether such a request is “legitimate.” It says “shall furnish.” The lawful response is, “Here they are.” The lawless answer is, “I personally don’t think you have a good reason to ask.” A private citizen who gave such an answer to a lawful order would be headed for jail.
What Pleases Trump Has the Force of Law


I have never cared about the tax returns since they started to be released, and it never swayed me one way or the other when they did. Majority of people didn't pay much attention.

If that's how it is, then he should just obey the law and comply. There's no provision in the law for anyone to decide if Congress should or should not get them. The law just says they can have them when they call for them.

If there was a clear reason besides opinions on how there must be something to hide if you refuse? Something of substance?

It's the law. If Congress calls for the tax returns, the law says they get them. No excuses, ifs, ands, or buts.

Trump said during the campaign that he wasn't going to release them until the audit was done. Since then I have heard nothing about that audit. He didn't have to wait for the audit, but he was his choice to do so.

Before Congress subpoenaed them, it was his choice. Now, he doesn't have a choice.

People didn't seem to mind, and voted for him anyway. So, it didn't seem to hurt him that bad at the time.

If so, why not just obey the law?

Speculation isn't a legal reason to force someone to do it.

The law is very clear on that. Congress doesn't need to justify to anyone why they want to see them. In the end, I doubt very much if his secretary of the Treasury is prepared to go to prison for him.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacobKStarkey
Upvote 0

HannahT

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,027
2,422
✟458,831.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's the law. If Congress calls for the tax returns, the law says they get them. No excuses, ifs, ands, or buts.

I doubt anyone is going to jail over NOT handing them over.

If all they need a request from Congress with no reason needed? It needs to be challenged. There should always be protocol when it comes to things like this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I doubt anyone is going to jail over NOT handing them over.

Contempt of Congress will lead to incarceration, yes.

If all they need a request from Congress with no reason needed?

That's the law. Of course, criminals don't care about the law. That's what prisons are for.

It needs to be challenged.

Nixon did. How did that work out?

There should always be protocol when it comes to things like this.

It's in the federal code:
26 U.S. Code § 6103(f)(1), which reads: “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 [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request,”
 
Upvote 0