• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by tulc, May 17, 2019.

  1. tulc

    tulc loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

    +13,174
    Christian
    Married
    full title:
    Trump's lawyers question Congress' power to investigate him, battle House over demand for financial records
    tulc(sipping coffee, watching the fight) :coffee:
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. JacobKStarkey

    JacobKStarkey Well-Known Member

    +697
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    It's nice to know that Trump's lawyers and partisans will be going to court as defendants in the next administration.
     
  3. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,741
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
  4. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +1,723
    Christian
    Married
    (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.
     
  5. JacobKStarkey

    JacobKStarkey Well-Known Member

    +697
    United States
    Methodist
    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.
     
  6. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,741
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    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.
     
  7. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +1,723
    Christian
    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?
     
  8. JacobKStarkey

    JacobKStarkey Well-Known Member

    +697
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    Whatever the DA decides the financials have to do with it.
     
  9. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +1,723
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  10. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +1,723
    Christian
    Married
    So in other words you have no clue. Yet, let's do it anyway.
     
  11. JacobKStarkey

    JacobKStarkey Well-Known Member

    +697
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    IOW, HannahT, you have no clue, and we will leave that to the DA.
     
  12. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +1,723
    Christian
    Married
    What clue am I leaving out? You can't even answer a question, and I have no clue? lol!
     
  13. JacobKStarkey

    JacobKStarkey Well-Known Member

    +697
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    IOW, HannahT, you have no clue, and we will leave that to the DA.
    If you have no clue about Mueller's report and findings, then best leave it to the DOJ in the next administration.
     
  14. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,741
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    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.

    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.

    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?


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

    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.
     
  15. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +7,025
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  16. JacobKStarkey

    JacobKStarkey Well-Known Member

    +697
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    Bad Trump, bad Trum
    Whatchu gonna do
    When the big bad Feds
    Come for you?
     
  17. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +1,723
    Christian
    Married
    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.
     
  18. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,741
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    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


    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.

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

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

    If so, why not just obey the law?

    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.
     
  19. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +1,723
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  20. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,741
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Contempt of Congress will lead to incarceration, yes.

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

    Nixon did. How did that work out?

    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,”
     
Loading...