The Right Side of the News

Trump is trying to destroy separation of powers. He's made it clear he thinks he is in charge of all of government. For example his attempt to force the Judiciary to disallow national Injunctions as they have for over two hundred years. And, of course, his blatant illegal refusal to comply with valid Congressional subpoenas.

I think it's obvious what they are doing. Desperately trying to keep the lie alive and reinforce the sheep's fantasy world. Works like a charm on Faith and her ilk.

Two judges so far disagree with you. The validity of Congressional subpoenas over a wide variety of subjects is well established in law, as well as the principle that neither the Judiciary not the Executive should tell Congress what is or is not valid except in the most extreme situation. .The subpoenas are valid.There are legitimate reasons for demanding his tax returns.

• To determine if U.S. national security is at risk of being compromised by the president’s financial conflicts of interest
• To determine if Trump has conflicts of interests bearing on his trade and tariffs policies
• To determine whether the president is violating the U.S. Constitution by receiving benefits from foreign countries without Congress’ consent
• To determine whether he is benefiting from his tax policies despite his many public assertions to the contrary
• To determine whether the IRS is adequately auditing the president
• To inform the consideration of additional disclosure requirements for candidates and officeholders

And there is the extremely clear law, 26 USC Section 6103(f)(1):

quote:

---

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.

---

No wiggle room there.

That incantation only works if you dance naked widdershins at midnight around a pentagram and sacrifice a chicken.Seriously, judges often show independence of whichever President picked them.. The idea that Bush judge or a Clinton judge or an Obama judge or a Trump judge will robotically carry out a particular agenda is largely bullshit. Oh, it does happen, and there's serious concern about what will happen in the Supreme Court, but assuming bias is unjustified based only on the appointing President is unjustified.This administration is setting records for losing court cases decided by judges appointed by any recent President. Not because the judges are biased but because the administration is setting records for blatantly illegal policies and ignoring statutory requirements for review.In this case the law is entirely clear and the reasons for the subpoena are well within Congress' preview.

Congress is responsible for taxation. All of those reasons could affect future legislation. THe legal precedents clearly show that the possibility of legislation, whether or not anyone has any in mind, is sufficient.

quote:

---

the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request

---

That's clear and unambiguous. shall furnish. No "unless the subject doesn't wanna" or "unless the subject is the President of the United States", no "unless the subject is under audit" or any other unless. shall furnish. shall furnish.It could not be clearer.

But our legal system still works. Most judges try to avoid bias.I think some decisions (Citizens United) are stupid and do great harm to our Constitutional system. But as of now they're the law and there's no avoiding it.

Even when it's the written law of the United States? Oh, of course, you daren't come into any contact with reality, it might burn you up.You really hate it when I quote the law, amirite? It's obvious you think that the law and Constitution only apply to liberals.

quote:

---

26 USC Section 6103(f)(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.

---

From 26 U.S. Code ”6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information. Are you claiming that's not the law? Can you identify any ambiguity?

There's no qualifiers. "SHALL FURNISH". Tell you what, since I'm such a sweetheart, I've downloaded the entire section and converted it to white text on black so you have no excuse for going through it in your vain search.MEGANo ambiguity. No qualifiers. No wiggle room.

Court decisions are the law of the land. Period, end of story, full stop, 30. Whether or not you suspect something about them.In this case the written law is clear and unambiguous. That's reality.

Translation: my ass has been handed to me yet again and I'm skedaddling like a scared bunny. You'll never get it from the liars you trust. Yep, you're far from the only one with such scorn for the law and Constitution.

You have nothing but gratuitous insults. Did you notice that in all this subthread you have not once referred to any piece of evidence?It's the law, Faith. Mnuchin and Trump are blatantly breaking the law.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

That's what he said, which makes it likely it's false. And it is.Trump refused to be interviewed by Mueller (both W and Clinton were interviewed by special prosecutors). There hasn't been a press briefing in 70-odd days. He ordered subordinates to ignore legal subpoenas. He's arbitrarily blocked FOIA requests. He's refused to release White House visitor logs. His cabinet has been caught many times faking and refusing to release calendars showing how many times they meet with lobbyists. The State and Defense Departments have all but given up regular briefings about foreign policy, military operations around the globe, and the spending of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. He's instituted ridiculous rules for no reason other than silencing critical reporters. His meetings with Putin have not been recorded or summaries released, breaking at least two record retention laws.That's off the top of my head. I could produce lots more with a little research.

She runs rings around the entire administration before her morning coffee. She's smart, experienced and capable, unlike Trump.

Still you don't think the law mattersCongress is responsible for taxation. All of those reasons could affect future legislation. THe legal precedents clearly show that the possibility of legislation, whether or not anyone has any in mind, is sufficient.

quote:

---

the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request

---

That's clear and unambiguous. shall furnish. No "unless the subject doesn't wanna" or "unless the subject is the President of the United States", no "unless the subject is under audit" or any other unless. shall furnish. shall furnish.It could not be clearer.