If someone ever wondered what obstruction of justice look like,here’s exhibit 654 or 655 ? Have lost count by now.
“Treasury Refuses Dem Subpoena For Trump Tax Returns”
The plain language of the statute does not require justification of a legislative purpose. That should end the legal analysis.
“Once more unto the strongly worded letter cannon, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our dead subpoenas”.
In the meantime, Madame Speaker, arrest Mnumskull.
The funny part about this is that the Tax Returns may be disclosed by other means.
Doesn’t matter, the current (yes, from 1880, but still the last word on it) jurisprudence covers all legislative matters.
But since you can pick from any one of about 500 legitimate reasons for Congress to see his tax returns, should be a non-issue when this hits the courts, in any normal world (not that we’re in one, no bet as to how Roberts will decide to drop the deciding vote).
They should have printed the subpoena on a sheet of $100s. I bet he wouldn’t turn that down quite so quickly.
House Ways and Means Committee chair Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) said on CNN on Friday that he expected to file a lawsuit to obtain the information as early as next week
WHY not today? Giving any quarter to today’s GOP is foolish… they must be crushed completely and the quicker the better
Time Line To-Date:
January 3: Democrats take over House.
April 3: Rep. Neal, D-Mass., requested for Trump’s tax returns in 2-page letter
April 10: Steven Mnuchin refuses to release tax returns
April 23: Steven Mnuchin refuses to release tax returns, says decision by May 6
May 6: Steven Mnuchin refuses to release tax returns
May 10: Neal subpoenas the tax returns
May 15: Steven Mnuchin refuses to release tax returns, says “let the court decide
May 17: Steven Mnuchin refuses comply with subpoena for tax returns
Because Mnuchin waited until the end of the day to send the letter, and they need that to take to the courts.
This was always going to end up in court. Neal and the committee’s attorneys likely already have the language of the suit drawn up. I doubt the judge will fault Neal for not going through a due step by step process. But I ask once again. Who’s paying for Consovoy et al., Trump’s personal afforneys? Mercer? The RNC? Not Trump, you can be sure of that.
Whenever I see that picture I think of a mating dance. You know the dance where the male bird in all the fancy plumage spreads his wings trying to attract a female. I can almost hear David Attenborough describing the mating ritual of the rare money crested Mnuchin.
Left hidden in all this defiance is why Trump does not wish for Congress to see his Tax Returns.
[Hushed TV host voice-over timbre]
I believe that might actually be the “Weak-Chinned Sunken-Chested Mnuchin,” Ron
It seems unlikely that even the most conservative federal judge could rule in Trump’s favor here. The law has no ambiguities to work around. It’s both clearly stated and has clear precedents. To rule against Congress in this case is to say “I don’t believe Congress should have any oversight authority.” That’s a bit much for even the craziest federal judge, but we’ll see.
Trump is going to run out the clock. Here in Utah, he illegally cut the size of two national monuments 17 months ago. Even though it was a blatant violation of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the inevitable reversal of Trump’s executive orders has been held up by court motions all this time. The case may not be decided until next year.
Are we going to see Trump’s tax returns before the 2020 election?
Just so we’re clear, 26 USC 6103(f) reads as follows:
(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.
Can’t seem to find the part that says the Secretary of the Treasury may decline to follow this provision if, in the Secretary’s view, the request for disclosure does not satisfy a legitimate legislative purpose.
“Going forward, courts will likely consider whether Neal made the request with a legitimate legislative purpose in mind.”
I would like to still live in a universe where courts do not frame their judgements of matters of fact and law according to the narrative-slash-memes promulgated by the Trump White House and parroted broadly by MSM.
Lock 'em up…