Discussion: Trump Lawyer To Treasury: Reject House Dems' Tax Return Demand

2 Likes

It’s not your choice, dumbass…

28 Likes

Teapot Dome. It’s a scandal you seem to know nothing of.

Maybe Dear Leader could take the Harding route and re-make that train ride that Oranges in Alaska.

19 Likes

As pointed out before, isn’t it illegal for them to do this?

5 Likes

what are they hiding from the American people why are they hiding It? is he above the law

18 Likes

“Once this Pandora’s box is opened, the ensuing tit-for-tat will do lasting damage to our nation.” Lasting damage to our nation started the day that Trump became the Republican nominee. I’d say he is like a bull in a china shop, but I think a tantrum throwing toddler with a hammer in a daycare center better suits the destructive behavior.

17 Likes

Neal has spent months attempting to ground the request in Congressional precedent in advance of litigation anticipated to emerge after the request’s expected refusal…

Just a reminder to the inevitable trolls who keep screaming that Dems are moving too slowly. You only get one shot; it pays to aim carefully.

41 Likes

“If the IRS acquiesces to Chairman Neal’s request, it would set a dangerous precedent,”

I got news for you Sparky, there ALREADY IS ACTUAL PRECEDENT; This same law was ALREADY used to obtain the tax records of Richard Nixon (while he was President), Gerald Ford (while he was President), and Nelson Rockefeller (while he was Vice President.)

So, you don’t have a legal leg to stand on and are simply grandstanding.

30 Likes

I’m very interested to see how this battle shakes out because it’s uniquely about protecting PP. No other GOPer stands to face any direct consequences if PP’s tax returns are exposed nor would it be a blow against Conservative policy. The only injured party would be PP himself, so this represents an opportunity to see if some of these judges are simply Republicans who support Republicanism or if they’re PP protectors who happen to be Republicans. I still believe those are two different things, but I guess we’ll soon see.

28 Likes

Are you sure of that?

8 Likes

Direct? Yes. Indirect? No.

7 Likes

@georgeh

14 Likes

Exactly

6 Likes

The statute does not give a lot of wiggle room to the Treasury. Like none.

24 Likes

With the sheer number of utterly improbable and frankly implausible connections which have already proven to be entirely true to date (FFS, even a generally apolitical businessman, richest dude on earth, gets dragged in via Saudi Arabia, the girlfriend’s Brother-- who is buddies with Roger fucking Stone!-- Trump’s old fixers at the National Enquirer, and likely Jared by the time this is done)…

I no longer count on anything not being possible.

11 Likes

Is Trump’s lawyer telling the Treasury to break the law?
Is this cause for disbarring his lawyer?

13 Likes

I dunno, maybe Trump secretly claimed Nunes as a dependent!

7 Likes

OT but fabulous:

.

29 Likes

I hope you are right. I am becoming less & less optimistic about finding a Repub who is still an honest conservative, not merely a protector.

11 Likes

Well… Does it give a timeline for compliance? Or is it that they just will provide those on request, with no timeline? Then the Supremes would find a wedge that the IRS could be in compliance if they drag their feet until the person is deceased, or some later date.

Since we’re no longer in the Rule of Law era, anything can, and likely will, happen to protect the Orange King.

6 Likes