The Courts Must Decide Who Sees Trump’s Taxes
Apr 22, 2019 20:27:17 #
mjmoore17 wrote:
Except there is no statute against it.
Except there is.... Blowing hot air again?
Apr 22, 2019 20:30:49 #
mjmoore17 wrote:
I have and maybe you have also. The question is why are you purposefully not telling the t***h. This is not an issue on which there is any possibility of reasonable disagreement. Any well-informed person who disagrees either that the Ways and Means Committee has an obligation to demand Trump’s tax returns as part of fulfilling its oversight duties or that Trump is legally obliged to turn them over is either a partisan hack or contemptuous of the rule of law.
Bulls**t, the Ways and Means Committee has no business whatsoever in seeing Trumps tax returns, if they want to look at tax abuses they don't get to ask for a specific individuals tax return, they can ask for a sample of a class of tax returns where the individual tax payer remains anonymous to the committee. That is not at all what the DEMONICS on the Ways and Means committee are attempting to do.
Apr 22, 2019 20:35:45 #
mjmoore17 wrote:
I have and maybe you have also. The question is why are you purposefully not telling the t***h. This is not an issue on which there is any possibility of reasonable disagreement. Any well-informed person who disagrees either that the Ways and Means Committee has an obligation to demand Trump’s tax returns as part of fulfilling its oversight duties or that Trump is legally obliged to turn them over is either a partisan hack or contemptuous of the rule of law.
To what legislative purpose do you refer?
Apr 22, 2019 20:54:58 #
mjmoore17 wrote:
You are pulling this out of your butt. Certain congressional committees can request and there is nothing about malicious intent. There are plenty of reasons even prior to report. Questions of conflicts of interest with Saudi Arabia or Russia as two low h*****g fruit.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with this case.....
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the power of the United States Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations and that nothing in the United States Constitution gives it the authority to expose the private affairs of individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkins_v._United_States
Apr 22, 2019 20:57:11 #
Angmo wrote:
To what legislative purpose do you refer?
Oversight.
Apr 22, 2019 21:00:44 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with this case.....
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the power of the United States Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations and that nothing in the United States Constitution gives it the authority to expose the private affairs of individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkins_v._United_States
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the power of the United States Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations and that nothing in the United States Constitution gives it the authority to expose the private affairs of individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkins_v._United_States
Wrong. In the 1957 case of Watkins v. US, which considered intrusive investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in a prior era.
Watkins is not helpful for President Trump. The case contemplates even broader congressional investigative power than Rep. Neal needs to justify his request. And unlike the HUAC in Watkins, Ways and Means is acting with a legitimate congressional purpose and within its clear jurisdictional authority. This purpose may include investigating whether we need new laws to ensure that the IRS enforces the president’s obligations to pay taxes.
Section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code in turn provides a formal procedure for Congress to exercise this constitutional authority and removes these requests from the shield of tax return privacy.
Apr 22, 2019 21:10:08 #
mjmoore17 wrote:
Wrong. In the 1957 case of Watkins v. US, which c... (show quote)
That is total bulls**t, the IRS and tax law is going to concern itself with one specific individual, bulls**t, it is totally inconsequential to the revenues of the treasury. They lied to you for two years and they are lying to you still and you are gobbling up the bulls**t. This will land at the feet of the SCOTUS and we will see where it goes from there, some Circuit court in Maryland will not have the final say in this case, it will be the SCOTUS and I am betting on a 7-2 decision or better in favor of the president.
Apr 22, 2019 21:13:26 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
That is total bulls**t, the IRS and tax law is goi... (show quote)
Fantasyland is still in Disney, you would like it.
Apr 22, 2019 21:57:26 #
Apr 22, 2019 22:07:38 #
mjmoore17 wrote:
Fantasyland is still in Disney, you would like it.
Nah, have no use for Disney or ABC.... You will be like any other dem here, spout all these so called facts as you do now and with the passage of time when almost every thing you claim today is proven wrong tomorrow, you will not acknowledge your failed arguments.... Michael, when was the last time you posted on the photography side of the site?
Apr 22, 2019 22:14:00 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Nah, have no use for Disney or ABC.... You will be like any other dem here, spout all these so called facts as you do now and with the passage of time when almost every thing you claim today is proven wrong tomorrow, you will not acknowledge your failed arguments.... Michael, when was the last time you posted on the photography side of the site?
Nice pic. I’ve been thinking of this pic. Sunset over the Himalayas. Everest can’t be missed. Was a fabulous trip. Bucket list for all fotogs.
Related to the attic, makes lefties seem like brats. Entitled spoiled brats.
Apr 22, 2019 22:17:03 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Nah, have no use for Disney or ABC.... You will be like any other dem here, spout all these so called facts as you do now and with the passage of time when almost every thing you claim today is proven wrong tomorrow, you will not acknowledge your failed arguments.... Michael, when was the last time you posted on the photography side of the site?
Poor attempt at deflection. Keep practicing, you can get it right after awhile.
Apr 22, 2019 22:17:27 #
Angmo wrote:
Nice pic. I’ve been thinking of this pic. Sunset over the Himalayas. Everest can’t be missed. Was a fabulous trip. Bucket list for all fotogs.
Doubt that I will ever get there, probably retire in Florida or the Appalachian mountains. Don't figure on a lot of travel. But I have seen more than most, except for you military guys....
Apr 22, 2019 22:19:46 #
mjmoore17 wrote:
Poor attempt at deflection. Keep practicing, you can get it right after awhile.
Wh**ever Michael, you are not winning any debate here, you came for the photography and it seems now you are only interested in the Attic, there has got to be better sites for politics...
Apr 22, 2019 22:35:03 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Wh**ever Michael, you are not winning any debate here, you came for the photography and it seems now you are only interested in the Attic, there has got to be better sites for politics...
But we are winning the war. Still stuck on deflection. You need to train better.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.