Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
The Courts Must Decide Who Sees Trump’s Taxes
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12 next>>
Apr 14, 2019 12:29:05   #
Kmgw9v (a regular here)
 
EyeSawYou wrote:
So what laws has Trump violated or broken, please give specifics?


I did not state that Trump violated any law, only that he has no regard for them.
Learn to read objectively without anticipating a negative connotation or fight.
I referred to the 1924 law which seems to be applicable. Look up that law and read it before you respond.
You have problems— relax a bit.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 12:29:52   #
letmedance (a regular here)
 
sb wrote:
Of course, the MAJORITY of voters voted NO - on Trump! So it's hard to keep saying "the voters decided". The voters DIDN'T decide. The electoral college decided on him being president - but THE VOTERS DIDN'T!


The EC represented the wishes of the voters in their States, so yes the majority did decide, the majority of the States.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 12:32:39   #
letmedance (a regular here)
 
Frank T wrote:
The law is quite clear and the law says that Congress can demand the tax returns and that the Treasury Department shall comply.
It doesn't say shall discuss it or might comply or it's up to them. It says shall comply and in legalize, just replace shall with must and you get the idea what that means.


But the Law also has limits placed on such an action by Congress, Congress cannot at this time meet those limits.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 12:32:52   #
EyeSawYou (a regular here)
 
Kmgw9v wrote:
I did not state that Trump violated any law, only that he has no regard for them.
Learn to read objectively without anticipating a negative connotation or fight.
I referred to the 1924 law which seems to be applicable. Look up that law and read it before you respond.
You have problems— relax a bit.


When you said "Trump cars nothing about the rule of law", you were implying that Trump either does not support the rule of laws or broke or violated some laws, so what laws did he break or violate for you to make that assertion? Edit*

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 13:23:09   #
MikeMck (a regular here)
 
Make no mistake, bone spur did not win the popular vote. With the russian help he won enough electoral college votes to win. He is not the president of the people, but of the russians.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 13:26:13   #
papakatz45 (a regular here)
 
sb wrote:
Of course, the MAJORITY of voters voted NO - on Trump! So it's hard to keep saying "the voters decided". The voters DIDN'T decide. The electoral college decided on him being president - but THE VOTERS DIDN'T!


Do you not understand how our election process works?

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:22:38   #
mjmoore17 (a regular here)
 
WNYShooter wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-12/trump-s-taxes-the-courts-must-decide-about-president-s-returns

Congress and the Trump administration have reached a standoff over the president’s tax returns: House Democrats have asked the Treasury Department to turn them over, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has made it clear that he won’t be doing so anytime soon.

It’s a conflict that the courts are best placed to resolve — and the sooner the better.

U.S. presidents since Richard Nixon have voluntarily released their tax returns, seeing it as essential to gaining their constituencies’ confidence (the exception is Gerald Ford, who disclosed only an overview). Trump broke with this tradition during his presidential campaign, citing an audit that prevented him from providing the information. He’s still using the same excuse, although no rule actually bars people under audit from releasing their returns.

To force the disclosure, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal has invoked a 1924 law giving him the authority to request any taxpayer’s return from the Treasury secretary, who in turn “shall furnish’’ it. Most experts agree that the law clearly requires Treasury to comply. Just two issues: There’s some debate over whether Neal needs a legislative purpose for the request, and the law doesn’t say when the returns should be furnished.

To head off attacks on his motives, Neal has specified that the committee needs the returns to ensure that the Internal Revenue Service is properly auditing the president. Opponents, though, can argue that the demand for Trump’s personal and business returns from years before he took office, along with the fact that he didn’t initiate an investigation through Treasury’s internal watchdog (as has been done in the past), undermine the request’s validity.

Then there’s the question of timing. Unless some authority compels Mnuchin to respond by a certain date, he can drag his feet indefinitely. If, for example, he puts it off until the end of the current congressional session in 2021, the process will have to start over — possibly in a different political environment, with Trump either out of office or holding more sway in the legislature.

Here’s where the judicial system comes in. This is a matter of interpreting the law, which is what the courts were created to do. They’re also uniquely equipped to demand compliance: It would be a lot harder for Trump to flout a judge’s order than a decades-old tradition of disclosing tax returns. Although either side might decry the ruling depending on who appointed the judge, a timely decision would nonetheless provide much-needed clarity, for both this and future cases.

Hence, Neal should act quickly to issue a subpoena, which would trigger court proceedings in the probable event that Treasury refused to comply. And judicial officials should move no less quickly to handle a case that — given the stakes and the parties involved — could reach the Supreme Court. Dragging the dispute out until it’s no longer relevant to the Trump administration would both waste taxpayer money and effectively produce the same result as denying Neal’s request.


Ultimately, the U.S. needs better laws on presidential disclosure. House lawmakers passed a bill last month that would require presidents to release 10 years of tax returns, and some states are considering making such transparency a prerequisite for appearing on election ballots. Another solution might be enhanced financial reporting, which could provide more useful information than the tax returns.

For now, though, the courts are best positioned to decide what the people’s representatives can know about the president’s finances. May they do so without delay.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04... (show quote)


Fancy talk for nothing. The law is written very clearly. There is nothing about motives, nothing about legislative plans and very few laws have a time period for compliance built into the law. Some do but most do not. The court will give him a time frame and it will be sooner rather than later. As far as Mnuchin is concerned, the law is very clear on the consequences of non-compliance. He will share a jail cell with Trumps other buddies.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:25:20   #
mjmoore17 (a regular here)
 
pendennis wrote:
The operative word here, is that other Presidential candidates have voluntarily published their tax returns for public scrutiny. Frankly, I don't want to see their tax returns. And, unless Congress comes up with a law requiring all candidates for not only the Presidency, but for all Congressional candidates to reveal their tax returns, then no one should be required. Sauce for the goose...

Bloomberg hardly makes a case for an immediate ruling in a Federal district court. Besides, any request for judicial action would have to go through the Department of Justice. Congress doesn't have the authority to file actions with the courts. Article I is very clear on the limitations of Congressional powers.

We're slipping, nay falling, into a mind set that requires the complete baring of one's private life. It's the weaponizing of what's been private information (between the IRS and the taxpayer), and what's rightfully public.

I seriously doubt that the President filed any tax returns - Federal, state, or local on his own. There were no doubt, CPA's and tax attorney's who did the leg work on the President's taxes. And I doubt that the President would be able to answer all the details that went into those returns.
The operative word here, is that other Presidentia... (show quote)


That is why they are getting a subpoena this week. One they have said they will follow.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:26:33   #
EyeSawYou (a regular here)
 
MikeMck wrote:
Make no mistake, bone spur did not win the popular vote. With the russian help he won enough electoral college votes to win. He is not the president of the people, but of the russians.


LOL more tin foil hat conspiracy nonsense, NO evidence that Trump won the election with Russian help....ZERO evidence. Also, Trump won the election fair and square as described by U.S. Constitution and laws. Trump won the popular vote in more states than Hillary, therefore he won the election. Trump won the popular vote in 30 states compared to Hillary's 20 states....CHECK MATE!! Get over it, Trump beat the bag lady.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:28:28   #
Angmo (a regular here)
 
MikeMck wrote:
Make no mistake, bone spur did not win the popular vote. With the russian help he won enough electoral college votes to win. He is not the president of the people, but of the russians.





| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:33:20   #
mjmoore17 (a regular here)
 
EyeSawYou wrote:
When you said "Trump cars nothing about the rule of law", you were implying that Trump either does not support the rule of laws or broke or violated some laws, so what laws did he break or violate for you to make that assertion? Edit*


To start. Emoluments, Obstruction of Justice when composing his sons response to Russian meeting and then denied it. Campaign finance violations over his girl friend. Taking
Made in China tags off of MAGA hats is unlawful. Violations of the Federal Records Act by destroying notes on meetings.
These are just a few of the many.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:34:42   #
Angmo (a regular here)
 
mjmoore17 wrote:
To start. Emoluments, Obstruction of Justice when composing his sons response to Russian meeting and then denied it. Campaign finance violations over his girl friend. Taking
Made in China tags off of MAGA hats is unlawful. Violations of the Federal Records Act by destroying notes on meetings.
These are just a few of the many.



| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:36:00   #
papakatz45 (a regular here)
 
mjmoore17 wrote:
To start. Emoluments, Obstruction of Justice when composing his sons response to Russian meeting and then denied it. Campaign finance violations over his girl friend. Taking
Made in China tags off of MAGA hats is unlawful. Violations of the Federal Records Act by destroying notes on meetings.
These are just a few of the many.


Just because you say them doesn't make them true. Can you say Russian collusion?!?!

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:41:23   #
Angmo (a regular here)
 
papakatz45 wrote:
Just because you say them doesn't make them true. Can you say Russian collusion?!?!





| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:10:41   #
EyeSawYou (a regular here)
 
mjmoore17 wrote:
To start. Emoluments, Obstruction of Justice when composing his sons response to Russian meeting and then denied it. Campaign finance violations over his girl friend. Taking
Made in China tags off of MAGA hats is unlawful. Violations of the Federal Records Act by destroying notes on meetings.
These are just a few of the many.


LOL just more unfounded conspiracy BS, you can not back up anything you just asserted as breaking the law.....none. How many more conspiracies would you like to make up? lol

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.