Supreme Court allows release of Trump's tax returns to House Democrats

The Trump Following logic, it's "acrobatic" if I was being charitable!

 

Trump repeatedly affirmed that he would release his tax returns as a candidate for the presidency.

If you or I seek the presidency, we would also be expected to comply with the customary public disclosure.

In Trump's case, it's "Better late than never."

 

Who facilitated Trump's oft-expressed commitment to share his tax returns with the American people?

If there is credible evidence of illegality in fulfilling Trump's promise, the law should be applied, of course.

 

A presidential candidate is not required or obligated to release his tax return. Very few people, including very few in congress, would be able to make heads nor tails out of Trump's returns which probably have hundreds of pages and all digitized. Congress wants his returns to find anything that appears bad to the uninformed and uninitiated -- something (anything) that they can ballyhoo about.

 

Remember when they were SOOOO excited when Maddow released his tax returns.... That bombed.

 

Of course not. It is only customary. If Trump had not repeatedly promised to release them, but had honestly admitted that he felt he needed to hide them, it would be a very different matter.

 

It is against the law for this committee to release his tax records without his consent.


26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

If they are do you support full prosecution of those who vote to and then release them?

 

So you are again claiming the IRS was corrupt?

 

Likely corrupted, perhaps just incompetent

 

I participate in several political discussion forums.

But rarely have I seen someone who claims to be a defender of the law and knows so little about it.

But I am aware that many Republicans are in the same situation as you.

Contrary to what you claimed, the law that allows Congress to get taxes back from any citizen has been tested before SCOTUS and has always prevailed.

And elected officials can vote to make anyone's tax return public.

Your pseudo understanding of the law is heavily tainted by your political bias.

 

It’s not illegal. The relevant law has been posted in this thread a couple times.

 

You should read the law. I know your knowledge on our laws is severely lacking due to your status as not an American, so telling anyone they don’t know the law, while you consistently get our laws wrong, is quite funny, but also ridiculous.

Trumps returns can ONLY be viewed in a closed session, which means that it cannot be viewed outside of there(ie released to press, leaked, etc). It’s pretty straightforward.

Frankly, all I care about is the precedent. We stopped allowing the government to publish this stuff due to Nixon. I do not want to go back to that time(he was going to be impeached, in part, over this very thing).

 

Why haven’t you replied to my questions? Even just the first two? Stumped? Trapped?

 

its legal

 

It is difficult to argue with people like you who believe that Congress is committing illegal acts.

You have no arguments other than to defend Trump.

 

The first one made little sense and it did not seem to respond to my post. But maybe I just couldn't follow it. The second question was a refutation of well known common sense of the informed and initiated which made your question inane. I'll go the extra mile and answer your third question: just as I know horses don't climb trees.

 

EPIC FAIL!

Anyone can look at the questions in the linked post that I provided and see that your objections here are nothing more than a bullshit escape hatch. Truth is it’s inane to say the question “what’s your evidence” “makes little sense and doesn’t respond to my post” and that you “couldn’t follow it” and so your responses are absurd to the extreme. RIDICULOUS!!!

Your “reply” to my second question is little different since there are views and analyses sitting on both sides of that fence.

Your reply is a total, blatant, spineless dodge.



It’s amazing and yet standard for the right to proclaim all manner of bullshit, but when asked to provide reliable evidence for it, they run, they hide, they dodge, and they make up fantasies to AVOID THE DISCUSSION. My only conclusion is that they know they are wrong and they want to just keep being wrong because it is all they have that is not a total cave-in.

 

When all arguments fail, insult or demand a link.

 

When there’s no satisfactory answer available, point fingers.

 

I do not sit in judgement. As I noted, if there is credible evidence of illegality in fulfilling Trump's repeated promise to release his tax returns to the public, the law should be applied, of course. I have no doubt there are a residue of hardcore Trump cronies in the incoming House majority eager to pursue such a matter.

 

If we citizens do not judge our government then who? There is NO illegality in not keeping a promise by a politician feel free to show me this in our US Code. There is no law that requires he release them and the law which gives this committee access to them prohibits they being release unless with his consent which he has not given. So should the Chairman be arrested if he allows them to be released?

 

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

Adjudications under law are, fortunately, more rigorous.

 

That is the relevant law.

From the House site iteself

(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.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:26 section:6103 edition:prelim)

So should the Chairman be arrested and charged with a crime if he authorizes the release?

 

I am citing the LAW, refute it it's not a matter of opinion. What law says this Committee can release private tax records to the public?

 

No, he didn’t break the law. You’re reading the wrong section. I posted it.
It was furnished in closed session as the law you quoted says. Then they voted to release it, as the law I quoted authorizes