Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mnuchin rejects Congress request to hand over Trump tax returns
#1
plenty of room in jail for this bozo, too

Mnuchin rejects Congress request to hand over Trump tax returns
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congres...s-n1002296

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Monday rejected House Democrats’ request for President Donald Trump’s tax returns, failing for the third time to meet a congressional deadline to turn over the documents.

The move raised the stakes in the fight between the administration and Congress over the returns, making an unprecedented legal battle to obtain them all but certain.

The Treasury secretary told House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., in a letter that his committee's request for the president's tax returns “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.”

"Out of respect for the deadlines previously set by the Committee, and consistent with our commitment to a prompt response, I am informing you now that the Department may not lawfully fulfill the Committee's request," Mnuchin said, citing legal guidance from the Department of Justice.

Neal said in a statement following the letter that he would "consult with counsel and determine the appropriate response.”
Reply
#2
Lock him up!

Of course, that could apply to several people from the current admin..
Reply
#3
We talk as if we have offensive attack potential but all we really have is a weak force field and no room for flanking. Our only killer weapon is a ballot box, which is surrounded by mines.
Reply
#4
Orange Man could be the first major party candidate to not get his name on all 50 states. I can see him avoiding CA if they put the rule requiring the release of tax returns to be on the ballot.
Reply
#5
sekker wrote:
Orange Man could be the first major party candidate to not get his name on all 50 states. I can see him avoiding CA if they put the rule requiring the release of tax returns to be on the ballot.

It's crazy because I actually think that kind of thing should be optional. But however they get to stick it to him, I don't care. Some of the greatest patriots and people in our history are flawed.
Reply
#6
vision63 wrote: It's crazy because I actually think that kind of thing should be optional.

I think its reasonable when running but once office is assumed it should at _least_ be provided to congress for reasons of oversight.
Reply
#7
mattkime wrote:
[quote=vision63]It's crazy because I actually think that kind of thing should be optional.

I think its reasonable when running but once office is assumed it should at _least_ be provided to congress for reasons of oversight.
I agree with that. But it's worked fine up to this point.
Reply
#8
vision63 wrote:
[quote=mattkime]
[quote=vision63]It's crazy because I actually think that kind of thing should be optional.

I think its reasonable when running but once office is assumed it should at _least_ be provided to congress for reasons of oversight.
I agree with that. But it's worked fine up to this point.
Sticky subject, really. I think previous years tax returns should be voluntary, not mandated.

But voters should look hard into anyone who does not voluntarily release them.

Once you are elected, it should be a matter of public record, and this should apply to all elected officials, not just the president.

As for Congress or other authority requesting previous years returns (prior to taking office) ofan elected official, I think it should demand “a legitimate legislative purpose.” (probably cause kind of thing)

I think it would be interesting to watch if California, or some other state, does require the release of returns for a presidential candidate (is it only presidential candidates?), whether or not it would end up in front of the Supreme Court.
Reply
#9
timg wrote:
Sticky subject, really. I think previous years tax returns should be voluntary, not mandated.

Things might be better if tax returns were published in general. People who don't want this information out there seem to have something to hide.

timg wrote:
But voters should look hard into anyone who does not voluntarily release them.

As should ethics committees and oversight boards and watchdog groups. "Voters" usually don't have sufficient information to decide because of the strong privacy tilt.

timg wrote:
Once you are elected, it should be a matter of public record, and this should apply to all elected officials, not just the president.

Why not apply it to candidates? It would be good to know who someone is getting funded by, and whether they are savvy enough to shield that information from these kinds of disclosures.

timg wrote: I think it would be interesting to watch if California, or some other state, does require the release of returns for a presidential candidate (is it only presidential candidates?), whether or not it would end up in front of the Supreme Court.

In the case of California I think it's for all federal offices (President, Senate, Representatives.) It may be applying to state level as well...

Again, for the sake of transparency and good governance, candidates finances absolutely ought to be on the table for public review. It shouldn't even be a question of privacy versus public disclosure... and it ought to be a broad sweep as well - partners/spouses, family members, how much incidental support they seem to be receiving from PACs.
Reply
#10
It should be remembered that even released tax records might themselves be fraudulent; correct payments made, but on false data submitted.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)