What is he hiding?

An Inspector General has ruled in favor of Steve Mnuchin who did not comply with a Congressional request for Trump’s tax returns. The finding is that Mnuchin is OKAY because he acted in accordance with a ruling by Trump’s DOJ that he did not have to comply with the request even though the law explicitly entitles Congress to review the tax filing of ANY citizen. The IG says he is not in position to evaluate the legal soundness of the DOJ guidance, only that Mnuchin followed it. You cannot make this stuff up. Maybe a court will uphold the law?

The more ardently Trump fights to keep his PROMISED tax returns secret the more certain we can be that they totally refute his claims to being worth $10 billion and undoubted provide more evidence of how deeply he is in thrall to foreign interests, especially Russian oligarchs.

Not that one is needed, but this particular broken promise will be yet another damning campaign issue for the Biden campaign. It is an easy question that people will understand – what is he hiding?

31 thoughts on “What is he hiding?

      1. You only read the parts you like.

        First, a valid legislative purpose is required, and opposition research is not one of those.

        But most important, if the taxpayer’s name is attached the return can only be viewed on closed executive session, no staff, and there are legal penalties attached for disclosure.

        So that might be a fair trade, Some minor embarrassment from one of Trump’s enterprises and Adam Schiff goes to prison.

        Like

        1. @Tabor

          Since Trump has frequently bragged about how he – supposedly with a $10 Billion fortune – pays very little if any taxes a valid legislative purpose is finding out which parts of the tax code allow him to do that.

          And yes, the restrictions on who can see the return are stringent. That does not give Trump the right to simply have his government refuse a legal request. If Obama was running this sort of Monarchy your head would have exploded years ago.

          Talk of Adam Schiff going to prison is right out of the Stalinist playbook. Not surprised to see you go there.

          Like

    1. RE: “As long as Mr Trump’s accountants and tax attorneys satisfy the IRS, his tax forms are none of anyone else’s business.”

      Well put.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “So Trump is above the law?”

          I didn’t say that. I would, however, say that Congressional review of his tax returns without any indication from the IRS that something might be wrong with them, looks like abuse of power.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. @Roberts

            Congress’s mission here is to oversee the IRS and not be guided by what it wants or thinks or has done or not done. That is kind of obvious if you think just a little bit about what that section is about. Plus, the legislative history which arose from Nixon’s abuse of IRS functions makes it even more clear that your suggestion that the IRS must call in the Congress a non-starter.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “Congress’s mission here is to oversee the IRS”

            Fine, but reviewing the president’s personal tax returns is not an obvious or necessary way to oversee the IRS.

            Like

  1. Sounds like an acting IG who wants to remain ACTING, or possibly get assigned to the post. The Atkinson firiing is taking root.

    Also, this ruling does not prevent the lawsuit to receive the returns from going forward. The handling may have been OK. The courts still have to decide on the legal ramifications of the request. The Constitution dies say “shall furnish”. Let’s hope at least 5 of 9 remember to read that part.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Congress does NOT have authority to just demand someones tax returns. They MUST prove a valid legislative purpose and it MUST be in closed review. The SCOTUS has ruled on this several times. Quit barking up this tree and get over it.

    Like

    1. @Bobr

      Stating a valid legislative purpose is a formality. Trump brags about abusing the tax system. Finding out how he does that and addressing it with legislation is a very, very valid legislative purpose. You are correct, Congress has no right to disseminate whatever they find. That does not mean that Trump can flout the law.

      SCOTUS has never ruled on this. At least not in a way that supports your desire to see Trump hide his true affairs and wealth from everybody. Where did you even get such a “fact?” Fox News or straight from the horse’s ass?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “Stating a valid legislative purpose is a formality.”

        Yes, and an unavoidable, necessary one. Are you suggesting this particular formality needn’t be taken seriously?

        Like

      2. I have provided those cases to you numerous times in the past. SCOTUS ruled that Congress is NOT a law enforcement body and therefore CANNOT obtain tax returns to search for potential misdeeds. Look it up yourself, I’m tired of providing proof to the horses add. Suck it up cupcake.

        Like

      3. @BOBR

        “Look it up yourself” means that you do not have relevant cite. Obviously. Because you are completely wrong. Congress may not be a law enforcement agency but it has broad oversight authority. You know, that checks and balances thingy. And, in the case of tax returns, it has explicit legislative authority to review any and all.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. @Roberts

        Just because something is easy does not mean it should not be taken seriously. And by the way, this talk of “legislative purpose” is empty blather. Based on nothing but right-wing concocted rumors of wrongdoing, the GOP Congress investigated Benghazi countless times and demanded that personal correspondence of various people be turned over. And when it was, they made sure it got made public. What was the “legislative purpose” there. Why did you not demand one?

        There are more than rumors of tax wrongdoing by Trump – he brags about his success at not paying any. Egregious loopholes a billionaire uses to shun his duty should be fixed BY LEGISLATION.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. @Bobr

            This is really annoying.
            How clueless can someone be.
            The expression is “Suck it up, buttercup.”

            BTW, you are simply wrong and the fact you cannot provide evidence confirms it. Congress has been authorized by law to review ANY tax returns and SCOTUS has never ruled on that authority one way or another.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Wow, Paul claims I am clueless. Limited authority of Congress not being a law enforcement body and the fact that they can’t compel evidence without legislative purpose has been ruled on in 2 separate cases by the SCOTUS. I have provided the cases to Paul 5 times in the past but like a typical left wing idiot, he claims they don’t exist. Typical left wing tactic of wanting someone to do his homework over and over and over. We all know who the real clueless one is, that would be cupcake Paul.

    Like

    1. @Bobr

      Provided the cites five times? But can’t do so now? What is wrong with this picture? Simple. No you haven’t provided any links because SCOTUS has never rule on this law. You are a liar blowing smoke.

      My “clueless” remark was in jest about your garbling the jibe – “Suck it up, buttercup.” Let’s add “Can’t take a joke” to your other qualities. Not a pretty picture.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Last time cupcake. Kilbourn v Thompson and Watkins v US. Whats wrong with your memory? Kiss this ❤ while your at it. Your welcome…

        Like

        1. @Bobr

          My memory is fine. Yours apparently isn’t.

          I remember you citing these cases before. They are still irrelevant. I guess you forgot that neither of these cases has ANYTHING to do with the question at hand. Current law gives certain committees of Congress the right to review the tax returns of ANY citizen. This law has never been the subject of a SCOTUS decision. Maybe Trump will try to get it tested. Anything rather than provide evidence that he is a fraud and failure in the world of business.

          Like

          1. Blind as a bat as usual. Harvard,law professors know better. There is a reason you don’t practise law.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s