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?
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The bottom line is that House Dems do not have the unilateral authority to repeal the 4th Amend.
As long as Mr Trump’s accountants and tax attorneys satisfy the IRS, his tax forms are none of anyone else’s business.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The sad little troll is still spreading misinformation. No surprise there.
The law explicitly gives certain Committees of Congress the authority to review ANY tax returns of ANY citizen.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:26%20section:6103%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section6103)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true
See Section y, Section 6103(f)(1) and y, Section 6103(f)(2)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now say nothing else to him. He really likes it when you feed him. Kind of like a feral cat.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
“valid legislative purpose is required“
Totally subjective.
“opposition research“
Total conjecture.
Straw missed, badly…
LikeLiked by 1 person
@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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Roberts
So Trump is above the law?
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stupid and ignorant, nice two-fer.
Conflict of interest coupled with foreign influence is MORE than sufficient.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
“Well put.”
The courts still have to review the lawsuit and rule on it from a Constitutional standpoint. So this isn’t over yet.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When all is said and done, his “blind” trust will be worth billions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
@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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
@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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha!! And your eyes are brown. SCOTUS knows better. Suck it up cupcake.
LikeLike
@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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uh, SCOTUS specifically ruled on that too. Suck it up cupcake.
LikeLike
@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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
@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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
However, he is consistent.
LikeLike
Last time cupcake. Kilbourn v Thompson and Watkins v US. Whats wrong with your memory? Kiss this ❤ while your at it. Your welcome…
LikeLike
@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.
LikeLike
Blind as a bat as usual. Harvard,law professors know better. There is a reason you don’t practise law.
LikeLike
@Bobr
So you are now just gonna call me names rather than admit your claims that SCOTUS has settled this matter were bullshit? Typical.
LikeLike