SCOTUS

[ousdahl]

In a normal world, this should be open and shut, right?

Of course a potus should NOT be able to defy a congressional subpoena, right?


...yet, here we are.

[zsn]

In a normal world when a POTUS nominates someone to be a Justice on the SCOTUS senators evaluate the merits and qualifications of said nominee.

......yet, here we are!

[DCHawk1]

In a normal world when a POTUS nominates someone to be a Justice on the SCOTUS senators evaluate the merits and qualifications of said nominee.

......yet, here we are!

I'm sooooooooooooo sorry.

I didn't even know about the coma.

[DCHawk1]

In a normal world, this should be open and shut, right?

Of course a potus should NOT be able to defy a congressional subpoena, right?


...yet, here we are.

Tell me again why Congress should be able to subpoena a co-equal-ish branch for issues it does not have oversight over?

[defixione]

In a normal world, this should be open and shut, right?

Of course a potus should NOT be able to defy a congressional subpoena, right?


...yet, here we are.

Tell me again why Congress should be able to subpoena a co-equal-ish branch for issues it does not have oversight over?

Is 'checks and balances' a stupid answer?

[DCHawk1]

In a normal world, this should be open and shut, right?

Of course a potus should NOT be able to defy a congressional subpoena, right?


...yet, here we are.

Tell me again why Congress should be able to subpoena a co-equal-ish branch for issues it does not have oversight over?

Is 'checks and balances' a stupid answer?

No. Not stupid at all.

But that's why I included the "for issues it does not have oversight over" qualifier. Strikes me that a "separation of powers" argument makes sense when discussing personal matters over which Congress does NOT have legitimate oversight. Why should Congress have access to anyone's financial records?

[ousdahl]

You seem to ask that sincerely, so I’ll sincerely say, that IS a good question.

I imagine there is a legitimate reason given by the investigation, correct? What is it?

I think it’s something to do with suspected campaign finance violations?

[ousdahl]

I suppose that begs the bigger question of where congressional oversight ends and executive privilege begins?

[Shirley]

You seem to ask that sincerely, so I’ll sincerely say, that IS a good question.

I imagine there is a legitimate reason given by the investigation, correct? What is it?

I think it’s something to do with suspected campaign finance violations?

Anyone who would ask us to hire them to be our president with all the benefits, power and, responsibility that accrue, owes us the right to make sure they have no conflicts of interest, period.

Congressional Access to the President’s Federal Tax Returns

...In 1976, Congress amended Section 6103 of the IRC to establish that federal tax return information is confidential by default unless a statute expressly authorizes disclosure. Congress made these changes in part to curtail the President’s authority to acquire tax return information in response to revelations that President Nixon sought to use tax return information for improper purposes. Specifically, Section 6103(a) states that individual and business tax returns, and the information in tax returns, are confidential, and officers or employees of the federal government, among others, may not disseminate those returns or the information therein for unauthorized purposes without the taxpayer’s consent. Section 6103(b)(2)(A) defines “return information” to include, among other things, “a taxpayer’s identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, . . . or tax payment.” This policy is bolstered by a series of statutes providing for criminal penalties and authorizing the taxpayer to bring a civil action for damages for unauthorized disclosures of return information. However, Congress has established a number of exceptions to this general proscription against disclosing taxpayer information, including certain disclosures for use in legitimate tax administration, criminal proceedings, audits conducted by the Government Accountability Office, and child support enforcement activities.

One such exception is the statute’s authorization of certain congressional committees with jurisdiction over federal taxes to acquire tax return information. Congress originally provided this authority in 1924 in part to address perceived difficulties in acquiring tax information during congressional investigations into the Harding Administration’s Teapot Dome scandal. Specifically, Section 6103(f)(1) of the IRC provides that, upon written request of the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), or Senate Finance Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “tax committees”), the Treasury Secretary “shall furnish” the requested tax returns or return information to the relevant committee. Under 6103(f)(2), the Treasury Secretary also “shall furnish” requested tax return information to the JCT’s chief of staff, who may share the return information to any of the tax committees. Absent the relevant taxpayer’s consent, any personally identifiable tax return information received by a tax committee under 6103(f)(1) or (f)(2) may only be provided when the requesting committee is “in closed executive session.” Section 6103(f)(5) also authorizes a whistleblower who has access to tax return information to disclose it to the tax committees “if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.”
Section 6103(f)(3) also directs the Treasury Secretary to provide return information to any other non-tax committee in response to a written request, but only if the House or Senate passes a resolution specifically authorizing such committees to inspect return information.

Possible Legal Limitations to Congressional Committee Access under Section 6103

[...]

[DCHawk1]

I love it when you leave out the relevant portions:

The plain language of Section 6103(f) evinces no substantive limitations on the tax committees’ right to obtain covered tax return information from the IRS. Yet, because the provision can probably be viewed as a statutory delegation of Congress’ investigative and oversight powers to the tax committees, exercise of the authority granted by Section 6103(f) arguably is subject to the same legal limitations that generally attach to Congress’ use of other compulsory investigative tools. Notably, the inquiry must further a “legislative purpose” and not otherwise breach relevant constitutional rights or privileges....

Because the investigative power derives implicitly from the Constitution’s vesting of legislative power in the Congress, congressional inquiries must be undertaken “in aid of the legislative function.” This
“legislative purpose” requirement is relatively generous, and authorizes inquiry into any topic upon which legislation could be had, including attempts by Congress to inform itself for purposes of determining how laws function, whether new laws are necessary, and whether Congress should repeal or alter old laws. Congress may also exercise its “power of inquiry” for the purposes of conducting government oversight to ensure compliance with, and proper administration of, existing law. Although the investigatory power is both “penetrating and far reaching,” courts have made clear that Congress is not furthering a legislative purpose when it seeks solely to “expose for the sake of exposure.” Nor does Congress possess “the general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen” when such an inquiry could “result in no valid legislation.”

In light of these principles, if a chair of a tax committee seeks the President’s tax returns solely for the
purpose of public dissemination without any nexus to a legislative or oversight function, a court could
view that request as pursuing “exposure for the sake of exposure” and not within Congress’ or the tax
committee’s power. Yet the validity of even this type of request would be subject to some ambiguity,
especially regarding returns filed after the President took office. The precise line between an
impermissible inquiry driven by the purpose of exposure and a permissible inquiry involving Congress’
authority to “inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the
Government” is not clear, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court has characterized Congress’ role in
informing the public (known as the “informing function”) as “indispensable” and “not to be minimized.”

One significant factor in making this determination appears whether the information sought reflects or
relates to the “workings of [] government” or purely “private affairs.”

There are a number of reasons why a committee’s attempts to obtain a President’s tax returns could serve a legislative purpose. For example, a purpose grounded in a tax committee’s need to gather information necessary for Congress to alterations to the tax code that may relate to presidential tax obligations would seem to be “in aid of the legislative function.” The same may be true of a request made as part of a broader oversight effort to review the relationship between the President and the IRS or possible financial conflicts of interest. Under this reasoning, a committee’s legislative purpose would appear to be strongest with regard to returns filed by a president while in office, or perhaps while a presidential candidate, as opposed to those filed while a purely private citizen. The House Ways and Means Committee appears to have begun laying the groundwork to support a valid legislative purpose for seeking the President’s tax returns.


Or...to put it another way: nothing open and shut. Or even close to it.

[ousdahl]

Dc, do you mean to suggest the investigation into Trump’s financial records is without merit? Or that the information congress seeks is irrelevant?

[ousdahl]

I think Trump’s refusal to disclose his taxes is what a LEO would call a reasonable suspicion.

Sure, if a cop asks search your trunk, you have the constitutional right to decline.

But if a cop already suspects something illegal in there and you say NO DONT LOOK BACK THERE STOP SNOOPING AROUND IF YOU HEARD SOMETHING BAD IS IN THERE THEN THATS FAKE NEWS, do you think that’ll make the cop investigate any less?

[DCHawk1]

Dc, do you mean to suggest the investigation into Trump’s financial records is without merit? Or that the information congress seeks is irrelevant?

No, I'm trying to say that it's highly unlikely that seeking tax returns from BEFORE he was elected serve any "legislative purpose."

[DCHawk1]

I think Trump’s refusal to disclose his taxes is what a LEO would call a reasonable suspicion.

Sure, if a cop asks search your trunk, you have the constitutional right to decline.

But if a cop already suspects something illegal in there and you say NO DONT LOOK BACK THERE STOP SNOOPING AROUND IF YOU HEARD SOMETHING BAD IS IN THERE THEN THATS FAKE NEWS, do you think that’ll make the cop investigate any less?

That's a nifty analogy, but kinda lame. There is already a cop -- the Internal Revenue Service -- that has searched the damn trunk. Now, as the relevant statute says, IF there is reason to believe that undue influence has been exerted on the Internal Revenue Cops to keep them from doing their job, then Congress could make the case that there is a legitimate legislative purpose to look inside the trunk.

But since the info they want is from before Trump was elected, there's no reason to expect that anyone interfered in his behalf.

Or are you saying you think Obama his drugs in Trump's trunk?

[ousdahl]

Well, I’m not a fan of the idea of congress going fishing just cuz.

But if, say, the scope of the investigation was specific to how he financed his campaign, or his inaugural committee, then that might be more appropriate. If it’s investigating his financial goings on while in office, then I dunno why that should be off limits.

And that’s a good point about the IRS. But could there be evidence in Trump’s taxes that, while not illegal in itself, would still be evidence of grander illicit behavior? I mean it’s not against the law to be indebted to shady foreigners per se, right, but what’s that mean for a potus already being investigated for shady foreign dealings?

At the end of the day, it would be nice to have a president who at least pretends to be forthright.

[HouseDivided]

At the end of the day, it would be nice to have a president who at least pretends to be forthright.

Hasn’t been one of those in a long, long time. The process weeds out all of the nice guys pretty quick.

[ousdahl]

At the end of the day, it would be nice to have a president who at least pretends to be forthright.

Hasn’t been one of those in a long, long time. The process weeds out all of the nice guys pretty quick.

Bro you realize even Cankles released her tax returns, right?

[HouseDivided]

At the end of the day, it would be nice to have a president who at least pretends to be forthright.

Hasn’t been one of those in a long, long time. The process weeds out all of the nice guys pretty quick.

Bro you realize even Cankles released her tax returns, right?

Good diversion from murder charges.

[Deleted User 62]

Murder charges.


Lulz

[HouseDivided]

Murder charges.


Lulz

Nothing funny about murder. Or being a soulless warthog from the depths of Hell. That’s pure evil incarnate.