Dems now wanting to investigate 6 years of Trump's tax returns....
- Thread starter OKSTATE1
- Start date
Napolitano said there is a 60 year old law which allows either the chair of the House or Senate committee with jurisdiction to request Trump's tax returns and the IRS must comply. He said there is nothing which would prohibit anyone on either committee from seeing the returns. Normally, a person's tax returns are confidential, however, there is nothing to prohibit any member from going on the floor of the House or Senate and divulging tax returns in their entirety. All members have immunity for statements said on the floor. He used the example of Feinstein divulging the secret torture report on the Senate floor even after Obama and Brennan both begged her not to do it. She had immunity to do so without repercussions.
He said, if they can do this to the POTUS, they can do it to anyone. Trump's claim of ongoing audits would not prevent the IRS from releasing them although the Treasury Dept. would fight this request in court.
He said, if they can do this to the POTUS, they can do it to anyone. Trump's claim of ongoing audits would not prevent the IRS from releasing them although the Treasury Dept. would fight this request in court.
It would be so inappropriate for the country to see what the financial interests are of the President of the United States.
It’s not inappropriate but if he doesn’t want to share, that should be his right. Americans elected him knowing he was unwilling to share it... so only the loonies on the left give a shit about it.
There i
There is more to it than that. It’ll come down to the Supreme Court. They’ll never see the light of day.
A rich guy becoming a politician isn’t as interesting financially as a politician becoming a rich guy.
Trump would drop the kick in the nuts to end all debate if he pledged to release his taxes with all senators and all representatives at the same time.
I’m also interested in stock and bond holdings of all elected officials and their extended families.
Never mind. That'swhat I get for taking this seriously:
It's on me. yeah, that'd really rock.
If Trump was any more transparent, he would be invisible. That's the whole reason a lot of pearl clutchers don't like him because he says and does what's on his mind.
You seriously have no grasp of any of this. You are flailing around on pure emotion like a chicken that doesn't realize it's head has been chopped off. It's funny but also.. sad. sad.
This is the post Mueller meltdown we knew would happen. He's had his head buried in Rachel Maddow's balls for two years and has lost all touch with reality.
Ha so neither of us know but you are mr serious adult now? Gtfo
No, mega, he could.... release his tax returns. This is so easy. So basic. Now withholding basic financial information that politicians routinely release is some kind of accomplishment.
I have no doubt it will wind up in the courts. If it gets to the SCOTUS there is no guarantee John Roberts Souter will not join the libs in a 5-4 decision against POTUS. Remember he voted in favor of Obamacare in part to try to reign in partisanship on the court. I think somewhere in his decision he said, "can't we all just get along".
So, if he releases his tax returns, will the elitist dems quit accusing him of wrong doing or will they grab another rubber bone to prance around the yard with pretending it is real?
“What difference at this point does it make?”
Dims workin' hard to reelect Trump with their bird brain chit.
Dims be like...
Dims be like...
Though the Republicans have established plenty of bad precident (stalling Supreme Court nominations, Bill Clinton investigation, etc), the Democrats are taking this to dangerous territory. Although, I would love for every federally elected official to undergo much of (just not to this exteme) same scrutiny. I wonder how many would survive even moderately involved investigation.
Re: SCOTUS nomination stalling. GOP just put into action what Schumer and Reid advocated.
Well hell, that makes it all ok, then! I am unfamiliar with a case of the Democrats actually doing it prior to that, but would love to be shown differently.
Times a supreme court nomination was delayed.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-longest-supreme-court-nomination-delay-in-history/
Thank you for that link, it was certainly helpful and informative. I will say none particularly compare to the Garland delay. The explicitly stated reason for stalling him was a “lame-duck” president excuse, not a lack of qualification issue. All but one involve parties that have not been in existence in our lifetimes. The closest comparison would be the Fortas replacement, but both of the two candidates that were unsuccessful had a fairly bipartisan vote. The third, Blackmun received unanimous or near unanimous support (ie, bipartisan support).
