Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 35,391
- 9,170
You should first prove there is indeed “millions”,That would be a great use of this new investigative ability.
Given that none of you are privy to any statements that might indicate such.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You should first prove there is indeed “millions”,That would be a great use of this new investigative ability.
Show me where it says they have no limitation?
You say I'm imagining it, when I've given you sound reasoning every time. Your argument is just "congress can just ignore the distinction"...
The law is written specifically to include closed session, your rule just specifies executive session.
Here...I'll lay it out for you:
From congresses own website: (it's from the Senate, but should be the same. The house glossary list isn't very comprehensive)
Not the Rules of the House of Representatives, not the Ways and Means Committee. Not the appellant court. Nor the Supreme Court, which affirmed the appellant court ruling unanimously.
Your source for your imaginary limitation of congressional authority is just you....citing yourself.
And you're nobody.
Is this genuinely it? Just you impotently insisting that your imagination trumps congress and the judiciary? If so, that was easy.
Bless his heart.Laughing.....your argument has devolved into "disprove whatever pseudo-legal gibberish I make up"?
Show us where in the Rules of the House of Representatives or the Ways and Means Committe, or the appellant court ruling where the Ways and Means Committee is limited in its authority to release evidence take in executive session based on if the ssession is closed or not.
You can't. You made it up. There's no such limitation recognized by ANYONE. Not the House Rules. Not the Ways and Means Committee. Not the courts.
Its just you, citing you.
You're citing Senate rules as binding the House?
Oh, my sweet summer child.
Well, we just use the same power that the dems have just created recently....we get the documents and comb through them to see if we can find how much money and where it came from, you know...get the documents to see if we can find a crime. Seems to be the norm these days.You should first prove there is indeed “millions”,
Given that none of you are privy to any statements that might indicate such.
This is you dodging. Support your argument ...post links...quotes...LAWS.
You mean his taxes? Given the felonious state of his other business entities you feel they will be his redemption?Well, we just use the same power that the dems have just created recently....we get the documents and comb through them to see if we can find how much money and where it came from, you know...get the documents to see if we can find a crime. Seems to be the norm these days.
I can only point. I am not able to narrate your madness.
Laughing.....your argument has devolved into "disprove whatever pseudo-legal gibberish I make up"?
Show us where in the Rules of the House of Representatives or the Ways and Means Committe, or the appellant court ruling where the Ways and Means Committee is limited in its authority to release evidence take in executive session based on if the ssession is closed or not.
You can't. You made it up. There's no such limitation recognized by ANYONE. Not the House Rules. Not the Ways and Means Committee. Not the courts.
Its just you, citing you.
You're citing Senate rules as binding the House?
Oh, my sweet summer child.
Nah, well subpoena bank records, wire transfer logs, phone call records, electronic communication logs. They don't really need to have an alleged crime...they'll just sift through his life until they find one....you're OK with that, right?You mean his taxes? Given the felonious state of his other business entities you feel they will be his redemption?
Says who? You citing yourself again. And you're the same guy that cited Senate rules as binding the House.those arent senate rules, its just a glossary of terms, which would be the same for both houses, even one of the definitions ive provided even says it can be used for the house or senate.
ive shown you the difference between the sessions, and the language used in both the tax law and the house rule you linked YOU are the one asserting that they dont have to make the distinction between the two, im asking YOU to prove where you got that from and where it says that there is no distinction between the types of sessions.
You've quoted the appellate court pointing to a house rule that isn't even regarding the proper issue. Also...it's a HOUSE RULE...meaning a rule the house uses to conduct their business. I'm citing tax LAW. The house cannot make a rule allowing itself to ignore laws....I've quoted the appellant court recognizing the authority of ways and means committee to release the information to public.
"The Trump Parties insist that the Request imposes too great a burden because it threatens to expose private financial information of the Trump Parties and will deny the Trump Parties their due process rights by interfering with an ongoing audit. These certainly are burdens on the Trump Parties. As discussed above, should the Committee find it necessary, it is possible that the information turned over to the Chairman might be made public. This is certainly inconvenient, but not to the extent that it represents an unconstitutional burden violating the separation of powers. Congressional investigations sometimes expose the private information of the entities, organizations, and individuals that they investigate. This does not make them overly burdensome. It is the nature of the investigative and legislative processes."
Your argument is to ignore the appellant court and to make up an imaginary limitation to congressional authority that exists no where in any Rule of the House or the appellant ruling.
I'm quoting the appellant court. You're citing yourself.
Our sources are not equal.
You've quoted the appellate court pointing to a house rule that isn't even regarding the proper issue. Also...it's a HOUSE RULE...meaning a rule the house uses to conduct their business. I'm citing tax LAW.
Can’t make you question your own relevance..
Again ... Nothing of substance ... Damn dude, sack up and actually say something ...
.
That’s not how taxes work, bro.Nah, well subpoena bank records, wire transfer logs, phone call records, electronic communication logs. They don't really need to have an alleged crime...they'll just sift through his life until they find one....you're OK with that, right?
Maybe we should check Obama's, since his gross grew 100%.The report quotes is as its net tax paid for the year in question which would include any taxes paid in advance. In 2020 he paid zero net share.
Fair share I doubt it.
and yes I want to know why the IRS did not audit him as they were suppose to for the years the committee says he was not audited.
I've proven it explicitly, by using definitions and the wording of the law.Says who? You citing yourself again. And you're the same guy that cited Senate rules as binding the House.
You've demonstrated no difference in the Ways and Means Committee's authority to release information taken in executive sessions based on whether the session was closed or not.
Nor is that imaginary 'limitation' recognized by the House Rules. Nor are they recognized by the Ways and Means Committee. Nor were they recognized by the courts.
No one is under any obligation to 'disprove' your imagination. You're still stuck at the same place you were when we started: The appellant court ruling that obliterates your claims that the ways and means committee lacks the authority to release to the public:
The Trump Parties insist that the Request imposes too great a burden because it threatens to expose private financial information of the Trump Parties and will deny the Trump Parties their due process rights by interfering with an ongoing audit. These certainly are burdens on the Trump Parties. As discussed above, should the Committee find it necessary, it is possible that the information turned over to the Chairman might be made public. This is certainly inconvenient, but not to the extent that it represents an unconstitutional burden violating the separation of powers. Congressional investigations sometimes expose the private information of the entities, organizations, and individuals that they investigate. This does not make them overly burdensome. It is the nature of the investigative and legislative processes.
Ignore as you will. Your willful ignorance is gloriously irrelevant to any legal outcome.
The two-page form doesn’t reveal the sources of Trump’s income, which has been the primary reason for Democrats to call on Trump to release his returns.
With Trump yes it has. We need to go after Biden the same way.That’s not how taxes work, bro.
We need his tax returns, and Hunter's for the past 6 years.IKR?
Who said anything about taxes..you all just set the precedent..now it's up to the repubs to take it to a new level. They think a crime must have been committed, so they need to overturn every stone until they find that crime.That’s not how taxes work, bro.