Committee Votes To Release Trumps' Taxes 24-16. Tell Me Why ThisI isn't Partisan Bullsh#T

[Skylar]

(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

This issue was *directly* addressed by the appelant court. They found that there is no constitutional guarentee of confidentiality of tax returns. And what occurs during an executive session of the Ways and Means Committee can be disclosed with a vote of the committee per the Rules of the House of Representatives.


"A Congressional request for information does not need to ensure confidentiality to remain valid. United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 43 (1953) (“It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). When an inquiry uncovers information worthy of legislation, that information often comes to light. This is particularly true with regard to tax returns. There is no constitutional guarantee to the privacy of tax returns. Rather,the privacy of tax returns is a creature of statute, the same statute that authorizes the Chairman to request this information. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103.

However, despite no guarantee of confidentiality in the Chairman’s Request, the statute does address the Trump Parties’ concerns. “[A]ny return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.” 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(1). What occurs during an executive session of a committee may not be disclosed to the public without a vote of the committee. Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Cong., Rule XI, cl. 2(k)(7) (2021)."



With the Ways and Means Committee voting to disclose what occurred during the executive sessions.

As long as the Ways and Means Committee is plausibly working in the furtherance of a legislative end (such as a legislative assessment of the IRS audit rules for Presidents), the Ways and Means committee is subject to the disclosure rules established by the rules of the House of Representatives: A vote of the committee.

The appellant court further elaborated on this power of the committee to release private financial information 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."


The Ways and Means Committee is well within their power to disclose the tax returns, as affirmed by the appellant Court who ruled against Trump. A ruling upheld by the full appellant court. A ruling that was left to stand by the Supreme Court.

Point. Set. Match.

 

[mudwhistle]

This issue was *directly* addressed by the appelant court. They found that there is no constitutional guarentee of confidentiality of tax returns. And what occurs during an executive session of the Ways and Means Committee can be disclosed with a vote of the committee per the Rules of the House of Representatives.


"A Congressional request for information does not need to ensure confidentiality to remain valid. United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 43 (1953) (“It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). When an inquiry uncovers information worthy of legislation, that information often comes to light. This is particularly true with regard to tax returns. There is no constitutional guarantee to the privacy of tax returns. Rather,the privacy of tax returns is a creature of statute, the same statute that authorizes the Chairman to request this information. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103.

However, despite no guarantee of confidentiality in the Chairman’s Request, the statute does address the Trump Parties’ concerns. “[A]ny return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.” 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(1). What occurs during an executive session of a committee may not be disclosed to the public without a vote of the committee. Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Cong., Rule XI, cl. 2(k)(7) (2021)."



With the Ways and Means Committee voting to disclose what occurred during the executive sessions.

As long as the Ways and Means Committee is plausibly working in the furtherance of a legislative end (such as a legislative assessment of the IRS audit rules for Presidents), the Ways and Means committee is subject to the disclosure rules established by the rules of the House of Representatives: A vote of the committee.

The appellant court further elaborated on this power of the committee to release private financial information 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."


The Ways and Means Committee is well within their power to disclose the tax returns, as affirmed by the appellant Court who ruled against Trump. A ruling upheld by the full appellant court. A ruling that was left to stand by the Supreme Court.

Point. Set. Match.

Nope. If they leak any of this to the press (which they will) they are breaking the law....and can be sued in a court of law by the taxpayer.
Appellant court decisions cannot overrule the constitution or the right to privacy.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. If they leak any of this to the press, which they will, they are breaking the law.

The appellant court already addressed that directly (even citing the very statute and subsection you did) and found that not to be the case. That the Committee absolutely had the authority to make private financial information public as part of the legislative process.

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.

But don't tell us....the 3 judge appellant court, the full appellant court and the Supreme Court don't know the law, but you do?

Smiling....good luck with that.

 

[candycorn]

You folks know, I am not a Trump supporter, not a party member and have stated my Independent status many times. That said, what is this action other than partisan bullsh#t? While quite aware, it has become tradition for a candidate before an election, but this crap is about him not doing it before the 2016 election and whether I liked or you liked it or not, he was elected, anyway. That was then. This is now. I am aware, the Supreme Court the Supreme Court ordered that he release the information to Congressional scrutiny. I am good with that, but they never said release it to the public, that I am aware of. This is just a spitefull, partisan action and I tend to think, public release at this point is an undue release, an invasion of privacy (even if he's an asshole) and possibly illegal. My representative is on that committee and voted against. Barring him not doing something stupid (which he doesn't have much history of) I shall vote for him again, next time he runs.

House panel votes to release Trump tax returns after multiyear Democratic quest - Washington Examiner

The House Ways and Means Committee voted Tuesday to release former President Donald Trump’s tax returns, a major win for Democrats who have been seeking the records for years. The committee voted 24-16 to release six years' worth of Trump's tax returns to the broader House of Representatives...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Completely agree with you. 100%.

This should not happen. Not now; not ever.

 

[theHawk]

You folks know, I am not a Trump supporter, not a party member and have stated my Independent status many times. That said, what is this action other than partisan bullsh#t? While quite aware, it has become tradition for a candidate before an election, but this crap is about him not doing it before the 2016 election and whether I liked or you liked it or not, he was elected, anyway. That was then. This is now. I am aware, the Supreme Court the Supreme Court ordered that he release the information to Congressional scrutiny. I am good with that, but they never said release it to the public, that I am aware of. This is just a spitefull, partisan action and I tend to think, public release at this point is an undue release, an invasion of privacy (even if he's an asshole) and possibly illegal. My representative is on that committee and voted against. Barring him not doing something stupid (which he doesn't have much history of) I shall vote for him again, next time he runs.

House panel votes to release Trump tax returns after multiyear Democratic quest - Washington Examiner

The House Ways and Means Committee voted Tuesday to release former President Donald Trump’s tax returns, a major win for Democrats who have been seeking the records for years. The committee voted 24-16 to release six years' worth of Trump's tax returns to the broader House of Representatives...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

It’s a giant nothing burger. The committee found nothing in them, and they are pissed so they want to try to humiliate him by releasing them. Thing is no one cares, as I doubt even 0.0001% of the population has ever actually looked at any other President’s tax returns.

These idiots on the left are salivating over this, as if anything will be there. Do these idiots think Donald Trump’s personal income tax will show anything connected to his businesses? His personal income is probably quite small, since billionaires don’t make money off salary.

 

[mudwhistle]

The appellant court already addressed that directly (even citing the very statute and subsection you did) and found that not to be the case. That the Committee absolutely had the authority to make private financial information public as part of the legislative process.

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.

But don't tell us....the 3 judge appellant court, the full appellant court and the Supreme Court don't know the law, but you do?

Smiling....good luck with that.

Sorry,....we must assume that the only purpose that the committee wanted to use his returns for.....was to leak them to the press to embarrass him or smear his reputation.....not to conduct an investigation.
I figure they already have copies of his returns illegally obtained by the IRS, and are ready to release edited copies of them.

If they leak them or publish them all over newspapers then Trump can claim that they are publishing edited versions of his returns for that purpose alone....which can cause a constitutional crisis....and have to be decided at the Supreme Court level, putting a hold on the intentional illegal release of information.

They have to make an effort to maintain Trump's privacy or give up the right to view them entirely.

 

[White 6]

It’s a giant nothing burger. The committee found nothing in them, and they are pissed so they want to try to humiliate him by releasing them. Thing is no one cares, as I doubt even 0.0001% of the population has ever actually looked at any other President’s tax returns.

These idiots on the left are salivating over this, as if anything will be there. Do these idiots think Donald Trump’s personal income tax will show anything connected to his businesses? His personal income is probably quite small, since billionaires don’t make money off salary.

That is what I suspect (finding nothing), also. But that, is the exact reason, this is not a "nothing Burger" and why I take affront as a non-partisan American Citizen to this action.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry,....we must assume that the only purpose that the committee wanted to use his returns for.....was to leak them to the press to embarrass him.....not to conduct an investigation.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

Meanwhile, the appellant court assessed the Ways and Means Committee's arguments that they had a legitimate legislative purpose in investigating if IRS audit rules for presidents were properly applied......sided with the Ways and Means Committee. Affirming that this was indeed a legitimate application of investigative and legislative processes.

And it was that very basis that the Ways and Means Committee cited when they voted to release the tax returns.

You say 'uh-uh'. Your entire argument now is to IGNORE the appellant court ruling (and the full appelant court, and the Supreme Court) and insist that you know better.

Smiling.....good luck with that.

 

[theHawk]

That is what I suspect (finding nothing), also. But that, is the exact reason, this is not a "nothing Burger" and why I take affront as a non-partisan American Citizen to this action.

Well that’s the country we live in now. A Democrat run banana republic, rules for thee, not for me. Stolen elections have consequences.

 

[Skylar]

Well that’s the country we live in now. A Democrat run banana republic, rules for thee, not for me. Stolen elections have consequences.

What stolen election?

You guys just lost.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You folks know, I am not a Trump supporter, not a party member and have stated my Independent status many times. That said, what is this action other than partisan bullsh#t? While quite aware, it has become tradition for a candidate before an election, but this crap is about him not doing it before the 2016 election and whether I liked or you liked it or not, he was elected, anyway. That was then. This is now. I am aware, the Supreme Court the Supreme Court ordered that he release the information to Congressional scrutiny. I am good with that, but they never said release it to the public, that I am aware of. This is just a spitefull, partisan action and I tend to think, public release at this point is an undue release, an invasion of privacy (even if he's an asshole) and possibly illegal. My representative is on that committee and voted against. Barring him not doing something stupid (which he doesn't have much history of) I shall vote for him again, next time he runs.

House panel votes to release Trump tax returns after multiyear Democratic quest - Washington Examiner

The House Ways and Means Committee voted Tuesday to release former President Donald Trump’s tax returns, a major win for Democrats who have been seeking the records for years. The committee voted 24-16 to release six years' worth of Trump's tax returns to the broader House of Representatives...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Presidents and presidential candidates of both parties have long made public their tax returns – if Trump didn’t want to honor that tradition of openness and honesty in the public interest, he shouldn’t have rune for president and should now retire from political life.

 

[mudwhistle]

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

Meanwhile, the appellant court assessed the Ways and Means Committee's arguments that they had a legitimate legislative purpose in investigating if IRS audit rules for presidents were properly applied......sided with the Ways and Means Committee. Affirming that this was indeed a legitimate application of investigative and legislative processes.

And it was that very basis that the Ways and Means Committee cited when they voted to release the tax returns.

You say 'uh-uh'. Your entire argument now is to IGNORE the appellant court ruling (and the full appelant court, and the Supreme Court) and insist that you know better.

Smiling.....good luck with that.

Appellate courts get overturned all the time.
What is the legitimate legislative purpose in releasing to the public a former president's personal information?
There is none.

The fact that Trump's returns have been illegally released in the past to the press proved that nothing in his returns were an embarrassment....but actually proof that he pays more than his share of taxes. They will have to change his taxes to be able to draw negative conclusions from it. They also think they can use his taxes to bring charges against him for some document error. And they will most certainly blow it out of proportion like they did when they raided his home.

 

[mudwhistle]

Presidents and presidential candidates of both parties have long made public their tax returns – if Trump didn’t want to honor that tradition of openness and honesty in the public interest, he shouldn’t have rune for president and should now retire from political life.

What law states he has to make his returns public?

 

[Skylar]

Appellate courts get overturned all the time.

Not this ruling:

Supreme Court clears way for Trump tax records to be sent to Congress by IRS

The House Ways and Means Committee for three years had sought to obtain income tax returns of former President Donald Trump.

www.cnbc.com

The Supreme Court has already rejected Trump's appeal, allowing the appellant court ruling to stand.

Your entire argument is to ignore it, insisting you know better.

Good luck with that

 

[mudwhistle]

Not this ruling:

Supreme Court clears way for Trump tax records to be sent to Congress by IRS

The House Ways and Means Committee for three years had sought to obtain income tax returns of former President Donald Trump.

www.cnbc.com

The Supreme Court has already rejected Trump's appeal, allowing the appellant court ruling to stand.

Your entire argument is to ignore it, insisting you know better.

Good luck with that

Nope. The Supreme Court said congress has the right to his returns in an investigation. They didn't say they could use them to smear Trump in the press by publishing his returns.

That's the primary flaw in your argument.

Congress is up to no good.....and they'll only end up back in court in little or no time if they start publishing Trumps returns in the press.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. The Supreme Court said congress has the right to his returns in an investigation. They didn't say they could use them to smear Trump in the press by publishing his returns.

That's the primary flaw in your argument.

Congress is up to no good.....and they'll only end up back in court in little or no time if they start publishing Trumps returns in the press.

The Supreme Court simply upheld the appellant ruling and rejected Trump's request it be overturned.


The order Tuesday by the Supreme Court, which noted no dissent from any justice, comes more than three months after a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Ways and Means Committee had the right to obtain Trump’s tax returns.

Not a single justice dissented. But they're going to overturn the ruling they refused to overturn?

Laughing.......oh, my sweet summer child. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

the deductions are.

What do deductions have to do with your net worth? Not a damn thing!

 

[mudwhistle]

The Supreme Court simply upheld the appellant ruling and rejected Trump's request it be overturned.


The order Tuesday by the Supreme Court, which noted no dissent from any justice, comes more than three months after a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Ways and Means Committee had the right to obtain Trump’s tax returns.

Not a single justice dissented. But they're going to overturn the ruling they refused to overturn?

Laughing.......oh, my sweet summer child. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Again....the Supreme Court assumes that the Ways and Means committee will abide by their oath and use those returns only to investigate.....not to smear a US citizen.

The issue never could have been over then having the right to them as members of a congressional committee. The issue is are they going to intentionally abuse or ignore the former president's right to privacy. The Bill of Rights says otherwise.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How are they going to smear Trump because he exaggerates. We all know that. The perception of trump will not change. IF they are releasing them then there is something juicy.

NYT reports says that they have obtained these records that report Trump just paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016, and that same tiny amount the following year. Trump paid no income tax at all in 11 out of the 18 years that the Times examined after obtaining his tax-return data.

Yeah I want to see them

How did the Times get his income tax data? That is illegal by any stretch of the imagination.

Who cares if you want to see them. They are none of your fucking business!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The public deserves to know.

No, they don't! Your income tax is private. You can read it right on the return form you file.