sammy: Probable cause is not required. Teapot Dome is the rationale.
sammy
Probable cause not required?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
sammy: Read…the…law. At a minimum, one judge concurred.
baffling
The government already has the tax returns. This would not be a search and seizure. Trump already volunteered that information to the government. 4th amendment would not apply here.
pgl
Sammy pretending to be a lawyer. Sort of like that clown Rudy G!
Moses Herzog
Love it. Great find and great share.
Moses Herzog
Did anyone else catch the story on Michael Bloomberg making immigrant drivers lose all they had in their lives (savings and even family) by selling them outrageously priced taxi medallions and putting all his Bloomberg cronies in the Taxi and Limousine Commission?? Michael Bloomberg has always marketed his poor background to con people. Bloomberg no more cares about the working man than he does a housefly in his matzah ball soup.
I was one of the FOOLS who thought Bloomberg was “one of the good guys”. You can hand me my dunce cap for that one. Why do these stories often come out after the person has left political office?? Are we to believe all that time no one at the NYT had been told the price of a taxi medallion?? Or not a single person had called up an NYT journalist about it??
Bruce Hall
Interesting. The issue behind that is “why”. Apparently, “because Trump doesn’t want to give them to us”.
Bruce Hall: Don’t you want to know if (1) the Russians are giving bank loans to Trump via DB? (2) if the Chinese are paying Trump royalties via licenses? (3) if illegal payments were made to porn stars? (4) if Trump is illegally misstating his taxable income? (5) If Trump is money-laundering via purchases of units in Trump Tower, etc. (6) If Trump is misstating his net worth in order to illegally obtain loans (I think that is called “bank fraud”), (7) etc., etc. Or do you just think Trump should be allowed to commit high crimes and misdemeanors because he’s Trump?
sammy
Menzie,
None of your above 7 points would be found out by Trumps’ tax returns.
sammy: I didn’t know you were a forensic accountant.
pgl
So why is the Coward in Chief so afraid of letting us see his returns?
Willie
I suspect that Trump’s taxes would provide clues for all of them.
Aside from all of those, the reason that I believe Trump is hiding his tax returns is that he has next to no operating profit, and hasn’t for decades. He’s in hock up to his eyeballs and is only, like, really, really, beautifully rich because he inherited a boat ton of money and has been selling his name. He’s a business failure and doesn’t want to admit that he’s a business failure.
2slugbaits
It’s also worth pointing out that in the 17th and 18th centuries the term “misdemeanor” did not mean what it means today. When we talk about a misdemeanor today we mean a crime that doesn’t rise to the level of a felony. But if you’re one of those constitutional originalists, then you should honor its original meaning, which took its root from the word “demeanor”, which is defined as manner or outward deportment. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demeanor
So a “misdemeanor” meant an action that demeaned or diminished one’s outward manner or deportment. It didn’t just refer to a crime. If you demeaned your office, then you committed a misdemeanor. So just as Clinton could be said to have demeaned his office, so too has Trump. Of course, not all of us claim to be originalists.
Moses Herzog
@2slugbaits
Curious to know if “originalists” believe African Americans are only worth a fraction of a human being—that’s pretty much where you would have to take it to call yourself “an originalist”. Which would explain many things about Antonin Scalia. Nonetheless, there are other things there that are laughable.
Barkley Rosser
Moses,
Originalists recognize that an amendment will render an earlier “original” interpretation inoperable. The 13th-15th Amendments, fully made inoperable that unfortunate original fractional view of African American slaves.
Did you want me to go down the list of James Madison’s comments while I’m on it??—so you can explain to me how “Madison didn’t really mean all that”?? Barkley Junior, it’s so funny watching you make a jacka$$ out of yourself trying to get your liberal credentials on this blog–and you then do an immediate 180 degree turn-around and run to the defense of old white racist farts (some thankfully dead) when you feel their prestige has been impugned. Junior, you’re the same as donald trump, always showing your true colors.
2slugbaits
Moses Herzog As I’m sure you know, it was the southern states that argued for five-fifths and the northern states who argued for zero-fifths. Three-fifths was a compromise. The south wanted slaves to count as five-fifths because it would give the south more representation in the House of Representatives. But all this just shows that we shouldn’t idolize the Founding Fathers. They weren’t any smarter or better than we are. That’s why I was never big on this “originalist” stuff. It always reminded me of one of those original Star Trek episodes in which Kirk, Spock and Bones find some developmentally arrested civilization that worships some computer god that was left by their ancient ancestors eons ago. Kirk always has to destroy the computer god (and bed the blonde) in order to set the civilization back on the path of development. I feel the same way about originalists. They pray to some long dead gods and end up arresting development.
Incidentally, I believe Scalia considered himself an strict constructionist rather than an originalist. Clarence Thomas sees himself as an originalist. I’m ashamed to admit it, but one of my nephews is a frequent op-ed writer for the Federalist Society so if I’m wrong he can set me straight.
Moses Herzog
@2slugbaits
I realize I’m embarrassing myself a little by confessing this, but I had forgotten the details of the “the Three-Fifths Compromise”. I’m sure I learned that in grade school more than once and had forgotten over the years. I was a much better university student than I was a grade school student. It is kind of interesting how the sides divided up on that—not how a person might intuitively think the sides would have aligned, if you didn’t know it was how the voting power in Congress would be measured/distributed.
Somewhere in this house I have a book written by Noah Feldman on how Roosevelt got his Supreme Court nominees. Like many books I purchase it is collecting dust. That’s pretty much the extent of my Supreme Court knowledge.
Barkley Rosser
Moses,
Beyond the correct remarks of 2slugbaits, I would note that none of those links you provided showing racist comments coming out of Scalia involved him claiming that African Americans were 3/5 of a human, which was my statement. Yo were just plaiin dead wrong on multiple grounds.
As for James Madison, not only was he the Father of the Constitution, most of which I think is pretty good, he is also coauthor of the Federalist Papers with Alexander Hamilton. I do not agree with everything he wrote in it, but I agree with the vast majority of it, which is very wise. Yes, he was a slaveowner, but he wrote nearly nothing about it. Feel free to go find all sorts of awful things Madison said. As it is, you are just making yourself look like an idiot going after Madison.
Your BRDS has got you making a complete and total fool out of yourself here. Grow up.
Sammy: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons … “
Sammy, tax returns are not private, secret, secure information. It is information that citizens have already given to the government. The government already possesses it, so there is no question concerning search warrants. There is nothing to search.
Congress wrote the laws pertaining to income tax. They also wrote the laws as to who is entitled to see tax returns. They specifically wrote a law entitling Congress to view any tax return they deem necessary, without preconditions. It’s government information. Congress can view government information that the government possesses.
CoRev
Joseph, please learn the difference between “the government.”, “Congress”, and the House of Representatives. There are three co-equal branches of Government, but there are also two components of Congress, the House and the Senate. To say, “Congress wrote the laws pertaining to income tax.” you obviously misunderstand the meaning of the Congress. When there are conflicts between these Branches they are usually adjudicated by the US Courts.
The comment about being forwarded up the chain of command is important. That memo’s Chain of Command applies only to the Executive Branch. This memo with an unknown author or authors, is well below the leadership of a single Agency within a Department of that Executive Branch which DIRECTLY reports to the President and NOT to the House of Representatives.
This just another example of how the Democrats have weaponized the Government against its own citizens of the OTHER PARTY. It was the egregious abuse of these kinds of Government actions that caused the US Revolution. If Governments continue on this path it does not end well. As its citizens are forced to rebel against it.
CoRev: Like all those draft Executive Orders that drifted out early in the administration, they give an insight into the thinking of individuals. The big letters D R A F T seemed to hint at that.
CoRev
Menzie, DRAFT also mean not IMPLEMENTED in Govt speak. My point was being drafted at the level has no bearing. It’s just another lawyers best guess at policy interpretation.
What I actually see is a serious of desperate moves hoping one will stick before the IG Reports is released. That Report will stick, but to another set of targets. How many will be Dem appointees?
CoRev: So when I hear people say Trump’s draft letter to Comey had bearing on Trump’s intent, those people are just blowin’ it out their a**?
pgl
I have written a few draft reports that were supposed to go forward but was overruled by some corrupt lawyer partner. Let’s put it this way – I choose to take another job rather than work for a dishonest slime. The lawyer who wrote this draft memo strikes me as a principled person. But Mnuchin is his boss and Mnuchin is a lying piece of slime. But hey – that is what it takes to work for Trump.
2slugbaits
CoRev Civil servants don’t just draft memos for the hell of it because they were bored one afternoon. Someone directs them to draft a memo, and that direction always has a purpose. And the person or group selected to draft a memo is almost always the person or group with the most expertise in that particular subject. The final memo may or may not get approved or it may get modified as it moves through the food chain, but you know as well as I do that further senior level review subtracts from the expertise and coherence of the draft memo and only very rarely adds to it. Draft memos aren’t reviewed by senior staff in order to make them more technically correct. I think we’re safe in assuming that the draft memo reflects the position of the experts who spend 30 or 40 years understanding the fine points of the law.
CoRev
Menzie, again DRAFT means not implemented. You folks are so desperate if he coughs it is interpreted as an attack.
CoRev
2slugs, having been author or co-author of many draft memos, reports and white papers, I agree that they seldom see the light of day in original form. If they ever see the light of day!
Repeating again, DRAFT means not IMPLEMENTED. Your belief that the original writers are the technical experts, in my experience, has little value for policy and/or final implementation.
CoRev
Menzie, actually yes! Intent, consideration, discussions, resolved… but not following through with any of them means NOT IMPLEMENTED. Which further means one can not be prosecuted for an intent. Obviously one can be persecuted, though. 😉
CoRev: Well, have written my share of government memos. They don’t seem to change a lot from first draft to last. But maybe legal citations are more malleable than economic…
2slugbaits
CoRevDRAFT means not implemented.
Generally that’s true enough, but not always. If there is no existing guidance on a particular issue, then it’s not uncommon for a draft version to become a provisionally operational version (and hence implemented) until a final version is approved. But you keep wanting to avoid the underlying question, which is why wouldn’t Trump want to follow the position recommended by the technical experts? As President he could certainly overrule such a memo, but what would be his rationale other than corrupt intent? It’s not like he has any deep insights to bear on the matter.
CoRev
Menzie, I am am happy that you, in your short tenure between administration changes, had experience that is different than my multi-decades of experience over several full administrations. Perhaps your experience hasn’t noticed that less gets accomplish/implemented at the the end and beginning of administrations due to less experienced personnel. Your experience being characteristic of those periods. I’m not sure how much implementation experience a policy guy actually gets in that period.
If you think added legislating during the beginning of a new administration, remember the term is implemented. Do you know how many of your memos are actually in force today? Just curious.
CoRev: Pretty sure we sank the “50 new nuclear reactors” plan.
CoRev
One???? Well OK for the short sighted position on renewable energy.
pgl
Wow – you are the Constitutional scholar! Oh wait – the kids at your preK are already snickering at this lame attempt to explain these issues.
pgl
‘Precisely who wrote the memo and reviewed it could not be learned.’
REALLY? In his dishonest and lame testimony today Mnuchin promised to find out which IRS attorney wrote this memo. Likely he will seek the name of this person so Trump can have him fired. That is what they do to honest government employees – fire them so they will not get in the way of King Donald I.
But I love this focus on the process as Trump’s clowns are clueless how to rebut the merits of this memo.
baffling
“This just another example of how the Democrats have weaponized the Government against its own citizens of the OTHER PARTY. ”
the laws have been pretty clear about this situation for decades. your argument is lazy and ill informed. at this point in time, the treasury and irs are breaking the law by not turning over the requested documents to the committee chair. there is really no hazy interpretation issue at hand. the trump administration knows exactly what the law is, but are simply arguing that they are not required to follow the law if they so choose. if i were the committee chair, i would subpoena each and every witness, and if they choose not to attend the hearings or not to turn over the documents, i would throw each and every one of them in jail. and point out to each and every one of them how they are the one’s spending time in jail while king donald continues to roam free. at some point, these folks will realize trump is willing to throw each and every one of them under the bus in order to protect his image. let them pay a price for breaking the law. they will be going to jail not to protect a principle, but to protect a conman-let them think about that behind bars.
pgl
The summary of this memo:
“A draft memo, written last fall by an Internal Revenue Service attorney, contradicts the Treasury Department’s justification for denying House Democrats’ demands for access to President Trump’s tax returns.”
As with everything that is uttered by the hand maidens of King Donald I, it is all lies.
sammy
Section 6103
Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code makes it a felony for current and former federal, state and local officials to disclose your tax information to anyone without authorization – even other government officials. The ban on disclosure also extends to any non-government workers who may have access to tax returns. The protections of Section 6103 cover not only your annual tax returns, but also “information returns,” such as W-2s, 1099s, 1098s and any other dealings between you and the Internal Revenue Service.
Penalties for Disclosure
Anyone convicted of disclosing tax return information without authorization can be sentenced to up to five years in federal prison and a fine of up to $5,000, as well as be made to pay the costs of prosecution. If the guilty party is a federal worker, the law requires that the worker be fired, although federal law doesn’t have the authority to order the firing of workers for state or local government or private companies. Further, anyone found guilty of attempting to pay an official for unauthorized access to a taxpayer’s confidential information faces the same penalties.
Barkley Rosser
Sammy,
Apparently you do not know what is going on here. Indeed there are penalties against public disclosure. But the post-Teapot Dome 1924 law that gives the Chairs of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to receive the tax reurns of any citizen is absolute. They are not allowed (or any members of their committees) to then publicly disclose the returns, although obviously Trump is worrying not without reason that the juiciest stuff in them will get leaked. But public disclosure remains forbidden. But having the IRS transmit the returns to these particular committee chairs is not public disclosure, and they are clearly the most relevant authorities in Congress to see them.
You simply do not know what is going on here. Are you getting your poorly informed dreck from some blatherer on Fox News, or did you cook up this nonsense on your own?
pgl
Sammy knows what is going on here just like Mnuchin knows. Mnuchin lied to Congress today. And yes Sammy is willing to lie to us as well.
pgl
Sammy – Trump’s new attorney. Hey Sammy – the bar of incompetence was set really high by Rudy. Glad to see you exceeding it. Cherry picking out of context what section 6103 says. Try reading the entire section and this draft memo’s excellent analysis.
OK Mnuchin claimed this morning that the memo did not rebut his bizarre views but then Mnuchin said he never read the memo. Apparently neither have you.
pgl
Such cherry picking is blatant misrepresentation of what section 6103 says. And you know it is. I hope Trump has paid you well for such incredibly dishonesty.
randomworker
Should we go thru the record and note all the times Broke-ahontas said he would gladly release his tax returns as soon as the audit was over?
Seems the audit is over. Let’s see them.
baffling
i find it fascinating that mnuchin can outright ignore the laws of the us and constitution, and still have people like bruce and sammy support him and trump on this issue. i find the silence from the likes of corev, peakloser and rick stryker fascinating. when the executive branch breaks the law, do you still support them or simply remain quiet rather than point out the lawlessness?
baffling: They never believe in “the law”. Only when the law defended the interests of the rich, connected, or caucasian.
Moses Herzog
What should be very bothersome to some people, is people such as Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and Stephen Miller are Jewish (other names could be run down), and therefor should be well aware of the dangers of all of this. Miller’s family seems to have got that memo from history, how Stephen Miller missed it is a mystery. But if we are to take the strong implication from these 3 men, and others in the administration, “never again” only applies to one minority ethnic group.
Meanwhile Benjamin Netanyahu shakes donald trump’s hand with a large grin, and pours heaps of verbal flattery over him, like donald john trump is the reincarnation of King David. The “VSG” has a closer kinship to the Mayor of Sodom, not that that would bother Netanyahu.
Barkley Rosser
Moses,
I should probably leave this alone, but I really do not see what is going on. You are all worked up about people with “Jewish names,” while you are (or were) a self-proclaimed Methodist with what looks like a Jewish name. While indeed I have read that Stephen Miller is Jewish, his name is not Jewish. Heck, there are Jews that have my last name as well as African Americans. I would also note that Gary Cohn has not been a part of the Trump administration for some time, and appears to have been not supportive of at least some Trump admin policies.
Which gets to the part of this that is the most incoherent, your reference to “all this.” Well, I do think there have been things Trump has done and said that should make Jews uncomfortable about being in his admin, as Gary Cohn clearly was when Trump made his outrageous remarks after the Charlottesville events in August ,2017. But I would say that if you are going to get into this sort of thing you really ought to try to be more specific.
Oh, and in case you want to get off onto it, I am not a fan of Bibi Netanyahu. I have repeatedly put up posts on Econospeak criticizing Trump’s Iran policy and Netanyahu’s role in that.
Moses Herzog
Barkley Junior
Junior has a hard time understanding things that aren’t spelled out for him. I can understand with Junior being a geriatric now and after playing apologetics for a university named after a slaveowner how “all of this” could be lost on cretinous Barkley Junior. This article posted in the last 2 days in the NYT might give Junior a small idea. Pay attention to the photo Barkley, I still hold out slim faith you can “catch on” to the meaning. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/us/harriet-tubman-bill.html
Please don’t cry Barkley Junior, some people in the South USA will hold strong to their love of whichever white slaveowner taken off the $20 bill you feel was really “a terrific guy all-around”, other than the buying and selling of human beings, and abuse of human beings, a really “swell” guy.
It might also interest you to know, oh great narcissist Barkley Junior, Miller is the 3rd most common surname among American Jews behind Cohen, and Levy. Being the supreme narcissist you are Barkley Junior, I’m leaving it to you Junior to search on farther down the list to find where “Rosser” ranks on surnames of American Jews. When you find the ranking of “Rosser” get back to me on that would you??
Moses Herzog
@ Barkley Junior
It looks like it was tearing Gary Cohn to shreds internally. It’s amazing Mr. Cohn recovered from his obvious “emotional torment”. I don’t suppose a pseudo-intellectual moron such as yourself Junior, would like to guess what event precipitated the press conference where this photo was taken, do you?? Or whether a pseudo-intellect such as yourself would have any idea what donald trump’s record on race issues was before Gary Cohn agreed to join his administration?? Or does your seemingly early stage dementia preclude your memory stretching back that far?? https://images.app.goo.gl/Ej2g3rqxZEWQvBB5A
Barkley Rosser
Moses,
There are conflicting sources, but I did find one saying Miller is the third most common Jewish surname in he US. However, I in contradt to Cohen and Levy, where well over 90 percent of people with those last names are Jewish, Miller a name of English and Scottish origin, with some people from Germany changing Muller or Mueller to Miller, which would account for the Jewish Millers. However, Miller is the 7th most common last name in the US with about 1.5 million of them. over 90 percent of them are not Jewish. There may be many Jews named Miller, but it is not a “Jewish name” like Cohen or Levy.
Unlike Miller, Rosser is a very rare name. For a famous Jewish Rosser, check on Luther Rosser.
I am and have been well aware all along of Trump’s racist history, starting with being convicted of racial discrimination in housing dating from the beginning of his career. I have no idea why you are posting stuff about the Trump admin holding off on putting Harriett Tubman on the $20 bill. Do you think I support this?
I realize you really want to paint me as some kind of racist, but, sorry, you are not going to get anywhere with that. I was seriously involved in the civil rights movement before you were even born.
Oh, and while I am not Jewish, lots of people, mostly Jewish, have thought I was Jewish on interacting with me. Less do now as I no longer have curly hair.
I am not going to comment further on this topic, which I should not have mentioned. It is clear that you have some sort of issue regarding your own relationship with Jews and Judaism, being a Methodist supposedly, but constantly bragging about how smart Jews are and possessing what is certainly a very Jewish name. A much higher percentage of those last named Herzog are Jewish than are those last-named Miller.
Anyway, maazeltov and shalom.
Moses Herzog
Barkley Junior
Not exactly surprising to see your knowledge of literature is as deep as your knowledge on Yiddish surnames. That would be, like, next to ZERO. Miller is the 3rd most common surname among American Jews —of which—last time I checked Stephen Miller would be included in. Unless Junior, you have some breaking news on him you’d like to share with us. Did some imaginary character in your mind tell you Miller was attempting citizenship in Mexico?? Possibly the same imaginary person also told you you look like the long deceased Elijah of Vilna?? Awesome dude. Rock on in your narcissistic fantasyland.
Barkley Rosser
Moses,
Since it looks like you are going to add this nonsense to your regular rant based on your sad lack of knowledge of probability, let me be very clear about this Miller name nonsense. I warned you there are competing sources, but you jump in with your repeat of Miller being the third most common American Jewish name. But there are no academic sources for that. The main article on this is by Yannay Spitzer, easily found by googling. It lists the 20 most common American Jewish surname. Miller is not on the list. Ones that are include of course Cohen and Levy and also, Levin, Levine, Levi, Kahn, Weinstein, Goldstein, Rosenberg, Friedman, and others, but not Millwe.
Now I do not know which source is correct, but in fact in my life I have known more American Jews with each of those last names I just listed personally than I have known American Jews named Miller, of whom I have known two. For all of those names, the vast majority of people bearing them are Jewish or partly Jewish. However, again, for the vast majority Americans named Miller, well over 90 percent, they are not Jewish. It is an English and Scottish name that some Jews have, and that is true even if it actually is the third most common American Jewish surname, which I seriously doubt, but may be true as there are sources that make that claim.
Now I am outtahere on this matter, but please do not add this drivel to your periodic screed on distributions over genomes and populations.
Oh, and good luck figuring out your identity, but please keep your mumblings on that matter off this blog.
pgl
CoRev had to chime in once it was clear that Sammy’s defenses of Trump and Mnuchin was so incredibly inept. Not that CoRev’s babbling any better!
pgl
“i find it fascinating that mnuchin can outright ignore the laws”
Ah but he has a hot wife. Well a gold digging wife who loves to spend all the money Mnuchin got from daddy and his general corrupt business practices.
“GENERAL RULE Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title” is the very first line and this section then notes when it is authorized to turn over return information.
There are many situations when this information shall be turned over. One such situation:
“(f)DISCLOSURE TO COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS
(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 orreturn 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.”
When Mnuchin said he would be in violation of section 6103 if he complied with this request – he lied. When Mnuchin claimed he was not required to comply with the request – he lied.
Of course both CoRev and Sammy routinely lie on behalf of Trump here. They have do so just today.
CoRev
Pgl, please, you’ve shown again you do/can not read and understand: “… unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.” Now if leaked after a “closed session” would be grounds for citizen legal action.
There is no need to lie with the obvious ineptitude shown here.
baffling
you cannot avoid following the law because of a “hypothetical” leak that could possibly occur in the future. that is simply foolish talk corev. further, no consent is needed if the documents are provided in closed executive session. corev…”you’ve shown again you do/can not read and understand:”
CoRev
Baffled, what part of the exception in the law, as provided by pgl, did you not understand? Let me repeat: “… unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.”
There is no need to lie with the obvious ineptitude shown here.
baffling
corev, you need reading comprehension lessons. the information can be released to closed executive session without consent. this is what is so frustrating with you. you are too stoooopid to actually read and comprehend a statement, yet you bloviate like you know what you are talking about. your continued argument on this point simply reinforces that either you have poor reading comprehension skills or you have no problem continuing to promote a false argument. i expect an apology from you.
CoRev
Baffled, there you go again, trying to make another nonsensical point. “you cannot avoid following the law because of a “hypothetical” leak that could possibly occur in the future.” You responded to this comment: “Now if leaked after a “closed session” would be grounds for citizen legal action.” with repeating what I said: ” the information can be released toclosed executive session without consent.” And, you think I can not read and understand?
I was responding to your hypothetical, and you responded by ignoring and/or misunderstanding the “closed session” exception reference in my comment. Need I add the term executive to “closed session” to help your comprehension?
Someone recently said: ” you are too stoooopid to actually read and comprehend a statement, yet you bloviate like you know what you are talking about. your continued argument on this point simply reinforces that either you have poor reading comprehension skills or you have no problem continuing to promote a false argument. i expect an apology from you.”
baffling
corev, once again you simply make no sense in your comments. they are simply incomprehensible.
pgl
Wow – another cherry picked quote completely out of context. Do learn to properly cite your cherry picked quotes. Otherwise we will just assume you are doing what you always do. Lying your arse off.
Rick Stryker
I see that Baffles mentioned me. The bad economic analysis that permeates this blog has become boring and I don’t bother to comment. But now we have some bad legal analysis. At least that’s new. Fortunately, I also have a joint appointment with the Wossamotta U School of Law.
Before getting to the bad legal analysis, let’s start with the obvious. Somebody leaked a draft memo written by an unknown person at the IRS on the legal issues surrounding a Congressional request for Trump’s tax returns. Of course that memo in no way reflects the official legal position of the Trump Administration. It’s not even the IRS’s job to take a legal position and the views of their lawyers don’t matter. If somebody leaked a memo written by some unknown person from the Supervision section of the Fed that was critical of monetary policy, would anyone in his right mind conclude that that somehow represents the position of the Fed or perhaps what people in the Fed are really thinking about monetary policy? Of course not.
The memo should be dismissed for that reason alone. But it’s also very bad legal reasoning. The unknown author claims that the only legitimate reason not to comply with the subpoena is executive privilege. That’s ridiculous. Executive privilege is irrelevant in this case. What the memo omits though is the legitimate reason not to comply: Article 1 of the Constitution. It is a longstanding constitutional doctrine, supported by case law and precedent, that Congress’s powers are limited by the requirement that what it does serves a legitimate legislative purpose. The reason for that requirement is clear: Congress cannot by legislation assume powers held by other co-equal branches of government. Congress can’t pass a law giving itself the power to investigate and prosecute crimes nor can it give itself the power to decide cases.
The Democratic lawyers who are writing the briefs understand that. That’s why they’ve taken great pains in the Mnuchin hearings to try to establish a legitimate legislative purpose. The Democratic lawsuit against the Administration will attempt to establish legitimate legislative purpose. If you think about it, this is what we want. We don’t want a Congress that has the constitutional power to write laws that would allow it attack its political enemies, whether in the White House, or the Judiciary, or in the public. Section 6103 allows Congress to request the tax returns of anybody, including the President. Do we want Congress to have the power to request the tax returns of Civil Rights leaders, in order to embarrass and silence them, for example? Congress must show that the request is necessary to help them write laws. It can’t be about a political vendetta or suspicion of wrongdoing.
Section 6103 also gives Trump the power to request anybody’s tax returns: Chuck and Nancy’s tax returns, Nadler’s tax returns, Mueller’s tax returns, and anyone else’s he doesn’t like. Trump can get them all. Trump is the adult in the room though and has not attempted to misuse the power granted to him under 6103, unlike the Democrats in Congress. We should keep in mind that one of the articles of impeachment in Nixon’s case was the allegation that he was planning to use the IRS as a weapon against his political opponents. Democrats in Congress are openly doing now what Nixon was only considering doing. It’s shameful.
baffling
well well, rick stryker is now a lawyer in addition to an economist and politician. what a well rounded individual he is. your son must be proud of you dick striker.
however, most of what you stated is inaccurate. the law is very clear that the committee chair can request anybody’s tax documents, and that the irs and treasury must comply. this law has been on the books for decades. as for valid reasons, there are many. not the least of which is to investigate the possible foreign influence on the president of the united states. in addition, apparently we have a president who is capable of money laundering without getting caught. lets see how that occurs, so that we can update the laws. but further, it appears we have a president who can commit financial fraud with banks to receive loans. perhaps we should update the financial crisis laws to capture that behavior as well. you see dick, the list goes on and on. i just find it fascinating that somebody like yourself would side with a president and his lackeys who are intentionally breaking the laws at every turn. then again, with your history of condoning lying to achieve ones gains, it guess it is not so surprising after all. but let’s be clear dick, the noose is getting tighter and tighter around his neck.
as we just saw, capital one and deutsch bank are permitted to turn over the trump financial records. they will probably conflict with the tax returns and more elaborately show the financial fraud. and the state of new york will soon release his state tax records. time is running out. democrats will not impeach him, they will simply continue to let the rope tighten until even the republicans (minus the hacks like dick) will force him to resign in shame. it will be a political nightmare.
Barkley Rosser
Of course Nixon released his tax returns when he was being audited and being investigated for impeachment. Trump is the only one insisting on this nonexistent right to ignore a request for his returns from the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. You are just delusional.
pgl
““now we have some bad legal analysis.” That would be your comment. Wossamotta U School of Law? Seriously?”
pgl
“Section 6103 also gives Trump the power to request anybody’s tax returns: Chuck and Nancy’s tax returns, Nadler’s tax returns, Mueller’s tax returns, and anyone else’s he doesn’t like.”
THE Rick gets all hot and horny over the idea that Trump might abuse his powers to go after his political enemies. But wait – the 3 members of Congress he mentions here have nothing to hide and may have voluntarily released their returns already. Oh well – Trump can go after Mueller. That will show him. Of course Mueller is a boy scout and certainly has nothing to hide either.
THE Rick steps up to the plate for Team Trump and swings and misses. Strike 3 Rick – you’re OUT!
joseph
CoRev, Sammy was making a 4th Amendment argument. I was responding to that argument. Are you agreed that the 4th Amendment does not apply to information gather by the IRS and in the possession of the government?
The handling of government data is determined by congressional statute, not by the constitution.
Income tax law was written by congress, The collection of taxes is written by congress. The spending of income tax revenue is written by congress. The dissemination of IRS data is written by congress.
The executive branch does not have the constitutional authority to arbitrarily decide on the spending of IRS taxes or the dissemination of IRS data. Those are governed by laws written by congress.
CoRev
Joseph, this is only partially correct: : “The executive branch does not have the constitutional authority to arbitrarily decide on the spending of IRS taxes orthe dissemination of IRS data. Those are governed by laws written by congress.” and regulations as deemed appropriate and written by — wait for it– The Executive Branch. Most Congressional laws end with a generic clause allowing the effected Executive Agencies to interpret and create the necessary and appropriate regulations. It’s in the law(s)!
In the constitution is the power of Congress to write laws, and in these laws is the delegation of interpretation into regulations to the Executive Branch.
2slugbaits
Rick Stryker Is Wossamotta U School of Law an accredited school? It doesn’t sound like it. Let me help you out. First, I don’t think anyone disputes that a draft memo does not represent the official Executive Department position; however, it almost certainly represents the opinion of the apolitical in-house experts. That should count for something in evaluating the merits of Trump’s resistance to Congress’s subpoenas. Second, do you have any evidence that Congress is not demanding his tax returns pursuant to a legislative purpose? My understanding is that one reason Congress wants his tax returns is to consider legislation requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns from prior years. You might disagree with such a law, but it’s not obviously a bad idea. And the Teapot Dome experience would seem to warrant it. And do you remember Bebe Rebozo? And the Executive Department doesn’t have any problem with snooping into the financial records of ordinary civil servants, so what’s the problem with voters wanting to know whether or not their president is a crook? But here’s where your legal understanding is flawed: Congress can’t pass a law giving itself the power to investigate and prosecute crimes nor can it give itself the power to decide cases.
This is simply wrong. Article III only establishes a Supreme Court. Article I empowers Congress to create lesser courts. In the distant past it was not at all uncommon for Congress to try cases in lieu of Article III courts, although recent SCOTUS decisions have narrowed the scope of so called Article I courts. The most recent SCOTUS ruling essentially limits Article I courts to “public rights”: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-179P.ZO
So what are some examples of “public rights”? Here’s one description: In essence, the Court distinguished between those acts that historically had been determined by courts and those that had both been historically resolved by executive or legislative acts and comprehended matters that arose between the government and others. Thus, Article I courts “may be created as special tribunals to examine and determine various matters, arising between the government and others, which from their nature do not require judicial determination and yet are susceptible of it. The mode of determining matters of this class is completely within congressional control.”
continuing… The Court limited the public rights exception to claims deriving from a “federal regulatory scheme” or claims in which “an expert Government agency is deemed essential to a limited regulatory objective.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-1/the-public-rights-distinction
pgl
A lot of lawyers who actually know what they are talking about note: (1) the draft memo is not what compels the IRS to comply; (2) the actual law is what compels the IRS and Mnuchin to comply. Of course our Usual Suspects are doing what they do best – LIE for Trump by cherry picking out of context narrow portions of section 6103. Of course none of these clowns can bother to either link to the actual text of section 6103 or bother to read it in its entirety.
sammy
Rick Stryker has the defining comment on this topic.
The Teapot Dome law has never been tested constitutionally, as it will be now, on the basis of co equal branches (H/t RS). And just because a subpoena was issued does not mean that it is proper. Mnuchin defied it and now it goes to court. Both will go to the Supreme Court and so the Democrats are going to be faced with Trump Tax Return DT’s for the foreseeable future. So far 11 years of Trump tax returns have been released with no effect. Good luck running on this. People are sick of Trump’s tax returns.
baffling
“People are sick of Trump’s tax returns.”
actually, the majority of people in the last election voted to see his tax returns. trump is violating the will of the people.
and no worries, between deutsche bank, capital one and the state of new york, we will get a chance to see what trumps true financial situation really is. will you continue to support a financial criminal for president?
sammy
“will you continue to support a financial criminal for president?”
Trump’s taxes have been vetted by the IRS as “A Ok” He may have had some tough times, may have taken aggressive deductions. I don’t care. Do you care about Hillary and her foundation taking donations from people who had business before the State Department? Or Biden’s son taking massive amounts of money from foreign governments while “Sniffin Joe” was VP? Which is worse baffling?
sammy
BTW Bill Clinton deducted his used underwear on his taxes. Is this really the type of thing you want to find out? I think the value of Bills’ underwear is a negative number, after Haz Mat costs.
baffling
Trump’s taxes have been vetted by the IRS as “A Ok”
i thought his taxes were still under audit, so they could not be released? which is it? are they under audit, or have they been vetted as “A Ok”? sammy, you make some of the silliest comments. i almost want to call you corev.
since trump lost the popular vote, the “tax thing” has been cleared up. the people would like to see his taxes.
pgl
“Trump’s taxes have been vetted by the IRS as “A Ok”
You know this? How? He says he is currently under audit, which means his past positions are being challenged. And a lot of these challenges have to do with the fact that defaulting on one’s debt in its own way is income as one reduces one financial obligations. A while back a lot of tax scholars thoroughly discussed this issue and how it applies to Trump’s shady past.
Now if you were really an expert in tax law (snicker) you could not have missed this. But apparently you did miss this discussion completely.
pgl
“will you continue to support a financial criminal for president?”
Of course he will. Why even ask a question with such an obvious answer.
pgl
“Rick Stryker has the defining comment on this topic.”
Sammy translated – now THE Rick has written even more $hit than I could muster. Way to lie for the boss Rick!
pgl
“So far 11 years of Trump tax returns have been released with no effect.”
His tax returns for 1984 to 1995? Seriously? The issue is how Trump was corrupted by begging the Russians for money – which occurred AFTER 1995. Sammy – you started this off being quite stupid. Now you have managed to go off the cliff in complete insanity.
joseph
In the wake of the Teapot Dome scandal, the Revenue Act of 1924 gave access to tax returns to congress for oversight. Tax returns were considered public records but under the control of the executive branch regarding access using executive orders and executive regulations. This gave the executive rather arbitrary control of IRS records.
In 1976, after the disclosures of Nixon’s improprieties, the law was amended by Section 6103 to specifically eliminate executive branch control over access to returns and replaced it with a specific statutory regime governing disclosure.
The legislative intent was to remove control of IRS data from arbitrary executive discretion. Access is provided explicitly to congress by statute. Unless the law is changed, the executive simply has no authority to limit access by congress. That was the entire impetus behind Section 6103 in 1976 – to take control of IRS data out of the hands of a possibly corrupt authoritarian executive.
CoRev
Joseph rightly says: “The legislative intent was to remove control of IRS data from arbitrary executive discretion. ” while ignoring that it now is replaced by arbitrary Congressional discretion. Discretion of a nationally elected official is replaced by that of a state’s representative, a far less representative district. Quite the improvement, and indicative of the short shortsightedness of Dems. Remember the impact of Dem driven Nuclear Change option in the Senate? You were warned then of its impact, and now we have more conservative judges.
pgl
Judge says Trump’s legal arguments are not serious!
‘The Manhattan federal judge who immediately blocked an attempt from President Trump to halt a Congressional subpoena for his financial records told private attorneys hired by the President that their case was not “serious.” During the hour-long read of his opinion on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos drew a distinction between the “serious political ramifications” of the investigation into a president’s finances, and what constitutes a “serious” question to be considered by a judge.’
I would only hope this smart judge read the BS we see here from THE Rick, Sammy, and CoRev. Not serious indeed!
baffling
so the toddler in chief has decided to hold his breath until he gets what he wants.
keep holding that breath loser. and folks like corev, dick striker and peak loser continue to embrace a world leader who throws a tantrum and holds his breath when he doesn’t get his way. fascinating. just like my toddler, he needs a time out to think about things a little bit.
pgl
I bet your toddler is a lot better behaved that Trump and his unmerry men. At least I hope so – otherwise you lead a rather rough life.
joseph
Corev: “this is only partially correct: : “The executive branch does not have the constitutional authority to arbitrarily decide on the spending of IRS taxes orthe dissemination of IRS data. Those are governed by laws written by congress.” and regulations as deemed appropriate and written by — wait for it– The Executive Branch. Most Congressional laws end with a generic clause allowing the effected Executive Agencies to interpret and create the necessary and appropriate regulations. It’s in the law(s)!”
Corev, you are talking about the situation between the Revenue Act of 1924 and the amendment of Section 6301 in 1976. During that period, IRS data was under the discretion of the president through executive order and regulations because of . But in 1976, due to the improprieties of Nixon, congress specifically wrote Section 6103 to take control of IRS data out of the hands of a corrupt president. The intent of the law was to unambiguously define the handling of IRS by statute, not by executive regulation. There is no ambiguity in the law. The president has no authority to defy the law as written in 1976. That was the entire point of that amendment to the law.
CoRev
Joseph, see my earlier response to the value of that effect.
ilsm
Now he did it! Trump made the opposition more mad, if that is possible, by picking on Pelosi!
The vague concept of “congressional subpoena” in the hands of the emotional! Witch hunts are most of the time bad.
Where does subpoena from a body running on emotions and politics come from? I suppose it is an “implied power” that being implied power to “oversee”. Implied are assumptions no where in the Legislative Article.
The applicatio0n of “implied powers” by the emotional is similar to Obama using his “national security” apparatus for political motives! Wrong.
Not to mention that 5 SCOTS justices are not likely to sympathize.
What Mencken said about the capitol.
joseph, links?
pgl
Gee the wiring for this Russian bot are short circuited.
noneconomist
Hey, ilsm. Here’s an old Saturday Night Live (Bill Murray) game show question updated. Quien es mas macho: Nancy Pelosi o Donald Trump?
If your answer is Trump, get help. Soon.
joseph
CoRev: “Discretion of a nationally elected official is replaced by that of a state’s representative, a far less representative district.”
Good god. I realize that folks like Corev are fans of fascist authoritarians, but this is ridiculous. He now says that a law, passed by a majority of elected representatives in the Senate and the House and signed by the president of the United States is discretionary. A law that was passed specifically to restrict the president’s arbitrary application of the previous law.
Previous to the Section 6103 amendment in 1976, President Nixon secretly used IRS data to attack his political opponents. He could also arbitrarily restrict access to information by Congress. The new amendment clarified the situation, taking it out of the arbitrary hands of a corrupt authoritarian and putting it back in the hands of the congress. Under the new law, access to IRS data is specifically described by statue, not authoritarian discretion. Corev thinks the laws are discretionary.
Both the president and congress have access to IRS data, but under the new law, the president must notify congress within 30 days of such access. He can no longer do it secretly. Likewise, congress also has access to IRS data. The president can no longer arbitrarily deny congress access to that data.
This is the law, enacted by congress and signed into law by the president. The current president is acting as if he is not subject to the law. He is providing one more count in the indictment for impeachment.
CoRev
Joseph claims: ” The new amendment clarified the situation, taking it out of the arbitrary hands of a corrupt authoritarian and putting it back in the hands of the congress. Under the new law, access to IRS data is specifically described by statue, not authoritarian discretion. Corev thinks the laws are discretionary.” Except he makes some strange comparison of a nationally elected official , the President, versus a regionally elected Congressman. Who in this case is the corrupt authoritarian. Using the inclusive term, Congress, is the misdirection being applied here. Nadler, Schiff did ….. Not Congress did…
Please get your story straight.
noneconomist
Had CoRev been around in 1776, his loyalties would clkearly have been to King George. Long live the King? (But when all those indictments are delivered, those indicted by civilian grand juries will be subject to military tribunals at Guantanamo and the guilty will receive their just rewards. Then, Long live the King! For sure.)
joseph
CoRev: “Discretion of a nationally elected official is replaced by that of a state’s representative, a far less representative district.”
Just to be absolutely clear here, Corev is arguing that the congress consisting of 538 representatives should bow down in deference to power of the president. He is saying that a nationally elected president is superior to a congress of 538 representatives – ironically, that the representatives are less representative of the public. He really is arguing for an authoritarian dictator.
(And let’s not mention the embarrassing fact that the president in question received 3 million fewer votes of the public than his opponent. Representative, indeed.)
CoRev
Joseph, please show us all where Congress has issued these attacks on the Executive? Only a Dem can/would consider a Committee Chair as representing the nation. Yes, a the representative is less representative of the nation. Congress does not chair committees, individuals do!
And this little comment: “(And let’s not mention the embarrassing fact that the president in question received 3 million fewer votes of the public than his opponent. Representative, indeed.)” shows the misunderstanding and wishful thinking of a loser. Indeed, this whole political debacle seems to be coming apart, and with any political consideration, should reach its peak just before the 2020 elections.
Here’s another thought. What will Trump do in his 2nd term to right the political and ethical imbalance shown over the past couple of years of Obama’s and his first years in office? He has a higher chance of taking the House than keeping the Senate, but with the current world pattern, the US may also turn even more conservative. Remember, what you have sowed, the Republicans may reap. How’s the Senate nuclear option worked out?
Please get your story straight.
joseph
Corev: “a nationally elected official , the President, versus a regionally elected Congressman. Who in this case is the corrupt authoritarian. Using the inclusive term, Congress, is the misdirection being applied here. Nadler, Schiff did ….. Not Congress did…”
Fans of fascist authoritarianism like Corev really despises democracy. It hampers their preferred dictators.
The 538 members of congress are elected by democratic elections. These democratically elected representatives then select members for the various committees, with representatives from each party. The intelligence committee that Adam Schiff chairs consists of 22 representatives from both parties. Adam Schiff cannot arbitrarily subpoena anyone without a democratic vote of a majority of the members of the committee. That is democracy.
Likewise the judiciary committee that Jerry Nadler chairs consists of 41 representatives from both parties. Jerry Nadler cannot arbitrarily subpoena anyone without a democratic vote of the majority of the members of the committee. That is democracy.
Corev calls that corrupt authoritarianism. Corev is a clown. But he does love his Dear Leader.
CoRev
Joseph, more misdirection: “,,the judiciary committee that Jerry Nadler chairs consists of 41 representatives from both parties (with his party have a majority of member ship). Jerry Nadler cannot arbitrarily subpoena anyone without (his) (D)democratic (majority voting for it). (There fixed it for you.)
CoRev
Joseph, this one example of Nadler’s recent Judiciary Committee voting: “he House Judiciary Committee voted 24 to 17 along party lines to authorize its chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), to subpoena the report and underlying documents of Mueller’s probe from Attorney General William P. Barr.?
noneconomist
That would be 24 representatives elected from various districts in numerous states across the country. In opposition were 17 representatives similarly elected. Majorities in the House have always been quite important. What’s changed? Or are you unsure HOW representative democracy–and republican government–works?
joseph
Geez, Corev, I realize you have gotten used to your presidents being elected by a minority of the voters, but that’s not how it works in congress. The party that has the majority of representatives democratically elected by the people gets a majority of the seats in committees. The committee members vote. The majority wins. That’s how democracy works, as much as it pains you.
CoRev
Noneonomist and Joseph, please understand the difference between Congress and the House of Representatives.
“Congress
a national legislative body, especially that of the US. The US Congress, which meets at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., was established by the Constitution of 1787 and is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives.”
The House of Representatives is elected on a basis of population: “The House is composed of Representatives who sit in congressional districts that are allocated to each of the 50 states on a basis of population as measured by the U.S. Census, with each district entitled to one representative. Since its inception in 1789, all Representatives have been directly elected. The total number of voting representatives is fixed by law at 435.[1] As of the 2010 Census, the largest delegation is that of California, with fifty-three representatives. Seven states have only one representative: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.” The inverse is that the highly populated states/population centers get more Representatives.
Members of the House of Representatives is composed based approximately proportionate to the population of each state, and on occasion, that voting majority of a specific density changes parties, as it did in 2016 and 2018. These swing districts are usually closer to evenly mixed in party make up.
The Senate is made up of 2 Senators per state with no accounting for a state’s population density. That is also similar to how the Presidential, electoral college, assigns votes. Accordingly, the Senate is elected without consideration of proportionate to the population of each state, except for those states with large population centers made up of mostly single party voters. Accordingly, folks like you want to change the way Presidents are elected to simple a majority vote, a simple Democracy versus our current Representative Democracy.
Swinging even more influence to the population centers is short sighted by taking away political influence of those with lesser population. Those centers do not exist without the direct support of the non-populous states’ production. Adding influence to physical support and taking away political influence of these 2nd class, less populous states, would change the power dynamics from politics to production capability.
Your majority wins. That’s how a simple democracy not a representative democracy works. Is this really what you want, a power, production, food revolution? Reminds me of what is going on in Venezuela.
So please get your terms and goals aligned to the history and possibilities they could engender. Think instead of emote!
noneconomist
Wow! Senate comprised of two senators from each state. House comprised of members apportioned by the population of each state. Who knew? Thanks for the scholarship.
It might also be of importance to note and for you to understand (since you seem incapable of doing either): All legislation is the product of majority votes in both houses.
In the House, the votes are cast by members who represent districts with approximately the same populations. The districts may encompass and entire state or a few miles, depending on location. When at least 218 of these members–urban, rural, suburban– agree, they form a majority.
By constitutional mandate, each house determines its own rules. In a two-party legislature, there will (almost) always be a majority and a minority party. And, as we’ve seen more and more, those votes will often be along party lines.
You will recall that previous House majorities voted numerous times to repeal the ACA. Those repeals were largely symbolic because they would have been vetoed by the President. Vetoes CAN be overturned by super majorities in each house, but there was no possibility of that occurring.
In assessing the difficulties faced by both houses, Hamilton broached that subject in The Federalist Papers (#85). “Many of those who form a majority on one question, may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either may become a majority on a third…”
Hamilton, of course, was no democrat. But he did understand the power wielded by individual legislators acting in legislative majorities. Something you obviously don’t.
CoRev
Noneconomist, I thank you for that wonderful treatise on how the US Congress works. If only I had known that. /sarc Although I’m still not sure you understand the difference in how to use the terms House of Representatives, Senate and Congress.
Next maybe you can prove a treatise on how the US Federal Courts and the Presidency work? yes, more /sarc. Sadly, the /sarc tag is necessary.
I guess I would like to know on what charge are Dems requesting Trumps’ tax returns? What is the probable cause?
sammy: Probable cause is not required. Teapot Dome is the rationale.
Probable cause not required?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
sammy: Read…the…law. At a minimum, one judge concurred.
The government already has the tax returns. This would not be a search and seizure. Trump already volunteered that information to the government. 4th amendment would not apply here.
Sammy pretending to be a lawyer. Sort of like that clown Rudy G!
Love it. Great find and great share.
Did anyone else catch the story on Michael Bloomberg making immigrant drivers lose all they had in their lives (savings and even family) by selling them outrageously priced taxi medallions and putting all his Bloomberg cronies in the Taxi and Limousine Commission?? Michael Bloomberg has always marketed his poor background to con people. Bloomberg no more cares about the working man than he does a housefly in his matzah ball soup.
The story is written by Brian M Rosenthal of the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/nyregion/taxi-medallions.html
I was one of the FOOLS who thought Bloomberg was “one of the good guys”. You can hand me my dunce cap for that one. Why do these stories often come out after the person has left political office?? Are we to believe all that time no one at the NYT had been told the price of a taxi medallion?? Or not a single person had called up an NYT journalist about it??
Interesting. The issue behind that is “why”. Apparently, “because Trump doesn’t want to give them to us”.
Bruce Hall: Don’t you want to know if (1) the Russians are giving bank loans to Trump via DB? (2) if the Chinese are paying Trump royalties via licenses? (3) if illegal payments were made to porn stars? (4) if Trump is illegally misstating his taxable income? (5) If Trump is money-laundering via purchases of units in Trump Tower, etc. (6) If Trump is misstating his net worth in order to illegally obtain loans (I think that is called “bank fraud”), (7) etc., etc. Or do you just think Trump should be allowed to commit high crimes and misdemeanors because he’s Trump?
Menzie,
None of your above 7 points would be found out by Trumps’ tax returns.
sammy: I didn’t know you were a forensic accountant.
So why is the Coward in Chief so afraid of letting us see his returns?
I suspect that Trump’s taxes would provide clues for all of them.
Aside from all of those, the reason that I believe Trump is hiding his tax returns is that he has next to no operating profit, and hasn’t for decades. He’s in hock up to his eyeballs and is only, like, really, really, beautifully rich because he inherited a boat ton of money and has been selling his name. He’s a business failure and doesn’t want to admit that he’s a business failure.
It’s also worth pointing out that in the 17th and 18th centuries the term “misdemeanor” did not mean what it means today. When we talk about a misdemeanor today we mean a crime that doesn’t rise to the level of a felony. But if you’re one of those constitutional originalists, then you should honor its original meaning, which took its root from the word “demeanor”, which is defined as manner or outward deportment.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demeanor
So a “misdemeanor” meant an action that demeaned or diminished one’s outward manner or deportment. It didn’t just refer to a crime. If you demeaned your office, then you committed a misdemeanor. So just as Clinton could be said to have demeaned his office, so too has Trump. Of course, not all of us claim to be originalists.
@2slugbaits
Curious to know if “originalists” believe African Americans are only worth a fraction of a human being—that’s pretty much where you would have to take it to call yourself “an originalist”. Which would explain many things about Antonin Scalia. Nonetheless, there are other things there that are laughable.
Moses,
Originalists recognize that an amendment will render an earlier “original” interpretation inoperable. The 13th-15th Amendments, fully made inoperable that unfortunate original fractional view of African American slaves.
@Barkley Junior
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/14/antonin-scalia-a-brilliant-legal-mind-who-defied-civil-rights-at-nearly-every-turn
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/justice-scalia-under-fire-comments-about-black-students-n478681
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/supreme-court-justice-was-kkk-member-180962254/
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/opinion/11feldman.html
I’m so glad you “informed” me of that.
Did you want me to go down the list of James Madison’s comments while I’m on it??—so you can explain to me how “Madison didn’t really mean all that”?? Barkley Junior, it’s so funny watching you make a jacka$$ out of yourself trying to get your liberal credentials on this blog–and you then do an immediate 180 degree turn-around and run to the defense of old white racist farts (some thankfully dead) when you feel their prestige has been impugned. Junior, you’re the same as donald trump, always showing your true colors.
Moses Herzog As I’m sure you know, it was the southern states that argued for five-fifths and the northern states who argued for zero-fifths. Three-fifths was a compromise. The south wanted slaves to count as five-fifths because it would give the south more representation in the House of Representatives. But all this just shows that we shouldn’t idolize the Founding Fathers. They weren’t any smarter or better than we are. That’s why I was never big on this “originalist” stuff. It always reminded me of one of those original Star Trek episodes in which Kirk, Spock and Bones find some developmentally arrested civilization that worships some computer god that was left by their ancient ancestors eons ago. Kirk always has to destroy the computer god (and bed the blonde) in order to set the civilization back on the path of development. I feel the same way about originalists. They pray to some long dead gods and end up arresting development.
Incidentally, I believe Scalia considered himself an strict constructionist rather than an originalist. Clarence Thomas sees himself as an originalist. I’m ashamed to admit it, but one of my nephews is a frequent op-ed writer for the Federalist Society so if I’m wrong he can set me straight.
@2slugbaits
I realize I’m embarrassing myself a little by confessing this, but I had forgotten the details of the “the Three-Fifths Compromise”. I’m sure I learned that in grade school more than once and had forgotten over the years. I was a much better university student than I was a grade school student. It is kind of interesting how the sides divided up on that—not how a person might intuitively think the sides would have aligned, if you didn’t know it was how the voting power in Congress would be measured/distributed.
Somewhere in this house I have a book written by Noah Feldman on how Roosevelt got his Supreme Court nominees. Like many books I purchase it is collecting dust. That’s pretty much the extent of my Supreme Court knowledge.
Moses,
Beyond the correct remarks of 2slugbaits, I would note that none of those links you provided showing racist comments coming out of Scalia involved him claiming that African Americans were 3/5 of a human, which was my statement. Yo were just plaiin dead wrong on multiple grounds.
As for James Madison, not only was he the Father of the Constitution, most of which I think is pretty good, he is also coauthor of the Federalist Papers with Alexander Hamilton. I do not agree with everything he wrote in it, but I agree with the vast majority of it, which is very wise. Yes, he was a slaveowner, but he wrote nearly nothing about it. Feel free to go find all sorts of awful things Madison said. As it is, you are just making yourself look like an idiot going after Madison.
Your BRDS has got you making a complete and total fool out of yourself here. Grow up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDDiKsChsM
Sammy: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons … “
Sammy, tax returns are not private, secret, secure information. It is information that citizens have already given to the government. The government already possesses it, so there is no question concerning search warrants. There is nothing to search.
Congress wrote the laws pertaining to income tax. They also wrote the laws as to who is entitled to see tax returns. They specifically wrote a law entitling Congress to view any tax return they deem necessary, without preconditions. It’s government information. Congress can view government information that the government possesses.
Joseph, please learn the difference between “the government.”, “Congress”, and the House of Representatives. There are three co-equal branches of Government, but there are also two components of Congress, the House and the Senate. To say, “Congress wrote the laws pertaining to income tax.” you obviously misunderstand the meaning of the Congress. When there are conflicts between these Branches they are usually adjudicated by the US Courts.
In another WaPo article explaining this memo we can find: “Precisely who wrote the memo and reviewed it could not be learned. The agency says IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig and current chief counsel Michael Desmond, who was confirmed by the Senate in February, were not familiar with it until a Post inquiry this week. The IRS says it was never forwarded to Treasury.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/confidential-draft-irs-memo-says-tax-returns-must-be-given-to-congress-unless-president-invokes-executive-privilege/2019/05/21/8ed41834-7b1c-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.66fa71e35f43
The comment about being forwarded up the chain of command is important. That memo’s Chain of Command applies only to the Executive Branch. This memo with an unknown author or authors, is well below the leadership of a single Agency within a Department of that Executive Branch which DIRECTLY reports to the President and NOT to the House of Representatives.
This just another example of how the Democrats have weaponized the Government against its own citizens of the OTHER PARTY. It was the egregious abuse of these kinds of Government actions that caused the US Revolution. If Governments continue on this path it does not end well. As its citizens are forced to rebel against it.
CoRev: Like all those draft Executive Orders that drifted out early in the administration, they give an insight into the thinking of individuals. The big letters D R A F T seemed to hint at that.
Menzie, DRAFT also mean not IMPLEMENTED in Govt speak. My point was being drafted at the level has no bearing. It’s just another lawyers best guess at policy interpretation.
What I actually see is a serious of desperate moves hoping one will stick before the IG Reports is released. That Report will stick, but to another set of targets. How many will be Dem appointees?
CoRev: So when I hear people say Trump’s draft letter to Comey had bearing on Trump’s intent, those people are just blowin’ it out their a**?
I have written a few draft reports that were supposed to go forward but was overruled by some corrupt lawyer partner. Let’s put it this way – I choose to take another job rather than work for a dishonest slime. The lawyer who wrote this draft memo strikes me as a principled person. But Mnuchin is his boss and Mnuchin is a lying piece of slime. But hey – that is what it takes to work for Trump.
CoRev Civil servants don’t just draft memos for the hell of it because they were bored one afternoon. Someone directs them to draft a memo, and that direction always has a purpose. And the person or group selected to draft a memo is almost always the person or group with the most expertise in that particular subject. The final memo may or may not get approved or it may get modified as it moves through the food chain, but you know as well as I do that further senior level review subtracts from the expertise and coherence of the draft memo and only very rarely adds to it. Draft memos aren’t reviewed by senior staff in order to make them more technically correct. I think we’re safe in assuming that the draft memo reflects the position of the experts who spend 30 or 40 years understanding the fine points of the law.
Menzie, again DRAFT means not implemented. You folks are so desperate if he coughs it is interpreted as an attack.
2slugs, having been author or co-author of many draft memos, reports and white papers, I agree that they seldom see the light of day in original form. If they ever see the light of day!
Repeating again, DRAFT means not IMPLEMENTED. Your belief that the original writers are the technical experts, in my experience, has little value for policy and/or final implementation.
Menzie, actually yes! Intent, consideration, discussions, resolved… but not following through with any of them means NOT IMPLEMENTED. Which further means one can not be prosecuted for an intent. Obviously one can be persecuted, though. 😉
CoRev: Well, have written my share of government memos. They don’t seem to change a lot from first draft to last. But maybe legal citations are more malleable than economic…
CoRev DRAFT means not implemented.
Generally that’s true enough, but not always. If there is no existing guidance on a particular issue, then it’s not uncommon for a draft version to become a provisionally operational version (and hence implemented) until a final version is approved. But you keep wanting to avoid the underlying question, which is why wouldn’t Trump want to follow the position recommended by the technical experts? As President he could certainly overrule such a memo, but what would be his rationale other than corrupt intent? It’s not like he has any deep insights to bear on the matter.
Menzie, I am am happy that you, in your short tenure between administration changes, had experience that is different than my multi-decades of experience over several full administrations. Perhaps your experience hasn’t noticed that less gets accomplish/implemented at the the end and beginning of administrations due to less experienced personnel. Your experience being characteristic of those periods. I’m not sure how much implementation experience a policy guy actually gets in that period.
If you think added legislating during the beginning of a new administration, remember the term is implemented. Do you know how many of your memos are actually in force today? Just curious.
CoRev: Pretty sure we sank the “50 new nuclear reactors” plan.
One???? Well OK for the short sighted position on renewable energy.
Wow – you are the Constitutional scholar! Oh wait – the kids at your preK are already snickering at this lame attempt to explain these issues.
‘Precisely who wrote the memo and reviewed it could not be learned.’
REALLY? In his dishonest and lame testimony today Mnuchin promised to find out which IRS attorney wrote this memo. Likely he will seek the name of this person so Trump can have him fired. That is what they do to honest government employees – fire them so they will not get in the way of King Donald I.
But I love this focus on the process as Trump’s clowns are clueless how to rebut the merits of this memo.
“This just another example of how the Democrats have weaponized the Government against its own citizens of the OTHER PARTY. ”
the laws have been pretty clear about this situation for decades. your argument is lazy and ill informed. at this point in time, the treasury and irs are breaking the law by not turning over the requested documents to the committee chair. there is really no hazy interpretation issue at hand. the trump administration knows exactly what the law is, but are simply arguing that they are not required to follow the law if they so choose. if i were the committee chair, i would subpoena each and every witness, and if they choose not to attend the hearings or not to turn over the documents, i would throw each and every one of them in jail. and point out to each and every one of them how they are the one’s spending time in jail while king donald continues to roam free. at some point, these folks will realize trump is willing to throw each and every one of them under the bus in order to protect his image. let them pay a price for breaking the law. they will be going to jail not to protect a principle, but to protect a conman-let them think about that behind bars.
The summary of this memo:
“A draft memo, written last fall by an Internal Revenue Service attorney, contradicts the Treasury Department’s justification for denying House Democrats’ demands for access to President Trump’s tax returns.”
As with everything that is uttered by the hand maidens of King Donald I, it is all lies.
Section 6103
Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code makes it a felony for current and former federal, state and local officials to disclose your tax information to anyone without authorization – even other government officials. The ban on disclosure also extends to any non-government workers who may have access to tax returns. The protections of Section 6103 cover not only your annual tax returns, but also “information returns,” such as W-2s, 1099s, 1098s and any other dealings between you and the Internal Revenue Service.
Penalties for Disclosure
Anyone convicted of disclosing tax return information without authorization can be sentenced to up to five years in federal prison and a fine of up to $5,000, as well as be made to pay the costs of prosecution. If the guilty party is a federal worker, the law requires that the worker be fired, although federal law doesn’t have the authority to order the firing of workers for state or local government or private companies. Further, anyone found guilty of attempting to pay an official for unauthorized access to a taxpayer’s confidential information faces the same penalties.
Sammy,
Apparently you do not know what is going on here. Indeed there are penalties against public disclosure. But the post-Teapot Dome 1924 law that gives the Chairs of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to receive the tax reurns of any citizen is absolute. They are not allowed (or any members of their committees) to then publicly disclose the returns, although obviously Trump is worrying not without reason that the juiciest stuff in them will get leaked. But public disclosure remains forbidden. But having the IRS transmit the returns to these particular committee chairs is not public disclosure, and they are clearly the most relevant authorities in Congress to see them.
You simply do not know what is going on here. Are you getting your poorly informed dreck from some blatherer on Fox News, or did you cook up this nonsense on your own?
Sammy knows what is going on here just like Mnuchin knows. Mnuchin lied to Congress today. And yes Sammy is willing to lie to us as well.
Sammy – Trump’s new attorney. Hey Sammy – the bar of incompetence was set really high by Rudy. Glad to see you exceeding it. Cherry picking out of context what section 6103 says. Try reading the entire section and this draft memo’s excellent analysis.
OK Mnuchin claimed this morning that the memo did not rebut his bizarre views but then Mnuchin said he never read the memo. Apparently neither have you.
Such cherry picking is blatant misrepresentation of what section 6103 says. And you know it is. I hope Trump has paid you well for such incredibly dishonesty.
Should we go thru the record and note all the times Broke-ahontas said he would gladly release his tax returns as soon as the audit was over?
Seems the audit is over. Let’s see them.
i find it fascinating that mnuchin can outright ignore the laws of the us and constitution, and still have people like bruce and sammy support him and trump on this issue. i find the silence from the likes of corev, peakloser and rick stryker fascinating. when the executive branch breaks the law, do you still support them or simply remain quiet rather than point out the lawlessness?
baffling: They never believe in “the law”. Only when the law defended the interests of the rich, connected, or caucasian.
What should be very bothersome to some people, is people such as Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and Stephen Miller are Jewish (other names could be run down), and therefor should be well aware of the dangers of all of this. Miller’s family seems to have got that memo from history, how Stephen Miller missed it is a mystery. But if we are to take the strong implication from these 3 men, and others in the administration, “never again” only applies to one minority ethnic group.
Meanwhile Benjamin Netanyahu shakes donald trump’s hand with a large grin, and pours heaps of verbal flattery over him, like donald john trump is the reincarnation of King David. The “VSG” has a closer kinship to the Mayor of Sodom, not that that would bother Netanyahu.
Moses,
I should probably leave this alone, but I really do not see what is going on. You are all worked up about people with “Jewish names,” while you are (or were) a self-proclaimed Methodist with what looks like a Jewish name. While indeed I have read that Stephen Miller is Jewish, his name is not Jewish. Heck, there are Jews that have my last name as well as African Americans. I would also note that Gary Cohn has not been a part of the Trump administration for some time, and appears to have been not supportive of at least some Trump admin policies.
Which gets to the part of this that is the most incoherent, your reference to “all this.” Well, I do think there have been things Trump has done and said that should make Jews uncomfortable about being in his admin, as Gary Cohn clearly was when Trump made his outrageous remarks after the Charlottesville events in August ,2017. But I would say that if you are going to get into this sort of thing you really ought to try to be more specific.
Oh, and in case you want to get off onto it, I am not a fan of Bibi Netanyahu. I have repeatedly put up posts on Econospeak criticizing Trump’s Iran policy and Netanyahu’s role in that.
Barkley Junior
Junior has a hard time understanding things that aren’t spelled out for him. I can understand with Junior being a geriatric now and after playing apologetics for a university named after a slaveowner how “all of this” could be lost on cretinous Barkley Junior. This article posted in the last 2 days in the NYT might give Junior a small idea. Pay attention to the photo Barkley, I still hold out slim faith you can “catch on” to the meaning.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/us/harriet-tubman-bill.html
Please don’t cry Barkley Junior, some people in the South USA will hold strong to their love of whichever white slaveowner taken off the $20 bill you feel was really “a terrific guy all-around”, other than the buying and selling of human beings, and abuse of human beings, a really “swell” guy.
It might also interest you to know, oh great narcissist Barkley Junior, Miller is the 3rd most common surname among American Jews behind Cohen, and Levy. Being the supreme narcissist you are Barkley Junior, I’m leaving it to you Junior to search on farther down the list to find where “Rosser” ranks on surnames of American Jews. When you find the ranking of “Rosser” get back to me on that would you??
@ Barkley Junior
It looks like it was tearing Gary Cohn to shreds internally. It’s amazing Mr. Cohn recovered from his obvious “emotional torment”. I don’t suppose a pseudo-intellectual moron such as yourself Junior, would like to guess what event precipitated the press conference where this photo was taken, do you?? Or whether a pseudo-intellect such as yourself would have any idea what donald trump’s record on race issues was before Gary Cohn agreed to join his administration?? Or does your seemingly early stage dementia preclude your memory stretching back that far??
https://images.app.goo.gl/Ej2g3rqxZEWQvBB5A
Moses,
There are conflicting sources, but I did find one saying Miller is the third most common Jewish surname in he US. However, I in contradt to Cohen and Levy, where well over 90 percent of people with those last names are Jewish, Miller a name of English and Scottish origin, with some people from Germany changing Muller or Mueller to Miller, which would account for the Jewish Millers. However, Miller is the 7th most common last name in the US with about 1.5 million of them. over 90 percent of them are not Jewish. There may be many Jews named Miller, but it is not a “Jewish name” like Cohen or Levy.
Unlike Miller, Rosser is a very rare name. For a famous Jewish Rosser, check on Luther Rosser.
I am and have been well aware all along of Trump’s racist history, starting with being convicted of racial discrimination in housing dating from the beginning of his career. I have no idea why you are posting stuff about the Trump admin holding off on putting Harriett Tubman on the $20 bill. Do you think I support this?
I realize you really want to paint me as some kind of racist, but, sorry, you are not going to get anywhere with that. I was seriously involved in the civil rights movement before you were even born.
Oh, and while I am not Jewish, lots of people, mostly Jewish, have thought I was Jewish on interacting with me. Less do now as I no longer have curly hair.
I am not going to comment further on this topic, which I should not have mentioned. It is clear that you have some sort of issue regarding your own relationship with Jews and Judaism, being a Methodist supposedly, but constantly bragging about how smart Jews are and possessing what is certainly a very Jewish name. A much higher percentage of those last named Herzog are Jewish than are those last-named Miller.
Anyway, maazeltov and shalom.
Barkley Junior
Not exactly surprising to see your knowledge of literature is as deep as your knowledge on Yiddish surnames. That would be, like, next to ZERO. Miller is the 3rd most common surname among American Jews —of which—last time I checked Stephen Miller would be included in. Unless Junior, you have some breaking news on him you’d like to share with us. Did some imaginary character in your mind tell you Miller was attempting citizenship in Mexico?? Possibly the same imaginary person also told you you look like the long deceased Elijah of Vilna?? Awesome dude. Rock on in your narcissistic fantasyland.
Moses,
Since it looks like you are going to add this nonsense to your regular rant based on your sad lack of knowledge of probability, let me be very clear about this Miller name nonsense. I warned you there are competing sources, but you jump in with your repeat of Miller being the third most common American Jewish name. But there are no academic sources for that. The main article on this is by Yannay Spitzer, easily found by googling. It lists the 20 most common American Jewish surname. Miller is not on the list. Ones that are include of course Cohen and Levy and also, Levin, Levine, Levi, Kahn, Weinstein, Goldstein, Rosenberg, Friedman, and others, but not Millwe.
Now I do not know which source is correct, but in fact in my life I have known more American Jews with each of those last names I just listed personally than I have known American Jews named Miller, of whom I have known two. For all of those names, the vast majority of people bearing them are Jewish or partly Jewish. However, again, for the vast majority Americans named Miller, well over 90 percent, they are not Jewish. It is an English and Scottish name that some Jews have, and that is true even if it actually is the third most common American Jewish surname, which I seriously doubt, but may be true as there are sources that make that claim.
Now I am outtahere on this matter, but please do not add this drivel to your periodic screed on distributions over genomes and populations.
Oh, and good luck figuring out your identity, but please keep your mumblings on that matter off this blog.
CoRev had to chime in once it was clear that Sammy’s defenses of Trump and Mnuchin was so incredibly inept. Not that CoRev’s babbling any better!
“i find it fascinating that mnuchin can outright ignore the laws”
Ah but he has a hot wife. Well a gold digging wife who loves to spend all the money Mnuchin got from daddy and his general corrupt business practices.
Mnuchin lies to Congress:
https://wamu.org/story/19/05/22/mnuchin-says-he-has-not-yet-reviewed-memo-mandating-irs-turn-over-trump-tax-returns/
First he says the memo does not undermine his position (even though it does) and then he says he has not read the memo? What a two faced clown!
Trump’s amateur hour attorneys are deliberately misrepresenting what this section says:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103
“GENERAL RULE Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title” is the very first line and this section then notes when it is authorized to turn over return information.
There are many situations when this information shall be turned over. One such situation:
“(f)DISCLOSURE TO COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS
(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 orreturn 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.”
When Mnuchin said he would be in violation of section 6103 if he complied with this request – he lied. When Mnuchin claimed he was not required to comply with the request – he lied.
Of course both CoRev and Sammy routinely lie on behalf of Trump here. They have do so just today.
Pgl, please, you’ve shown again you do/can not read and understand: “… unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.” Now if leaked after a “closed session” would be grounds for citizen legal action.
There is no need to lie with the obvious ineptitude shown here.
you cannot avoid following the law because of a “hypothetical” leak that could possibly occur in the future. that is simply foolish talk corev. further, no consent is needed if the documents are provided in closed executive session. corev…”you’ve shown again you do/can not read and understand:”
Baffled, what part of the exception in the law, as provided by pgl, did you not understand? Let me repeat: “… unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.”
There is no need to lie with the obvious ineptitude shown here.
corev, you need reading comprehension lessons. the information can be released to closed executive session without consent. this is what is so frustrating with you. you are too stoooopid to actually read and comprehend a statement, yet you bloviate like you know what you are talking about. your continued argument on this point simply reinforces that either you have poor reading comprehension skills or you have no problem continuing to promote a false argument. i expect an apology from you.
Baffled, there you go again, trying to make another nonsensical point. “you cannot avoid following the law because of a “hypothetical” leak that could possibly occur in the future.” You responded to this comment: “Now if leaked after a “closed session” would be grounds for citizen legal action.” with repeating what I said: ” the information can be released toclosed executive session without consent.” And, you think I can not read and understand?
I was responding to your hypothetical, and you responded by ignoring and/or misunderstanding the “closed session” exception reference in my comment. Need I add the term executive to “closed session” to help your comprehension?
Someone recently said: ” you are too stoooopid to actually read and comprehend a statement, yet you bloviate like you know what you are talking about. your continued argument on this point simply reinforces that either you have poor reading comprehension skills or you have no problem continuing to promote a false argument. i expect an apology from you.”
corev, once again you simply make no sense in your comments. they are simply incomprehensible.
Wow – another cherry picked quote completely out of context. Do learn to properly cite your cherry picked quotes. Otherwise we will just assume you are doing what you always do. Lying your arse off.
I see that Baffles mentioned me. The bad economic analysis that permeates this blog has become boring and I don’t bother to comment. But now we have some bad legal analysis. At least that’s new. Fortunately, I also have a joint appointment with the Wossamotta U School of Law.
Before getting to the bad legal analysis, let’s start with the obvious. Somebody leaked a draft memo written by an unknown person at the IRS on the legal issues surrounding a Congressional request for Trump’s tax returns. Of course that memo in no way reflects the official legal position of the Trump Administration. It’s not even the IRS’s job to take a legal position and the views of their lawyers don’t matter. If somebody leaked a memo written by some unknown person from the Supervision section of the Fed that was critical of monetary policy, would anyone in his right mind conclude that that somehow represents the position of the Fed or perhaps what people in the Fed are really thinking about monetary policy? Of course not.
The memo should be dismissed for that reason alone. But it’s also very bad legal reasoning. The unknown author claims that the only legitimate reason not to comply with the subpoena is executive privilege. That’s ridiculous. Executive privilege is irrelevant in this case. What the memo omits though is the legitimate reason not to comply: Article 1 of the Constitution. It is a longstanding constitutional doctrine, supported by case law and precedent, that Congress’s powers are limited by the requirement that what it does serves a legitimate legislative purpose. The reason for that requirement is clear: Congress cannot by legislation assume powers held by other co-equal branches of government. Congress can’t pass a law giving itself the power to investigate and prosecute crimes nor can it give itself the power to decide cases.
The Democratic lawyers who are writing the briefs understand that. That’s why they’ve taken great pains in the Mnuchin hearings to try to establish a legitimate legislative purpose. The Democratic lawsuit against the Administration will attempt to establish legitimate legislative purpose. If you think about it, this is what we want. We don’t want a Congress that has the constitutional power to write laws that would allow it attack its political enemies, whether in the White House, or the Judiciary, or in the public. Section 6103 allows Congress to request the tax returns of anybody, including the President. Do we want Congress to have the power to request the tax returns of Civil Rights leaders, in order to embarrass and silence them, for example? Congress must show that the request is necessary to help them write laws. It can’t be about a political vendetta or suspicion of wrongdoing.
Section 6103 also gives Trump the power to request anybody’s tax returns: Chuck and Nancy’s tax returns, Nadler’s tax returns, Mueller’s tax returns, and anyone else’s he doesn’t like. Trump can get them all. Trump is the adult in the room though and has not attempted to misuse the power granted to him under 6103, unlike the Democrats in Congress. We should keep in mind that one of the articles of impeachment in Nixon’s case was the allegation that he was planning to use the IRS as a weapon against his political opponents. Democrats in Congress are openly doing now what Nixon was only considering doing. It’s shameful.
well well, rick stryker is now a lawyer in addition to an economist and politician. what a well rounded individual he is. your son must be proud of you dick striker.
however, most of what you stated is inaccurate. the law is very clear that the committee chair can request anybody’s tax documents, and that the irs and treasury must comply. this law has been on the books for decades. as for valid reasons, there are many. not the least of which is to investigate the possible foreign influence on the president of the united states. in addition, apparently we have a president who is capable of money laundering without getting caught. lets see how that occurs, so that we can update the laws. but further, it appears we have a president who can commit financial fraud with banks to receive loans. perhaps we should update the financial crisis laws to capture that behavior as well. you see dick, the list goes on and on. i just find it fascinating that somebody like yourself would side with a president and his lackeys who are intentionally breaking the laws at every turn. then again, with your history of condoning lying to achieve ones gains, it guess it is not so surprising after all. but let’s be clear dick, the noose is getting tighter and tighter around his neck.
as we just saw, capital one and deutsch bank are permitted to turn over the trump financial records. they will probably conflict with the tax returns and more elaborately show the financial fraud. and the state of new york will soon release his state tax records. time is running out. democrats will not impeach him, they will simply continue to let the rope tighten until even the republicans (minus the hacks like dick) will force him to resign in shame. it will be a political nightmare.
Of course Nixon released his tax returns when he was being audited and being investigated for impeachment. Trump is the only one insisting on this nonexistent right to ignore a request for his returns from the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. You are just delusional.
““now we have some bad legal analysis.” That would be your comment. Wossamotta U School of Law? Seriously?”
“Section 6103 also gives Trump the power to request anybody’s tax returns: Chuck and Nancy’s tax returns, Nadler’s tax returns, Mueller’s tax returns, and anyone else’s he doesn’t like.”
THE Rick gets all hot and horny over the idea that Trump might abuse his powers to go after his political enemies. But wait – the 3 members of Congress he mentions here have nothing to hide and may have voluntarily released their returns already. Oh well – Trump can go after Mueller. That will show him. Of course Mueller is a boy scout and certainly has nothing to hide either.
THE Rick steps up to the plate for Team Trump and swings and misses. Strike 3 Rick – you’re OUT!
CoRev, Sammy was making a 4th Amendment argument. I was responding to that argument. Are you agreed that the 4th Amendment does not apply to information gather by the IRS and in the possession of the government?
The handling of government data is determined by congressional statute, not by the constitution.
Income tax law was written by congress, The collection of taxes is written by congress. The spending of income tax revenue is written by congress. The dissemination of IRS data is written by congress.
The executive branch does not have the constitutional authority to arbitrarily decide on the spending of IRS taxes or the dissemination of IRS data. Those are governed by laws written by congress.
Joseph, this is only partially correct: : “The executive branch does not have the constitutional authority to arbitrarily decide on the spending of IRS taxes orthe dissemination of IRS data. Those are governed by laws written by congress.” and regulations as deemed appropriate and written by — wait for it– The Executive Branch. Most Congressional laws end with a generic clause allowing the effected Executive Agencies to interpret and create the necessary and appropriate regulations. It’s in the law(s)!
In the constitution is the power of Congress to write laws, and in these laws is the delegation of interpretation into regulations to the Executive Branch.
Rick Stryker Is Wossamotta U School of Law an accredited school? It doesn’t sound like it. Let me help you out. First, I don’t think anyone disputes that a draft memo does not represent the official Executive Department position; however, it almost certainly represents the opinion of the apolitical in-house experts. That should count for something in evaluating the merits of Trump’s resistance to Congress’s subpoenas. Second, do you have any evidence that Congress is not demanding his tax returns pursuant to a legislative purpose? My understanding is that one reason Congress wants his tax returns is to consider legislation requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns from prior years. You might disagree with such a law, but it’s not obviously a bad idea. And the Teapot Dome experience would seem to warrant it. And do you remember Bebe Rebozo? And the Executive Department doesn’t have any problem with snooping into the financial records of ordinary civil servants, so what’s the problem with voters wanting to know whether or not their president is a crook? But here’s where your legal understanding is flawed:
Congress can’t pass a law giving itself the power to investigate and prosecute crimes nor can it give itself the power to decide cases.
This is simply wrong. Article III only establishes a Supreme Court. Article I empowers Congress to create lesser courts. In the distant past it was not at all uncommon for Congress to try cases in lieu of Article III courts, although recent SCOTUS decisions have narrowed the scope of so called Article I courts. The most recent SCOTUS ruling essentially limits Article I courts to “public rights”:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-179P.ZO
So what are some examples of “public rights”? Here’s one description:
In essence, the Court distinguished between those acts that historically had been determined by courts and those that had both been historically resolved by executive or legislative acts and comprehended matters that arose between the government and others. Thus, Article I courts “may be created as special tribunals to examine and determine various matters, arising between the government and others, which from their nature do not require judicial determination and yet are susceptible of it. The mode of determining matters of this class is completely within congressional control.”
continuing…
The Court limited the public rights exception to claims deriving from a “federal regulatory scheme” or claims in which “an expert Government agency is deemed essential to a limited regulatory objective.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-1/the-public-rights-distinction
A lot of lawyers who actually know what they are talking about note: (1) the draft memo is not what compels the IRS to comply; (2) the actual law is what compels the IRS and Mnuchin to comply. Of course our Usual Suspects are doing what they do best – LIE for Trump by cherry picking out of context narrow portions of section 6103. Of course none of these clowns can bother to either link to the actual text of section 6103 or bother to read it in its entirety.
Rick Stryker has the defining comment on this topic.
The Teapot Dome law has never been tested constitutionally, as it will be now, on the basis of co equal branches (H/t RS). And just because a subpoena was issued does not mean that it is proper. Mnuchin defied it and now it goes to court. Both will go to the Supreme Court and so the Democrats are going to be faced with Trump Tax Return DT’s for the foreseeable future. So far 11 years of Trump tax returns have been released with no effect. Good luck running on this. People are sick of Trump’s tax returns.
“People are sick of Trump’s tax returns.”
actually, the majority of people in the last election voted to see his tax returns. trump is violating the will of the people.
and no worries, between deutsche bank, capital one and the state of new york, we will get a chance to see what trumps true financial situation really is. will you continue to support a financial criminal for president?
“will you continue to support a financial criminal for president?”
Trump’s taxes have been vetted by the IRS as “A Ok” He may have had some tough times, may have taken aggressive deductions. I don’t care. Do you care about Hillary and her foundation taking donations from people who had business before the State Department? Or Biden’s son taking massive amounts of money from foreign governments while “Sniffin Joe” was VP? Which is worse baffling?
BTW Bill Clinton deducted his used underwear on his taxes. Is this really the type of thing you want to find out? I think the value of Bills’ underwear is a negative number, after Haz Mat costs.
Trump’s taxes have been vetted by the IRS as “A Ok”
i thought his taxes were still under audit, so they could not be released? which is it? are they under audit, or have they been vetted as “A Ok”? sammy, you make some of the silliest comments. i almost want to call you corev.
since trump lost the popular vote, the “tax thing” has been cleared up. the people would like to see his taxes.
“Trump’s taxes have been vetted by the IRS as “A Ok”
You know this? How? He says he is currently under audit, which means his past positions are being challenged. And a lot of these challenges have to do with the fact that defaulting on one’s debt in its own way is income as one reduces one financial obligations. A while back a lot of tax scholars thoroughly discussed this issue and how it applies to Trump’s shady past.
Now if you were really an expert in tax law (snicker) you could not have missed this. But apparently you did miss this discussion completely.
“will you continue to support a financial criminal for president?”
Of course he will. Why even ask a question with such an obvious answer.
“Rick Stryker has the defining comment on this topic.”
Sammy translated – now THE Rick has written even more $hit than I could muster. Way to lie for the boss Rick!
“So far 11 years of Trump tax returns have been released with no effect.”
His tax returns for 1984 to 1995? Seriously? The issue is how Trump was corrupted by begging the Russians for money – which occurred AFTER 1995. Sammy – you started this off being quite stupid. Now you have managed to go off the cliff in complete insanity.
In the wake of the Teapot Dome scandal, the Revenue Act of 1924 gave access to tax returns to congress for oversight. Tax returns were considered public records but under the control of the executive branch regarding access using executive orders and executive regulations. This gave the executive rather arbitrary control of IRS records.
In 1976, after the disclosures of Nixon’s improprieties, the law was amended by Section 6103 to specifically eliminate executive branch control over access to returns and replaced it with a specific statutory regime governing disclosure.
The legislative intent was to remove control of IRS data from arbitrary executive discretion. Access is provided explicitly to congress by statute. Unless the law is changed, the executive simply has no authority to limit access by congress. That was the entire impetus behind Section 6103 in 1976 – to take control of IRS data out of the hands of a possibly corrupt authoritarian executive.
Joseph rightly says: “The legislative intent was to remove control of IRS data from arbitrary executive discretion. ” while ignoring that it now is replaced by arbitrary Congressional discretion. Discretion of a nationally elected official is replaced by that of a state’s representative, a far less representative district. Quite the improvement, and indicative of the short shortsightedness of Dems. Remember the impact of Dem driven Nuclear Change option in the Senate? You were warned then of its impact, and now we have more conservative judges.
Judge says Trump’s legal arguments are not serious!
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/judge-trump-congress-subpoena
‘The Manhattan federal judge who immediately blocked an attempt from President Trump to halt a Congressional subpoena for his financial records told private attorneys hired by the President that their case was not “serious.” During the hour-long read of his opinion on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos drew a distinction between the “serious political ramifications” of the investigation into a president’s finances, and what constitutes a “serious” question to be considered by a judge.’
I would only hope this smart judge read the BS we see here from THE Rick, Sammy, and CoRev. Not serious indeed!
so the toddler in chief has decided to hold his breath until he gets what he wants.
keep holding that breath loser. and folks like corev, dick striker and peak loser continue to embrace a world leader who throws a tantrum and holds his breath when he doesn’t get his way. fascinating. just like my toddler, he needs a time out to think about things a little bit.
I bet your toddler is a lot better behaved that Trump and his unmerry men. At least I hope so – otherwise you lead a rather rough life.
Corev: “this is only partially correct: : “The executive branch does not have the constitutional authority to arbitrarily decide on the spending of IRS taxes orthe dissemination of IRS data. Those are governed by laws written by congress.” and regulations as deemed appropriate and written by — wait for it– The Executive Branch. Most Congressional laws end with a generic clause allowing the effected Executive Agencies to interpret and create the necessary and appropriate regulations. It’s in the law(s)!”
Corev, you are talking about the situation between the Revenue Act of 1924 and the amendment of Section 6301 in 1976. During that period, IRS data was under the discretion of the president through executive order and regulations because of . But in 1976, due to the improprieties of Nixon, congress specifically wrote Section 6103 to take control of IRS data out of the hands of a corrupt president. The intent of the law was to unambiguously define the handling of IRS by statute, not by executive regulation. There is no ambiguity in the law. The president has no authority to defy the law as written in 1976. That was the entire point of that amendment to the law.
Joseph, see my earlier response to the value of that effect.
Now he did it! Trump made the opposition more mad, if that is possible, by picking on Pelosi!
The vague concept of “congressional subpoena” in the hands of the emotional! Witch hunts are most of the time bad.
Where does subpoena from a body running on emotions and politics come from? I suppose it is an “implied power” that being implied power to “oversee”. Implied are assumptions no where in the Legislative Article.
The applicatio0n of “implied powers” by the emotional is similar to Obama using his “national security” apparatus for political motives! Wrong.
Not to mention that 5 SCOTS justices are not likely to sympathize.
What Mencken said about the capitol.
joseph, links?
Gee the wiring for this Russian bot are short circuited.
Hey, ilsm. Here’s an old Saturday Night Live (Bill Murray) game show question updated. Quien es mas macho: Nancy Pelosi o Donald Trump?
If your answer is Trump, get help. Soon.
CoRev: “Discretion of a nationally elected official is replaced by that of a state’s representative, a far less representative district.”
Good god. I realize that folks like Corev are fans of fascist authoritarians, but this is ridiculous. He now says that a law, passed by a majority of elected representatives in the Senate and the House and signed by the president of the United States is discretionary. A law that was passed specifically to restrict the president’s arbitrary application of the previous law.
Previous to the Section 6103 amendment in 1976, President Nixon secretly used IRS data to attack his political opponents. He could also arbitrarily restrict access to information by Congress. The new amendment clarified the situation, taking it out of the arbitrary hands of a corrupt authoritarian and putting it back in the hands of the congress. Under the new law, access to IRS data is specifically described by statue, not authoritarian discretion. Corev thinks the laws are discretionary.
Both the president and congress have access to IRS data, but under the new law, the president must notify congress within 30 days of such access. He can no longer do it secretly. Likewise, congress also has access to IRS data. The president can no longer arbitrarily deny congress access to that data.
This is the law, enacted by congress and signed into law by the president. The current president is acting as if he is not subject to the law. He is providing one more count in the indictment for impeachment.
Joseph claims: ” The new amendment clarified the situation, taking it out of the arbitrary hands of a corrupt authoritarian and putting it back in the hands of the congress. Under the new law, access to IRS data is specifically described by statue, not authoritarian discretion. Corev thinks the laws are discretionary.” Except he makes some strange comparison of a nationally elected official , the President, versus a regionally elected Congressman. Who in this case is the corrupt authoritarian. Using the inclusive term, Congress, is the misdirection being applied here. Nadler, Schiff did ….. Not Congress did…
Please get your story straight.
Had CoRev been around in 1776, his loyalties would clkearly have been to King George. Long live the King? (But when all those indictments are delivered, those indicted by civilian grand juries will be subject to military tribunals at Guantanamo and the guilty will receive their just rewards. Then, Long live the King! For sure.)
CoRev: “Discretion of a nationally elected official is replaced by that of a state’s representative, a far less representative district.”
Just to be absolutely clear here, Corev is arguing that the congress consisting of 538 representatives should bow down in deference to power of the president. He is saying that a nationally elected president is superior to a congress of 538 representatives – ironically, that the representatives are less representative of the public. He really is arguing for an authoritarian dictator.
(And let’s not mention the embarrassing fact that the president in question received 3 million fewer votes of the public than his opponent. Representative, indeed.)
Joseph, please show us all where Congress has issued these attacks on the Executive? Only a Dem can/would consider a Committee Chair as representing the nation. Yes, a the representative is less representative of the nation. Congress does not chair committees, individuals do!
And this little comment: “(And let’s not mention the embarrassing fact that the president in question received 3 million fewer votes of the public than his opponent. Representative, indeed.)” shows the misunderstanding and wishful thinking of a loser. Indeed, this whole political debacle seems to be coming apart, and with any political consideration, should reach its peak just before the 2020 elections.
Here’s another thought. What will Trump do in his 2nd term to right the political and ethical imbalance shown over the past couple of years of Obama’s and his first years in office? He has a higher chance of taking the House than keeping the Senate, but with the current world pattern, the US may also turn even more conservative. Remember, what you have sowed, the Republicans may reap. How’s the Senate nuclear option worked out?
Please get your story straight.
Corev: “a nationally elected official , the President, versus a regionally elected Congressman. Who in this case is the corrupt authoritarian. Using the inclusive term, Congress, is the misdirection being applied here. Nadler, Schiff did ….. Not Congress did…”
Fans of fascist authoritarianism like Corev really despises democracy. It hampers their preferred dictators.
The 538 members of congress are elected by democratic elections. These democratically elected representatives then select members for the various committees, with representatives from each party. The intelligence committee that Adam Schiff chairs consists of 22 representatives from both parties. Adam Schiff cannot arbitrarily subpoena anyone without a democratic vote of a majority of the members of the committee. That is democracy.
Likewise the judiciary committee that Jerry Nadler chairs consists of 41 representatives from both parties. Jerry Nadler cannot arbitrarily subpoena anyone without a democratic vote of the majority of the members of the committee. That is democracy.
Corev calls that corrupt authoritarianism. Corev is a clown. But he does love his Dear Leader.
Joseph, more misdirection: “,,the judiciary committee that Jerry Nadler chairs consists of 41 representatives from both parties (with his party have a majority of member ship). Jerry Nadler cannot arbitrarily subpoena anyone without (his) (D)democratic (majority voting for it). (There fixed it for you.)
Joseph, this one example of Nadler’s recent Judiciary Committee voting: “he House Judiciary Committee voted 24 to 17 along party lines to authorize its chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), to subpoena the report and underlying documents of Mueller’s probe from Attorney General William P. Barr.?
That would be 24 representatives elected from various districts in numerous states across the country. In opposition were 17 representatives similarly elected. Majorities in the House have always been quite important. What’s changed? Or are you unsure HOW representative democracy–and republican government–works?
Geez, Corev, I realize you have gotten used to your presidents being elected by a minority of the voters, but that’s not how it works in congress. The party that has the majority of representatives democratically elected by the people gets a majority of the seats in committees. The committee members vote. The majority wins. That’s how democracy works, as much as it pains you.
Noneonomist and Joseph, please understand the difference between Congress and the House of Representatives.
“Congress
a national legislative body, especially that of the US. The US Congress, which meets at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., was established by the Constitution of 1787 and is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives.”
The House of Representatives is elected on a basis of population: “The House is composed of Representatives who sit in congressional districts that are allocated to each of the 50 states on a basis of population as measured by the U.S. Census, with each district entitled to one representative. Since its inception in 1789, all Representatives have been directly elected. The total number of voting representatives is fixed by law at 435.[1] As of the 2010 Census, the largest delegation is that of California, with fifty-three representatives. Seven states have only one representative: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.” The inverse is that the highly populated states/population centers get more Representatives.
Members of the House of Representatives is composed based approximately proportionate to the population of each state, and on occasion, that voting majority of a specific density changes parties, as it did in 2016 and 2018. These swing districts are usually closer to evenly mixed in party make up.
The Senate is made up of 2 Senators per state with no accounting for a state’s population density. That is also similar to how the Presidential, electoral college, assigns votes. Accordingly, the Senate is elected without consideration of proportionate to the population of each state, except for those states with large population centers made up of mostly single party voters. Accordingly, folks like you want to change the way Presidents are elected to simple a majority vote, a simple Democracy versus our current Representative Democracy.
Swinging even more influence to the population centers is short sighted by taking away political influence of those with lesser population. Those centers do not exist without the direct support of the non-populous states’ production. Adding influence to physical support and taking away political influence of these 2nd class, less populous states, would change the power dynamics from politics to production capability.
Your majority wins. That’s how a simple democracy not a representative democracy works. Is this really what you want, a power, production, food revolution? Reminds me of what is going on in Venezuela.
So please get your terms and goals aligned to the history and possibilities they could engender. Think instead of emote!
Wow! Senate comprised of two senators from each state. House comprised of members apportioned by the population of each state. Who knew? Thanks for the scholarship.
It might also be of importance to note and for you to understand (since you seem incapable of doing either): All legislation is the product of majority votes in both houses.
In the House, the votes are cast by members who represent districts with approximately the same populations. The districts may encompass and entire state or a few miles, depending on location. When at least 218 of these members–urban, rural, suburban– agree, they form a majority.
By constitutional mandate, each house determines its own rules. In a two-party legislature, there will (almost) always be a majority and a minority party. And, as we’ve seen more and more, those votes will often be along party lines.
You will recall that previous House majorities voted numerous times to repeal the ACA. Those repeals were largely symbolic because they would have been vetoed by the President. Vetoes CAN be overturned by super majorities in each house, but there was no possibility of that occurring.
In assessing the difficulties faced by both houses, Hamilton broached that subject in The Federalist Papers (#85). “Many of those who form a majority on one question, may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either may become a majority on a third…”
Hamilton, of course, was no democrat. But he did understand the power wielded by individual legislators acting in legislative majorities. Something you obviously don’t.
Noneconomist, I thank you for that wonderful treatise on how the US Congress works. If only I had known that. /sarc Although I’m still not sure you understand the difference in how to use the terms House of Representatives, Senate and Congress.
Next maybe you can prove a treatise on how the US Federal Courts and the Presidency work? yes, more /sarc. Sadly, the /sarc tag is necessary.