Patterico's Pontifications

7/30/2021

DOJ: IRS Must Release Trump Tax Returns to Congress

Filed under: General — Dana @ 1:46 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Today:

The income tax returns of former President Donald Trump must be released by the IRS to Congress, the Department of Justice said Friday.

The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel said that the Democratic-lead House Ways and Means Committee had made a request with a legitimate legislative purpose to see Trump’s tax returns, with a stated objective of assessing how the IRS audits presidents’ tax returns.

That 39-page opinion is a reversal of an opinion by the same office, during the Trump administration, which had backed the IRS’s refusal to give the committee Trump’s returns.

Under federal law, the tax-related committees of Congress have a “broad right” to obtain taxpayer information from the Treasury Department, the IRS’s parent, the new opinion noted.

“The statute at issue here is unambiguous: ‘Upon written request’ of the chairman of one of the three congressional tax committees, the Secretary ‘shall furnish’ the requested tax information to the Committee,′ ” Friday’s opinion said.

No comment from Trump yet, but if his furious claim made back in February that he was the victim of “political persecution” is any indicator, then I’m pretty sure we’ll be hearing from him soon enough:

“This investigation is a continuation of the greatest political Witch Hunt in the history of our Country, whether it was the never ending $32 million Mueller hoax, which already investigated everything that could possibly be investigated, “Russia Russia Russia,” where there was a finding of “No Collusion,” or two ridiculous “Crazy Nancy” inspired impeachment attempts where I was found NOT GUILTY. It just never ends!

So now, for more than two years, New York City has been looking at almost every transaction I’ve ever done, including seeking tax returns which were done by among the biggest and most prestigious law and accounting firms in the U.S. The Tea Party was treated far better by the IRS than Donald Trump. The Supreme Court never should have let this “fishing expedition” happen, but they did. This is something which has never happened to a President before, it is all Democrat-inspired in a totally Democrat location, New York City and State, completely controlled and dominated by a heavily reported enemy of mine, Governor Andrew Cuomo. These are attacks by Democrats willing to do anything to stop the almost 75 million people (the most votes, by far, ever gotten by a sitting president) who voted for me in the election—an election which many people, and experts, feel that I won. I agree!

The new phenomenon of “headhunting” prosecutors and AGs—who try to take down their political opponents using the law as a weapon—is a threat to the very foundation of our liberty. That’s what is done in third world countries. Even worse are those who run for prosecutorial or attorney general offices in far-left states and jurisdictions pledging to take out a political opponent. That’s fascism, not justice—and that is exactly what they are trying to do with respect to me, except that the people of our Country won’t stand for it.

In the meantime, murders and violent crime are up in New York City by record numbers, and nothing is done about it. Our elected officials don’t care. All they focus on is the persecution of President Donald J. Trump.

I will fight on, just as I have, for the last five years (even before I was successfully elected), despite all of the election crimes that were committed against me. We will win! “

–Dana

86 Responses to “DOJ: IRS Must Release Trump Tax Returns to Congress”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (174549)

  2. I don’t believe the stated objective, but in the interest of the now rather than the past, lets do Joe Biden and family

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  3. Trump did initially pledge to release his tax returns, until he welshed and then came up with the phony baloney excuse that he was under audit. Trump should thank OLC for helping him honor his pledge.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  4. “I don’t believe the stated objective, but in the interest of the now rather than the past, lets do Joe Biden and family”

    Here’s Biden’s: https://joebiden.com/financial-disclosure/

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  5. steveg – You’ll be glad to learn this.

    I hope.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  6. Of course now that Don has a welfare check for life it doesn’t matter so much, but we’ll get to see how poor he really is, I guess.

    john (cd2753)

  7. ROFLMAO -on a thread full of lawyers no less.

    Precedent?! Yours next?! Where’s the ideological conservative outcry?!?!

    Oh. Right. D.O.A. ‘Cause… you know… Trump.

    Press on to SCOTUS, Donald.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  8. The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel said that the Democratic-lead House Ways and Means Committee had made a request with a legitimate legislative purpose to see Trump’s tax returns, with a stated objective of assessing how the IRS audits presidents’ tax returns.

    If that is the rationale, does that not mean that the Infernal Revenue Service could only release those tax years filed when Mr Trump was actually President?

    All of those years before, when Mr Trump was not President, apparently there were no problems substantial enough to lead to any criminal charges. That would include eight years when Barack Hussein Obama was President — and remember: Mr Trump made noises about running for the Republican nomination in 2012 — and eight years in which William Jefferson Clinton was President, though I suppose that Mr Trump was a Democrat back then.

    Our income tax returns are supposed to be private; what’s the over/under on the returns being leaked by the Democratic staffers on the committee?

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (405d48)

  9. politicized doj mood decoder:

    2013 – yay
    2014 – yay
    2015 – yay
    2016 – yay
    2017 – boo
    2018 – boo
    2019 – boo
    2020 – boo
    2021 – yay

    so much balls and strikes going on right now

    JF (e1156d)

  10. Q: Who took more balls to teh chin?

    A. Judy Garland
    B. Yogi Berra
    C. Beverly Garland
    D. Rock Hudson
    E. Merrick Garland

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  11. @10. Kim Cattrall…

    And, of course, always: Joan Crawford.

    “Pepsi! For Those Who Think Young.” – Pepsi-Cola ad slogan, 1961

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  12. The Dems want Donald Trump’s taxes
    But don’t care about the real factses
    They just want him dead
    ‘Cause he lives in their head
    It’s the only way they can relaxes.

    The Limerick Avenger (405d48)

  13. time for the 🍿 and the 😔 trombone

    frosty (f27e97)

  14. +10 other Dana!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  15. that Merrick Garland
    what a feckin’ moderate!
    we dodged a bullet

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  16. This is clearly a legitimate oversight justification. It’s also not why they want it.

    Congress should pass a law mandating the IRS release 7 years of returns for everyone that appears on the ballot of any state and we can be done with this.

    While they’re at it they can pass laws requiring any closely held company or ongoing concern the presidential candidate has an interest in also release theirs and detail all income deriving from foreign sources to make the emoluments clause meaningful. Should include all children and siblings as well.

    After that they can vote to give me a unicorn and a dinner with Jennifer Lawrence.

    Time123 (ccf056)

  17. Congress should pass a law…

    The body passes enough gas as it is.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  18. We are very glad
    Garland’s not on Supreme Court
    Just leads Injustice

    The Limerick Avenger (405d48)

  19. Mr 123 wrote:

    Congress should pass a law mandating the IRS release 7 years of returns for everyone that appears on the ballot of any state and we can be done with this.

    In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution sets forth the qualifications for Representatives, Senators and the President, and that no state may change those. The Court said that the proper mechanism to change the requirements was a constitutional amendment.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (405d48)

  20. The Manhattan DA already has Trump’s tax returns, all of them.

    Gawain's Ghost (ef1cde)

  21. @19, I’m not saying they should require the /candidate/ to release them as a condition to run. I’m saying that once you file and qualify for a state ballot the IRS just makes them public.

    Time123 (5d8bdb)

  22. @20, and has for some time. The NY state tax requires a copy of the federal return iirc

    Time123 (5d8bdb)

  23. Muc rather see medical records revealed than tax returns… liars figure/figures lie… but brain surgeries, blood transfusions, dementia drugs and so on would certainly be of interest to the electorate when considering candidates for high office with so much responsibilities and government assets at risk.

    ______

    Carl Levin dead. Another one of Joe’s Senate cronies goes to ground.

    Clock’s tickin’, Giuseppe.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  24. Great link.
    Clicked on 2018 Federal and got directed to a page for donations with no way to actually see the return

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  25. It is good to see Congress is laser-focused on the important stuff – like analyzing the former president’s tax returns.

    The release might make Schiff cry for the second time in a week.

    Hoi Polloi (b28058)

  26. I went through CNBC’s link to 2019 Federal.
    30 seconds in and its a document unsigned by both the preparer and the Biden’s so its worthless.

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  27. The precedent here is fraught with mischief. How many days do you suppose it will be before someone “leaks” these returns to the MSM? We could have a pool but I think everyone would want “1” or “2.”

    The nature of the information demanded by the IRS for tax purposes is such that no actual businessman will be able to run for high office, lest everyone who he has done business with in the past decade have their privacy exposed.

    But maybe that’s the point.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  28. Trump did initially pledge to release his tax returns

    I have no patience with folks who would set a lasting precedent for short-term gain.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  29. 2017
    Signed
    Not a bad landing for the former VP

    steveg (ebe7c1)

  30. After that they can vote to give me a unicorn and a dinner with Jennifer Lawrence.

    Why not just ask for Jennifer?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  31. Yes, but those returns were acquired by a grand jury suboena, and grand juries have strict secrecy law, so those returns cannot be made public. The can, however, be thoroughly examined. Enough evidence has already been to arrest Weiselberg.

    @8 Actually, House Ways and Mean Committe has the authority to request the returns of any taxpayer, and if so ordered by the DOJ, the IRS must comply. HWM could release the returns to the public, as it is not bound by grad jury secrecy laws.

    Look at how many people in Trump’s circle are under investigation, or have been indicted, prosecuted and jailed. Tax avoidance is not a crime. Tax evasion and tax fraud are.

    Gawain's Ghost (ef1cde)

  32. I have no patience with folks who would set a lasting precedent for short-term gain.

    Reaganomics.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  33. @19: exactly. This is an end run around that. If Trump had lawyers who could talk and think at the same time, this wouldn’t happen.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  34. @21 paraphrased:

    I’m not saying that the government should watch everyone’s internet use, just that their ISP should have to make their logs available at the end of each week!

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  35. @32

    You left out a step.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  36. steveg – Try this search string: “Biden + release + tax returns”.

    (I don’t mind helping you out this time, but I will give you this friendly tip: If you thank people when they help you, they are more likely to help you again.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  37. Steve, how much time have you spent looking for it?

    Time123 (5d8bdb)

  38. @33, that law prevents the creation of additional barries. This is not a barrier.

    Time123 (5d8bdb)

  39. that law prevents the creation of additional barriers. This is not a barrier.

    A law that required that the individual release their returns in order to exercise their constitutional right would be such a barrier.

    A law that caused the automatic release of an individual’s returns should they do something they constitutionally entitled to do is different how?

    If I point a gun at you and say don’t move, and you move and I shoot, I am culpable. If, instead, I tell a robot to shoot you if you move and you move and the robot shoots, I am scot-free? I doubt it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  40. Because it doesn’t force the candidate to do anything and it doesn’t affect if they can run and serve or not.

    Time123 (5d8bdb)

  41. True things I really don’t care about here:

    1. Trump is a crook.
    2. I don’t like Trump.
    3. Trump said he’d release his taxes, but didn’t.
    4. Trump lied (evergreen).

    What I care about is the strict privacy of tax returns. The IRS and only the IRS is supposed to have access to them, and that access is controlled by some fairly draconian laws for IRS employees who breach their trust.

    When you let politicians to have access to identifiable returns of any kind, and these requests are conditioned on being in the political majority, it should be obvious to all what the dangers are.

    Oh, but it’s just Presidents, they say. Well maybe now. Next year it will be billionaires. Or Senators. Or opposition congressional candidates. Or mayors. Fine? That slope you are on has no bottom.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  42. Because it doesn’t force the candidate to do anything and it doesn’t affect if they can run and serve or not.

    Requiring them to release a tax return “doesn’t affect if they can run and serve or not” either. But it WILL limit running/serving to those whose tax returns don’t involve other people.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  43. If the Constitution protects privacy, and income tax returns breach privacy rather completely, then forcing the release of tax returns for any reason means that the income tax and privacy are incompatible.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  44. Kevin, I think the right to privacy in tax returns is not absolute. For instance we require cabinet appointees to release their tax returns as part of confirmation. I’m fine making an exception for the president. I think it could also be justified under the emoluments clause.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  45. Here is the law in question: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

    Scroll down to section (f).

    (This isn’t a response to any particular poster, I just figured it’d be useful to have the text of the law handy)

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  46. Ty

    Time123 (5d8bdb)

  47. The link still works, even though I forgot to close it.

    Sorry about that.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  48. Also, tax returns are held by third parties (such accountants) who are not covered by federal laws concerning taxpayer privacy and are subject to subpoena.

    Rip Murdock (e03271)

  49. I think it could also be justified under the emoluments clause

    We don’t require cabinet officers to release them after they are in office, which is where the emoluments clause takes effect. Now, maybe we should, once they are in office, require THE IRS to examine all returns from federal officeholders, with an eye to foreign gifts (not income — “emolument” is an old word for “tips” or “bribes”).

    But releasing them to a partisan crowd of liars and cutthroats is not the same thing.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  50. I find the whole “emolument” thing annoying, as Hillary Clinton was specifically allowed to “accept” donations to her foundation from persons she did business with as SoS. Now, maybe the Saudis were impressed with her as a woman and gave her foundation millions for that reason, but coming after she did them a favor it kinda stinks.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  51. Also, tax returns are held by third parties (such accountants) who are not covered by federal laws concerning taxpayer privacy and are subject to subpoena.

    Sure. They are covered by federal and state rules and laws regulating their profession. Leaking someone’s return is actionable. Note that Congress did not get the returns from the accountants, so it isn’t that easy.

    And those third parties get them voluntarily. I suspect in the future they will be done by law firms who hire accountants.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  52. Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401-342.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  53. There are multiple reasons offered by the Committee:

    ……. In April 2019, Representative Richard Neal, the Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means (“Committee”), cited section 6103(f ) in a written request to the IRS to provide the Committee with the preceding six years of then-President Donald Trump’s individual tax returns, as well as the tax returns of eight Trump-related businesses. …….. Chairman Neal also sought IRS audit histories and work-papers associated with each return, explaining that the Committee was “considering legislative proposals and conducting oversight related to our Federal tax laws, including . . . the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.”
    ……….
    ………On June 16, 2021—after the Committee had sued to enforce its subpoenas,1 a new Congress had assembled, and President Trump had left office—Chairman Neal sent Treasury a new written request under section 6103(f)(1). ………The Committee’s June 2021 Request seeks the same categories of information as the April 2019 Request, but now for the tax years 2015 through 2020………. The June 2021 Request reiterates and elaborates upon the Committee’s principal interest in the information—namely, evaluating “the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.” ……..It also identifies an interest in determining whether “former President Trump’s tax returns could reveal hidden business entanglements raising tax law and other issues, including conflicts of interest, affecting proper execution of the former President’s responsibilities.” ……..It further states that “[a]n independent examination might also show foreign financial influences on former President Trump that could inform relevant congressional legislation.”

    One of issues mentioned by Neal is that it is not a legal requirement for the IRS to audit presidential tax returns, it is only part of the IRS Manual, which can be changed any time.

    Rip Murdock (e03271)

  54. Kevin M – Don’t move to Norway then

    Lots of countries not to move to. Why does the lack of privacy elsewhere inform me of anything?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  55. One of issues mentioned by Neal is that it is not a legal requirement for the IRS to audit presidential tax returns

    So, he’s a Congressman; introduce a bill and stop whining.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  56. RIP Ruth Pearl (85). Mother of Daniel Pearl.

    Rip Murdock (e03271)

  57. Davethulhu (aa6793) — 7/30/2021 @ 5:11 pm

    Just to clarify; we’re dealing with (f)(1) which says in part:

    except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure

    correct?

    frosty (f27e97)

  58. Mr M wrote:

    What I care about is the strict privacy of tax returns. The IRS and only the IRS is supposed to have access to them, and that access is controlled by some fairly draconian laws for IRS employees who breach their trust.

    When you let politicians to have access to identifiable returns of any kind, and these requests are conditioned on being in the political majority, it should be obvious to all what the dangers are.

    Yet you are perfectly fine with people being forced to take something they don’t want into their bodies, and having to disclose their vaccination status to work, to go out in public, to do almost anything . . . .

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (405d48)

  59. Mr M wrote:

    After that they can vote to give me a unicorn and a dinner with Jennifer Lawrence.

    Why not just ask for Jennifer?

    Can I make that Jennifer Garner instead?

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (405d48)

  60. Kevin M, I agree with you about IRS and the privacy of returns for individuals, businesses and corporation. But not for individuals, buinesses or corporations who are under investigations for serious crimes. In that case, the investigating authority has the absolute right to request the return to see if there is any evidence of criminal activity. How do you think they convicted Al Capone?

    Tax fraud is a serious crime, so is corruption. It’s called the RICO Act. The first thing the FBI or a DA is do, is check the financials, which include taxes Thus, the House Ways and Means Committee has the absolute right to request Trump’s returns, and if so ordered by the DOJ, the IRS must comply.

    Oh, Trump and his three children are involved in a case involving consumer fraud. The appeals court denied his request to have the case moved to arbitration.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/28/appeals-court-donald-trump-fraud-suit-501337

    Gawain's Ghost (ef1cde)

  61. Yet you are perfectly fine with people being forced to take something they don’t want into their bodies, and having to disclose their vaccination status to work, to go out in public, to do almost anything . . . .

    As someone who once had to register for a very real draft, I find your lack of willingness to serve disturbing.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  62. @61: There are two branches that have the power to investigate crimes. Congress is not one of them.

    Had they wanted to charge Trump with financial crimes during either of his impeachments (as of mid-2021), I agree that the House managers and/or the Senate could have had access to his returns. But they didn’t.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  63. Mr M wrote:

    Yet you are perfectly fine with people being forced to take something they don’t want into their bodies, and having to disclose their vaccination status to work, to go out in public, to do almost anything . . . .

    As someone who once had to register for a very real draft, I find your lack of willingness to serve disturbing.

    I had to register for that very real draft as well, at a time when men were being drafted and sent to Vietnam.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (405d48)

  64. frosty @58

    Yes, my take is that the since the request comes from the Ways and Means Committee that section applies, and yeah they have to be in closed session when the returns are discussed.

    Davethulhu (aa6793)

  65. Gawain’s Ghost (ef1cde) — 7/30/2021 @ 5:59 pm

    This would be interesting if it had anything to do with what’s going on in this case. The ways and means committee isn’t conducting a criminal investigation. Arguably the intent of the law was to allow ways and means oversight of the IRS not as a tool allowing them to investigate any US citizen.

    In their hatred for Trump people are now arguing that the law designed to prevent disclosure of returns in fact actually empowers ways and means to do exactly the opposite.

    In other words, in an obvious attempt to embarrass Trump by obtaining his returns and then leaking them, in violation of the law now being twisted to get them, the ways and means committee is implying the IRS was negligent in auditing him. There is no reason to think the IRS was negligent. There’s no one who really expects any violations of IRS rules. No one expects any fraud to be found in this exercise. Everyone expects this to be leaked. Or in the alternative they’ll pull a Shiff and tell the public the returns have compromising information but they can’t disclose it.

    The irony is there’s also unlikely to be anything embarrassing. But hey, we’ll pretend anyway and we’ll know it’s cool to release tax returns because partisan politics.

    frosty (f27e97)

  66. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 7/30/2021 @ 6:01 pm

    As someone who once had to register for a very real draft, I find your lack of willingness to serve disturbing.

    The problem with this is you’re not going to have to look far to find someone who disagrees with you and also served. In fact you won’t have much trouble finding people who willingly served and find the coercion you’ve been pushing in other comments offensive to that service.

    frosty (f27e97)

  67. The release might make Schiff cry for the second time in a week.

    I wonder what the House $allowance is for pillows…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  68. OT- 50 years ago today, July 30, 1971, when America truly, truly was great: “The Falcon is on the plain at Hadley.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxqKlDsgMzc

    “Everything is going well on the Moon today…” – Walter Cronkite, CBS News,7/30/1971

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  69. @69 Nixonomics

    norcal (a6130b)

  70. #66 Compare and contrast:
    This:

    There is no reason to think the IRS was negligent. There’s no one who really expects any violations of IRS rules. No one expects any fraud to be found in this exercise.

    With this:

    Donald Trump’s company and its longtime finance chief were charged Thursday in what prosecutors called a “sweeping and audacious” tax fraud scheme in which the executive collected more than $1.7 million in off-the-books compensation, including apartment rent, car payments and school tuition.

    Trump himself was not charged with any wrongdoing, but prosecutors noted he signed some of the checks at the center of the case. And one top prosecutor said the 15-year scheme was “orchestrated by the most senior executives” at the Trump Organization.

    Perhaps I am too suspicious, but I think it possible that some of those prosecutors may think there is fraud yet to be uncovered — and some may even think that Congressional committees can help.
    There are many precedents for congressional investigations into crime; for some instructive examples, check out the career of Estes Kefauver.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  71. Jim Miller (edcec1) — 7/30/2021 @ 7:20 pm

    You’re mixing and matching as you go along. If these committees followed the law the prosecutors wouldn’t have access to the returns under these rules.

    You can be as suspicious as you want. The ways and means in this case isn’t conducting a criminal probe as your describing. Pretending otherwise is just dishonest.

    And you’ve proved my point; let’s go fishing for evidence because politics, maybe we can find something.

    frosty (f27e97)

  72. There are many precedents for congressional investigations into crime

    Sure. That is not the reason they give though.

    And the investigations into organized crime had to do with a systemic problem that, arguably, required some new legislation (much later: RICO). It was not an investigation into a person. More recently, they have investigated social media companies and their control of public discourse, but were not going after the people heading those companies, other than seeking their testimony.

    Find a case where a Congressional Committee investigated an individual, with the specific aim to find their criminal behavior.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  73. National Man Boy Lincoln Project-level interest in this prosecution…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  74. frosty (f27e97) — 7/30/2021 @ 6:56 pm

    Yeah, perhaps a strained comparison. But the point is that nothing much is being asked of people. Very few of them are refusing because they think it’s actually dangerous. They are refusing because they CAN and it makes the current regime look bad. They may give reasons about it “not being tested” but that’s mostly just a cover.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  75. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 7/30/2021 @ 7:44 pm

    I can’t read peoples minds and don’t pretend to. I honestly don’t care why they’re refusing. I agree that they can and I’m not on board with changing that to can’t. My guess is this will come up again in the weekend open thread.

    frosty (f27e97)

  76. Anyone really thinks Trump’s hired accountants would commit tax fraud, putting not only the accountant themselves in legal jeopardy, but the accounting firm itself?

    Billionaires don’t do their taxes. They hire companies for that and leverage tax avoidance as much as possible. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    Furthermore, if there *was* a “there-there” of fraud, is anyone here really going to say that someone WOULDN’T have been leaked during the Trump years? They could absolutely claim whistleblower protection here and do you really think the democrats and their media allies wouldn’t let them? (all sorts of laws were broken by the leakers during the Trump years)

    whembly (ae0eb5)

  77. “It’s not fair! Waaah! Mommy!”

    nk (1d9030)

  78. @70. Nixonomics.

    Actually, no, norcal; Fifteen’s hardware was budgeted for and purchased under LBJ; the rover development costs w/Boeing were funded then as well. It was The Big Dick who cancelled the last three Apollos [18,19,20] after the hardware was already paid for [all that was needed was operational budgets] which is why the last three Saturn Vs are on display around the country and not at the bottom of the ocean. [It was his nothing Kennedy bugaboo.] The Big Dick cancelled everything else as well- including the preliminary space transportation system plans w/a space station — except for the shuttle, forcing a redesign into a much larger vehicle- chiefly to accommodate KH-12 spysats for shuttle budget source and customer- the DoD. The Big Dick sowed the seeds for the accidents to come.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  79. Re: 31 ” HWM could release the returns to the public, as it is not bound by grad jury secrecy laws.”

    And is that REALLY what we want? To take tax returns of private individuals and release them to the public?

    Well, okay, I guess.

    It would be an effective way to continue eroding the public’s trust in government.

    Fury (398b9a)

  80. @78; yes, the ever present cry of the nevertrump. It’s not fair we can’t destroy Trump! Waaah! Mommy! It’s like Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. The latest package from Acme Inc didn’t even go boom. Just a weak pop and a fizzle. Maybe those walls are closing in and Coyote will win this time.

    frosty (f27e97)

  81. No winner cried “It’s not fair!”, ever. But I’ve mislaid my history book. Could you help a brother out by telling me who won the last election?

    nk (1d9030)

  82. @82 and yet nevertrump still cries and everything always finds it way back to being trumps fault. Bitter and whiny is the only option even when they get the “win”.

    frosty (f27e97)

  83. Now, this is odd. After everyone has said that Congress’ use of Trump’s taxes is for [something needful, not that it matters] we have this from CNN, chomping at the bit for the inevitable leak:

    We’re going to see Donald Trump’s taxes. Or, to be totally clear about it, we are very likely to see the former president’s taxes — following a Friday ruling by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel’s office that said that the returns must be turned over to Congress.

    “The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has invoked sufficient reasons for requesting the former President’s tax information,” read the opinion, which is the latest development in a two-year fight between the Trump administration and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal over the billionaire businessman’s tax returns.

    While Trump’s lawyers will no doubt fight the Justice Department ruling, the chances of Congress getting its hands on Trump’s returns went WAY up last Friday. And because Congress is Congress, if it gets the returns, you can be certain that some (or all) of the information in them will find its way into the public eye.

    It’s almost as if all thouse claims that the returns would be strictly viewed “in camera” were just patently false and transparent, just like Trump claimed, and the real point of it is to release his tax returns to the public in violation of several laws.

    It’s pretty bad when you find that Trump is the truth-teller in an argument.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  84. Chris Clizza links should come with a warning label. I detest that guys writing.

    Not saying he’s wrong here. Just saying I don’t like him.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  85. Here’s an idea: Trump cuts a deal. He’ll give them his tax returns, but if they “leak” he never has to pay income tax ever again.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3424 secs.