Can you please point to the specific wording in the statute to support your claim of “for cause?” Thanks in advance.
Good for them. It is about time they got weaponized.
Fat Donald might still be the new sheriff in town, there is a posse forming in January, but it will be riding against crazy Donald.
26 USC 6103 does not apply to fishing expeditions by Congress.
Lol. That’s exactly who the statue effects.
Allan
No it is not. It is designed to obtain evidence to prosecute criminal activity, not to fish for evidence of an unknown and unspecified criminal act.
Samm,
Congressmen don’t have law enforcement powers, the chairman of certain Congressional Committees don’t have the ability to obtain tax returns so they can arrest someone.
.
.
.
.
.>>>>>
1 Like
Perhaps you can describe the language in the code that precludes such.
It is an all out fishing expedition. If Mueller had probable cause to investigate Trump’s taxes due to some fact he had run across in his investigation, I would suppose he would at least have attempted to get them. He has not and there is no probable cause.
This is “Lets just look at his tax returns because there might be something in there we can use, politically if no other way”. That is the definition of a fishing expedition.
And if that doesn’t work, to they go through all his old school records, financial records, everything…just looking for something they can use?
You have a citation for that? I know of nothing in the public record that Mueller has or has not attempted to get Trump’s tax returns nor anything in the public record stating positive or negative probable cause to access them.
“1)) by concurrent resolution, the Secretary shall furnish such committee, or a duly authorized and designated subcommittee thereof, sitting in closed executive session, with any return or return information which such resolution authorizes the committee or subcommittee to inspect. Any resolution described in this paragraph shall specify the purpose for which the return or return information is to be furnished and that such information cannot reasonably be obtained from any other source.”
First, this is supposed to be in a closed session, not to be released to the public which is the obvious purpose of this.
And second, they are supposed to give their purpose for wanting to see this. “Fishing Expedition” will surely not qualify. The only reason it would require a purpose would be to show there is some legitimate legislative purpose in seeing those returns.
I see at least a court case before that happens.
My citation is that every time Mueller has made a move or investigated something or talked to someone it winds up in the Newspaper somewhere.
Replace he has not with “it has not been reporeted that” Mueller has seen Trump’s tax returns, if you wish.
You left out the beginning of that paragraph indicating that the paragraph applies to OTHER COMMITTEES, not the Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance or the Joint Committee on Taxation. I really do not understand why this is so difficult…
I believe I have pointed this out MULTIPLE times
There is ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT for the Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation to justify a dang thing… They request it… nothing more… This is really, really, really simple legal language…
Let’s go back and see what probable cause the Reps had when they audited Jimmy Carter and forced him to sell his family peanut farm. That should be a decent measuring stick.
You are a little off in the story your telling. Like Kennedy he put the farm in a blind trust. He did not sell it. The only reason he did this is he was getting heat from the right and this was a way to end the heat.
Same statute contains the same power for the executive branch. I somehow doubt you would be quite as approving of them pulling democrats tax returns.
I have no problem if Trump does the same thing as retribution
But with different stipulations for the PRESIDENT, not just anyone in the executive branch… Only the president may request returns as long as he/she (although the statute specifies him) provides the following:
(A) the name and address of the taxpayer whose return or return information is to be disclosed,
(B) the kind of return or return information which is to be disclosed,
(C) the taxable period or periods covered by such return or return information, and
(D) the specific reason why the inspection or disclosure is requested.
I do not understand why this argument continues… A first year law student should be able to read the statute and see the very clear differences and requirements.
There is no material difference. None of that prohibits him from pulling any return he likes.
LMAO… Nothing material except the 4 stipulations, the reporting requirements, etc… otherwise, it’s exactly the same…
None of those reporting requirements stops him from pulling them. But maybe Mitch Mconnel and a republican congress will impeach him if he does lol
