So congress says law enforcement need a court order to get tax returns. Then congress goes ahead and exempts themselves from the 4th amendment? Sounds constitutional to me – law enforcement must follow the 4th amendment in getting GOVERNMENT documents on a person. But we are higher and holier than thou and can exempt ourselfs from the 4th amendment when it comes to getting GOVERNMENT documents on a person.
One law for us, one law for the rest.
recalibrate sarcasm detector.
The FBI via the DOJ does not need a warrant. See 26 USC 6103 (h)(2)
Their oversight there was to hopefully (never did) pass legislation making it a crime for people like her in government to not have a private server, and to use government accounts.
Bengazie . . . I said it then and I’ll say it now. The investigation was looking at the wrong thing. As far as I know they never investigated what should have been investigated. That being, what was the embasador doing in that part of the country and why.
And I keep saying it needs to be challeneged to the supreme court to see if that statutory authority is constitutional. Law has never been challenged in court, because it is used so little.
The 4th amendment doesn’t come into it.
The law that Congress wrote says the DoJ needs to get a court order to obtain tax returns. It’s not a search warrant. That’s how they decided to write the law.
There is no such thing as congressional oversight, apparently.
No I don’t. I mean does law enforcement need a warrant to access a person’s tax forms? yes or no.
If Yes, then why do they need one but congress doesn’t.
If no, then what is the 4th amendment good for?
Saying something over and over doesn’t make it correct.
Duly noted.
Read further. ONLY to a grand jury investigating a crime.
True. It’s not correct because I’ve said it. It’s correct because it’s correct.
Remember when Romney released his taxes. He had money in Swiss banks to use for his foreign investments. His opponents, including in this forum were all: Swiss banks!! We all know how crooked that is!
The reason Swiss banks have that reputation is because people put money in them to hide income from the IRS. If you are using it for that purpose you don’t find out that someone is doing it by reviewing their tax forms.
And yet over and over: Swiss banks!!
And that is the sort of thing Democrats will be looking for in those tax forms and everyone knows it.
That is their “legislative purpose”.
Court order - signed by a judge
Search warrant - signed by a judge
Congress SHOULD need to have something signed by a judge for taxpers returns.
Not in the constitution. The only oversight is the ability to impeach the president and officers he has confirmed by the senate.
Dem’s need to start impeachment proceedings now against the president, and if they think barr is lying or covering up, against him as well.
So everything on that form was obtained under the law that is being used to request the presidents taxes? Since the law specifies only a couple of committee’s that may request them?
Really?
How many times has the ways and means requested the tax forms of a citizen?
I’m sure you can dig that up pronto.
Where does it state in 26 USC 6103 (h)(3) that a warrant is required? My reading of the law is that it is merely a written request.
I thought that’s what the IRS does. Does the DOJ have the right to call for tax returns? Seems funny if the DOJ could, but the Congress can’t.
I guess we’re off the “do you think Mueller hasn’t seen Trump’s tax returns” path.
The table makes it pretty easy… The presidents tax returns are being requested under 26 USC 6103(f). That would be third and fourth row in the table… add those together and you get over 151 million in 2017.
