Trump's tax records

[susano]

I looked for the subpoena text, online. Couldn't find it. Has anyone else seen it?

By what authority is congress allowed to issue subpoenas? Because courts have said so or some federal "law"? F that.

Does the 4th amendment apply to the president? Of course. As far I can find, these f-ers want six years of his tax records so that predates his being in office. At one point, they wanted Tiffany's debit card records. No crimes being alleged - which, if there were, would be a job for LE and a prosecutor. This is pure fishing expedition, hoping something criminal turns up. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" - Beria, NKVD, USSR. I saw one of those idiot congressional black caucus members saying, with glee, something like "we can subpoena all of his financial information" and, I'm sure she believes it and is too stupid to even understand why it's a violation of the 4th amendment (of which she also seems oblivious). So, we have serious evil running amok, many of them knowing exactly what they're doing and then their useful idiots like the woman mentioned.

Why are we not hearing this 4th amendment argument?

 

[Zippyjuan]

I looked for the subpoena text, online. Couldn't find it. Has anyone else seen it?

By what authority is congress allowed to issue subpoenas? Because courts have said so or some federal "law"? F that.

Does the 4th amendment apply to the president? Of course. As far I can find, these f-ers want six years of his tax records so that predates his being in office. At one point, they wanted Tiffany's debit card records. No crimes being alleged - which, if there were, would be a job for LE and a prosecutor. This is pure fishing expedition, hoping something criminal turns up. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" - Beria, NKVD, USSR. I saw one of those idiot congressional black caucus members saying, with glee, something like "we can subpoena all of his financial information" and, I'm sure she believes it and is too stupid to even understand why it's a violation of the 4th amendment (of which she also seems oblivious). So, we have serious evil running amok, many of them knowing exactly what they're doing and then their useful idiots like the woman mentioned.

Why are we not hearing this 4th amendment argument?

It is not related to impeachment. Congress did not file any subpoenas for them. A New York grand jury is looking into hush money payments.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loc...n-da-can-subpoena-trumps-tax-records/2103652/

A federal appellate court on Monday ruled that Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance can subpoena the president's tax records from his accountants, rejecting President Trump's immunity claims.

Vance, a Democrat, is conducting a wide-ranging probe that includes payments made to buy the silence of two women who claim affairs with the president before the 2016 presidential election.

The payments were made to porn star Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, a onetime Playboy centerfold. Both have spoken publicly about affairs they say they had with the president before the 2016 presidential election.

Trump appealed after a lower-court judge tossed out his challenge to Vance's subpoena of his financial records from his longtime accountant.

 

[Anti Globalist]

No where in the constitution does it say that Trump needs to show his tax records.

 

[Schifference]

This is going to the SCOTUS to decide.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...leas-to-block-subpoenas-for-financial-records

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code provides:

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

The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee requested Trump's tax returns on May 10, 2019. Despite the plain language of the statute that the Secretary of the Treasury "shall furnish" the returns to the committee, Secretary Mnuchin refused to do so. A suit is currently pending in a U.S. District Court regarding this matter.

 

[susano]

It is not related to impeachment. Congress did not file any subpoenas for them. A New York grand jury is looking into hush money payments.

See below. It looks to be both the DA and House Ways & Means. And, what's up with this?

Vance, a Democrat, is conducting a wide-ranging probe that includes payments made to buy the silence of two women who claim affairs with the president before the 2016 presidential election.

That, my friend, is a fishing expedition involving two incidents which are not crimes. Sleazy, yes, criminal no. That kind of stuff is routine. Hell, congress has a tax payer slush fund to pay accusers off and shut them up. THAT should be illegal but not these contracts between private parties.

Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code provides:

Administrative "law". IOW, no basis in the constitution and, certainly, a violation of the 4th amendment.

The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee requested Trump's tax returns on May 10, 2019. Despite the plain language of the statute that the Secretary of the Treasury "shall furnish" the returns to the committee, Secretary Mnuchin refused to do so. A suit is currently pending in a U.S. District Court regarding this matter.

Thanks for the info, you guys. So we have the DA's fishing expedition being appealed to SCOTUS and the congressional subpoena (?)/request (?) in a US district court (so far). However much any might despise Trump, this is another Democrap attack on the Bill of Rights. They're after all of them.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Administrative "law". IOW, no basis in the constitution and, certainly, a violation of the 4th amendment.

It's a statute, which you apparently don't know is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Its constitutional basis is Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which gives Congress a broad power to tax. The governmental body that has the power to tax obviously has the power to look at tax returns to see if they're being filed properly. Section 6103 was enacted as a privacy measure so that returns wouldn't be available to just anybody, which is why Trump's returns would be available to the Ways and Means Commmittee only while it's sitting in closed executive session. There's absolutely no violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

[susano]

It's a statute, which you apparently don't know is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Its constitutional basis is Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which gives Congress a broad power to tax. The governmental body that has the power to tax obviously has the power to look at tax returns to see if they're being filed properly. Section 6103 was enacted as a privacy measure so that returns wouldn't be available to just anybody, which is why Trump's returns would be available to the Ways and Means Commmittee only while it's sitting in closed executive session. There's absolutely no violation of the 4th Amendment.

Are you a lawyer? That's not snark but I ask because I was under the impression that congress has abdicated it's responsibility by granting authority to bureaucratic agencies to write their own regulations which are passed off as "law". I did quickly look it up and I can't tell and I'm sure not motivated to research to the extent of finding out if that section was a free standing bill, amendment, part of a sweeping package (there was one in 1986) or done by the IRS itself because Title 26 is also listed as part of the Code of Federal Regulations:

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations (sometimes called administrative law) published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States. The CFR is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations

And, while one thing may be done in practice, please show me where the power to tax came with being able to revoke 4th amendment rights.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I did quickly look it up and I can't tell and I'm sure not motivated to research to the extent of finding out if that section was a free standing bill, amendment, part of a sweeping package (there was one in 1986) or done by the IRS itself because Title 26 is also listed as part of the Code of Federal Regulations

Income tax returns used to be public records open to anyone, due to a 1924 law passed by Congress (the New York Times once published a front-page article about the top taxpayers with the headline "J.D. Rockefeller Jr. Paid $7,435,169”). The law was changed later on but to my knowledge the authority of Congress and/or certain congressional committees to have access to returns has always been part of the law.

Title 26 is a compilation of federal tax laws, but it's not a part of the CFR. Regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department pursuant to the authority under 26 USC 7805 are.

And, while one thing may be done in practice, please show me where the power to tax came with being able to revoke 4th amendment rights.

You're assuming the Fourth Amendment prohibits the goverment from obtaining information by requiring a person to file a tax return, but it doesn't. See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#4th

 

[susano]

You're assuming the Fourth Amendment prohibits the goverment from obtaining information by requiring a person to file a tax return, but it doesn't. See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#4th

The hell it doesn't. Just because a court says otherwise doesn't make it so. I fully realize that, in practice, and in court decisions, the Bill of Rights has been gutted but I'm saying it's wrong and unconstitutional.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The hell it doesn't. Just because a court says otherwise doesn't make it so. I fully realize that, in practice, and in court decisions, the Bill of Rights has been gutted but I'm saying it's wrong and unconstitutional.

The 5thA also prohibits requiring you to testify against yourself.

 

[susano]

The 5thA also prohibits requiring you to testify against yourself.

Bingo. Another right usurped by the tax code.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Manhattan DA targeting Trump who gave Epstein and Weinstein a pass has a nice $800 million slush fund of Civil Asset Forfeitures that he uses for his own vacations, and to fund pro-crime legal defense funds that oppose his office