Greta Thunberg is Time Magazine Person of the Year.

Yes, his financial records.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

if you say so.

if you say so. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No, the SCOTUS says so.

No, the SCOTUS says so. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

the Supreme Court has said NO. several times.

how many times do i need to re post this?

do you not read it?

do you not understand it?

do you not care?

all of the above?

I'll hold you to the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, several times. what did they rule?


Congress needs a reason to see a citizen's tax returns. "we are looking for something" isn't good enough. Oversight of the IRS isn't good enough.


https://www.heritage.org/courts/comm...ourt-heres-why


The Fight Over Trump’s Tax Returns Will End Up in the Supreme Court – Here’s Why

Hans A. von Spakovsky @HvonSpakovsky Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration.


Key Takeaways

Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code guarantees the confidentiality of all our tax returns – yours, mine and even President Trump’s.


The court fight over whether Congress can get the Trump returns is complicated, as I will explain below. It’s virtually certain to wind up in the Supreme Court.


There will be a long court battle ahead with important implications about the protections for the privacy of all tax returns – including your own.

Should elected officials be allowed to gain access to the federal income tax returns of American taxpayers? When President Nixon tried to do this to get dirt on his political opponents he was deservedly condemned and Congress passed a law in 1976 to bar the practice. But now Democrats want to ignore that law to get their hands on President Trump’s tax returns.


Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code guarantees the confidentiality of all our tax returns – yours, mine and even President Trump’s.


A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report notes that federal officials are prohibited from disclosing taxpayer returns and information without the taxpayer’s consent. Criminal penalties apply to unauthorized disclosures.


According to CRS, Congress passed this provision because of “revelations that President Nixon sought to use tax return information for improper purposes.”

What improper purposes? Partisan politics.


But while Democrats vilify Republican Nixon for using the power of government to go after opponents on his infamous enemies list, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., is being hailed a hero by his party for following in Nixon’s footsteps.


Neal has written Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig demanding copies of the tax returns filed by President Trump and eight of his companies for the last six years.


Trump lawyer William Consovoy has contested that demand, contending in an April 5 letter that Neal’s demand is illegal and “the IRS cannot legally divulge” the Trump tax returns.


The court fight over whether Congress can get the Trump returns is complicated, as I will explain below. It’s virtually certain to wind up in the Supreme Court.


If I had to bet on who will ultimately win the court fight I would put my money on Consovoy, a well-known and skilled Supreme Court litigator.


Interestingly, in 1986 a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia supported the law keeping tax returns private, finding in the case of National Treasury Employees Union v. the Federal Labor Relations Authority that taxpayer privacy is “fundamental to a tax system that relies on self-reporting.”


The judge was right.


Few people had heard of that judge in 1986, but you’ve likely heard her name in more recent years. She got a big promotion and is now Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If she winds up hearing the case dealing with the fight over the Trump tax returns it will be interesting to see if she sticks with her position of 33 years ago, or adopts a different position to strike a blow against President Trump.


The House Democratic majority that took control of the chamber in January is clearly more interested in investigating every aspect of President Trump’s life than legislating.


Getting President Trump’s tax returns has become a crusade for many Democrats – especially now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has concluded Trump and his campaign didn’t collude with Russia to get elected in 2016.


Neal notes that an exception to the general rule of privacy for tax returns allows the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee – that’s him – to request tax returns or information about the returns.


Democrats are claiming this exception gives Neal the absolute right to get the Trump returns, with no exceptions. But that’s a gross oversimplification.


If tax return information requested by the Ways and Means chairman includes information that can identify the taxpayer, it can be provided only when the requesting committee is “in closed executive session.”


Both the Congressional Research Service and Trump attorney Consovoy point out that the committee can exercise its power under this law only in the context of its constitutional oversight and investigative authority. This is a critical distinction.


The committee’s power is “subject to the same legal limitations that generally attach to Congress’ use of other compulsory investigative tools,” CRS observes. It adds: “Notably, the inquiry must further a ‘legislative purpose’ and not otherwise breach relevant constitutional rights or privileges.”


Consovoy cites numerous court decisions holding that legislative “investigations” like Neal’s must have a legitimate legislative purpose. Congress doesn’t have a “stand-alone” investigation power.


In a 1957 case, Watkins v. U.S., the Supreme Court told the House Un-American Activities Committee that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure” and especially not the “private affairs” of individuals.


Furthermore, according to the high court, Congress can’t use its investigation to act like a “law enforcement or trial agency” – or, as Consovoy put it in a follow-up letter to the Treasury Department Monday, like “a junior-varsity IRS, rerunning individual examinations or flyspecking the agency’s calculations.”


The point is that the House committee has no power to conduct its own examination and audit of any individual taxpayer – be it the president or anyone else.


Audits are a function of the executive branch, not the legislature. Congress can’t, as the Justice Department opined in 1981, intrude “on the Executive Branch’s function of executing the law.”


Rep. Neal claims that his legislative purpose in demanding the president’s tax returns is to determine “the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.”


As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has the same authority under this statutory provision as Neal. But he’s not on board with Neal’s request, saying that it “doesn’t make sense when taken at face value, because you can’t take it at face value.”


Consovoy points out several facts to debunk Neal’s claim that the congressman just wants to review IRS enforcement of “Federal tax laws against a President.” He notes that Neal:

1. Hasn’t requested the tax returns of any other president.
2. Is demanding tax returns from before Donald Trump became president.
3. Has asked no questions of any kind about IRS policy and procedures when the agency is auditing presidential tax returns.
4. Hasn’t even waited for the IRS to finish its “ongoing examinations (and any resulting appeals)” dealing with President Trump’s tax returns.

Consovoy makes a strong case that there is no legitimate legislative purpose driving Neal’s demand, which means the demand to see the Trump tax returns is outside the constitutional authority and power of Congress.

Rather, Consovoy writes, Neal’s “request is a transparent effort by one political party to harass an official from the other party because they dislike his politics and speech … and they want to use the information to damage him politically.”


The Treasury Department must determine whether to comply with Neal’s demand. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said his agency is consulting with the Justice Department “given the unprecedented nature of this request” to ensure the agency is complying with the law and to avoid “potentially weaponizing the IRS.”


Neal, by the way – who chairs one of the most powerful committees in the U.S. House, with extensive power over the American economy, private industry, and taxpayers – has never disclosed any of his tax returns, although he claims he will eventually.


Apparently, Neal believes the public’s need to know doesn’t extend to him.


What will happen now with the Trump tax returns?


We don’t have the ultimate answer, though Trump has a far stronger case than most of the media are portraying. But don’t expect to be reading through the president’s complex returns anytime soon on the Internet. There will be a long court battle ahead with important implications about the protections for the privacy of all tax returns – including your own. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No. Absolutely not.

I keep hearing duly elected president. Can we not stipulate the Russian government sought to place a Russian asset in control of the U.S. government for their own ascent? If not, we dispute global influence. The House has to check that appointment. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Forget about the Russian Involvement it's not the reason for Trump's victory in 2016. The Mueller Report sunk that ship, that's why the Ukraine is in the news and Impeachment is the plan. It's been the plan since 2016. When that fails I hope the Democrats have enough sense and the guts to blame themselves instead of Russia or anyone else.

Forget about the Russian Involvement it's not the reason for Trump's victory in 2016. The Mueller Report sunk that ship, that's why the Ukraine is in the news and Impeachment is the plan. It's been the plan since 2016. When that fails I hope the Democrats have enough sense and the guts to blame themselves instead of Russia or anyone else. Originally Posted by Levianon17

You want us to just forget the fact that the POTUS was played like a Stravinsky? I can't! It is the only reason for his victory. Nobody cared to prosecute. Point of fact. All the blame falls on Barr.

You want us to just forget the fact that the POTUS was played like a Stravinsky? I can't! It is the only reason for his victory. Nobody cared to prosecute. Point of fact. All the blame falls on Barr. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

if you say so.


BAHHHHAHHAAAAAA

if you say so.


BAHHHHAHHAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I'm not the only one.

I'm not tbe only one. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

oh yeah? who else says so? Mueller? Clinton? the liberal press? every Democrat in Congress? yeah .. thought so.

you simply cannot admit how horribly unelectable Clinton was. i don't blame you .. neither can Clinton.

if she had listened to Bill she probably would have won. Bill told her you can't win without the white vote. then she utters her famous basket of deplorables comment. but why not listen to Robbie Mook and Podesta over a 4 term Governor and 2 term president, right??

and for whatever reason, probably several mainly her arrogance and likely health issues, she got totally out-campaigned by Trump in the final stretch. probably believed her own cooked polls she had it in the bag. Trump was hitting 3 states a day in his jet. Hillary has hitting the bottle.


BAHHAHHAHHAAA

Just more of the typical Hypocrisy from the believers just disagree with the Narrative and Bam Bam names and deflection and ignorance its clear to anybody with 2 living brain cells she doing what her mommy and daddy are telling her to say.

You want us to just forget the fact that the POTUS was played like a Stravinsky? I can't! It is the only reason for his victory. Nobody cared to prosecute. Point of fact. All the blame falls on Barr. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I don't really care how Trump won. The fact that there isn't a Democrat in the Oval Office is a victory for the whole country. For those that can't see that, "Go fuck Yourselves".

You want us to just forget the fact that the POTUS was played like a Stravinsky? I can't! It is the only reason for his victory. Nobody cared to prosecute. Point of fact. All the blame falls on Barr. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

So you take issue with Dr. Hill's thesis that Russia's purpose in interfering in the election was to sow discord, to throw dirt on both candidates. The New York Times concedes after careful examination that the Steele dossier was a Russian disinformation campaign meant to smear Trump.



Do you seriously think Putin wanted a President that would give javelin missiles to Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers? Do you think Putin wanted a President that would kill 200 Russians in Syria? Or to work against Putin's oil and gas industry? I'd like to say you are smarter than that but I can't.


No proof that one single American changed their mind after reading Russian propaganda. That's a fairy tale excuse for Hillary losing. You need some excuse, first it was Comey then Russians, then women who were forced to vote the way their husband wanted. Any excuse other than Hillary was a lousy candidate.

No proof that one single American changed their mind after reading Russian propaganda. That's a fairy tale excuse for Hillary losing. You need some excuse, first it was Comey then Russians, then women who were forced to vote the way their husband wanted. Any excuse other than Hillary was a lousy candidate. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

when Russian propaganda gets mixed with American propaganda, you cannot tell difference.


so what Russia or Ukraine made zero difference in influencing the electorate. all they really did was add more fuel to the fire already raging. they couldn't make it bigger.

when Russian propaganda gets mixed with American propaganda, you cannot tell difference.


so what Russia or Ukraine made zero difference in influencing the electorate. all they really did was add more fuel to the fire already raging. they couldn't make it bigger. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Agree. I was trying to make the point that minds were already made up and reading a Russian bot on Facebook wasn't going to change any minds. What I find amusing is the idea that it changed just enough minds in Penn., Wisc and Mich.as if the Russians knew to concentrate their efforts there, to put Trump over the top. It had nothing to do with Hillary ignoring those states.



Seems any excuse will do.

H.... has repeatedly shown a complete lack of any personal responsibility in her campaign - blaming anyone and everyone within 10 lightyears. And continues to do so.
She is back running, and her lack of responsibility for her own actions is a very scary thing to consider for a candidate for POTUS.