Democrats Who Can’t Get Over Losing 2016 Formally Demand Trump’s Tax Returns, Part Two

The late Robin Williams had a joke about British bobbies having no weapons other than a nightstick, in which he would mimic them saying “Stop! Or I’ll tell say stop again.” Having failed to obtain all of Trump’s tax returns, personal and business, with all sorts of explanations, by April 10th, Democrats are yelling “stop again”

House Democrats give IRS until April 23 to turn over Trump tax returns

House Democrats are giving the Trump administration a hard deadline of April 23 to turn over the president’s tax returns, pushing back against Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s skepticism over their request for the private records.

Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, on Saturday sent a two-page letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig rebuffing Mnuchin’s statement earlier this week that Treasury would miss House Democrats’ initial April 10 deadline for the returns.

Mnuchin’s concerns “lack merit,” Neal wrote.

Neal’s latest letter sets the stage for further escalation in the conflict between Congress and the White House, as legal experts have suggested that an outright denial of their request by Mnuchin could be followed by subpoenas or a lawsuit in federal court. Mnuchin so far has only postponed responding to Democrats’ request and said he would confer with the Justice Department, but he has not yet rejected it.

Well, good luck with this, Democrats who just can’t get over Hillary losing to Trump. Come April 24th, will we get an even more Strongly Worded Letter? They are never going to get Trump’s taxes in a legal manner, certainly by the the 2020 election day, and the more they push this attempt to get his taxes, the more they are going to show that this is political, personal, and unhinged

Congressional Republicans and Trump’s personal attorney, William S. Consovoy, have argued Democrats’ request risks weaponizing the IRS for partisan political gain, with Consovoy calling it a “gross abuse of power.” Mnuchin’s letter earlier this week said Neal’s request “raises serious issues concerning the constitutional scope of congressional investigative authority.”

There is no reason to see Trump’s taxes other than because Trump has told them “no” and Democrats are unhinged. They think they might find something illegal in there, but, do they think that the IRS wouldn’t have found it previously?

Hilariously, the NY Times’ Binyamin Applbaum thinks

Everyone’s Income Taxes Should Be Public

Almost a century later, it’s time to revisit the merits of universal public disclosure. Democrats in Congress are fighting to obtain President Trump’s tax returns under a separate 1924 law, written in response to related concerns about public corruption. That issue could be resolved, at least in part, if Congress embraced the broader case for publishing everyone’s tax bill.

Democrats wouldn’t care if Trump wasn’t president, and, of course, they feel the need to turn the amp up to 11 by calling for all returns to be released (can we start with Nancy Pelosi and a goodly chunk of elected Dems? How about Binyamin’s?)

Disclosure also could help to reduce disparities in income, as well as disparities in tax payments. Inequality is easier to ignore in the absence of evidence. In Finland, where tax data is published each year on Nov. 1 — jovially known as National Jealousy Day — people treat the information as a barometer of whether inequality is yawning too wide.

See? They’re going to take the TDS and use it for their SJW purposes. Funny thing, I don’t remember Democrats being as obsessed with transparency when Republicans were trying to get the information on Operation Fast and Furious, the Benghazi attacks, nor IRS targeting. They want to destroy privacy simply because they are, in fact, unhinged sore losers.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

51 Responses to “Democrats Who Can’t Get Over Losing 2016 Formally Demand Trump’s Tax Returns, Part Two”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teach typed: “Democrats wouldn’t care if Trump wasn’t president”

    Well duh. Our government often looks the other way regarding rich man chicanery. They ignored Trump’s misdeeds in NJ for years. And a little international money laundering, no big deal.

    But Trump IS president, so hiding personal obligations to foreign nations IS a problem. Why do Presidential candidates release their tax returns? To allay fears that they are working with foreign countries and that they might make policy decisions in their personal interest rather than for America.

    What is Trump hiding? Why is Trump breaking the law? Why has he continuously lied about his returns?

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Who ignored Obama’s misdeeds during his Reign of Error?
      https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • formwiz says:

      Our government often looks the other way regarding rich man chicanery.

      You mean like Hillary and those cattle futures? Mike and her 6 figure job after Zippy became a Senator?

      They ignored Trump’s misdeeds in NJ for years.

      What misdeeds, pray tell.

      And a little international money laundering, no big deal.

      You have proof, of course

    • ITPOLICE says:

      Anyone ever heard of a company called Galera Therapeutics?

      Just wondering.

  2. Kye says:

    “Rich man chicanery”? Wow, you swallowed that hateful leftist Envy pill all the way.

    Who ignored which misdeeds in NJ for years? Be specific. Who and exactly which misdeeds?

    Where do you get off accusing Trump of “hiding his personal obligations to foreign countries” and that he “might” make policy decisions based on his personal interest rather than for America?

    Why do [SOME] Presidential candidates release their tax returns? I don’t know, I wouldn’t. But I imagine some do to show how much they pay in taxes to awe small minds like yours. Or perhaps to brag about their charitable donations. Or maybe to try and force their opponents to do the same. Either way it is not listed as a requirement in the Constitution to be President.

    Why don’t you print your tax returns here for all of us to pick over? After all unlike Trump’s enemies we’re not trying to ruin you politically, financially, harm you family or destroy your business reputation, credit and ability to earn.

    What are you hiding? Why are you breaking the law? Why have you continuously lied about your returns?

    • Bill Bear says:

      “Where do you get off accusing Trump of “hiding his personal obligations to foreign countries” and that he “might” make policy decisions based on his personal interest rather than for America?”

      Trump has not released his tax returns.

      We know he has business interests in many foreign countries.

      Therefore, it is reasonable to ask what personal financial obligations to foreign entities might be revealed in his tax returns.

      And if those obligations do exist, it is reasonable to speculate that Trump could make policy decisions based on his personal financial obligations.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        So Boo Boo says “speculation, that’s why…”
        Thanks dumbass. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • formwiz says:

        Releasing his tax returns is just another witch hunt.

        They saw his tax returns in ’16, so it’s just another “if”.

        We know he has business interests in many foreign countries.

        And how many Democrats do?

        • Bill Bear says:

          “So Boo Boo says “speculation, that’s why…””

          This is, of course, a lie. When a wingnut cannot discuss a topic honestly, he invents bullshít, attributes it to his opponent, and walks away pretending that he won.

          They saw his tax returns in ’16, so it’s just another “if”.

          This is, of course, a lie. Trump has not released any of his tax returns.

          “And how many Democrats do?”

          The current President is Donald J. Trump, a Republican.

      • gitarcarver says:

        Got it.

        Guilty before proven innocent.

  3. Bill Bear says:

    “What are you hiding? Why are you breaking the law? Why have you continuously lied about your returns?”

    Notice that Kye does not ask those questions of Donald Trump.

    • Kye says:

      I’m not accusing Donald Trump, Elwood is so I’m asking Elwood to supply the same he demands of Trump. You are really thick with the hate and partisanship aren’t you?

    • formwiz says:

      Because he doesn’t have to.

      As I’ve said, the law is quite fuzzy on this one.

      But that doesn’t stop Jeffery from going all Goebbels (If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear) and Beria (Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime).

      • Bill Bear says:

        “I’m not accusing Donald Trump”

        … because Kye does not care if Trump has any conflicts of interest with a foreign entity. All that matters is that Trump remain in power, hurting the people that Kye wants to see hurt.

        For Kye, hurting the people he despises is much more important than national security.

  4. Bill Bear says:

    Trumpanistas are entirely unconcerned with the questions surrounding Trump’s finances and the possible conflicts of interest that could endanger US national security.

    All that matters to them is that Trump remain in power and continues to hurt the people they want to see hurt.

    President Trump Cannot Hide His Tax Returns From Congress

    === begin quote ===

    This report explains why Congress has not only the clear authority to obtain Trump’s tax returns, but also the constitutional responsibility to do so given his secrecy and his domestic and foreign business entanglements, as well as the powers of the office. It explains that the law giving Congress this authority was intended for situations such as this—to enable Congress to exercise oversight over the executive branch and monitor conflicts of interest. While regular citizens can expect that their tax returns will remain private, the president of the United States should have no such expectation, especially when he refuses to divest his domestic and international business holdings. Tax returns contain information not available elsewhere that could provide critical information to complete the president’s financial picture.

    Congress has multiple reasons to obtain and review President Trump’s tax returns—reasons that are not only legitimate uses of its legislative powers, but also urgently needed, including:

    To determine if U.S. national security is at risk of being compromised by the president’s financial conflicts of interest
    To determine if Trump has conflicts of interests bearing on his trade and tariffs policies
    To determine whether the president is violating the U.S. Constitution by receiving benefits from foreign countries without Congress’ consent
    To determine whether he is benefiting from his tax policies despite his many public assertions to the contrary
    To determine whether the IRS is adequately auditing the president
    To inform the consideration of additional disclosure requirements for candidates and officeholders

    On Election Day 2016, the American people did not know that throughout 2015 and 2016, Donald Trump had been pursuing a Trump Tower Moscow deal that could gain him as much as $300 million in profits. The public did not know about the deal, because Trump and his campaign repeatedly lied about it. The extent of Trump’s dealings with Russia, or with other foreign governments or interests, remains unclear—and Trump’s finances in general are still murky.

    Under these circumstances, it is not only appropriate but also vital to the functioning of our democracy for Congress to seek an answer to the basic question: Is President Trump working for the interests of the country, or himself? As this report explains, Congress cannot adequately answer that question without first obtaining and reviewing his tax returns.

    === end quote ===

    • formwiz says:

      Si se puede.

      From the Cornell Law website

      That the phrase “Offices of Profit or Trust under the United States” applies to all appointed officials is undisputed, however there is much debate as to whether it extends to elected officials.

      History does not provide a clear answer: When he served as Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton produced a list of persons holding such offices at the request of the Senate; the list did not include any elected positions. Further, during their presidencies, while George Washington did not seek or obtain congressional consent for foreign gifts, Andrew Jackson did.

      The interpretation of the Emoluments Clause has never been litigated before the U.S. Supreme Court.

      IOW witch hunt.

      For those who missed it, the Demos claim they have the right under emoluments.

      The IRS holds his and judges if there’s legal standing to release them. Neither Nadless or the Pencil Neck have been able to show evidence why they should.

      Think 4th Amendment with the T-men doing Heah Come Da Judge,Heah Come Da Judge.

    • Mangoldielocks says:

      Do you actually believe that the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, Treasury, IRS and a whole host of other hidden 3 letter agencies do not take their time to VETTE the next potential president?

      Do you seriously believe that someone running for president is not vetted seriously?

      Do you not believe that Obama’s IRS which went after conservative groups did not go after TRUMP looking for dirt on him having in their possession HIS TAX RETURNS and HE WAS A BIRTHER whom Obama Hated?

      Do you not believe that every nation on earth had their secret 3 letter agencies vetting Trump and looking for dirt on Trump to be used against him?

      Trumps taxes have taken the place of Russia Collusion and here is the funny part.

      WHILE the left spends 4 years going after Trump because of pure and vile hatred for a single man, they are forgetting to put together an agenda that does not look like the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx.

      In the end trump is just trolling the left constantly. The more he trolls the more people like you lose your collective shit and become totally unhinged. If you really want to beat trump. Ignore him. The lack of attention would kill the man. He would die of boredom and probably drop out of the 2020 race.

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    This explains America’s NuCons.

    “All that matters to them (tRumpanistas) is that Trump remain in power and continues to hurt the people they want to see hurt.”

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      The only people “hurting” are treacherous deceitful democrats.
      Everyone else seems to be doing just fine. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Mangoldielocks says:

      Elwood is using the same phraseology as Bill Bear. AS we all suspected. Bill Bear is lil Jeffey. I guess Jeffeys inability to make inroads on the psyche of the people here turned him into a BEAR.

    • formwiz says:

      When Willie Whitewater perjured himself, suborned perjury in others, assaulted a woman in the White house, and had a thug hired to intimidate her, were you calling for his impeachment?

      Doubtful.

  6. Kye says:

    Elwood, what is it with your constant din about hating people and hurting people? Have you seen any of us say we want to hurt and hate people? There seems to be a cloud of negativity and doom over the heads of all leftists they can’t escape. You seem to believe we are killing all your “vibrant” wards. We are’t.

    • Bill Bear says:

      “Elwood, what is it with your constant din about hating people and hurting people?”

      Notice that Kye does not ask that question of the current occupant of the White House… who has repeatedly issued calls for his own followers to violently attack others.

  7. Bill Bear says:

    Simple question for the Trumpanistas:

    If any President, whether named Trump or not, has financial obligations to foreign entities that render him susceptible to blackmail, is that a threat to US national security? YES or NO?

    • formwiz says:

      No, not without evidence to that effect.

      Of course, we can always look into Zippy’s deal with the Iranians.

      • Bill Bear says:

        Apparently formwiz doesn’t understand the question.

        The hypothetical President in my question does in fact have financial obligations to foreign entities that render him susceptible to blackmail. These financial obligations may or may not be public knowledge, but for purposes of this thought experiment, we accept that this is a given.

        With that as a given, is this a threat to US national security? YES or NO?

        • formwiz says:

          No, because people are still innocent until proven guilty.

          Screw the question, Jeffery doesn’t get the law.

          Just because something renders an individual susceptible to blackmail is not an offense.

          How stupid are you?

          • Bill Bear says:

            “Just because something renders an individual susceptible to blackmail is not an offense.”

            Of course, I did not ask if the hypothetical situation was a criminal offense.

            I asked if a President who was susceptible to blackmail would be a threat to US national security.

            This seems to be a question that formwiz is afraid to answer.

            One can only wonder why…

  8. formwiz says:

    Once again, Lil Liar pushes a falsehood.

    On this topic, the law is black and white. The IRS is given no discretion. If Congress requests a tax return, the law states that the IRS “shall provide” that tax return.

    Once again Jerk-off throw his favorite epithet through the air.

    Care to cite that statute, or is this another bluff by some Democrat?

    The law guarantees the privacy of tax returns, so they’d need a warrant at the very least. Presidents have voluntarily released their returns, but there is no requirement they do it.

    • Bill Bear says:

      “Care to cite that statute”

      26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(1)

      “they’d need a warrant at the very least.”

      False. Under the law, no warrant is required.

      • formwiz says:

        General rule. —Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title–

        (1)  no officer or employee of the United States,

        (2)  no officer or employee of any State, any local law enforcement agency receiving information under subsection (i)(7)(A), any local child support enforcement agency, or any local agency administering a program listed in subsection (l)(7)(D) who has or had access to returns or return information under this section or section 6104(c) , and

        (3)  no other person (or officer or employee thereof) who has or had access to returns or return information under subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii), subsection (k)(10), paragraph (6), (10), (12), (16), (19), (20), or (21) of subsection (l), paragraph (2) or (4)(B) of subsection (m), or subsection (n),

        shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee<>/b or otherwise or under the provisions of this section.

        There is also no mention of a warrant in the bill, so 4th Amendment applies.

        You are rally a special kind of stupid.

        • Bill Bear says:

          Funny how formwiz is afraid to quote ]26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(1)](https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-26-internal-revenue-code/26-usc-sect-6103.html).

          It’s not surprising, of course. The fear of discussing relevant facts is epidemic amongst low-info wingnuts.

          But it is hilarious.

          As is the fact that formwiz apparently lacks the requisite reading comprehension skills to understand the meaning of the phrase “except as authorized by this title”.

          • Edward Sibley Dutcher says:

            The rest of which says

            (1)  no officer or employee of the United States,

            (2)  no officer or employee of any State, any local law enforcement agency receiving information under subsection (i)(7)(A), any local child support enforcement agency, or any local agency administering a program listed in subsection (l)(7)(D) who has or had access to returns or return information under this section or section 6104(c) , and

            (3)  no other person (or officer or employee thereof) who has or had access to returns or return information under subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii), subsection (k)(10), paragraph (6), (10), (12), (16), (19), (20), or (21) of subsection (l), paragraph (2) or (4)(B) of subsection (m), or subsection (n),

            shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section.

            I did quote it so reading comprehension (a common dodge among trolls) seems to be your undoing.

            And I noted what Boo Boo didn’t want to, the restrictions on government officials which Jeffery thinks shouldn’t exist if it’s Democrats doing the “ruling”, as the Choom Gang and their acolytes told us they were doing as the Great Mistake began.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      You are wrong. Try to keep up, please.

  9. formwiz says:

    Just because something renders an individual susceptible to blackmail is not an offense.

    Of course, I did not ask if the hypothetical situation was a criminal offense.

    I asked if a President who was susceptible to blackmail would be a threat to US national security.

    This seems to be a question that formwiz is afraid to answer.

    One can only wonder why…

    Well, since the bear suit seems incapable of understanding the concept of innocent until proven guilty and his question is so idiotically open-ended, much like his head, that I answered several times seem to elude him.

    One must wonder if the trollmassas read everything to him.

    Of course, he doesn’t understand that, either

  10. Bill Bear says:

    “I did quote it”

    Yes.

    And then Edward Sibley Dutcher refused to acknowledge that the phrase “except as authorized by this title” means that where officials are authorized to release tax returns — as they are in 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(1)they may do so.

    So there are two possibilities:

    1) Edward Sibley Dutcher quoted the phrase “except as authorized by this title” but is too fùcking dense to understand its meaning, or…

    2) Edward Sibley Dutcher quoted the phrase “except as authorized by this title”, understands its import, and has dishonestly chosen to ignore its meaning.

    “I answered several times”

    Edward Sibley Dutcher is lying, of course.

    He has not answered my question. He has chosen, dishonestly, to answer some other question that he pretends I have asked.

    He is terrified of answering my question — because if he did so, he would have to admit the possibility that Donald Trump could be blackmailed, and if so, could pose a threat to US national security.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7024 access attempts in the last 7 days.