Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, eveln said:

Are you sure about that ?  From what I'd read it's not so. Congress has to show cause I believe. And to do that they have to have proof , yes ?

 

 

"Once a request is made, no floor action is necessary. The request would go to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who oversees the IRS — not to the taxpayer in the Oval Office, who would officially be out of the loop. Yin said the 1924 law  (Edit: ref: Teapot Dome) "gave the tax committees the unqualified right to request the tax returns of any taxpayer.""

 

Key words: "law" and "unqualified right".

Edited by Cybes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, um, Neal didn't comply ... but he expects others too ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Is the IRS required to hand over the president’s tax returns if Congress asks?

According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the answer is a resounding no – at least when it comes to the request submitted by Democratic Congressman Richard Neal on April 3. Mnuchin said it “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.”

 

That above piece comes from " The Conversation "

http://theconversation.com/au

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more a case of asking in the correct manner and down what path.

 

From this:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/opinion/trump-tax-returns-congress.html

 

Mnuchin is wrong, but of course he is going to try, he's a Republican, a member of Trump's cabinet being asked by a Democrat.

 

What's more interesting is that if there is nothing to hide then why so much wriggling ?

 

No smoke without fire.

 

The President is in one respect still a citizen and not above the law so what the SC has said applies equally to him as it does to anyone else.

 

In another respect he is the President, a politician, a servant of the people, the people want to know how he has been handling his affairs and by extension if he has been telling the truth (that would be a first) and if he is fit to hold the office.

 

Congress will get them eventually, if they get stonewalled, illegally on this pass they are already working the New York angle and FBI, who have no reason whatsoever to like Trump are, along with Treasury (under which the Secret Service operates,) very experienced at dealing with tax dodgers.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eveln said:

According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the answer is a resounding no

 

2 hours ago, chrisg said:

Mnuchin is wrong

 

^

 

The language of the relevant legislation is not equivocal about this.  It is obvious that the people trying to get away with something shady are going to try to spin things in their favour, no matter who they are or what affiliation they hold, therefore you CANNOT just take their word about anything and must seek independent corroboration.  (Else, why bother with a trial for murder?  "Did you do it?"  "No."  "Oh.  Well, off you go then."  Surely you can see that does not work.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Cybes said:
3 hours ago, eveln said:

According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the answer is a resounding no

 

2 hours ago, chrisg said:

Mnuchin is wrong

 

^

 

The language of the relevant legislation is not equivocal about this.  It is obvious that the people trying to get away with something shady are going to try to spin things in their favour, no matter who they are or what affiliation they hold, therefore you CANNOT just take their word about anything and must seek independent corroboration.  (Else, why bother with a trial for murder?  "Did you do it?"  "No."  "Oh.  Well, off you go then."  Surely you can see that does not work.)

 

Hah! ... I've no idea whether Steven has anything to hide ... I just went looking for a response to  your post up above me there ... sorta curious language, when ultimately my link says the Congress can ask The President of the United States of America for his private tax info, but then says the outcome will be left to politics rather than the judiciary to come up with the goods ... meaning likely not happening any time soon ;)   ... now what I want to know is what has Richard Neal got to hide ? Or is he a bit like me and thinks his private shit is his to decide whether or not he shares, and not some other body ? Although these days, what is private ?

 

It also says that if the Congress does manage to get the President's ( of the United States of America ) info then they have to view the papers solely behind closed doors ... no public show and tell is allowed ... and well how safe an exercise is that I want to know ? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the law has to apply equally to all which does add to the confusion of the situation.

 

Closed door viewing of documents though is vague to say the least. If impropriety is being investigated, and the dialogue has stopped short of that thus far, then both the core judiciary, SS under Treasury, IRS and FBI all have highly trained and cleared investigators in that regard.

 

It raises a point: If any returns were fraudulent why is there not an IRS investigation ongoing, or is there ? Those are not carried on in public at all. The other alternatives are that IRS is backlogged and still a couple of years behind on complex returns, that does happen, or returns were rubber stamped but are deemed worth a revisit.

 

Tax law in the U.S. has a lot more teeth than it does here.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eveln said:

now what I want to know is what has Richard Neal got to hide ? Or is he a bit like me and thinks his private shit is his to decide whether or not he shares, and not some other body ?

 

I'm of the opinion that nobody in a position of authority has any right to financial privacy - at least not from oversight positions.  Whether that's IAD, the IRS, congress, or whatever, if your office is likely to be bribed, then any oversight body has to be able to see your records on demand.  No dicking about in court giving you time to shift you ill-gotten gains to a better hiding space - right fucking now will do just fine.

 

Yes, that's a bit heavy-handed, but I really don't see any alternative if you want to keep your authority figures accountable.  And if they don't aren't prepared to be transparent in that regard, then maybe they're in the wrong job.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, chrisg said:

 

It raises a point: If any returns were fraudulent why is there not an IRS investigation ongoing, or is there ?

   And this has been my queery from the start. so thankyou chrisg. Someone from the opposing camp ( so to speak ) voices my own question

18 minutes ago, Cybes said:

 

I'm of the opinion that nobody in a position of authority has any right to financial privacy - at least not from oversight positions.  Whether that's IAD, the IRS, congress, or whatever, if your office is likely to be bribed, then any oversight body has to be able to see your records on demand.  No dicking about in court giving you time to shift you ill-gotten gains to a better hiding space - right fucking now will do just fine.

 

Yes, that's a bit heavy-handed, but I really don't see any alternative if you want to keep your authority figures accountable.  And if they don't aren't prepared to be transparent in that regard, then maybe they're in the wrong job.

So um, why should The President show his private papers when the guy asking hasn't bothered to show his ?  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eveln said:

So um, why should The President show his private papers when the guy asking hasn't bothered to show his ?  😉

 

"Why should we clean up our act when nobody else in the world is?"  This is irrelevant.  The point is that it must be done, not whether or not someone else has done it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Cybes said:
2 hours ago, eveln said:

So um, why should The President show his private papers when the guy asking hasn't bothered to show his ?  😉

 

"Why should we clean up our act when nobody else in the world is?"  This is irrelevant.  The point is that it must be done, not whether or not someone else has done it.

 

Yeah, no. What you say is good in theory perhaps but does little to answer my question. Richard Neal decides what he can do but he expects the President of the United States to cowtow to his wishes ... nup I don't see that as fair, or correct behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eveln said:

nup I don't see that as fair, or correct behaviour.

 

Ok then.  Has anyone asked/demanded it of him?  If they have, has he refused point blank, like certain other people?

 

Were I an American, I'd have made such a demand myself, but I'm not so it's a moot point.  (I'm also a nobody, so... doubly so.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Cybes said:

 

Ok then.  Has anyone asked/demanded it of him?  If they have, has he refused point blank, like certain other people?

 

Were I an American, I'd have made such a demand myself, but I'm not so it's a moot point.  (I'm also a nobody, so... doubly so.)

Not sure, but I think " the Conversation"  made a comment about Neal being held  ... I  could have that wrong, I'm off to bed now but I will check tomorrow

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, eveln said:
8 hours ago, Cybes said:

Ok then.  Has anyone asked/demanded it of him?  If they have, has he refused point blank, like certain other people?

 

Were I an American, I'd have made such a demand myself, but I'm not so it's a moot point.  (I'm also a nobody, so... doubly so.)

Not sure, but I think " the Conversation"  made a comment about Neal being held  ... I  could have that wrong, I'm off to bed now but I will check tomorrow

 

Not found the bit I was after, but I did twice now try to copy / paste a piece from the Washington Examiner about Neal ... and twice a Mozilla about blank page pops up like repeatedly :|

So anyway I think Pres.Trump might have been guided by Neal's tactics in stalling on show and tell . Seems Neal is an old hand at it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no idea what you might be reading there but Neal actually came under fire last month for his committee - Ways and Means, not acting quickly enough on demanding the release of Trump's tax returns.

 

Ah, just found it - his political record is pretty lightweight really but nothing to suggest what you imply, just seems to be a guy who likes to get all his ducks in order which was the case in his committee not rushing to make demands of Trump.

 

That committee would be the one to actually issue a demand so I'd suggest he is just following the correct process.

 

American politics can seriously do your head in and not only from the outside 🙂

 

Cheers

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

I really do hope not :

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/global-leaders-find-they-can-push-donald-trump-around-2019-05-17?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

 

Unfortunately it is quite true and not in any way fake news, he does not have clue one in foreign relations, probably does not in domestic either but that is beside the point,  argue facts if you will this man is beyond dangerous he is becoming an international disaster that we may all end up being the losers because of.

 

Cheers (Not really, getting serious, not ridiculing a buffoon.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×