It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha
So there is literally nothing there, just like I said. They want to investigate to find out if there is anything that needs to be investigated. They need something to investigate, they can't go on fishing expeditions.
Kilbourn v. Thompson made that very clear.
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the question whether or not the United States House of Representatives may compel testimony.
Hallet Kilbourn was subpoenaed to testify before a Special Committee established by the House of Representatives to investigate the bankruptcy of Jay Cooke & Company. Though he appeared, he refused to answer any questions and did not tender requested documents. John G. Thompson, Sergeant-At-Arms for the House, took Kilbourn into custody. Kilbourn continued to refuse to testify and provided no explanation for his refusal. The House resolved that Kilbourn was in contempt and should be held in custody until he agreed to testify and produce the requested documents. The Court found that the House did not have the power to punish for contempt.
• (1) Inquiries must not "invade areas constitutionally reserved to the courts or the executive"
• (2) Inquiries must deal "with subjects on which Congress could validly legislate"
• (3) The resolution authorizing the investigation must specify " a congressional interest in legislating on that subject."
• (4) Where the inquiry can result in "no valid legislation," then the "Private affairs of individuals" are not valid targets for inquiry
The fifth amendment for starters.
Kilbourn says that an individual cannot be compelled to testify. The law says that the Committee has the legislative authority to obtain the tax records of anyone.
Kilbourn v. Thompson. The Supreme Court already ruled Congress can not delve into people's private financial matters unless they have proper legislative authority.
(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee onWays 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.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: toolgal462
The fifth amendment for starters.
Right. I don't see the IRS being held for a criminal violation. I see them being asked to comply with the law.
originally posted by: Slichter
a reply to: Phage
Trump has been operating with limited liability Corporate tactics for years, I think it would be very difficult to get a true picture of all his wheeling and dealing. DJT is not receiving a taxable salary for all the work he has done as POTUS, that might be a good place to start looking for clues as to his MO. Why?
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: toolgal462
Who is asking Trump to incriminate himself? Do you think his tax refunds will incriminate him?
the Fifth Amendment is to protect the individual from unjust accusations! It's not to protect the IRS....
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sookiechacha
I doubt that Trump gets tax refunds.
LOL Seriously? Do you honestly expect me to take you seriously here?
I have no idea if his tax refunds will incriminate him or not.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Phage
You are welcome to your opinion, but "shall furnish" has limits, and you are simplifying the case I showed you and not looking at all upon the limits the Supreme Court placed upon Congress, whom they have also ruled is NOT a law enforcement agency and can not use investigative powers to seek to expose crimes.
You might want to go back and look at the limits the Supreme Court placed on Congress in the case I cited, it's pretty extensive.