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.

 

Can Congress force Trump to hand over taxes ?

page: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Slichter

He doesn't need the money so it looks good for him to not take it. He actually does get the salary iirc, he just donates it after.




posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
It is so sad that an act of altruism is now considered suspect for the Left.

We truly are living in Orwellian times it seems.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   

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 is nothing like this! Kilbourn v. Thompson was about compelling testimony and the power to punish for "contempt".


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.


The court also established limits that the Ways and Means Committee doesn't violate.


• (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


en.wikipedia.org...

Chairman Reed covered his bases.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
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.

edit on 4/6/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Kilbourn v. Thompson. The Supreme Court already ruled Congress can not delve into people's private financial matters unless they have proper legislative authority.
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.


(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.


"Shall furnish."

www.law.cornell.edu...
edit on 4/6/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Oh it's pretty bad and you're right, it has been reduced down to Orange Man Bad.

This whole issue, really just boils down to weaponizing the IRS and their obvious BS fishing manuevers.

Just glad that we have a POTUS who won't sit idly by and let these obstructionist get away with this, like Bannon said in a recent interview in Italy, Trump is going on the offensive, after a good four years in office and getting that experience and handling of things, he'll be using every option available under the full weight possible as POTUS 😌



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   

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.


It's a wonder you are not sitting on the SC with your brilliant interpretation of the Constitution and BOR./sarcasm

the Fifth Amendment is to protect the individual from unjust accusations! It's not to protect the IRS....

geeeesh



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

Who is asking Trump to incriminate himself? Do you think his tax returns will incriminate him?
edit on 6-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   

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?



Why don't you make a name for yourself and investigate this! You do realize that this is what the PRESS and investigative journalists are supposed to do, right???

That is why, once again I will defer to the Constitution and BOR, specifically the First Amendment.

If you really believe there is something to investigate here that is worthy, it is your responsibility as a citizen journalist to start that investigation. And good luck turning up the evidence to prove that there is something "criminal" going on here. But when you DO, then you will likely get your investigation.

Does that make any sense at all to you?



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: toolgal462

Who is asking Trump to incriminate himself? Do you think his tax refunds will incriminate him?


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. However, I tend to lean towards the opinion that they would NOT or else the IRS would already have found anything in them that was NOT LEGAL.

You do realize that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, right? And that goes for the President as well as the rest of us. And you do realize that it is the job of the IRS to scrutinize tax returns and in the event that the Law was not followed then they do take action?

You do realize that the Constitution protects the INDIVIDUAL from unjust accusations, right?



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462




the Fifth Amendment is to protect the individual from unjust accusations! It's not to protect the IRS....

Right. And the Committee exercising its legal authority to obtain tax records from the IRS.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I doubt that Trump gets tax refunds.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I doubt that Trump gets tax refunds.


Ooops. A typo, sorta. Fixed it so now it reads tax returns instead of tax refunds.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

I wouldn't waste keystrokes on some here. The only intention is to get a rise out of you with no facts behind what they post. One other thing you may have already noticed, does it ever seem like some members are all in the same? Yep...that makes it seem like more than one member has the same strange opinion.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

four years in office???

isn't it a shame he didn't go on the offensive when he had the house and the senate for the two years?

but, now he is?

ya, sure.

you say offense I say desperation. lol



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462





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.


Then why invoke the 5th Amendment? ...Besides the fact that the Ways and Means Committee isn't asking Trump anything, they're asking the IRS for what Trump has already filed and signed off on.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

lol then release them and stop the speculation dead in it's tracks! lolol it's that easy.. audit my ass.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: CADpro

It's like talking to my mom actually. And I'm pretty sure she isn't on ATS.

Problem is that so many of our voters do think like this. They do not understand how our Constitution was written to protect us all - even idiots who would flush their rights down the toilet just because "Orange man bad".

It's a deep rooted ignorance that has been designed by the Commie infiltrated Left upon the easily brainwashed masses.

I was likely one of them in my twenties. I don't exactly remember, but I did vote for Bill Clinton twice so I suspect I was also manipulated by my Commie college professors.

A few years of life in the real world where I have to go to work every day in a dog eat dog unjust corporate climate wakes one up to reality PDF.

Anyway you are right I am wasting my time.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 06:02 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 06:05 PM
link   

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.


You don't expect the Left to be able to understand words as they are used in a sentence, let alone as they are used in the Constitution or in the Law, do you?

hahahahhahah, good luck with that







 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join