News Mnuchin Rejects Subpoena -- Will he face consequences?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,007
8,529
136
The RNC did pay McGahn's law firm, Jones Day, 2 million dollars last month for "LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE SERVICES". So, that might have something to do with where his loyalties lie.

Trump will assert that whatever the House wants from McGahn falls under the rubric of executive privilege/classified material. I could see Barr threatening jail for anyone who testifies about anything discussed in the White House. Obviously it would be nonsense, but nonsense can no longer be ignored as an empty threat.

The Republican party is wedded to corruption, and the sponsors and benefactors of the party, who use the party to impose a growing oligarchy, will severely punish those who try to break away from their gang
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
What is the alternative?

Continue to run investigations that can't go anywhere because Trump won't cooperate and tell his people to ignore subpoena's, and nobody will make him?

There actually is a alternative. Use the inherent powers of Contempt of Congress and arrest and jail anyone that refuses to obey a subpoena. Then let them sit in a jail cell until they cooperate or a court decrees otherwise. The current legal precedent is that you can not get out by writ of habeas corpus, so they would just be stuck there until the entire case was finished, which could literally take years. How many people are going to decide that obeying Trump is worth potentially 10 years in prison? (That is how long it has taken so far to determine the contempt case against Holder)

It is a drastic measure that pushes the limits of what the law was intended for, but you have to fight fire with fire. Get creative and use the powers of the HoR to fight back. If Trump is going to abuse the power of the Presidency to get around Congress then Congress needs to use their powers to show him what is meant by Co-Equal branch.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
This was on TRMS last night. As quickly a humanly possible, after the Dems won the house. Trump with Mitch's concurrence got their fixer in as IRS counsel. I don't have the details since it's all video, but the guy was working on Trump's real estate projects. He has conflicts of interests a mile long. I'm sure that internal IRS memo with the opinion that the IRS can't block congress from getting the tax return was written before this slimeball took over the counsel position and it magically never surfaced. Drain the swamp my F'n ass!
EDIT: Mnuchin actually testified today that he's never talked to the White House about this issue. Ha, ha , ha, excessive ha, has'.
 
Last edited:

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
This was on TRMS last night. As quickly a humanly possible, after the Dems won the house. Trump with Mitch's concurrence got their fixer in as IRS counsel. I don't have the details since it's all video, but the guy was working on Trump's real estate projects. He has conflicts of interests a mile long. I'm sure that internal IRS memo with the opinion that the IRS can't block congress from getting the tax return was written before this slimeball took over the counsel position and it magically never surfaced. Drain the swamp my F'n ass!
EDIT: Mnuchin actually testified today that he's never talked to the White House about this issue. Ha, ha , ha, excessive ha, has'.
Saw that as well, he was fast-tracked to his nomination, Trump pushed his faster than Barr into service. He owns apartments in a Trump development in Hawaii and rents them out.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
This was on TRMS last night. As quickly a humanly possible, after the Dems won the house. Trump with Mitch's concurrence got their fixer in as IRS counsel. I don't have the details since it's all video, but the guy was working on Trump's real estate projects. He has conflicts of interests a mile long. I'm sure that internal IRS memo with the opinion that the IRS can't block congress from getting the tax return was written before this slimeball took over the counsel position and it magically never surfaced. Drain the swamp my F'n ass!
EDIT: Mnuchin actually testified today that he's never talked to the White House about this issue. Ha, ha , ha, excessive ha, has'.

That's not really accurate-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...e-briefly-advised-trump-organization-on-taxes

Desmond wasn't nominated until July of 2018, 18 months after Trump's inauguration. Lawyers from his firm worked for Trump & he claims to have done so himself only briefly. I did learn something interesting about Trump's taxes, however-

The IRS automatically audits every president’s taxes, but its review of the billionaire developer’s finances is likely more than a formality. In March 2016, his lawyers disclosed that the agency had audited his company every year since 2002, and that audits from 2009 onward were still unresolved. Trump has cited those ongoing audits as the reason he won’t make his returns public.

Ordinary taxpayers don't get to have unresolved audits from 10 years ago. The IRS will just have their way with you long before that, garnish your wages, seize your accounts & confiscate your property if necessary. They'll toss your dumb ass in prison if you've really fucked with them. It's different when you're a billionaire who can send out a platoon of tax attorneys.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
That's not really accurate-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...e-briefly-advised-trump-organization-on-taxes

Desmond wasn't nominated until July of 2018, 18 months after Trump's inauguration. Lawyers from his firm worked for Trump & he claims to have done so himself only briefly. I did learn something interesting about Trump's taxes, however-



Ordinary taxpayers don't get to have unresolved audits from 10 years ago. The IRS will just have their way with you long before that, garnish your wages, seize your accounts & confiscate your property if necessary. They'll toss your dumb ass in prison if you've really fucked with them. It's different when you're a billionaire who can send out a platoon of tax attorneys.
That's not really accurate-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...e-briefly-advised-trump-organization-on-taxes

Desmond wasn't nominated until July of 2018, 18 months after Trump's inauguration. Lawyers from his firm worked for Trump & he claims to have done so himself only briefly. I did learn something interesting about Trump's taxes, however-



Ordinary taxpayers don't get to have unresolved audits from 10 years ago. The IRS will just have their way with you long before that, garnish your wages, seize your accounts & confiscate your property if necessary. They'll toss your dumb ass in prison if you've really fucked with them. It's different when you're a billionaire who can send out a platoon of tax attorneys.
That's not really accurate-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...e-briefly-advised-trump-organization-on-taxes

Desmond wasn't nominated until July of 2018, 18 months after Trump's inauguration. Lawyers from his firm worked for Trump & he claims to have done so himself only briefly. I did learn something interesting about Trump's taxes, however-



Ordinary taxpayers don't get to have unresolved audits from 10 years ago. The IRS will just have their way with you long before that, garnish your wages, seize your accounts & confiscate your property if necessary. They'll toss your dumb ass in prison if you've really fucked with them. It's different when you're a billionaire who can send out a platoon of tax attorneys.
That's not really accurate-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...e-briefly-advised-trump-organization-on-taxes

Desmond wasn't nominated until July of 2018, 18 months after Trump's inauguration. Lawyers from his firm worked for Trump & he claims to have done so himself only briefly. I did learn something interesting about Trump's taxes, however-



Ordinary taxpayers don't get to have unresolved audits from 10 years ago. The IRS will just have their way with you long before that, garnish your wages, seize your accounts & confiscate your property if necessary. They'll toss your dumb ass in prison if you've really fucked with them. It's different when you're a billionaire who can send out a platoon of tax attorneys.
Thanks to the gutting of the IRS audit budget by the GOP, the IRS has become toothless against the multibillionaires. I posted a long and depressing article about this. They just don't have the resources or tools. Thanks GOP for getting the evil IRS off our backs. Of course none of us "collect a paycheck and have one mortgage people" have probably ever been abused by the IRS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,619
4,674
136
When the other branch has a legal argument against the request. I don't wanna is not a legal argument. It is abusive to refuse on no basis and obstruct the legitimate duty of Congress just because you can.


They can and have that is exactly where this is going, Court.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Thanks to the gutting of the IRS audit budget by the GOP, the IRS has become toothless against the multibillionaires. I posted a long and depressing article about this. They just don't have the resources or tools. Thanks GOP for getting the evil IRS off our backs. Of course none of us "collect a paycheck and have one mortgage people" have probably ever been abused by the IRS.

For right wing billionaires, buying the GOP is cheaper than taxes. And they get a bonus tax cut for winning so bigly with money borrowed from themselves.

So keep waiting for the trickle down, chumps, and bow down to the Gods of Capitalist greed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,619
4,674
136
Law very clearly states that "the other branch disagreeing" has no merit concerning the broad powers granted to Congress concerning this matter, and so the courts do not need to be involved. This is just a stalling tactic from Trump.

That is not opinion. It is written law.

I disagree.

Well I'll bet it ends up in court. What do you think?
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,619
4,674
136
The IRS itself has determined that Mnuchin’s actions are illegal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...d41834-7b1c-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html


From the article:

The IRS said the memo, titled “Congressional Access to Returns and Return Information,” was a draft document written by a lawyer in the Office of Chief Counsel and did not represent the agency’s “official position.” The memo is stamped “DRAFT,” it is not signed, and it does not reference Trump.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
From the article:

The IRS said the memo, titled “Congressional Access to Returns and Return Information,” was a draft document written by a lawyer in the Office of Chief Counsel and did not represent the agency’s “official position.” The memo is stamped “DRAFT,” it is not signed, and it does not reference Trump.

Trump does not need to be named and the memo is accurate and naturally not the position of the agency which is to commit obstruction of Congress by failing to follow the law. If Mnuchin holds himself superior to Congress then that isn't anything like a valid position. It will go to court but remember that Congress has the express right to hold him in contempt and arrest him for holding for up to a year. Congress could also take this court but make no mistake, on its own authority Congress can put Mnuchin in jail. As things stand I don't believe that Mnuchin would recognize the authority of the Judicial Branch either.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
From the article:

The IRS said the memo, titled “Congressional Access to Returns and Return Information,” was a draft document written by a lawyer in the Office of Chief Counsel and did not represent the agency’s “official position.” The memo is stamped “DRAFT,” it is not signed, and it does not reference Trump.

Great, so you agree that’s what they determined.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,426
136
So that's the best strategy that the Trump team can come up with? To hunker down, obstruct everything just like McConnell swore he'd do when Obama got elected all while castigating the Dems for doing their jobs when he says they shouldn't?

That filling the airwaves and print media about how evil and hypocritical the Dems are for following up on the Mueller Report of which Mueller expressly intended them to do so?

That's it? So the Repubs aren't going to provide proof of Trump's innocence and those of his associates that are already in jail, indicted or have turned state's witness?

That he's innocent until proven guilty, so the plan is to obstruct every avenue of investigation to make sure "he's innocent because he wasn't proven guilty" only because the Repubs managed to somehow run out the statutes of limitations by stalling and blocking the House's sworn due diligence to be a check on the executive?

Talk about looking like the kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar pleading his case that it isn't at all what it looks like and that an explanation will be forthcoming the very day the whole incident is long forgotten about.

Some plan they got there. But then again, guilt has nothing to do with the whole sick pathetic affair with how the Repubs are covering for Trump's malfeasance. The Repubs have lost that emotion along with every other moral and ethical principle they swear they still use to guide their actions while in office.

Just ask any, and I mean ANY of them who are campaigning for election/reelection and watch how straight faced they are when they claim the moral high ground.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
So that's the best strategy that the Trump team can come up with? To hunker down, obstruct everything just like McConnell swore he'd do when Obama got elected all while castigating the Dems for doing their jobs when he says they shouldn't?

That filling the airwaves and print media about how evil and hypocritical the Dems are for following up on the Mueller Report of which Mueller expressly intended them to do so?

That's it? So the Repubs aren't going to provide proof of Trump's innocence and those of his associates that are already in jail, indicted or have turned state's witness?

That he's innocent until proven guilty, so the plan is to obstruct every avenue of investigation to make sure "he's innocent because he wasn't proven guilty" only because the Repubs managed to somehow run out the statutes of limitations by stalling and blocking the House's sworn due diligence to be a check on the executive?

Talk about looking like the kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar pleading his case that it isn't at all what it looks like and that an explanation will be forthcoming the very day the whole incident is long forgotten about.

Some plan they got there. But then again, guilt has nothing to do with the whole sick pathetic affair with how the Repubs are covering for Trump's malfeasance. The Repubs have lost that emotion along with every other moral and ethical principle they swear they still use to guide their actions while in office.

Just ask any, and I mean ANY of them who are campaigning for election/reelection and watch how straight faced they are when they claim the moral high ground.

Reading what judges have said about Trump's attempts to block Deutsche Bank along with Mazar, obstructing isn't going to be a useful tactic for very long. It is possible that Trump defies Congress and the Judiciary, but the Reps in the Senate, even Mitch, don't want to screw with the SCOTUS and back Trump over them. They can make Mitch wish he was never born. Never screw with a judge, especially the entire Supreme Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trenchfoot

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,426
136
Reading what judges have said about Trump's attempts to block Deutsche Bank along with Mazar, obstructing isn't going to be a useful tactic for very long. It is possible that Trump defies Congress and the Judiciary, but the Reps in the Senate, even Mitch, don't want to screw with the SCOTUS and back Trump over them. They can make Mitch wish he was never born. Never screw with a judge, especially the entire Supreme Court.

I do hope though that the conservative SC judges will refrain from practicing the partisan hackery that Trump damn near insist they resort to in order to save his ass from further due course.

edit - spl
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,619
4,674
136
Great, so you agree that’s what they determined.

I agree that this memo is not the IRS's official stand on the matter as they stated in the article.

I will say that "They" didn't determine anything. The memo was written by "a lawyer" in the Office of Chief Counsel.
 
Last edited:

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,619
4,674
136
I hope down-voting me somehow alleviated your shame, dumbnuts.


I didn't down vote you. I only disagreed with your post. I have nothing to be ashamed of except maybe responding to your asinine post.

Hey look I did it again. LOL
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
I agree that this memo is not the IRS's official stand on the matter as they stated in the article.

I will say that "They" didn't determine anything. The memo was written by "a lawyer" in the Office of Chief Counsel.

Right, the people the IRS pays to determine that stuff said they had to turn it over. Now they might take a different position for political reasons but now we know what the actual, non-political determination was.

It is interesting to see the level of political corruption of federal agencies taking place to cover up Trump’s corruption though, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I do hope though that the conservative SC judges will refrain from practicing the partisan hackery that Trump damn near insist they resort to in order to save his ass from further due course.

edit - spl

Kavanaugh may knife us in the back along with Thomas, but Gorsuch is conservative and likely doesn't like the shredding of the Constitution we've seen. Of course we can't know but as a group I can't see the SCOTUS being in Trump's pocket
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
They can and have that is exactly where this is going, Court.

This ending up in court has nothing to do with whether or not they gave a valid legal argument. The court is the remedy for their refusal, period. That they have no valid legal argument makes it a certainly that they will lose. Unfortunately, the remedy for their abuse of power to force it to court on corrupt grounds rests with Congress in the form of impeachment and contempt citations. A partisan legislature cannot root out corruption, and this is a huge problem.

If you think they do have a valid legal argument, state it and we can discuss it. That they are going to court is no evidence of this.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
I noticed that Mnuchin wouldn't answer the yes/no question as to whether he asked/directed the IRS Secretary to deny the House Trump's tax returns. Just like Barr's non yes/no answer in the House.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
I disagree.

Well I'll bet it ends up in court. What do you think?

I think that the courts are going to pretty much dismiss their case out of hand as the Executive branch has no legal argument on why they should win, as has now been said by two separate courts. I doubt a 3rd court will want to hear the same non-legal argument.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,619
4,674
136
Right, the people the IRS pays to determine that stuff said they had to turn it over. Now they might take a different position for political reasons but now we know what the actual, non-political determination was.

It is interesting to see the level of political corruption of federal agencies taking place to cover up Trump’s corruption though, no?


It was a draft memo written by one lawyer and doesn't officially mean anything as per their official statement.

I know you will never concede that you are wrong and that's OK. It doesn't matter what You think anyway.