News Mnuchin Rejects Subpoena -- Will he face consequences?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
The law is clear and the oversight position of Congress and this law is established already. Their bounds have been long established but Trump doesn't care about himself being the President without bounds. BTW, Congress does not have to "create law" to do this as "legislative intent" is a red herring. As a result of any hearing or oversight function there is the potential that legislation may occur but that it does isn't required. No legislation needs to be on the table and again courts get it.

As Mnuchin doesn't understand what yes or no mean or understand "did you ask the IRS to not comply", there is demonstrated ill intent to comply with law that has been determined to be lawful and Constitutional in the past, so arrest him on contempt and the system will function exactly as it should, well better at least.

So far no one has even attempted to explain a coherent legal or governance theory where Congress is authorized by the Constitution to remove the president if he is committing crimes but is barred by the Constitution from compiling evidence as to if he is committing crimes.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
contemplate legislation

Absolutely. Any activity that Congress pursues, and oversight is a court recognized function, may result in potential legislation or changes in the law. I find it hard that people who claim to be Conservatives or support the Constitution as the basis for our governmental foundation and the rule of law cling to what they should know as wrong.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Absolutely. Any activity that Congress pursues, and oversight is a court recognized function, may result in potential legislation or changes in the law. I find it hard that people who claim to be Conservatives or support the Constitution as the basis for our governmental foundation and the rule of law cling to what they should know as wrong.

I think it's funny/sad that out of political convenience people who claimed to be fearful of tyrannical government are saying that the president can't be investigated for criminal activity by the only people with the power to punish him for that activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sunburn74

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I think it's funny/sad that out of political convenience people who claimed to be fearful of tyrannical government are saying that the president can't be investigated for criminal activity by the only people with the power to punish him for that activity.

It's true that partisan abuse happens in Congress for purposes of oversight however that's an easy thing to determine. In the case Uranium One or Benghazi there was no factual basis of substance, yet trying to get Hillary is an ongoing sport for Republicans and as you know I don't like Hillary but I don't embrace "secret muslim Kenyan" conspiracies, which those I listed were. How many years have been spent on that nonsense?

But with Trump, he made public statements and his campaign known to commit violations of law. What we were able to see was wildly overt and warranted a closer look. In the end we did find criminals and the deeper down the rabbit hole we went the worse it became. Now with Trump's support, his administration has violated their oaths of office and give the rule of law a finger in ways unprecedented in US history. But we weren't supposed to know any of this because... Dems?

To say this is dishonest and weak of those people is a fantastic understatement. If Hillary or Obama or George Friggin Washington has done this they should have their heads on the metaphorical pikestaff, but Trump? Heavens forbid!
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
Since states are pursuing laws which would mandate release of taxes for Presidential candidates, this has obvious direct purpose for the making of laws. Seeing Trump's taxes is very important to judge whether such a law is appropriate as he is the only President who hasn't voluntarily released them.

Not that this direct purpose is necessary. Oversight of the executive is a very well established implied power of Congress through case law. It's pretty clear that if the Constitution gives them the responsibility to impeach and remove for improper acts, it would be ridiculous to deprive them of the ability to discover these acts, particularly when there is abundant evidence that crimes may be revealed in them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,619
4,674
136
Do you like that the system is functioning in this fashion? Why or why not?


That is how the system is designed to work as everybody has a right to sue and defend themselves in a court of law.

I think it works just fine, as it has for many many years...................
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,619
4,674
136
I'll take a stab at that one, the system is functioning exactly as it should.
Congress is clearly searching for something to hang Trump with, and they think they will find that something in his tax returns. They aren't seeking information to aid them in creating law, they're fishing. The courts will determine if that action falls within their purview. That's how the system works, how it was designed to work.
The anti trump folks want congress to take out Trump and don't mind if they're overstepping their bounds to do it, but they forget that someday the republicans will control congress again and posses that same power.


Well said!
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,619
4,674
136
Well then it's time for Nancy to start arresting while this moves through the courts. I'm sure that if I broke the law I'd not be subject to any penalty just like Mnuchin and others until the SCOTUS or an appeals court decides on the meaning of "shall" means.

OK, But she don't have the political "balls" for it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
OK, But she don't have the political "balls" for it.

That remains to be seen. I understand some things will be available shorly such as Trump's financials and more information on the Mueller report but if she doesn't approve an impeachment proceeding after all that then I don't want to hear from any apologists about just wanting to tear down Dems or supporting Trump or the gishes galoping. At some point she either stands with us or for Trump and that's it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I'll take a stab at that one, the system is functioning exactly as it should.
Congress is clearly searching for something to hang Trump with, and they think they will find that something in his tax returns. They aren't seeking information to aid them in creating law, they're fishing. The courts will determine if that action falls within their purview. That's how the system works, how it was designed to work.
The anti trump folks want congress to take out Trump and don't mind if they're overstepping their bounds to do it, but they forget that someday the republicans will control congress again and posses that same power.

So what? Democrats won't vote for a presidential candidate who doesn't reveal their tax situation so it's a moot point.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,261
5,709
146
people: gravity works. You can pretty much see it.
pcgeek: I disagree.

The thing that gets me though is how there's ample things for them to actually levy their issues over, but its like they're magnetically polarized to it so they do the total opposite and focus on the dumbest aspects that often make absolutely no sense under their general overriding complaints.

Hell even if their intent is to just muck things up, they can't even manage that in a non-profoundly stupid manner. Take your gravity analogy, they could push for the many ways we don't understand gravity and how little we actually know. Instead its more like they focus on the things we do understand then try to question that. In, the, absolute, dumbest, manner, possible. Every, single, time.

"The Earth is flat!" *Sends rocket up with camera to prove it* "The pictures aren't true! Lens distortion! Its a conspiracy of Deep State Nazi lizard aliens Obama Kenyan Bigfoot Uranium One Benghazi Pizza Quinoanon!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The thing that gets me though is how there's ample things for them to actually levy their issues over, but its like they're magnetically polarized to it so they do the total opposite and focus on the dumbest aspects that often make absolutely no sense under their general overriding complaints.

Hell even if their intent is to just muck things up, they can't even manage that in a non-profoundly stupid manner. Take your gravity analogy, they could push for the many ways we don't understand gravity and how little we actually know. Instead its more like they focus on the things we do understand then try to question that. In, the, absolute, dumbest, manner, possible. Every, single, time.

"The Earth is flat!" *Sends rocket up with camera to prove it* "The pictures aren't true! Lens distortion! Its a conspiracy of Deep State Nazi lizard aliens Obama Kenyan Bigfoot Uranium One Benghazi Pizza Quinoanon!"

When people can't rely on evidence & reason they'll base their decisions on emotion. Which is precisely what right wing propagandists like Trump exploit in spreading incredible volumes of FUD. Truth isn't truth. There is no truth but rather alternative facts. So people go with their gut, their instincts, their lizard brains. At that level of thought, the principles that hold democracy together don't exist. It's the whole point of Trumpism.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,920
5,543
136
So what? Democrats won't vote for a presidential candidate who doesn't reveal their tax situation so it's a moot point.
Well there you go, Trump is done in a year and a half even if congress does nothing.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Well there you go, Trump is done in a year and a half even if congress does nothing.

That's not the point. You were going on that this could backfire on Dems in the future when it obviously won't. Dem presidential nominees reveal their taxes as a matter of course, of establishing their bona fides to be President. I realize things like that didn't matter to Trump voters. They knew he was a liar, a cheat, a thief & a con man when they voted for him & don't seem to have a problem with it at all. At least they mostly quit going on about their supposedly superior values.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,920
5,543
136
That's not the point. You were going on that this could backfire on Dems in the future when it obviously won't. Dem presidential nominees reveal their taxes as a matter of course, of establishing their bona fides to be President. I realize things like that didn't matter to Trump voters. They knew he was a liar, a cheat, a thief & a con man when they voted for him & don't seem to have a problem with it at all. At least they mostly quit going on about their supposedly superior values.
I see. Sorry about misunderstanding you, I thought we had shifted gears.
Yes you are correct, I do have an issue with the way congress is attempting to use the IRS. That may be unfounded, but I would like the courts to make that decision. Congress is clearly fishing for something to hang on Trump, and the information will almost certainly be leaked. They have some time before starting impeachment proceedings, so why not do it right? I think Augest is when the process will shift into high gear, it gives them the opportunity to flay Trump before the election and inflict damage even if they don't get the Senate to convict.
Personally, I don't think they'll find anything directly incriminating because his taxes will have been done by a CPA firm. Those folks generally try to avoid things that will send them to prison. Though it's possible he found a CPA that's as crooked as Cohen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
I see. Sorry about misunderstanding you, I thought we had shifted gears.
Yes you are correct, I do have an issue with the way congress is attempting to use the IRS. That may be unfounded, but I would like the courts to make that decision. Congress is clearly fishing for something to hang on Trump, and the information will almost certainly be leaked. They have some time before starting impeachment proceedings, so why not do it right? I think Augest is when the process will shift into high gear, it gives them the opportunity to flay Trump before the election and inflict damage even if they don't get the Senate to convict.
Personally, I don't think they'll find anything directly incriminating because his taxes will have been done by a CPA firm. Those folks generally try to avoid things that will send them to prison. Though it's possible he found a CPA that's as crooked as Cohen.

Still extremely confused by this. Democrats have credible evidence from multiple independent sources that Trump has engaged in financial crimes both in and out of office and lied to the public about it.

Apparently you believe that gathering his financial information is inappropriate. What should they do instead? Nothing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Personally, I don't think they'll find anything directly incriminating because his taxes will have been done by a CPA firm. Those folks generally try to avoid things that will send them to prison. Though it's possible he found a CPA that's as crooked as Cohen.

No one expects there to be a line item on his Schedule A entitled 'Fraud' or 'Bribe'.
Instead what we expect is that the information on the forms will fill in some gaps in our understanding of who he does business with, who he owes money to, and who owes money to him. From there we will have to trace back the lines and see who they do business with and who they owe, and who owes them. Getting his tax returns is but the first step of this process. Once we have that we will have to subpoena many other company and other individuals returns to follow the trail. This is how forensic accounting works. It is that proverbial 'paper trail' that leads to the crime.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
No one expects there to be a line item on his Schedule A entitled 'Fraud' or 'Bribe'.
Instead what we expect is that the information on the forms will fill in some gaps in our understanding of who he does business with, who he owes money to, and who owes money to him. From there we will have to trace back the lines and see who they do business with and who they owe, and who owes them. Getting his tax returns is but the first step of this process. Once we have that we will have to subpoena many other company and other individuals returns to follow the trail. This is how forensic accounting works. It is that proverbial 'paper trail' that leads to the crime.

He keeps mindlessly repeating the same things and I have no idea why other than that he doesn't want to confront reality here.

1) It's not a fishing expedition as there's already tons of evidence of criminal activity. This is called 'not being blind to reality'.

2) The idea that Trump's tax returns wouldn't show evidence of criminal activity so it's pointless to look at them is disproved by the fact that the New York Times looked at his dad's tax returns that... you guessed it... showed evidence of criminal activity. Criminal activity that Donald Trump was involved in, no less!
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,920
5,543
136
Still extremely confused by this. Democrats have credible evidence from multiple independent sources that Trump has engaged in financial crimes both in and out of office and lied to the public about it.

Apparently you believe that gathering his financial information is inappropriate. What should they do instead? Nothing?
Not at all. What I believe is that it be done properly. Why does congress need to hide behind a rarely if ever used law to see Trumps taxes? We all know they don't want them to help them gain knowledge to make law. A few of them seem to think there will be 1099's from Putin and a list of crimes with the net profit of each listed.
The fellow who runs the IRS doesn't believe that Congress has a right to the information just because they want to see it, now the courts get to decide if he's right or wrong. The issue will be settled and the power of congress further clarified. That's a good thing, and should only take a few weeks. I don't mind waiting.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Not at all. What I believe is that it be done properly. Why does congress need to hide behind a rarely if ever used law to see Trumps taxes? We all know they don't want them to help them gain knowledge to make law.

Congress's powers to investigate executive branch misconduct are well established and this is basically a bulls-eye in the center of them. There's simply no rational argument otherwise and we all know it.

1) The idea that Congress has no interest in making laws related to this is an absolute absurdity. If it turns out that Trump has engaged in widespread financial misconduct Congress would CERTAINLY want to strengthen disclosure and corruption laws for the executive branch and presidential candidates. I mean who could possibly deny that?

2) Congress has power independent of making laws to investigate the executive branch.

A few of them seem to think there will be 1099's from Putin and a list of crimes with the net profit of each listed.

I doubt any of them think that. Regardless, examination of tax returns Trump was associated with has already returned considerable evidence of criminal activity. Since looking at tax returns related to Trump has literally already done that in the past how could anyone possibly rationally conclude that such a result was not plausible now?

Like, we've already seen the thing you claim won't happen... happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

The fellow who runs the IRS doesn't believe that Congress has a right to the information just because they want to see it, now the courts get to decide if he's right or wrong. The issue will be settled and the power of congress further clarified. That's a good thing, and should only take a few weeks. I don't mind waiting.

The fellow who runs the IRS is engaged in frivolous and bad faith legal arguments in order to delay release of information to Congress. The fact that they are frivolous is why the judges have dispensed with them so quickly.

You may think it's a good thing for executive branch officials to litigate in bad faith to prevent Congress from investigating criminal activity by the president but I don't. I think it's corrupt and corrosive to good government. You should be calling your representatives for the impeachment of Mnuchin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,920
5,543
136
No one expects there to be a line item on his Schedule A entitled 'Fraud' or 'Bribe'.
Instead what we expect is that the information on the forms will fill in some gaps in our understanding of who he does business with, who he owes money to, and who owes money to him. From there we will have to trace back the lines and see who they do business with and who they owe, and who owes them. Getting his tax returns is but the first step of this process. Once we have that we will have to subpoena many other company and other individuals returns to follow the trail. This is how forensic accounting works. It is that proverbial 'paper trail' that leads to the crime.
I understand exactly how it works, and those things are generally investigated by the FBI.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
I understand exactly how it works, and those things are generally investigated by the FBI.

So to be clear you think these offenses should be investigated by an organization that has publicly stated has no authority to prosecute them, and one that is currently actively withholding information from prior investigations from Congress because they are run by political appointees of the person being investigated? Does that sound like a very good idea? Does that even sound remotely constitutional that somehow the executive could take away Congress' powers to investigate?

How are conservatives squaring this? (other than by simply saying 'I don't want Trump to be investigated under any circumstances')

1) The president can't be indicted by executive branch agencies- it's up to Congress to impeach him.
2) Congress cannot investigate if the president has committed crimes, that's up to executive branch agencies.

You can't have it both ways. Either law enforcement has to be entirely separate from the president and able to indict him or Congress has any and all powers it needs to investigate the president for conduct worthy of impeachment. You have to pick one.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Why does congress need to hide behind a rarely if ever used law to see Trumps taxes?

Because, unlike any other President in the last 45 years Trump did not disclose his tax returns willingly. This law was created because of what happened 98 years ago in the Teapot scandal and was created for exactly this sort of situation. this is literally what the law was created for.

And BTW this law is not all that obscure, Republicans used it just a few years ago to get the tax returns while investigating if the IRS was discriminating against conservative organizations. It was not controversial then, why is it now?

We all know they don't want them to help them gain knowledge to make law.
And they don't need to. Legislative purpose does not mean 'to make a law' it means 'a valid purpose of the legislature' and oversight of the President is a valid purpose of the legislature. This was decided by the SCOTUS already.

The fellow who runs the IRS doesn't believe that Congress has a right to the information just because they want to see it, now the courts get to decide if he's right or wrong.

There is literally no legal argument to believe that. SCOTUS came up with the term legislative purpose in a similar case, and decided that Congress can do this. This has already be adjudicated, there is precedence.

And BTW, we can expect to find direct illegal activity on Tax Returns. That is what happened to Nixon, causing him to utter the now infamous words 'I am not a crook'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie