News Mnuchin Rejects Subpoena -- Will he face consequences?

[Hayabusa Rider]

A fine or jail time, same as in every other contempt case. In this particular matter, Mnuchin might actually have a leg to stand on, that's why it needs to go to court. This is a congressional fishing expedition, everyone involved knows they won't find 1099's from Putin, what they're looking for is something to use politically. Since most people have no concept of how tax law works, it's vary easy to make perfectly legal deductions appear sinister. The last bit that was released was a perfect example. It showed tremendous losses, and I only heard one single commentator explain how it was possible to have huge paper losses and still make a profit.

While the idea that there is income from criminal activity listed on Trumps 1040 is absurd, he should release the information because he said he would. That statement makes the entire issue Trumps creation, and it's the only compelling reason to demand they be released.

There is sufficient grounds for investigation right here. Read the entire thread and note how Trump says it's all lies. That needs oversight and discovery and taxes would provide details for determination.

 

[fskimospy]

A fine or jail time, same as in every other contempt case. In this particular matter, Mnuchin might actually have a leg to stand on, that's why it needs to go to court.

He has no leg to stand on and he will be laughed out of court. Honestly in the same vein to the other court case going on about defying congressional subpoenas the legal theories being presented are ridiculous enough it's hard to imagine an attorney could be making them in good faith.

I mean imagine the fundamental insanity of your argument - you're saying that Congress has no legitimate purpose in attempting to figure out if someone is bribing the president.

This is a congressional fishing expedition, everyone involved knows they won't find 1099's from Putin, what they're looking for is something to use politically. Since most people have no concept of how tax law works, it's vary easy to make perfectly legal deductions appear sinister. The last bit that was released was a perfect example. It showed tremendous losses, and I only heard one single commentator explain how it was possible to have huge paper losses and still make a profit.

I don't know why you keep saying this because it's absolutely ridiculous bullshit.

1) Analysis of the tax returns of Trump's father show it is highly likely that Trump engaged in tax fraud earlier in his life.

2) You have sworn testimony before Congress that Trump was engaging in financial crime quite recently.

3) You have news stories about Trump attempting to commit bank fraud with Deutsche Bank.

It would be absolutely, jaw-droppingly insane for Congress NOT to demand to analyze Trump's tax returns with that in mind. I mean those are a LOT of crimes, no?? This not only isn't a fishing expedition, this is a blatant, flashing red light of danger to the country that the president's financial dealings must be immediately investigated for conflicts of interest, blackmail, or other things like that.

This. Is. A. National. Emergency.

While the idea that there is income from criminal activity listed on Trumps 1040 is absurd, he should release the information because he said he would. That statement makes the entire issue Trumps creation, and it's the only compelling reason to demand they be released.

I also don't know why you keep saying this, as it's comically wrong. The Democrats are asking for the entirety of Trump's tax returns, not the summary forms. The associated schedules attached to his tax returns would give them an enormous amount of information about who is paying Trump, how much they are paying him, what assets he has, etc. You look at his schedule B, where he's holding investments that are paying him interest or dividends, then you subpoena those organizations to find out what they are. You look at his schedule D to see what real estate holdings he sold and to who. Then you go find out who that person is, etc, etc.

What, did you think they were asking for his W-2 or something? haha.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are jumping way ahead to "criminal activity." I think the American people have a right to know exactly who is paying their politicians and how much. Do you disagree?

I agree but with qualifications and the reason is that there is no federal law requiring such disclosure but the law which exists is very limited in scope and created for the circumstances of oversight into executive corruption.

In principle, I agree, but the legal means, that is law, must be there. Democrats could bring such legislation to the House and let Mitch block it. In fact I believe that this is a large part of what should be happening. Pass such legislation as a stand-alone bill without amendments over and over again and let's see how bad we can get the Senate Reps to look come 2020.

 

[Moonbeam]

A fine or jail time, same as in every other contempt case. In this particular matter, Mnuchin might actually have a leg to stand on, that's why it needs to go to court. This is a congressional fishing expedition, everyone involved knows they won't find 1099's from Putin, what they're looking for is something to use politically. Since most people have no concept of how tax law works, it's vary easy to make perfectly legal deductions appear sinister. The last bit that was released was a perfect example. It showed tremendous losses, and I only heard one single commentator explain how it was possible to have huge paper losses and still make a profit.

While the idea that there is income from criminal activity listed on Trumps 1040 is absurd, he should release the information because he said he would. That statement makes the entire issue Trumps creation, and it's the only compelling reason to demand they be released.

I think that if you believe Mnuchin has. A leg to stand on you have bought into pure propaganda bull shit. The law could not be more clear that he is in violation. It’s no wonder your stance here is off.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He has no leg to stand on and he will be laughed out of court. Honestly in the same vein to the other court case going on about defying congressional subpoenas the legal theories being presented are ridiculous enough it's hard to imagine an attorney could be making them in good faith.

I mean imagine the fundamental insanity of your argument - you're saying that Congress has no legitimate purpose in attempting to figure out if someone is bribing the president.



I don't know why you keep saying this because it's absolutely ridiculous bullshit.

1) Analysis of the tax returns of Trump's father show it is highly likely that Trump engaged in tax fraud earlier in his life.

2) You have sworn testimony before Congress that Trump was engaging in financial crime quite recently.

3) You have news stories about Trump attempting to commit bank fraud with Deutsche Bank.

It would be absolutely, jaw-droppingly insane for Congress NOT to demand to analyze Trump's tax returns with that in mind. I mean those are a LOT of crimes, no?? This not only isn't a fishing expedition, this is a blatant, flashing red light of danger to the country that the president's financial dealings must be immediately investigated for conflicts of interest, blackmail, or other things like that.

This. Is. A. National. Emergency.



I also don't know why you keep saying this, as it's comically wrong. The Democrats are asking for the entirety of Trump's tax returns, not the summary forms. The associated schedules attached to his tax returns would give them an enormous amount of information about who is paying Trump, how much they are paying him, what assets he has, etc. You look at his schedule B, where he's holding investments that are paying him interest or dividends, then you subpoena those organizations to find out what they are. You look at his schedule D to see what real estate holdings he sold and to who. Then you go find out who that person is, etc, etc.

What, did you think they were asking for his W-2 or something? haha.

Until the recent past I have been for impeachment but wanting more damning evidence first, however, we've reached the point especially with the potential Iran War and the cover it provides, along with the latest revelations on finance and the complete disregard to law and the basic fundamental concept of Congressional oversight.

Formal impeachment proceedings stop Barr from blocking based on Exec. Privilege as Nixon demonstrated and the only way to block testimony is by claiming the Fifth, but appear they will or the consequences escalate for Trump.

 

[fskimospy]

Until the recent past I have been for impeachment but wanting more damning evidence first, however, we've reached the point especially with the potential Iran War and the cover it provides, along with the latest revelations on finance and the complete disregard to law and the basic fundamental concept of Congressional oversight.

Formal impeachment proceedings stop Barr from blocking based on Exec. Privilege as Nixon demonstrated and the only way to block testimony is by claiming the Fifth, but appear they will or the consequences escalate for Trump.

While I think we should definitely open impeachment proceedings to close off any possible legal escape for Trump administration officials breaking the law I don't think that will be sufficient either as... what if they just keep saying no?

The House should begin utilizing its inherent contempt powers now.

 

[Greenman]

I think that if you believe Mnuchin has. A leg to stand on you have bought into pure propaganda bull shit. The law could not be more clear that he is in violation. It’s no wonder your stance here is off.

That's why it will go to court. As I said, he might have a leg to stand on, he might even believe that he's doing the right thing. Both of those ideas are the antithesis of the accepted dogma around here, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. In this case, the process is critical, it's good that it's being tested, as the result is more important than simply getting a shot at Trump.
I see this as part of the general myopia in politics, the need to get the desired result today, without thought about tomorrow.

 

[fskimospy]

That's why it will go to court. As I said, he might have a leg to stand on, he might even believe that he's doing the right thing. Both of those ideas are the antithesis of the accepted dogma around here, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. In this case, the process is critical, it's good that it's being tested, as the result is more important than simply getting a shot at Trump.
I see this as part of the general myopia in politics, the need to get the desired result today, without thought about tomorrow.

The desired result today, tomorrow, and every day is that the branch of government tasked with overseeing the executive branch and policing it for corruption should know who is paying the president. The argument that Congress has no right to the president's financial records to find out if he's being bribed is one of the most radical authoritarian arguments put forth in American history.

I absolutely agree that conservatives need to think very long and very hard about how much they want to undermine the basic tenets of government accountability in order to protect Trump's corruption. So please do take your own advice and think about tomorrow, not just getting the desired result today.

 

[fskimospy]

I would be very interested for conservatives defending Mnuchin to explain something to me.

Let’s say the Real Collusion happened and President Crooked Hillary is being bribed by the Uranium One people to sell off our uranium to the Russians. How do we find this out and put a stop to it?

1) the FBI or other intelligence/law enforcement? The president can’t be indicted and the president can stop any investigation into themselves at any time.

2) congress? Asking about who is paying the president apparently has no legitimate legislative purpose.

So the answer is...no one. The bribery of the president cannot be investigated. Very interesting that when writing the Constitution the founders simultaneously made bribery one of the enumerated reasons for impeachment but also made it so that no one could find out if the president was being bribed.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's why it will go to court. As I said, he might have a leg to stand on, he might even believe that he's doing the right thing. Both of those ideas are the antithesis of the accepted dogma around here, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. In this case, the process is critical, it's good that it's being tested, as the result is more important than simply getting a shot at Trump.
I see this as part of the general myopia in politics, the need to get the desired result today, without thought about tomorrow.

I am afraid that fskimo has given you the facts. Any investigation into a President where one side is defending and the other investigating can be called political. The intention to determine criminality of a President where it there is evidence it may have happened can't be stopped on the basis it's a witch hunt. Congress has the authority to investigate regardless of motive because the motive will always be able to be described as political because the defenders will always be able to describe an investigation regardless of the real motive as political because they make it political by doing that.

There is not the slightest chance in hell that the legal and proper right of congress to investigate is being thwarted for political reasons, that one party of congress has reneged on it oath to the constitution. The Republicans have placed their party over the good of the nation and for that it needs to die. They are acting to destroy our democracy. They will go down in history as swine. Please, there is a point at which bending over to consider the benevolence of both sides must end. Republicans have crossed the line. They are actively engaged in obstructing justice.

I hope, at least, if Trump loses in court and rejects indictment, refused to pay fines or go to jail, that at least then you will see what he really is. Cohen warned before congress that Trump would do anything not to be taken down, that he is dangerous and without conscious remorse. Get off that horse.

Many of the liberals you argue with here may be mean and nasty and knee jerk in their opinions, throwing slime at any who differ, but much of that anger is the result of frustration at just how far off the rails Republicans have gone while refusing to see it. Crazy people can be scary which is why a lot of them get shot resisting the police.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

While I think we should definitely open impeachment proceedings to close off any possible legal escape for Trump administration officials breaking the law I don't think that will be sufficient either as... what if they just keep saying no?

There's always an ever-present danger that like Nixon, Trump fails to cooperate with the result being that the SCOTUS crushed that and now two branches mete out consequences and one has powers which cannot be voided by Trump.

The House should begin utilizing its inherent contempt powers now.

Arrest Mnuchin for contempt which is beyond the power of Trump to counter except to take it to SCOTUS who long ago decided this is an absolute right of Congress in this context. This would apply to each and every person including those appointed and confirmed.

Congress compelling Trump to appear runs into a conflict between equal branches and the SCOTUS will either compel Trump to testify where he may take the Fifth, or simply allow the impeachment and trial without Trump at all and perhaps put a gag order on the administration lest Trump commit criminal obstruction by attempting to directly interfere, but on the last I'm least certain.

So do both, Impeach which opens more options for investigation and hold others in a broom closet if needs be.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's why it will go to court. As I said, he might have a leg to stand on, he might even believe that he's doing the right thing. Both of those ideas are the antithesis of the accepted dogma around here, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. In this case, the process is critical, it's good that it's being tested, as the result is more important than simply getting a shot at Trump.
I see this as part of the general myopia in politics, the need to get the desired result today, without thought about tomorrow.

I see this as general myopia on Constitutional government. Mnuchin is an inferior entity to Congress and the law says (and has stood) that this information SHALL be given to the proper authority. There is no "but but but". He can appeal to the courts but in the meantime Congress has the absolute right per past decisions to hold Mnuchin in contempt and arrest him. There is no way to prevent this other than outright rebellion and sedition against the US government and Constitution and precisely who is going to commit that? Not the employees of the DOJ, not the Secret Service whos allegiance is not to Trump, Barr, or any Branch, but the Consitution first from which all powers are derived and in this case those rights and powers of Congress.

So Congress has the absolute right of contempt and arrest and every single person who took an oath of office must not oppose it or face sedition charges without a good defense. I was only following orders? Nope.

 

[jackstar7]

A fine or jail time, same as in every other contempt case. In this particular matter, Mnuchin might actually have a leg to stand on, that's why it needs to go to court. This is a congressional fishing expedition, everyone involved knows they won't find 1099's from Putin, what they're looking for is something to use politically. Since most people have no concept of how tax law works, it's vary easy to make perfectly legal deductions appear sinister. The last bit that was released was a perfect example. It showed tremendous losses, and I only heard one single commentator explain how it was possible to have huge paper losses and still make a profit.

While the idea that there is income from criminal activity listed on Trumps 1040 is absurd, he should release the information because he said he would. That statement makes the entire issue Trumps creation, and it's the only compelling reason to demand they be released.

Thank you for validating my brain-worm diagnosis.

Please get the help you need. Maybe like bigger worms to get in there and eat the current ones?

 

[Moonbeam]

I see this as general myopia on Constitutional government. Mnuchin is an inferior entity to Congress and the law says (and has stood) that this information SHALL be given to the proper authority. There is no "but but but". He can appeal to the courts but in the meantime Congress has the absolute right per past decisions to hold Mnuchin in contempt and arrest him. There is no way to prevent this other than outright rebellion and sedition against the US government and Constitution and precisely who is going to commit that? Not the employees of the DOJ, not the Secret Service whos allegiance is not to Trump, Barr, or any Branch, but the Consitution first from which all powers are derived and in this case those rights and powers of Congress.

So Congress has the absolute right of contempt and arrest and every single person who took an oath of office must not oppose it or face sedition charges without a good defense. I was only following orders? Nope.

I think you have failed to take into consideration that there is a Republican altered reality in which sedition is patriotism and a moral imperative to liberals trying to overthrow a President elected by the people. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[nOOky]

There is always the obvious thing, that trump deliberately cheated on his taxes to make more money and either didn't disclose or only disclosed certain items to do that.

 

[zinfamous]

It absolutely has to go to court.

the law is quite explicit here, in fact it isn't any less explicit than any other law on the books.

It is for this purpose that it was designed to need to no court intervention.

 

[interchange]

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin will probably suffer the same punishment for the contempt of Congress that Obuttholes "Wingman" Holder suffered..........................nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch not a damn thing.

Too bad for you ass clowns that Holder proved it just doesn't matter at all, isn't it?

So your argument is that failure of the institutions of the government to perform its duty to protect itself from corruption is a good thing because Democrats can suck it?

That is truly horrifying.

 

[jackstar7]

So your argument is that failure of the institutions of the government to perform its duty to protect itself from corruption is a good thing because Democrats can suck it?

That is truly horrifying.

That lady who said Trump is her kind of dictator was not an anomaly.

 

[Moonbeam]

That lady who said Trump is her kind of dictator was not an anomaly.

Yup, the cultural norms by which our children are raised are so abusive people grow up with a psychological need for it. They feel anxiety and terror at the thought of freedom and project onto others the massively suppressed hatred they feel having it ripped from their young lives. The mechanisms of control that worked on them then easily translate in the present to being dominated by a strong man who will tell them who is responsible for their inner misery and who they should hate. Meanwhile, the numbing effects of the universality of this illness keeps us asleep in our beer. Liberals will do anything they can for victims but face their own pain.

 

[hal2kilo]

By the way Taxes next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[fskimospy]

By the way Taxes next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yup, as predicted. Also the judge ruled extremely quickly indicating that Trump’s argument was not only wrong, but that it wasn’t even close.

 

[UberNeuman]

Yup, as predicted. Also the judge ruled extremely quickly indicating that Trump’s argument was not only wrong, but that it wasn’t even close.

Just because Trump didn't have Greenman as his lawyer. That Judge would have been swayed by his arguments of "you can't!"

LOL!

 

[fskimospy]

Ouch, the court concluded that Trump was unable to muster a ‘serious legal argument to the merits’.

From my understanding that’s basically saying ‘get the fuck out of here, you morons’.

 

[fskimospy]

Just because Trump didn't have Greenman as his lawyer. That Judge would have been swayed by his arguments of "you can't!"

LOL!

I suspect this stuff comes from conservative media where I bet they treated Trump’s legal challenges seriously instead of as comically transparent attempts to run out the clock.

 

[dainthomas]

That's why it will go to court. As I said, he might have a leg to stand on, he might even believe that he's doing the right thing. Both of those ideas are the antithesis of the accepted dogma around here, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. In this case, the process is critical, it's good that it's being tested, as the result is more important than simply getting a shot at Trump.
I see this as part of the general myopia in politics, the need to get the desired result today, without thought about tomorrow.

If your desired result is a Dem president having the ability to give a repub House the middle finger regarding any type of investigation or subpoena, maybe you'll get what you want.