Time to cite for contempt and arrest another one.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
31,473
2,154
126
You would think after the Mueller investigation has pretty much exploded in the face of the Dems, they would try to beat Trump and the GOP based on policy and platform. Had the Dems not went down the collusion path, Trump would be a one term president. We not only will get Trump for a second term but will get to see the corrupt dealings of the Dems and how they conspired with foreign and domestic agents in interfering with our elections and then tried to remove a president from office.

Can't wait to see Joe Biden's dirty dealing with the Ukraine and China while VP get exposed. Maybe that's why the Dems and losing their collective minds trying to discredit and remove Barr from launching any investigations into their traitorous actions. Time to update the Indictments Incoming thread. LOL.
What are you blabbering about??
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,011
126
Mnuchin may be right that the statute won't withstand Constitutional review by the SCOTUS. So, Dems will just have to file suit.

Neither Mnuchin nor Barr will be arrested anytime RSN, either. Going on about how they should be is just a backhanded way of attacking the Dems. So weak. Blah-blah-blah.
It seems like confidential information like tax returns would fall under the "penumbra" of privacy given prior SCOTUS rulings. Since as @fskimospy has stated before this is no small matter since a member could read tax returns verbatim from the floor and be completely immune from punishment there seems to be an impasse as the privacy can't be restored if a Congress critter breaks it for political purposes. This certainly creates a problem when the genuine privacy considerations of one party conflict with the genuine oversight considerations of good government and the reasonable expectation of citizens to feel their highest officials don't have serious conflicts of interest.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,570
4,019
126
It seems like confidential information like tax returns would fall under the "penumbra" of privacy given prior SCOTUS rulings. Since as @fskimospy has stated before this is no small matter since a member could read tax returns verbatim from the floor and be completely immune from punishment there seems to be an impasse as the privacy can't be restored if a Congress critter breaks it for political purposes. This certainly creates a problem when the genuine privacy considerations of one party conflict with the genuine oversight considerations of good government and the reasonable expectation of citizens to feel their highest officials don't have serious conflicts of interest.
There is an absolute right by law which has stood for almost a century. If privacy is a concern then almost every single thing Congress touches could be viewed as a matter of privacy. There is no impass based on what the DOJ cites and no justification for them to withhold. They are factually lawbreakers in no small way as being allowed to get away means that forever on the Executive Branch can cite anything it likes no matter how inapplicable and blocks whatever a President does not want getting out. If Barr wants to get Mnuchin out of the cell he'll have to make that distinction separate from a very weak case based on privacy. Further, this law was written and passed to deal with possible Executive corruption and is being used exactly as intended. Again I don't know if the SCOTUS will even hear arguments about this if the law is on the side of Congress and certainly it would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,011
126
There is an absolute right by law which has stood for almost a century. If privacy is a concern then almost every single thing Congress touches could be viewed as a matter of privacy. There is no impass based on what the DOJ cites and no justification for them to withhold. They are factually lawbreakers in no small way as being allowed to get away means that forever on the Executive Branch can cite anything it likes no matter how inapplicable and blocks whatever a President does not want getting out. If Barr wants to get Mnuchin out of the cell he'll have to make that distinction separate from a very weak case based on privacy. Further, this law was written and passed to deal with possible Executive corruption and is being used exactly as intended. Again I don't know if the SCOTUS will even hear arguments about this if the law is on the side of Congress and certainly it would be.
So if a future Congress passed a law giving themselves unbridled access to the health records of anyone in the nation instead of tax returns you'd be OK with it? How about if members start reading off the names of women who had abortions with specific details instead of "Trump is only a millionaire rather than a billionaire" and be immune to consequences due to Art 1 Sec 6? If one is an "absolute right of law" that should be held up as Constitutional then so should be the other.

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
100,311
14,341
136
It seems like confidential information like tax returns would fall under the "penumbra" of privacy given prior SCOTUS rulings. Since as @fskimospy has stated before this is no small matter since a member could read tax returns verbatim from the floor and be completely immune from punishment there seems to be an impasse as the privacy can't be restored if a Congress critter breaks it for political purposes. This certainly creates a problem when the genuine privacy considerations of one party conflict with the genuine oversight considerations of good government and the reasonable expectation of citizens to feel their highest officials don't have serious conflicts of interest.
what privacy? the Feds already own his tax returns, just like yours and mine.

lol--there is no privacy. The gubmint already has them.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,011
126
what privacy? the Feds already own his tax returns, just like yours and mine.

lol--there is no privacy. The gubmint already has them.
You're missing the forest for the trees - the government owns lots of health information too, should Congress have unfettered access to that also with the corresponding ability to release any of it at any point without penalty? If Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of "privacy" does it then follow that Congress should be able to look up your abortion records upon demand if "the gubmint already has them"?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
67,717
15,096
136
It seems like confidential information like tax returns would fall under the "penumbra" of privacy given prior SCOTUS rulings. Since as @fskimospy has stated before this is no small matter since a member could read tax returns verbatim from the floor and be completely immune from punishment there seems to be an impasse as the privacy can't be restored if a Congress critter breaks it for political purposes. This certainly creates a problem when the genuine privacy considerations of one party conflict with the genuine oversight considerations of good government and the reasonable expectation of citizens to feel their highest officials don't have serious conflicts of interest.
As others have mentioned the government already owns your tax returns. There is no additional privacy violation for a separate part of the government having access to them, especially a co-equal branch that is explicitly tasked with determining what is appropriate tax legislation. It's their #1 job. Saying that the people who are 1) responsible for determining what people's taxes are and 2) responsible for ensuring that corruption does not exist in the executive branch couldn't see who is paying money to the president by looking at his taxes would be absolutely bat shit insane.

The fact that the speech and debate clause exists in no way grants anyone extra privacy rights in relation to Congress. That would mean that explicitly granted powers in the Constitution would have the effect of DECREASING the powers of a branch of government - a nonsensical idea.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
22,614
7,179
136
It seems like confidential information like tax returns would fall under the "penumbra" of privacy given prior SCOTUS rulings. Since as @fskimospy has stated before this is no small matter since a member could read tax returns verbatim from the floor and be completely immune from punishment there seems to be an impasse as the privacy can't be restored if a Congress critter breaks it for political purposes. This certainly creates a problem when the genuine privacy considerations of one party conflict with the genuine oversight considerations of good government and the reasonable expectation of citizens to feel their highest officials don't have serious conflicts of interest.
Considering Republicans used the same law to obtain tax returns of ACORN why are you bitching now??
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Again... Can you imagine the National Emergency and all the cities that would have been burnt to the groud if Janet Reno wss pulling ANY of tjis shit with the Starr report?

These MF need to be put on trial, convicted, then get their last meals for what they have done to our democracy...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,570
4,019
126
So if a future Congress passed a law giving themselves unbridled access to the health records of anyone in the nation instead of tax returns you'd be OK with it? How about if members start reading off the names of women who had abortions with specific details instead of "Trump is only a millionaire rather than a billionaire" and be immune to consequences due to Art 1 Sec 6? If one is an "absolute right of law" that should be held up as Constitutional then so should be the other.
What if Congress decides that you must dress up in drag on alternate Tuesdays and names you! That you build a statue of ET in your yard! Think of the humanity!

Laws aren't "just passed". The 1924 law exists with an eye to corruption of the Executive Branch and is being used for that purpose, a counter to the most powerful people doing anything they please, take any bribe and get away with it. Illegal quid pro quos? This is one mechanism to look for them. So you bring up irrelevancies of "but, but" about a situation which no justifiable purpose compared to one which does and is very limited. Releasing abortion names? Unlike this law that too serves no purpose and would be blocked before it ever went into effect by judicial means.

Art 1 Sect 6? Another irrelevancy which has nothing to do with any of this at all any more than the 25th does. Trump is neither a Senator nor member of the House and they can be arrested for things including tax fraud, a felony.

Make up laws that don't exist to overthrow Constitutional rule? You are fine with that. OK we know where you stand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
5,765
981
126
So if a future Congress passed a law giving themselves unbridled access to the health records of anyone in the nation instead of tax returns you'd be OK with it? How about if members start reading off the names of women who had abortions with specific details instead of "Trump is only a millionaire rather than a billionaire" and be immune to consequences due to Art 1 Sec 6? If one is an "absolute right of law" that should be held up as Constitutional then so should be the other.
Yes. I'd be all for congress members reading names of all the Republicans who secretly paid their mistresses to have an abortion.
 

IJTSSG

Golden Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,080
250
136
6103 is fairly clear in who may request tax returns, how they may be used, the environment they may be viewed, etc. The notion that the .gov already has your returns and may share them with other parts of the .gov, outside of what is allowed in 6103, and it not be a privacy violation is just fucking stupid.

Equally stupid is the notion that because Congress passes a law that it is above challenge and reproach, no matter how ludicrous the objection. A great many people in this country make their living off of really stupid legal claims. It's going to be very interesting to see how the SC rules.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,011
126
6103 is fairly clear in who may request tax returns, how they may be used, the environment they may be viewed, etc. The notion that the .gov already has your returns and may share them with other parts of the .gov, outside of what is allowed in 6103, and it not be a privacy violation is just fucking stupid.

Equally stupid is the notion that because Congress passes a law that it is above challenge and reproach, no matter how ludicrous the objection. A great many people in this country make their living off of really stupid legal claims. It's going to be very interesting to see how the SC rules.
The problem at hand is really due to the American people in their infinite wisdom (sarcasm tag in case it wasn't evident) decided to elect Trump despite him not releasing his tax information (among countless other things). The idea that Congress should thus have the right to obtain them when it's patently obviously they'll subsequently leak release "liberate" them seems like a very bad idea from a holistic POV from privacy for everyone for the same reason them getting and leaking someone's medical file "just because they can because it's oversight" seems like the worst and most shortsighted idea in some time. No matter what Trump is hiding in his returns (and I'm sure there's plenty) the privacy principle is more important to uphold. Hopefully voters will completely and utterly reject anyone who withholds such information in the future.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
67,717
15,096
136
The problem at hand is really due to the American people in their infinite wisdom (sarcasm tag in case it wasn't evident) decided to elect Trump despite him not releasing his tax information (among countless other things). The idea that Congress should thus have the right to obtain them when it's patently obviously they'll subsequently leak release "liberate" them seems like a very bad idea from a holistic POV from privacy for everyone for the same reason them getting and leaking someone's medical file "just because they can because it's oversight" seems like the worst and most shortsighted idea in some time. No matter what Trump is hiding in his returns (and I'm sure there's plenty) the privacy principle is more important to uphold. Hopefully voters will completely and utterly reject anyone who withholds such information in the future.
It's so completely and obviously Congress's business to know whether or not people are bribing the president that I'm amazed we are even having this discussion.

The President's financial information should be available to Congress on demand, at all times. This is basic national security practice.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,011
126
It's so completely and obviously Congress's business to know whether or not people are bribing the president that I'm amazed we are even having this discussion.

The President's financial information should be available to Congress on demand, at all times. This is basic national security practice.
You like @zinfamous are completely missing the point. This isn't about Congress getting POTUS financial info "on demand, at all times" it's about the law specifically saying they can get ANYONE's info at any time. They could request the @fskimospy tax return and read it verbatim on the floor of Congress and there's literally not a damn thing you or anyone else can do. Are you that completely oblivious as to not see that's a huge fvcking problem?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
67,717
15,096
136
You like @zinfamous are completely missing the point. This isn't about Congress getting POTUS financial info "on demand, at all times" it's about the law specifically saying they can get ANYONE's info at any time. They could request the @fskimospy tax return and read it verbatim on the floor of Congress and there's literally not a damn thing you or anyone else can do. Are you that completely oblivious as to not see that's a huge fvcking problem?
Well the law's been around for about a century and we seem to have survived so no, I'm going to say it's not a huge problem. Congress could similarly read out classified information on the floor of the house without consequence. Does that mean the Article I branch of government should no longer have access to classified information? That sounds like a catastrophically bad idea. What it really seems like you're arguing for is the elimination of the Speech and Debate Clause, which... well... good luck.

Even if I entirely granted your premise that this was a big problem that must be addressed, I would absolutely demand that any revision to the law would give Congress full access to the taxes of all government employees, the president included. So, in the context of this discussion I am going to assume we all agree that it's both within their power and an EXTREMELY GOOD idea for Congress to access Trump's taxes?
 

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
4,214
666
126
I don't know about you all but I would like to see the tax returns of every person in politics from our city govt all the way up to the US govt. Government officials are supposed to be working for all their constituents so seeing how they make money is vital to maintain what little democracy we have left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
12,446
1,883
126
You like @zinfamous are completely missing the point. This isn't about Congress getting POTUS financial info "on demand, at all times" it's about the law specifically saying they can get ANYONE's info at any time. They could request the @fskimospy tax return and read it verbatim on the floor of Congress and there's literally not a damn thing you or anyone else can do. Are you that completely oblivious as to not see that's a huge fvcking problem?
Like many of the powers of Congress it's balance is in the ability to vote their asses out if they abuse their power. Congress has many powers that can potentially be abused if the people allow them. For example a single member of the Senate could potentially prevent a new SCOTUS Justice from being confirmed for an entire year so a President they don't like couldn't get a choice!
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,011
126
Well the law's been around for about a century and we seem to have survived so no, I'm going to say it's not a huge problem. Congress could similarly read out classified information on the floor of the house without consequence. Does that mean the Article I branch of government should no longer have access to classified information? That sounds like a catastrophically bad idea. What it really seems like you're arguing for is the elimination of the Speech and Debate Clause, which... well... good luck.

Even if I entirely granted your premise that this was a big problem that must be addressed, I would absolutely demand that any revision to the law would give Congress full access to the taxes of all government employees, the president included. So, in the context of this discussion I am going to assume we all agree that it's both within their power and an EXTREMELY GOOD idea for Congress to access Trump's taxes?
You're arguing for a hypothetical law to avoid the issues of the one which exists. But since we're arguing for hypothetical laws, I'd argue that your inclusion of federal employees would require Congress critters to be subject to significant civil liability for privacy breaches with very low burden of proofs standards (perhaps even with express provisions for summary judgement if the breach is deemed intentional) since they're immune otherwise.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
67,717
15,096
136
You're arguing for a hypothetical law to avoid the issues of the one which exists.
I was only trying to offer you a fig leaf as it's abundantly obvious that the current law is fine. After all, if the current law was a problem the last century or so should have shown us that. If anything it shows the opposite. I'm going to go with demonstrated factual experience over hypothetical concerns.

This is especially important because Congress having access to the President's financial information is absolutely vital to both national security and the function of government. If you haven't been concerned over the last two years about the fact that we as a country would have literally no idea if a hostile foreign government were bribing the president I can only shake my head in amazement.

But since we're arguing for hypothetical laws, I'd argue that your inclusion of federal employees would require Congress critters to be subject to significant civil liability for privacy breaches with very low burden of proofs standards (perhaps even with express provisions for summary judgement if the breach is deemed intentional) since they're immune otherwise.
Sorry that's unconstitutional and no law can change that. Their immunity is absolute from both criminal and civil law while engaging in debate and legislative activity. This is an extremely important protection for the legislature as it protects Congress from the armed police forces of a hostile president or hostile civil actions from citizens.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45043.pdf
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,011
126
I was only trying to offer you a fig leaf as it's abundantly obvious that the current law is fine. After all, if the current law was a problem the last century or so should have shown us that. If anything it shows the opposite. I'm going to go with demonstrated factual experience over hypothetical concerns.

This is especially important because Congress having access to the President's financial information is absolutely vital to both national security and the function of government. If you haven't been concerned over the last two years about the fact that we as a country would have literally no idea if a hostile foreign government were bribing the president I can only shake my head in amazement.



Sorry that's unconstitutional and no law can change that. Their immunity is absolute from both criminal and civil law while engaging in debate and legislative activity. This is an extremely important protection for the legislature as it protects Congress from the armed police forces of a hostile president or hostile civil actions from citizens.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45043.pdf
Since as far as I can tell the law has never been challenged I guess we'll see how it holds up once it inevitably hits SCOTUS. Like I said be careful what you wish for since norms like this once breached tend to be taken to the farthest logic extreme by the GOP on the next possible instance. Getting a news cycle or two of satisfaction out of releasing "Trump is only a millionaire instead of a billionaire" will look like thin gruel once the GOP starts getting and leaking the most inflammatory stuff from them in cycles to come in what will be come to be seen as routine. Kinda like how unleashing the nuclear option for a handful of judges led directly to Garland being denied a seat and Gorsuch being slammed through instead.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
67,717
15,096
136
Since as far as I can tell the law has never been challenged I guess we'll see how it holds up once it inevitably hits SCOTUS. Like I said be careful what you wish for since norms like this once breached tend to be taken to the farthest logic extreme by the GOP on the next possible instance.
No, the immunities around Congress for this are so ironclad that there's no need to wonder. Not only does the Constitution explicitly protect them, so do additional federal laws. Remember, Mike Gravel entered 4,000 pages of highly classified information directly into the congressional record when he released the Pentagon Papers and was immune from any legal sanction for it. You think if a member of Congress can't be touched for that a TAX RETURN is going to sink them? Come on.

Getting a news cycle or two of satisfaction out of releasing "Trump is only a millionaire instead of a billionaire" will look like thin gruel once the GOP starts getting and leaking the most inflammatory stuff from them in cycles to come in what will be come to be seen as routine.
I honestly have zero interest in how much money Trump is worth. I am EXTREMELY interested in who is putting money in the president's pocket. If bad faith leaking of tax information is the price we need to pay to ensure that hostile foreign powers are not bribing the most powerful person on earth that's a deal only an idiot would turn down.

Kinda like how unleashing the nuclear option for a handful of judges led directly to Garland being denied a seat and Gorsuch being slammed through instead.
Only a fool would think that the Democrats using the nuclear option led to that. McConnell would have done EXACTLY the same thing regardless of what the Democrats did and any person being honest with themselves admits this.

Also, if you look at the actual history of the issue Democrats were simply invoking the deal that Republicans originally forced on them. The agreement was to only use the filibuster in 'extraordinary circumstances', something the GOP was clearly not doing. By their own agreement the GOP demanded the elimination of the filibuster.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,506
4,948
126
Since as far as I can tell the law has never been challenged I guess we'll see how it holds up once it inevitably hits SCOTUS. Like I said be careful what you wish for since norms like this once breached tend to be taken to the farthest logic extreme by the GOP on the next possible instance. Getting a news cycle or two of satisfaction out of releasing "Trump is only a millionaire instead of a billionaire" will look like thin gruel once the GOP starts getting and leaking the most inflammatory stuff from them in cycles to come in what will be come to be seen as routine. Kinda like how unleashing the nuclear option for a handful of judges led directly to Garland being denied a seat and Gorsuch being slammed through instead.
I tremble in fear of a future where we know where our representatives' money is coming from.
 

IJTSSG

Golden Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,080
250
136
The problem at hand is really due to the American people in their infinite wisdom (sarcasm tag in case it wasn't evident) decided to elect Trump despite him not releasing his tax information (among countless other things). The idea that Congress should thus have the right to obtain them when it's patently obviously they'll subsequently leak release "liberate" them seems like a very bad idea from a holistic POV from privacy for everyone for the same reason them getting and leaking someone's medical file "just because they can because it's oversight" seems like the worst and most shortsighted idea in some time. No matter what Trump is hiding in his returns (and I'm sure there's plenty) the privacy principle is more important to uphold. Hopefully voters will completely and utterly reject anyone who withholds such information in the future.
Agreed. The problem the Dems have at this point is that they are going to be forced to go to court and convince judges that they want these returns for legitimate legislative purpose when they have spent the last few years accusing the President of everything imaginable and, to date, have not gotten any of it to stick. It reeks of political retribution which is exactly the argument the Trump legal team is going to make. If there was a record of these committee's requesting and examining every President's tax returns it would certainly go a long way to discrediting the retribution argument. So would "we are starting impeachment proceedings, we need the records for our investigation".

The argument that no one has challenged the law so it must be OK is just fucking stupid. There's long history in this country of laws being on the books that are ignored until someone tries to enforce them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brandonbull

ASK THE COMMUNITY