Time to cite for contempt and arrest another one.

[hal2kilo]

I tremble in fear of a future where we know where our representatives' money is coming from.

This administration is all about transparency when it comes to the electoral process. See how badly they want to cooperate and show how squeaky clean they are. You know, they really are our best protectors of financial privacy. I will surely sleep better at night for it.

Admin won't let IRS provide financial records of big money donations to states investigating

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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 law is very clear indeed. Mnuchin and the DOJ, however, aren't talking about 6103 at all. They invented something completely unrelated regarding legislative intent and therefore there is no legal objection possible on those grounds. In the meantime Mnuchin is in violation of the law as it exists and if there is a court challenge then they may complain about 6103 but it's hard to imagine that the SCOTUS won't take into account the bogus intent and reasoning of the DOJ and Mnuchin. So the House has options here. They can roll over and play dead, they can sue and likely win (whether the Administration will honor a court decision on this matter remains to be seen. They can cite Mnuchin for contempt and arrest him, which is their right, or both of the last two.

While this plays out, Deutsche Bank will provide this information to Congress and there's nothing Trump can do about that. Well he can have his private lawyers sue and a good laugh will be had by all, but that's it.


We're beyond living in interesting times.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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 w

No, they don't. That's the lie being sold. Nothing in the relevant section of 6103 requires any such thing.

(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.


That is the law and good luck finding "legislative purpose". Oversight, upon which this law is based, does not require legislation. It is also not the right of an inferior to tell a branch of government that he or she will tell them that they cannot act upon the law or exercise their rights.

Congress has to justify nothing. It is up to anyone else to convince the SCOTUS that House cannot follow the law, and good luck with that.

 

[dank69]

The law is very clear indeed. Mnuchin and the DOJ, however, aren't talking about 6103 at all. They invented something completely unrelated regarding legislative intent and therefore there is no legal objection possible on those grounds. In the meantime Mnuchin is in violation of the law as it exists and if there is a court challenge then they may complain about 6103 but it's hard to imagine that the SCOTUS won't take into account the bogus intent and reasoning of the DOJ and Mnuchin. So the House has options here. They can roll over and play dead, they can sue and likely win (whether the Administration will honor a court decision on this matter remains to be seen. They can cite Mnuchin for contempt and arrest him, which is their right, or both of the last two.

While this plays out, Deutsche Bank will provide this information to Congress and there's nothing Trump can do about that. Well he can have his private lawyers sue and a good laugh will be had by all, but that's it.


We're beyond living in interesting times.

I love how confident you are that SCOTUS will side with reason.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I love how confident you are that SCOTUS will side with reason.

The statement is that Congress has to defend its actions and that's ass backwards. If that is then the entire basis for Trump winning on immigration in courts is invalidated. Why? Because those who challenged Trump had to demonstrate that he hadn't the power to do as he did, that is an inherent power and presumption of correctness. Likewise, Congress is presumed to be correct and it is up to Mnuchin and his cronies to demonstrate in case law and Constitutional principles why it cannot act as it has and even this SCOTUS isn't going to say that oversight isn't a right of Congress.

So it's not a matter of faith, it's how all of law and precident works.

 

[IJTSSG]

The law is very clear indeed. Mnuchin and the DOJ, however, aren't talking about 6103 at all. They invented something completely unrelated regarding legislative intent and therefore there is no legal objection possible on those grounds. In the meantime Mnuchin is in violation of the law as it exists and if there is a court challenge then they may complain about 6103 but it's hard to imagine that the SCOTUS won't take into account the bogus intent and reasoning of the DOJ and Mnuchin. So the House has options here. They can roll over and play dead, they can sue and likely win (whether the Administration will honor a court decision on this matter remains to be seen. They can cite Mnuchin for contempt and arrest him, which is their right, or both of the last two.

While this plays out, Deutsche Bank will provide this information to Congress and there's nothing Trump can do about that. Well he can have his private lawyers sue and a good laugh will be had by all, but that's it.


We're beyond living in interesting times.

No, they don't. That's the lie being sold. Nothing in the relevant section of 6103 requires any such thing.

(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.


That is the law and good luck finding "legislative purpose". Oversight, upon which this law is based, does not require legislation. It is also not the right of an inferior to tell a branch of government that he or she will tell them that they cannot act upon the law or exercise their rights.

Congress has to justify nothing. It is up to anyone else to convince the SCOTUS that House cannot follow the law, and good luck with that.

I don't disagree with any of this but the reality of the situation is that they are going to court and the arguments are going to be made. The only way the arguments are not going to be made is if a federal judge says Trump or whoever has no case and the Supreme Court decides not to hear it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't disagree with any of this but the reality of the situation is that they are going to court and the arguments are going to be made. The only way the arguments are not going to be made is if a federal judge says Trump or whoever has no case and the Supreme Court decides not to hear it.

I too agree on your point. This can be taken to court but if one's basis isn't founded in law then winning can't happen. IMO saying that a legislative purpose is required would be a similar to Congress demanding that the DOJ prosecute every case brought to them. As you know there is no such argument based in law and saying "you must"doesn't change things.

Ultimately I have no idea what will come of all this, but the Republic will never be as it was for a very long time, if ever.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I too agree on your point. This can be taken to court but if one's basis isn't founded in law then winning can't happen. IMO saying that a legislative purpose is required would be a similar to Congress demanding that the DOJ prosecute every case brought to them. As you know there is no such argument based in law and saying "you must"doesn't change things.

Ultimately I have no idea what will come of all this, but the Republic will never be as it was for a very long time, if ever.

There is a legal concept that everything that Congress does must have a 'legislative purpose' or it is not constitutionally legal. I'm not sure that SCOTUS will hold that up because it would be really hard to justify a lot of the things Congress does by that standard, and SCOTUS always has to consider the big picture effects of any ruling they make.

In any case, I'm almost certain that even under that requirement a successful argument could be made that the process of enforcing the checks and balances built into the Constitution is a legislative purpose as laid down in the Constitution. Checking to see if the President is breaking the Emolument Clause is the stated reason for wanting his tax returns, and that is a proper use of Congressional powers no matter why they feel the need to check.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is a legal concept that everything that Congress does must have a 'legislative purpose' or it is not constitutionally legal. I'm not sure that SCOTUS will hold that up because it would be really hard to justify a lot of the things Congress does by that standard, and SCOTUS always has to consider the big picture effects of any ruling they make.

In any case, I'm almost certain that even under that requirement a successful argument could be made that the process of enforcing the checks and balances built into the Constitution is a legislative purpose as laid down in the Constitution. Checking to see if the President is breaking the Emolument Clause is the stated reason for wanting his tax returns, and that is a proper use of Congressional powers no matter why they feel the need to check.

That would mean that Congress can have no oversight role as there is no intent to legislate. It seems that would be a hard sell in court, the stripping of Congressional oversight functions.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That would mean that Congress can have no oversight role as there is no intent to legislate. It seems that would be a hard sell in court, the stripping of Congressional oversight functions.

Oversight is a legislative purpose. The meaning of that phrase is not that it is used to make legislation, but that it is a purpose given to the legislature by the Constitution.

I'm guessing that the DOJ is hoping to tie this up in courts for years like they have other contempt charges, but that is assuming that the House issues a criminal or civil contempt charge. If the House uses it's inherent contempt of Congress powers then that won't work. He will go to jail and have to wait there for a court ruling, and they can just move down the line arresting people until someone complies.

I doubt SCOTUS will even hear the case since almost the same arguments were made in McGrain v. Daugherty (1927) and SCOTUS found that Congress was in it's right to find Daugherty in contempt. I can't see any reason that SCOTUS would revisit that ruling.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oversight is a legislative purpose. The meaning of that phrase is not that it is used to make legislation, but that it is a purpose given to the legislature by the Constitution.

I'm guessing that the DOJ is hoping to tie this up in courts for years like they have other contempt charges, but that is assuming that the House issues a criminal or civil contempt charge. If the House uses it's inherent contempt of Congress powers then that won't work. He will go to jail and have to wait there for a court ruling, and they can just move down the line arresting people until someone complies.

I doubt SCOTUS will even hear the case since almost the same arguments were made in McGrain v. Daugherty (1927) and SCOTUS found that Congress was in it's right to find Daugherty in contempt. I can't see any reason that SCOTUS would revisit that ruling.

Then the "no legislative" excuse by Mnuchin doesn't hold water since it is not up to the DOJ to tell Congress what its business is. They would have to go to court and win to not comply and instead are substituting their own judgement. I would not want to bet on Mnuchin's immunity from action if I were he.

 

[sandorski]

The law is very clear indeed. Mnuchin and the DOJ, however, aren't talking about 6103 at all. They invented something completely unrelated regarding legislative intent and therefore there is no legal objection possible on those grounds. In the meantime Mnuchin is in violation of the law as it exists and if there is a court challenge then they may complain about 6103 but it's hard to imagine that the SCOTUS won't take into account the bogus intent and reasoning of the DOJ and Mnuchin. So the House has options here. They can roll over and play dead, they can sue and likely win (whether the Administration will honor a court decision on this matter remains to be seen. They can cite Mnuchin for contempt and arrest him, which is their right, or both of the last two.

While this plays out, Deutsche Bank will provide this information to Congress and there's nothing Trump can do about that. Well he can have his private lawyers sue and a good laugh will be had by all, but that's it.


We're beyond living in interesting times.

Don't play their game. Cite for Contempt.

 

[Jhhnn]

Don't play their game. Cite for Contempt.

Correct. Also file suit to demand compliance, let it simmer & move ahead somewhere else.

 

[Sunburn74]

Cite for contempt. No brainer.
Can't have this sort of precedence.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, the current law favors the House. Just use the inherent contempt of Congress powers to toss him in jail and then ask the next person if he will comply or if he wants to join him. Eventually you will find someone willing to comply. Then let the Executive branch sue to block it. Those sorts of suits take years, lets see just how dedicated Trumps cronies are.