Judge rules against Trump in records dispute with Congress

The court you are speaking of did not order the release of the IRS forms. Since Trump disclosed in his FCC report about 100 pages, those pages are fair game. That I believe is what the court approved the reporting of.

 

Pathetic. Your constantly puckering must demand industrial strength chapstick. You are now so desperate that, rather than admit the truth, you are claiming that he never decided to run for office.

"If I decide to run for office,
I'll produce my tax returns, absolutely!
And I would love to do that!" ​

 

With rag tag team of Dem presidential aspirers, Trump would have to screw up real big in order not to get re-elected. Like be indicted in russian collusion or obstruction of justice. Still have any hop s for that?

 

"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,"

In other words, Bonespurs made spurious arguments. Like I stated numerous times.

 

So what? This is a great deal more intrusive than his individual returns.


The letter concluded by asking Mazars to produce four categories of documents


with respect to not just the President, but also several affiliated organizations and entities,

including the Trump Organization Inc., the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, the Trump

Foundation, and the Trump Old Post Office LLC. See id. at 4. The records requested included


statements of financial condition, audited financial statements, documents relied upon to prepare

any financial statements, engagement agreements, and communications between Mazars and the

President or employees of the Trump Organization. See id. The relevant time period identified


for the requested records was “January 1, 2009, to the present.”

- - - - - - - -

the Oversight Committee issued the subpoena to Mazars that is the subject of this lawsuit. The subpoena sought

the same four categories of records identified in the March 20th letter relating to the President and

his affiliated organizations and entities. See Subpoena, ECF No. 9-2, Ex. A, at 3 [hereinafter

Subpoena]; see also Cummings’ March 20th Letter at 4. The subpoena, however, differed in one


respect—it narrowed the relevant time period by two years to “calendar years 2011 through

2018.”18 Subpoena at 3."

 

That confirms my own claim.

Even so, can this court ruling stand up to the appeals process?

Trump has a decent record in beating lower courts.

 

Natty, Throw that temper tantrum at a non educated person where you may plow that persons field. But not with me.

 

Actually, he doesn't.

And the law is crystal clear; Bonespurs is making frivolous arguments.

 

Quoting the "presuhdint" is not a temper tantrum.

 

Checks and balances is also a two way street.

Suppose Trump decides to order the DOJ to investigate all the Democrats.

That will put some pasta on your bib.

I do not believe Schiff can withstand a total investigation nor Schumer. Why are they not impeaching, they live in dirty dwellings. Why does Nancy fear being investigated by Trump?

 

It is time for Trump to investigate all the criminal class who fly the Democratic party of socialism flag. What the hell are they still hiding.

 

You tossed a hell of a fit.

 

All I need to do is accurately quote the Trump, and the frenetic attempts at distortion ensue.

"If I decide to run for office,
I'll produce my tax returns, absolutely!
And I would love to do that!" ​

 

I realize this is only the first step. It will probably reach SCOTUS. But what amuses me is that you guys even care whether or not his tax returns get released. I can imagine a variety of reasons Trump wouldn't want them released, but why do you guys care? Is it simply that you guys are mindlessly cheering for him to win, at anything and everything?

 

My sole reason is I know the law. I have sought peoples income tax returns many times but to get those, I had to get the person to consent and use a special IRS request form.

It is kind of like one sees a bank robbed. But none of my money is in the bank. I still advise people to follow the law and do not go after the customer who simply was in line to make a withdrawal of his own funds.

 

Natty, he was not even running at the time. And he says when the audit allows him, he still will produce the returns. Can you wait longer? If not, sorry pal.

 

Of course not. That is why he promised to produce his tax returns for the American people "If I decide to run" - and he decided to run.

You will be happy to know that you may no longer be required to contrive feeble excuses for this Trump lie for much longer, as others are about to substantially fulfil his promise for him:

"Oh, poo! I never thought anyone would ever see my taxes when
I was promising to let everyone see my taxes!"​

 

I think you mean FEC.
And I have one. The Stormy payment.

 

Stormy should have been arrested and faced trial.

Actually Avanti stole money from her and is being prosecuted.;

Stormy after many many years extorted Trump. I am sure he did not hunt her down to pay her.

It could have been Cohens idea since he paid her.

 

Natty, when Obama pinky promised us all, many many times we could keep our doctor but millions of America could not that is a first rate lie. A promise by a non candidate means nothing to me.

When he joined the fray, he modified his statement. That as a candidate matters.

But your nonsense will not cause me to buy depends due to your anger.

 

Guess you didn't hear the phone call or see the checks.
I always wondered why he never signed her NDA.

 

You aren't a chairman of one of the House Committees that has statutory authority to request anyone's tax return. It in IRS Code 6103(f) (see this). The administration is fighting it, but I've see no experts predict they will win, since it's plainly stated in the law. Here's an analysis.

Now that we've cleared that up, are you with us in agreeing Trump's tax returns must be turned over? After all, what's the harm?

 

Why do Trumpists invariably point to crimes someone else committed, when the topic is the possible commission of a crime by Trump? Those other crimes do not excuse Trump's behavior. It would be irrelevant if Cohen came up with the idea of the payout if Trump agreed - he'd still be guilty of a crime.

 

Possible you say then you virtually paint him as guity.

Say did you paint Obama guilty as you paint Trump guilty?

What is a Trumpist? You discuss him to so are you a Trumpist?

I highlighted possible. See, that shows you are not certain. I guess you are a Trumpist too.

 

Congress has very strict limits on this issue.

For instance only in a closed hearing may this even take place.

It means you will never see the returns.

Closed hearings can't be disclosed. It is why they are called closed hearings.

Do you recall all the legal stuff painting Clinton as a criminal?

Well no. And it was only seen by several republicans but the Democrats refused to look at the collected legal material. No books written have disclosed what the Senators refused to see in the room set up by Democrat lawyer David Schippers. Sell out explains this yet does not disclose what the evidence was in the locked room.