The saga of Trump's tax returns continues...

It took me a while to figure out this gibberish, then it hit me... You clicked either the footnote number 3 or 4, didn't ya??

It doesn't "go back to the site quoting it"... it's an anchor tag to redirect you to the footnotes for the article which has a link to the actual law, although what I snipped was a complete unedited section.

Sorry you had to click twice.... I know your deflection time is valuable (to you)...



Regardless, it's the law and Munchkin broke it.. I hope this is an infraction that isn't forgotten under Wingman #2, whoever he or she is..

 

I was speaking of
Ibid. ↩

But you know that you just wanted to spam emotes~

 

Linking to websites that require user registration is discouraged, but where it cannot be avoided notice should be given that that is the case.

 

Do you know what ibid means??

 

Good tip... not sure how it's relevant here, but awesome...

 

If that were true, then why don't they have them after 3 years of subpoenas? Congress has no power to overturn the federal privacy act. I know you don't know what that is but a little effort on your part would go a long way to understanding why you keep making claims that have never come true. And never will.

 

Let us know when you have those tax returns after 3 years trying and dozens of subpoenas.

 

When did they get that tax return again?

 

Because Steve Munchkin is breaking the law, which I posted in Post 122.

Read the article that comes with it as well... it's very well written...

When there is a D Sec Treas (January), Congress will remake the valid request and get the returns in less than a week.

 

Articles are just sugar tits for the left. They have no bearing in law. If Mnuchin is breaking the law, whats stopping the Democrats from getting him jailed for contempt of court? The answer is, no judge will touch it because they know he is right. You can't get someones tax returns just because you want them. You have to have a judicial reason for invading the Federal privacy act. If they had a judicial reason, you wouldn't be here 3 years later making the very same claim over and over.

How many times do you have to get it wrong before you get it.

 

Once.... you??

Contempt of court?? Are you freaking serious? We're talking about a Congressional request here, Mr. Civics....

 

Sorry to inform you but Congressional request have to follow the law as well. Or did you forget that no one is above the law? I figured since that was the lefts battle cry for the last 4 years it might have rubbed off. Oh well.

When you find a judge that orders Trump returns and threaten Mnuchin to either hand them over or go to jail for contempt of court, give us all a heads up.

 

He’s still stalling

 

When did Steve Mnuchin receive such power to overrule a federal judge again? Heres you hint, there is no such thing.

No federal judge is ordering Mnuchin to turn over Trumps tax returns or face contempt of court charges because nobody has provide the judge with a judicial purpose to provide those documents. Thats again why you are here 3 years later, still empty handed.

 

NY isn’t asking Mnuchin for the taxes. Why don’t you read one article on this and stop making me explain basic facts to you??

 

Stink Progress and unbiased site??? I will save this post for the next time you challenge a RW site.

 

Then they are wasting their time as Mnuchin is the only person who can authorize the release of Trumps tax return. Nobody in the IRS is going to try and go over his head. Why is it everyone on the planet knows this but NY?

 

Lol why does everyone but you know the details of this case?!
They are asking the banks, who have said they’ll happily comply once trump finishes losing in court.

 

Which line on which form on his tax return shows that?

 

fine... this work any better for ya? I'm sure it won't, but it's the law (and the exact same thing my original link posted)

SNIP
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.
ENDSNIP

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

Clear for a federal law, wouldn't you agree?

 

It's a criminal investigation. I don't believe the court is obligated to release the returns to the public. Did we see Willie's returns?

The reason the public wants them is because Trump's the president. We as citizens think we have a right to know certain things about our public officials, especially the president. That doesn't mean everyone's tax returns should be made public.

 

Your opinion, which may be correct, does not invalidate the process. While there are certainly people salivating over publishing Trump's tax returns, the SDNY is concerned with an investigation, and the grand jury will decide on an indictment. If Trump is clean, he has nothing to worry about. However, the obvious concern would be, why would Trump fight so hard against the subpoena if he were clean?

 

Well, to play Trump's Advocate, it's possible the end result of the investigation will just determine that Trump isn't worth the ground he stands on, and no illegality will be found...

.....

.....

.....

Damn, I almost did that entirely with a straight face...

 

So it can be leaked like the closed impeachment hearings? What is the purpose of the request? So you agree if any information on Trumps tax return is leaked then the committee members should all be suspended during the investigation, and the leaker terminated (removed from office) from the Federal Government and charged with a felony. NO aides in the hearing.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/fs-97-12.pdf

 

Sure...