It is currently 03/29/24 3:34 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 20 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/19 8:45 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Another explosion being lit ~ I read somewhere yesterday that the accounting firm the DiC uses is offering to submit years of tax records but is requesting a subpoena to cover itself ~ if I "saved to read/maybe post later" I'll post it next ~ :ey ~ Sooz

Formal demand for Trump’s tax returns touches off historic fight
04/04/19 08:40 AM
By Steve Benen

[Video, The Rachel Maddow Show, 4/3/19, 9:27 PM ET, "Ways and Means chair directs IRS to turn over Trump tax returns", accessible via the end link.]

For some of the president’s critics, the push for Donald Trump’s tax returns should’ve happened months ago, but congressional Democrats preferred a far more cautious approach. The House Democratic majority worked slowly and methodically, hoping to reach a point at which they could credibly claim the release of the documents was absolutely necessary.

That point apparently came yesterday.

Quote:
Democrats have officially launched their assault on President Donald Trump’s tax returns.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., on Wednesday evening said he had filed a formal request with the Treasury Department for the documents.

“I today submitted to IRS Commissioner Rettig my request for six years of the president’s personal tax returns as well as the returns for some of his business entities. We have completed the necessary groundwork for a request of this magnitude and I am certain we are within our legitimate legislative, legal, and oversight rights,” Neal said in a statement.

In case this isn’t obvious, it’s important to emphasize that this wasn’t a subpoena. It also wasn’t a request, per se. As we discussed last month, under existing federal law, a limited number of congressional leaders have the legal authority to access individual tax returns from the Treasury Department.

Yesterday, the Democratic chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee decided to exercise that power. Since the law was created in the wake of the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s, no administration has ever denied a lawmaker access to tax returns under this law.

If the Trump administration complies – at this point, that’s a pretty big “if” – the information Richard Neal demanded will answer more than a few questions.

Among other things, for example, the committee chairman has demanded information that would show whether Trump, who claimed he couldn’t disclose his tax returns in 2016 because he was under audit, was actually under audit.

What’s likely to happen next is unclear. In theory, the Treasury Department should follow the law, Neal should gain access to the president’s tax materials, and congressional scrutiny would continue. In practice, however, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin recently declared, “We will examine the request and we will follow the law … and we will protect the president as we would protect any taxpayer” regarding their right to privacy.

There is, of course, a conflict between the first part of that sentence and the second.

If you’re thinking this will lead to a historic court fight over the administration’s reluctance to follow the law in pursuit of unexplained secrecy, you’re not alone.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/formal-demand-trumps-tax-returns-touches-historic-fight


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/19 8:56 am • # 2 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
This is the item I mentioned in my comments above ~ Sooz

Tax firm ready to turn over 10 years of Trump’s financial records: Rep. Elijah Cummings
Dominique Jackson / 03 Apr 2019 at 15:54 ET

On Wednesday, the tax firm Mazars USA said they are ready to turn over 10 years of President Donald Trump’s tax returns, according to Politico.

Mazars USA said they wanted the House Oversight and Reform Committee to issue a subpoena in order to make the process formal.

“Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) told reporters that Mazars USA, a tax and accounting firm, has asked the committee for a so-called ‘friendly’ subpoena so that it can formalize the process of complying with the panel’s request,” the report said.

“They have told us that they will provide the information pretty much when they have a subpoena. And we’ll get them a subpoena,” Cummings told reporters.

The request comes after Cummings launched a wide-ranging probe into Trump’s finances. Republicans have attacked the investigation as an effort to “solely embarrass President Trump and to advance the relentless Democrat attacks upon the Trump administration,” the report said.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/tax-firm-is-prepared-to-turn-over-10-years-of-trumps-taxes-rep-elijah-cummings/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/19 9:28 am • # 3 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
oh.....so his tax returns are EMBARASSING?

interesting, guys.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/19 9:45 am • # 4 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
I'd agree with this bit:
Quote:
Republicans have attacked the investigation as an effort to “solely embarrass President Trump and to advance the relentless Democrat attacks upon the Trump administration,” the report said.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/19 9:51 am • # 5 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
well you don't HAVE to. because I don't.

:)


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/19 9:59 am • # 6 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
macroscopic wrote:
well you don't HAVE to. because I don't.

:)


Ok. So why are they doing it?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/19 10:11 am • # 7 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
oskar576 wrote:
macroscopic wrote:
well you don't HAVE to. because I don't.

:)


Ok. So why are they doing it?


it has been standard practice for almost half a century for presidents to show their tax returns. the fact that Trump has thusfar refused to do it is breaking precedent. so, I could just as easily ask YOU why he is NOT doing it. that is a more sensible question. why should Trump NOT follow precedent? what makes him special?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/19 10:13 am • # 8 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
According to a brief report I saw this morning from the Boston Globe the "technical" reason the committee is demanding the returns is to ensure the IRS is performing its duty to audit the tax returns of all presidents. Given the rigamarole the Repulsives raised a couple of years ago over the IRS supposedly politically targeting conservative groups (even though the only group who didn't get a clearance was a left leaning one) they have only themselves to blame if the Dems now want to ensure the orange ogre hasn't politicized it to his own ends.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/19 10:16 am • # 9 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
the returns MAY in fact prove "embarrassing" to the president.

but ONLY because he has lied repeatedly about what is in them.

if he is telling the truth, then they will likely be embarrassing to DEMOCRATS.

but at least they will have compelled Trump to comply with political tradition.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/19 10:27 am • # 10 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
If they can get this year's it might also show how much he has profited from his tax cut. While most people have only made a few dollars or are even in the hole because of the deduction cuts, he's probably made out like a bandit.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/12/19 6:23 pm • # 11 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
WOOHOO! ~ here we go ~ :tup ~ Sooz

READ: Cummings Moves To Subpoena Trump Accountant For Financial Info
By Josh Kovensky / April 12, 2019 3:58 pm

House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings (D-MD) is planning to send a subpoena to Mazars USA accounting firm for detailed information on President Trump’s financial history.

Cummings wrote in an April 12 memo to members of his committee that he planned on giving members until Monday at 11 AM to provide views before issuing the subpoena.

“The Committee has full authority to investigate whether the President may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office,” Cummings wrote in the memo.

He describes the scope of that investigation as “to determine whether he has undisclosed conflicts of interest that may impair his ability to make impartial policy decisions, to assess whether he is complying with the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, and to review whether he has accurately reported his finances to the Office of Government Ethics and other federal entities.”

He sent a letter requesting the information from Mazars in March. The firm said that it would comply with a subpoena, according to a statement from Cummings earlier this month.

The committee’s investigation focuses on allegations made by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen that Trump altered the value of his assets for different purposes, ranging from purported attempts to lessen his tax liability to a quixotic venture at buying the Buffalo Bills.

The investigation could provide Democrats with a separate way to gain access to key Trump financial information, as House Ways and Means grapples with the Treasury Department’s attempts to stall the committee’s request for Trump’s tax returns.

In the subpoena, Cummings demands documents from 2011 to 2018 relating to Trump and seven of his companies.

Cummings seeks statements of financial condition, annual statements, periodic financial reports, and auditor’s reports that Mazars prepared for Trump.

The Oversight chair also demands “underlying, supporting, or source documents and records” related to the accountant’s work for Trump.

Cummings also seeks communications between Trump, the Trump Org, and David Bender, a Mazars accountant who reportedly had the Trump account.

Once issued, the subpoena will give Mazars until April 29 to comply.

House Oversight members Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) revealed the existence of the probe into Mazars in a March 27 press release, accusing Cummings of overreach while sending a letter to Mazars advising the firm to ignore the request. In his memorandum today, Cummings lashed out at Meadows and Jordan, calling their actions “unprecedented” while saying that “such actions undermine the authority of the Committee and impair its investigations.”

In his February testimony before Cummings’s committee, Cohen accused Trump of inflating his assets during an attempt to buy the Buffalo Bills.

The request itself seeks records and statements from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, the Trump Organization Inc., the Trump Organization LLC, the Trump Corporation, DJT Holdings LLC, the Trump Old Post Office LLC, the Trump Foundation, and from related entities.

Read a copy of the memo that Rep. Cummings circulated to lawmakers below:

[Interactive memo accessible via the end link.]

Correction: This post has been updated to reflect the timing of the planned subpoena.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/read-cummings-moves-to-subpoena-trump-accountant-for-financial-info


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/12/19 8:58 pm • # 12 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Can Congress force Trump to hand over his tax returns? I asked 11 legal experts.
Probably, but it’s complicated.

By Sean Illing

Presidential candidates are not required by law to release tax returns, but every major-party nominee in modern American history has done so. Until Donald Trump.

Trump’s refusal to adhere to this norm has set up a potential legal fight between Congress and the White House.

Last week, Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, sent a letter to the IRS formally requesting Trump’s federal income tax returns going back to 2013. The request also demands the returns for eight other entities linked to Trump.

In the letter, Neal claims that Congress “has a duty to conduct oversight of departments and officials,” and in this case, that duty involves evaluating the IRS policy to audit all presidents’ tax returns. The letter cites an obscure 1924 law that gives the House Ways and Means Committee the power to request tax returns from the Treasury Department for review in closed session.

Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, said during an interview on Fox News Sunday that Democrats will “never” see Trump’s tax returns, insisting that the tax issue “was already litigated during the election.”

So where does this leave us? Does Congress have the right to demand Trump’s tax returns? And if the Treasury Department refuses to hand them over, what happens next?

To get some answers, I reached out to 11 legal experts. Their full responses, edited for clarity and length, are below.

====================================================

Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School

I expect the justices of the Supreme Court may well be the ones to answer the question. A reading of the plain language of the tax code indicates that Congress does in fact have the legal authority to request and obtain tax information from any filer, including the president. Therefore, if Steven Mnuchin, the secretary of the Treasury, refuses Congress’s request, he would be violating the law.

But the president of the United States is, of course, not just any tax filer. And the Supreme Court will be careful about separation of powers issues that ask whether a congressional committee can force the Department of Treasury to hand over the president’s tax returns.

The president’s lawyer has claimed that Congress must but does not have a “legitimate legislative purpose.” Congressman Neal, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, has provided such a purpose. Neal claims he is investigating the effectiveness of the IRS’s policy of auditing the tax returns of sitting presidents — although that doesn’t quite explain why he is requesting returns including years both before Trump became president and during his presidency.

That members of Congress may obtain President Trump’s tax returns does not mean that they will automatically, or ever, become public. Under the tax code, the congressional committee which requests the tax returns can only review them in a “closed executive session.”

Andy Grewal, law professor, University of Iowa

Let’s suppose that one of the congressional tax committees is chaired by a racist person. And let’s suppose that he demands that the IRS give him the tax returns of various civil rights leaders, so he can harass them on account of their race or politics. Under one commonly expressed view, the IRS is helpless here. The statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

But there’s another view: The Constitution applies to Congress. The Supreme Court has repeatedly told us that the Constitution permits Congress to perform investigations and subpoena documents only when it pursues a legitimate legislative purpose. If that standard applies here, the IRS can deny the request. Pursuing invidious racial discrimination is not a legitimate purpose.

Of course, regarding the request for President Trump’s returns, there is not even a hint of racial animosity. So the facts are quite different. But the request presents the same threshold legal question: Does Rep. Neal need a legitimate legislative purpose? In my view, that answer is clearly yes.

It will be much easier to show a legitimate legislative purpose for a request about the president’s tax returns than for civil rights leaders’ returns. But in either case, we should recognize that constitutional standards apply.

Daniel Shaviro, law professor, New York University

This is not an issue on which there is any possibility of reasonable disagreement. Any well-informed person who disagrees either that the Ways and Means Committee has an obligation to demand Trump’s tax returns as part of fulfilling its oversight duties or that Trump is legally obliged to turn them over is either a partisan hack or contemptuous of the rule of law.

Trump has credibly been accused of engaging in criminal activity for decades. It’s undisputed that he is still profiting from his businesses. There is substantial information in the public record suggesting that he is for sale (or subject to blackmail) and that many of his public policy decisions have been made for corrupt reasons. The tax returns may help provide information that sheds light on his motives. It’s an indispensable part of congressional oversight, and Republicans as well as Democrats in the Congress ought to recognize this (and in private probably do, whether or not they care).

All this is even leaving aside the law that would be quite clear in favor of the request even if all of the above evidence of criminality, corruption, and improper motives were not so powerful.

It’s obvious that business tax returns as well as individual ones are a necessary part of the oversight here. I don’t know why the particular ones were selected, and I would think that casting the net far more broadly (e.g., all Trump businesses, and all tax returns for the last 20 years) would have been well within reasonable oversight.

Leandra Lederman, law professor, Indiana University

As chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Neal absolutely has the power to request the president’s tax returns and returns of his businesses.

The Internal Revenue Code contains a lengthy section that generally protects the confidentiality of tax returns/return information and prohibits their disclosure by government employees. The provision Rep. Neal is using is a specific statutory exception from that disclosure prohibition. That exception says that the secretary of the Treasury (or his delegate) “shall furnish” the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee with any tax return or return information requested in writing.

Note that this does not entail public disclosure of the returns — under this exception, any return or return information that identifies a particular taxpayer must be provided to the “committee only when sitting in closed executive session” unless the taxpayer in question consents in writing.

Rep. Neal made a written request, as the statute requires. The statute itself does not say that a justification for the request is necessary. However, Rep. Neal also included in his letter a statement that the House Ways and Means “Committee is considering legislative proposals and conducting oversight related to our Federal tax laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.” This is a legitimate concern, as the history of former President Nixon’s initially lenient IRS audit illustrates.

Rep. Neal’s letter requests returns and return information for a six-year period beginning in 2013. Several of these years precede President Trump’s presidency. However, those tax returns may have been under IRS audit after President Trump was elected or took office. And regardless, in determining “the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President,” it should be helpful to compare the period before and during President Trump’s presidency.

Rep. Neal’s letter was addressed to the commissioner of the IRS. It is not up to President Trump to respond. If the IRS and Treasury do not turn over the requested returns and return information to Rep. Neal, presumably Rep. Neal will sue for enforcement of the statute.

Philip Hackney, law professor, University of Pittsburgh

The statute provides that if the Ways and Means Committee chairman makes a written request, “the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified.” Chairman Neal made a written request specifying certain returns of President Trump. The IRS has an obligation to turn over the returns. Congress made tax returns private by statute but provided commonsense exceptions such as allowing a state agency a path to access returns when need is shown. It also made an exception for specific committees of Congress without regard to any need. It is appropriately using that exception in this instance.

Trump attorneys suggest the request emanates from impermissible animus and is therefore constitutionally suspect. They suggest Congress must have a legislative need and that this is lacking. While Congress could surely not use the authority in a way that would discriminate on the basis of race, there is no showing of any such discrimination here.

But if the Treasury Department refuses to hand over the returns, the chairman might consider holding the commissioner of the IRS and perhaps the secretary of the Treasury in contempt of Congress. The committee might then file a declaratory judgment asking the DC District Court to hold those officers in contempt and provide an injunction ordering them to comply with the law.

Though the law seems clear, it’s hard to know what will happen. Strikes me [that] the worst outcome would be for the Supreme Court to find the matter a political question, and in effect allow the executive to flout the law to protect himself.

Francine Lipman, law professor, University of Nevada Las Vegas

Congress has enacted specific laws regarding the confidentiality of tax returns and related information. The general rule is that these materials are confidential and cannot be disclosed. This sweeping protection should give all tax return-filing individuals comfort that their tax returns and related information are protected from disclosure under federal law.

However, like most general rules, there are exceptions that are necessary for the administration of federal (and state) tax systems as well as for other critical issues, most notably criminal matters.

One of several exceptions is that upon written request from the chairperson of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, or the Joint Committee on Taxation, the secretary of the Treasury “shall” provide any requested returns or return information. The one stated qualifier to this release is that if the tax return or related information directly or indirectly identifies a taxpayer, then the secretary “shall” provide the materials in a closed executive session (unless the taxpayer consents to the disclosure).

Thus, under federal law, Rep. Richard Neal or Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — chair of the Senate Finance Committee — can make a written request for the president’s tax returns and return information and Steven Mnuchin, secretary of the Treasury, “shall” provide them, albeit in a closed executive session.

If the secretary of the Treasury does not provide the materials requested in accordance with federal law, the issue will likely be decided by a US district court. This would be a case of first impression, and eventually, the court most likely will decide that the tax returns and return information “shall” be released. However, litigation over this matter certainly will delay this much-anticipated release.

George Yin, law professor, University of Virginia

Chairman Neal’s request is on firm legal ground. A law enacted in 1924 authorizes him to request anyone’s tax return information and provides that the secretary of the Treasury “shall furnish” the information requested. It doesn’t contain any basis for the secretary to refuse.

The background behind the law supports this broad interpretation of Congress’s authority. Prior to 1924, the president had the sole and unconditional right to obtain and disclose anyone’s tax return information. Congress was frustrated by this law because its investigations of executive branch officials and agencies (including the tax agency) required examination of tax return information. Since only the president could release the information, Congress actually had to seek permission from the president to carry out investigations of the executive branch. Congress decided that as a co-equal branch of government, it had to have the same access to tax information as the president at the time.

If there is a refusal and the matter ends up in court, the disagreement may be resolved based on whether the request furthers a constitutional responsibility of Congress. Neal’s request identified Congress’s two main responsibilities — its lawmaking and oversight functions.

Rebecca Kysar, law professor, Fordham University

The House Ways and Means Committee’s request to obtain the president’s tax returns falls squarely within its oversight and legislative authority, and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin has no basis to refuse the request.

The chairman of the Committee, Rep. Neal, is relying upon Section 6103(f), which entitles Congress’s tax committees to obtain any tax return or other tax information, including IRS audit work files. Under Section 6103(f), the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” these documents upon written request from the committee, denying any exercise of discretion from the secretary.

Even if Section 6103 were not on the books, Congress’s inherent legislative powers under Article I of the Constitution would support this request. Courts have ruled that Congress can investigate issues to aid in its consideration of legislation, administration of existing laws, and general oversight authority. To be sure, these powers are limited somewhat: Congress can only investigate matters on which it has power to oversee, legislate, or fulfill some other legislative function. Since all of Congress’s actions need to be within its constitutional authority, this general constitutional limitation on Congress’s investigatory powers likely extends to 6103(f) investigations.

But here, there are clear legislative purposes that Neal is seeking to fulfill in making the request. In his letter to the IRS commissioner, Neal predominantly grounds his request in oversight authority of the IRS, assessing whether the agency is fulfilling its duty to enforce the laws fairly against President Trump and whether to revise the laws relating to presidential tax duties.

Trump’s lawyer has already argued that Neal’s stated reasons are politically motivated. He points to the fact that Neal has not asked for the returns of prior presidents. Yet the committee could reasonably base the need for new legislation on presidential audits on the experience of one president alone, especially one whose possible tax improprieties have already been publicized.

Additionally, Trump’s sprawling business empire presents unprecedented and unforeseen challenges to the audit process that now may justify statutory revisions for similar situations in the future. Trump also claimed to be under audit when he took office, and Congress can legitimately seek to determine how the agency pursued those audits after he took office.

Ari Glogower, law professor, Ohio State University

Rep. Richard Neal’s request from the IRS of President Trump’s tax returns and related information is a lawful exercise of the House Committee on Ways and Means’ investigative authority.

In his letter to Treasury objecting to the request, President Trump’s lawyer William S. Consovoy cited the 1957 case of Watkins v. US, which considered intrusive investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in a prior era.

Watkins is not helpful for President Trump. The case contemplates even broader congressional investigative power than Rep. Neal needs to justify his request. And unlike the HUAC in Watkins, Ways and Means is acting with a legitimate congressional purpose and within its clear jurisdictional authority. This purpose may include investigating whether we need new laws to ensure that the IRS enforces the president’s obligations to pay taxes.

Section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code in turn provides a formal procedure for Congress to exercise this constitutional authority and removes these requests from the shield of tax return privacy.

Of course, this process would have unfolded differently if President Trump had followed his predecessors and voluntarily released his returns. Different justifications explain Rep. Neal’s legal request and the voluntary disclosure norm for presidential nominees. It could be, however, that Rep. Neal’s legal reasons to request this information overlap with the reasons President Trump would prefer to keep it private.

Ilya Somin, law professor, George Mason University

Congressional Democrats have good reason to seek the disclosure of President Trump’s tax returns. For decades, previous presidents disclosed voluntarily in order to allow Congress and the public to scrutinize them for evidence of possible wrongdoing and conflicts of interest. Trump’s worldwide network of business interests gives rise to unusually severe risks in the latter regard.

But the law the Democrats are relying on has the potential for serious abuses of power.

The Democrats may be on sound legal ground in using a 1924 law requiring the IRS to disclose any tax return upon the “written request” of the chair of one of several congressional committees. But the very existence of that law is frightening. Congress could potentially start using it to go after other people — including private citizens and political activists who cross one of the major political parties, or influential members of the relevant congressional committees. The law may have been largely moribund for years. But the current controversy could change that. Norms against its abuse can easily fray, just as other political norms have.

The law only allows the committee to consider the returns in “closed executive session,” if the information within could identify the taxpayer. But, as David French points out, it is not difficult for Congress to circumvent this rule by using leaks. It could also pressure the IRS to audit the individuals in question.

A high percentage of Americans who pay income taxes have likely violated hyper-complicated federal tax laws at some point or other. The threat of subjecting tax returns to detailed congressional or IRS scrutiny could well deter many from engaging in speech or political activism that might attract the ire of Congress.

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, law professor, Stetson University

The question of whether the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee can lawfully request President Trump’s tax returns from the IRS turns on a history lesson of the Teapot Dome scandal and its aftermath. The Teapot Dome scandal involved the leasing of oil fields by Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall and alleged bribery under the Harding administration in the 1920s.

The Teapot Dome scandal inspired a few federal reforms which are relevant to today’s events with the Trump administration. One of the reforms Congress passed in response to the scandal was the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, which expanded federal campaign finance disclosure requirements and included expenditure caps for congressional candidates. Another reform was the Revenue Act of 1924, which provided the ability of chair of the House Ways and Means and the chair of the Senate Finance Committee to demand tax returns from the IRS.

So what can we learn from this history? First, campaign finance reforms are one way that Congress can respond to restore faith in the government after a corruption scandal. Second, the Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s power to compel testimony so that it can do its job of informed legislating. And third, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is well within his statutory rights today under the Revenue Act of 1924 to get his hands on the president’s tax returns as well as the tax returns of his businesses.

To prevent such skullduggery, the law should be changed to require disclosure of the tax returns of presidents and perhaps other high officials, but deny Congress the power to scrutinize all tax returns at will.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/4 ... al-experts


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/17/19 7:26 am • # 13 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Getting serious-er and serious-er ~ :st ~ Sooz

House Democrats subpoena Deutsche Bank as Trump financial probe intensifies
written by Matthew Rozsa / Salon April 16, 2019

The House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees have subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, which has long provided loans to President Donald Trump despite “a long history of defaults and bankruptcies,” according to the New York Times.

During the course of his business career, Trump has reportedly received more than $2 billion in loans from Deutsche Bank. As the president took office, he had more than $300 million in outstanding loans from the financial institution, which was his largest creditor.

Recent congressional testimony by Michael Cohen, in which the president’s former personal attorney and “fixer” raised allegations of possible financial crimes committed by Trump, has brought the president’s finances under renewed scrutiny. Experts have placed particular focus on Cohen’s statements about how the president allegedly exaggerates the extent of his wealth.

“The two committees that issued the subpoena . . . also demanded documents from numerous other financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup, related to possible money-laundering by people in Russia and Eastern Europe,” the Times reported.

“The potential use of the U.S. financial system for illicit purposes is a very serious concern,” House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said in a statement. She explained that her committee was “exploring these matters, including as they may involve the president and his associates, as thoroughly as possible pursuant to its oversight authority, and will follow the facts wherever they may lead us.”

Waters was even more scathing at a public hearing last week when speaking to the chief executives of several big banks about their business dealings with Russia.

“Much has been reported about how Deutsche Bank has been a pathway for criminals, kleptocrats and allies of Mr. Putin to move illicit funds out of Russia. But recent information shows that some of your institutions have also been providing services for Russian individuals or entities that may be engaging in questionable transactions,” Waters told the banking executives at the hearing.

Kerrie McHugh, a spokesperson for Deutsche Bank, responded to media reports about the subpoenas by saying that the company was “engaged in a productive dialogue,” and it would “remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations in a manner consistent with our legal obligations.”

By contrast, the Trump Organization’s lawyer Alan Garten told reporters that the company was mulling how the company could possibly stop Deutsche Bank from observing the House Democrats’ subpoena.

“This subpoena is an unprecedented abuse of power and simply the latest attempt by House Democrats to attack the president and our family for political gain,” Eric Trump explained in a statement. The president’s youngest son, who partially runs his business empire, also argued that the subpoenas “set a horrible precedent for all taxpayers.”

Deutsche Bank has been responsible for a number of Trump’s most high-profile loans, including renovations of his Art Deco tower at 40 Wall Street, an East Side skyscraper, a skyscraper in Chicago, a Trump Marina casino in Atlantic City and an effort to buy the General Motors building in Manhattan. As The New York Times reported last month:

Quote:
Deutsche Bank officials have quietly argued to regulators, lawmakers and journalists that Mr. Trump was not a priority for the bank or its senior leaders and that the lending was the work of a single, obscure division. But interviews with more than 20 current and former Deutsche Bank executives and board members, most of them with direct knowledge of the Trump relationship, contradict the bank’s narrative.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/house-democrats-subpoena-deutsche-bank-as-trump-financial-probe-intensifies/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/18/19 7:56 am • # 14 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I confess I'm enjoying the mental images of the DiC's distress with this ~ :o ~ Sooz

House Dems subpoena nine major banks as part of deep dive into Trump’s finances
Brad Reed / 18 Apr 2019 at 08:39 ET

Democrats in the House of Representatives have leveled subpoenas against nine different major banks as part of their investigation into President Donald Trump’s finances.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Democrats have subpoenaed American banks JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America as well as foreign banks Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada and Toronto-Dominion Bank.

Deutsche Bank figures to be the bank of most interest to investigators, as it was the only major bank by the late 1990s that was willing to make major loans to Trump after a string of bankruptcies made him toxic to most of Wall Street.

“Since 1998, the bank has led or participated in loans of at least $2.5 billion to companies affiliated with Mr. Trump,” the Journal notes.

Additionally, Deutsche Bank has found itself caught up in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal — and a leaked internal memo obtained by The Guardian this week showed that the bank is concerned that regulators in the United States and the United Kingdom could bring the hammer down for helping Kremlin-linked Russian criminals move dirty money into the global financial system.

“The potential use of the U.S. financial system for illicit purposes is a very serious concern,” House Financial Services Committee chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) said this week. “The Financial Services Committee is exploring these matters, including as they may involve the President and his associates, as thoroughly as possible pursuant to its oversight authority, and will follow the facts wherever they may lead us.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/house-dems-subpoena-nine-major-banks-part-deep-dive-trumps-finances/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/22/19 8:14 am • # 15 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Not surprising ... but this does fly in the face of Congress' "oversight" powers required by the Constitution and a variety of laws ~ :ey ~ Sooz

Trump sues Elijah Cummings to prevent public scrutiny of his finances
Brad Reed / 22 Apr 2019 at 09:38 ET

President Donald Trump and his businesses on Monday filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking an accounting firm from handing over the president’s business records to congressional investigators.

The Washington Post reports that Trump has filed a lawsuit against Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, who last week subpoenaed Mazars USA, an accounting firm used by the Trump Organization.

In the lawsuit against Cummings, Trump’s lawyers accused Democrats of being “singularly obsessed with finding something they can use to damage the President politically,” and suggested they had no legal authority to issue subpoenas of the president’s past business dealings.

Trump’s lawyers last week put Mazars “on notice” about complying with a House subpoena issued for the disclosure of Trump’s financial transactions before he became president in January 2017.

According to a letter sent by Cummings to Mazars in March, Democrats are seeking information related to Trump’s failed attempt to purchase the Buffalo Bills football franchise. A bombshell New York Times report from earlier this year claimed that Trump and former “fixer” Michael Cohen together convinced Deutsche Bank to vastly overstate Trump’s personal wealth in financial statements given to the National Football League, which sought assurances that Trump had the kind of financial clout needed to pull off a $1 billion deal.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/trump-sues-elijah-cummings-prevent-public-scrutiny-finances/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/22/19 8:49 am • # 16 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Here is Steve Benen's reaction ~ :st ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine, and there are more "live links" in original ~ Sooz

To keep financial records secret, Trump sues key House Democrat
04/22/19 10:08 AM—Updated 04/22/19 10:18 AM
By Steve Benen

Last week, as part of the congressional investigation into Donald Trump’s controversial finances, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued a subpoena to Mazars USA, directing the firm to turn over the president’s financial records. Almost immediately, the president’s new lawyers – hired to keep Trump’s finances secret – sent a letter to Mazars USA, insisting that the firm ignore that federal subpoena.

Today, Trump and the Trump Organization took this one step further.

Quote:
Lawyers for President Donald Trump and the Trump Organization are suing House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings to block a subpoena for years of financial records from accounting firm Mazars USA.

The lawyers filed the lawsuit Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, saying the subpoena “lacks any legitimate legislative purpose, is an abuse of power, and is just another example of overreach by the president’s political opponents.”

To the extent that reality matters, the House Oversight Committee recently heard testimony from Michael Cohen, the president’s former personal attorney and fixer, who alerted lawmakers to a series of alleged financial misdeeds committed by Donald Trump.

Lawmakers are also aware of credible allegations of criminal fraud, criminal tax evasion, and money laundering, which the American president exploited to fuel his rise to power.

In other words, the idea that Cummings’ request for information “lacks any legitimate legislative purpose” seems a little silly: the Oversight Committee, which has an expansive purview, is obviously following up on evidence of suspected wrongdoing.

Indeed, it seems this new lawsuit does little except make clear that the president and his team are desperate to keep his financial records, including his tax returns, secret.

And as a rule, when Trump World acts as if it has something to hide, it’s because Trump World has something to hide.


The new litigation, which asks a federal court to block compliance with Cummings’ subpoena, is online in its entirety here (pdf).

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/keep-financial-records-secret-trump-sues-key-house-democrat#break


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/30/19 8:27 am • # 17 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
It was only a matter of time ~ :ey ~ "live links" in original ~ Sooz

Trumps file new lawsuit to keep finances hidden from investigators
04/30/19 08:00 AM
By Steve Benen

After the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Mazars USA, directing the firm to turn over Donald Trump’s financial records, the president and his lawyers didn’t just urge the firm to ignore the subpoena; they also sued the committee’s chairman in the hopes of blocking disclosure.

Late yesterday, the Trumps’ lawyers filed another lawsuit for the same reason: hiding the president’s finances.

Quote:
President Donald Trump and several members of his family sued Deutsche Bank and Capital One on Monday seeking to prevent them from responding to congressional subpoenas for information about the president’s finances.

The House Intelligence and Financial Services committees have issued subpoenas to several banks as part of their investigations of alleged foreign influence on U.S. elections.

Deutsche Bank and Capital One are positioned to share all kinds of pertinent information. The former maintained a lengthy – and at times, odd – relationship with Trump, extending the Republican massive loans, even when other major financial institutions wouldn’t. In recent weeks, Deutsche Bank has reportedly taken steps to cooperate with the House Financial Services Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the New York state attorney general’s office, which in turn has apparently caused the president, some of his adult children, and his business quite a bit of anxiety.

As for Capitol One, when the president paid Michael Cohen, his former personal attorney and fixer, Trump did so through his personal Capitol One checking account.

At face value, it’s extraordinary to see a sitting president’s lawyers try to invalidate congressional subpoenas – an effort that’s likely to fail, though the litigation process may take a considerable amount of time, which is very likely the point.

But as the process unfolds, it’s worth pausing to appreciate the fact that suits like these aren’t intended to protect some vague political principle. The truth is much simpler: the Trumps appear terrified of the prospect of investigators gaining access to their financial information.

And as a rule, when Trump World acts as if it has something to hide, it’s because Trump World has something to hide.

The new lawsuit insists the subpoenas “have no legitimate or lawful purpose.” That’s a tough argument to take seriously. For one thing, Michael Cohen recently gave sworn testimony that alerted lawmakers to a series of alleged financial misdeeds he claims Trump personally committed.

For another, as regular readers know, lawmakers are also aware of credible allegations of criminal fraud, criminal tax evasion, and money laundering, which the American president exploited to fuel his rise to power.

The only credible way to answer the lingering questions is to review the financial records that the Trumps seem eager to keep hidden.

“In the history of our country, there has never been a president that’s been more transparent than me or the Trump administration,” the president told reporters last week.

If Trump expects anyone to believe this, he probably ought to avoid filing lawsuits intended to keep his financial information secret.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-file-new-lawsuit-keep-finances-hidden-investigators


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/30/19 9:35 am • # 18 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
Maybe Cummings and the others should sue the Trump Family and their Capo di Capo for trying to block the House leaders from doing their jobs.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/30/19 9:40 am • # 19 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
jimwilliam wrote:
Maybe Cummings and the others should sue the Trump Family and their Capo di Capo for trying to block the House leaders from doing their jobs.


Obstruction of oversight?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/30/19 10:25 am • # 20 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
any headway on this?


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 20 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.