Posted on 02/07/2019 3:13:36 AM PST by be-baw
Okay, here is what they will learn. Trump is VERY wealthy. (Orange man bad AND part of .5%!) Trump has used every loophole available to him to limit the amount of tax he pays. (Orange man not paying his FAIR SHARE!) Trump probably gives a substantial sum to charity. (Orange man...oh, crap...)
Isn’t “privately” a key word here? As I understand it, tax returns must be kept private.
But how many in the current House have ever read the Constitution anyway?
“Isn’t “privately” a key word here? As I understand it, tax returns must be kept private.”
They should be. I guess we’ll find out eventually.
The 1924 measure, based on discussions I’ve seen....say that the chairman (and only the chairman) can review anyone’s tax records. The problem I see is that it’ll be challenged in court if the chairman wants the copies for his staff to read. The other piece to this story....just one single year of Trump tax returns probably goes to 200, maybe even 300 pages. So even if you had the best analyst that exists within the IRS looking at it....it’d take a four months to read the whole thing and identify any issues.
Somewhere along the lines of this...the Privacy Act of 1974 is going to come into play, and leaks of private data will trigger FBI investigations. The House intent? It’ll turn into more of a circus than a dramatic affair.
“This comes perilously close to Bill of Attainder if not outright attempting to pass one.”
I had to look up Bill of Attainder to refresh my memory. For others who are wondering about it:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”
“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:
Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).
Good Lord is there anyone on this planet that trusts the FBI?
Careers in public service are built by bagging big game like Trump. No leaf has been left unturned.
So if the House Democrats want to waste their time here, go for it.
“Somewhere along the lines of this...the Privacy Act of 1974 is going to come into play, and leaks of private data will trigger FBI investigations. The House intent? It’ll turn into more of a circus than a dramatic affair.”
That’s an interesting wrinkle. If we’re comparing apples to apples here, would the 1974 Privacy Act supersede the 1924 provision? On first blush, it sounds like yes it would.
Trump needs to release the redacted docs and begin to crush these bastards one by one
If the Democrats were to put these resources into investigating the unsolved murders in the cities they run, they might actually solve a few and save lives in the process.
Dumblecrats trust the FBI...they have little to fear from it....
House Democrats equal liberal fascists.
This obviously is an abuse of law, it is nothing but a pure raw political malfeasance. It does nothing for the American people. Trump will be able to drag this out through the courts over two more years if played right. Also, now that the Supreme Court like Ginsberg very recently find it very relevant to take an elected person’s campaign statements when considering what they are doing in exercising the power of their office, each demokrap on the committee will need to be analyzed accordingly.
If this does happen, it will set a precedent for all elected officials including Ms. Depends and Senator Upchuck.
This is going to the USSC. No way PDJT's tax returns EVER get reviewed by Schiff.
Sure - the Dems will release them and say: "so sue us" - after the barn door's already open.
Adam Schiffhead and “private” don’t belong in the same sentence. He wants to get his hands on them so he can LEAK them
They have the goods on Schithead leaking top secret info against the law and he should go to jail for it.
Also, lets see how Pelosi got so rich , and DiFi’s husband
made so much money off govt contracts.
At least Trump got rich before he went into office, and now takes no pay for himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.