| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| vientomas wrote: | Pelosi is not running for, nor is she, president. It is customary for those running for president to release their taxes. Pelosi is not in that category. Furthermore, no governing body with authority has asked Pelosi to release her tax returns.
Next fallacious analogy? |
Now you're playing games again, on stuff that's already been covered. And which is it ... "required by law" or "customary"?
Never mind. I don't have time for games. Shields up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14890
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | | vientomas wrote: | Pelosi is not running for, nor is she, president. It is customary for those running for president to release their taxes. Pelosi is not in that category. Furthermore, no governing body with authority has asked Pelosi to release her tax returns.
Next fallacious analogy? |
Now you're playing games again, on stuff that's already been covered. And which is it ... "required by law" or "customary"?
Never mind. I don't have time for games. Shields up. |
low level thinker, if she does become president I will demand she put her taxes out...
again do you have a clue to what the emoluments clause in the constitution? and other conflict of interests. Again the right wing went after Jimmy Carters peanut farm for making extra money as a president.
Pelosi is wealthy so I especially want to know her severe conflict of interests.
not peanuts.
| Quote: | | The word "emolument" has a broad meaning. At the time of the Founding, it meant "profit," "benefit," or "advantage" of any kind.[21] Because of the "sweeping and unqualified" nature of the constitutional prohibition, and in light of the more sophisticated understanding of conflicts of interest that developed after the Richard Nixon presidency, modern presidents have chosen to eliminate any risk of conflict of interest that may arise by choosing to vest their assets into a blind trust.[18] As the Office of Legal Counsel has held, the Constitution is violated when the holder of an Office of Profit or Trust, like the President,[22] receives money from a partnership or similar entity in which he has a stake, and the amount he receives is "a function of the amount paid to the [entity] by the foreign government."[20] This is because such a setup would allow the entity to "in effect be a conduit for that government," and so the government official would be exposed to possible "undue influence and corruption by [the] foreign government."[20] The Department of Defense has expressly held that "this same rationale applies to distributions from limited liability corporations."[23] |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | | vientomas wrote: | Pelosi is not running for, nor is she, president. It is customary for those running for president to release their taxes. Pelosi is not in that category. Furthermore, no governing body with authority has asked Pelosi to release her tax returns.
Next fallacious analogy? |
Now you're playing games again, on stuff that's already been covered. And which is it ... "required by law" or "customary"?
Never mind. I don't have time for games. Shields up. |
Let me use my crayons and spell it out for you. It's customary until requested by a governing body, then it's mandatory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vientomas wrote: | | isobars wrote: | | vientomas wrote: | Pelosi is not running for, nor is she, president. It is customary for those running for president to release their taxes. Pelosi is not in that category. Furthermore, no governing body with authority has asked Pelosi to release her tax returns.
Next fallacious analogy? |
Now you're playing games again, on stuff that's already been covered. And which is it ... "required by law" or "customary"?
Never mind. I don't have time for games. Shields up. |
Let me use my crayons and spell it out for you. It's customary until requested by a governing body, then it's mandatory. |
The moron never heard of the 4th amendment ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MalibuGuru wrote: | | vientomas wrote: | | isobars wrote: | | vientomas wrote: | Pelosi is not running for, nor is she, president. It is customary for those running for president to release their taxes. Pelosi is not in that category. Furthermore, no governing body with authority has asked Pelosi to release her tax returns.
Next fallacious analogy? |
Now you're playing games again, on stuff that's already been covered. And which is it ... "required by law" or "customary"?
Never mind. I don't have time for games. Shields up. |
Let me use my crayons and spell it out for you. It's customary until requested by a governing body, then it's mandatory. |
The moron never heard of the 4th amendment ... |
Oh goodie! Let's debate the 4th Amendment!
It states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This language has of couse been construed many time by the Supreme Court under a variety of factual circumstances. But, the bottom line is that it protects citizens from "unreasonable searches and seizures". It does not place a blanket prohibition on government searches and seizures. Therefore, under applicable circumstances, the governement has the right to search a citizen and seize items, with or without a warrant depending on the circumstances.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constituion gives Congress the power to tax. Congress also has the power to investigate.
“The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.” Justice Harlan summarized the matter in 1959. “The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.”
In 1924, in response to government scandal involving the executive branch, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, giving Congress the unqualified authority to obtain income taxes from the Secretary of Treasury, not from private citizens. 26 U.S. Code § 6103. This law is still in effect. You can read about it here if you want to better your understanding of the situation: https://taxprof.typepad.com/files/154tn1013-yin.pdf
I have heard of the 4th Amendment, apparently you have too. The dfference is I know when and how it is applied. You do not. Nice name calling btw. I suspect, as usual, when you are proven wrong, you will slink away and fail to reply. I'm up for a spirited debate on the issue, so long as you can refrain from the personal insults. How 'bout you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MalibuGuru wrote: | | The moron never heard of the 4th amendment ... |
or that we're innocent until proven guilty.
The left screams that Mueller's report didn't prove Trump innocent of collusion or obstruction. Hell, even full-blown trials don't establish innocence; how could they? The verdicts are guilty or not guilty, not "innocent". Besides, even Comey admitted that Trump's firing of him doesn't obstruct justice, simply because the investigation will proceed no matter who runs the FBI. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | | MalibuGuru wrote: | | The moron never heard of the 4th amendment ... |
or that we're innocent until proven guilty.
The left screams that Mueller's report didn't prove Trump innocent of collusion or obstruction. Hell, even full-blown trials don't establish innocence; how could they? The verdicts are guilty or not guilty, not "innocent". Besides, even Comey admitted that Trump's firing of him doesn't obstruct justice, simply because the investigation will proceed no matter who runs the FBI. |
Nice thread drift "kill file". The current subject is Congressional authority to obtain tax records. Last time I checked, Congress was not part of the judicial branch of the government and therefore, the presumption of innocence is irrelevant.
The lack of a basic understanding of our constitutional form of government by posters here is astounding. It's never too late to become educated, try reading a book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's actually pretty irrelevant, lets say Trump releases his tax returns, it wouldn't matter one bit what it says, the haters would be all over it as if it's nothing but some kind of dirty evasions in print. Just like the Mueller report which supposedly proves Trump is guilty,,,, alternative realities.
What's really funny is the people behind the demands for the tax returns, as if they are supposed to be the arbiters of honesty, nobody is buying that other than the haters.
What they should be really demanding is the receipts for the last 3 years of Trump's dry cleaning, I'm sure they can find real crimes there.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14890
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | It's actually pretty irrelevant, lets say Trump releases his tax returns, it wouldn't matter one bit what it says, the haters would be all over it as if it's nothing but some kind of dirty evasions in print. Just like the Mueller report which supposedly proves Trump is guilty,,,, alternative realities.
What's really funny is the people behind the demands for the tax returns, as if they are supposed to be the arbiters of honesty, nobody is buying that other than the haters.
What they should be really demanding is the receipts for the last 3 years of Trump's dry cleaning, I'm sure they can find real crimes there. |
can't you and trump just get another Hillary investigation.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14890
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
again if he has nothing to hiide why is he hiding everything.
also the key note on the Mueller investigation was hw he went yelling at everyone in the Whitehouse when Mueller was appointed to investigate him he said his presidency is over. an innocent person does not yell and scream that....
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/keep-financial-records-secret-trump-sues-key-house-democrat?cid=eml_mra_20190422
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
| Quote: | 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.
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 altered lawmakers to a series of alleged financial misdeeds committed by Donald Trump. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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 vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
