So his lawyers will argue that it’s impossible to keep the info private that identifies the taxpayer, because the committee has publicly stated that they sre demanding those returns.
Mueller reports, congressional hearings, will not save you.
The good people of the US need to save themselves.
His lawyers will still be trying to piss up a rope, because the only restriction the law enables in the case of the taxpayer being known is that the records are to be handled in a closed-door session.
If their argument is that reviewing the tax returns would result in the committee making information about them public because they would lead to a public criminal prosecution (or even just impeachment charges) that would violate the confidentiality requirement of that law, it feels like a pretty strong admission on their part that there’s definitely criminality hidden (and probably not even well hidden) in Trump’s returns.
Yeah, I agree. And Trump is an anomaly in recent history, by not publicly releasing his taxes. By becoming president, people should forego certain types of privacy.
Do you honestly think the IRS hasn’t taken a look at his tax returns? If there was some glaring issue that would be obvious to the public, wouldn’t it have been obvious to an IRS auditor who would then conduct an audit? (talking per-president here).
That wouldn’t show up in his tax returns, would it? It would show up in the books of the companies he used.
I don’t completely disagree in principle. But 1) I don’t think his tax returns are going to reveal anything criminally damning. Again, as above, the IRS per-President Trump could and I assumed would scrutinize his returns and conduct and audit if there were glaring implications of criminal acts.
On some level this seems petty and distracting from bigger issues. It really does seem a lot like Obama’s birth certificate. Everyone wanted to see the original long form. The absence of it means the possibility of some hot issue being true was there - from him not being born in HI, to having a different father, to the listing of “reptillian” as his race. In both cases, having the documents exposed I don’t think is going to matter.
But hey, there is a legal process for it, so I guess go one with your bad self. I would rather everything was being dedicated to getting the Muller report released, but hey, queue the “Why not both” gal.
ETA - I have seen a couple more “how do you know” posts. I don’t, but come one, this comes off as desperate. Again, just like Obama’s Birth Certificate. Look I want him gone as much as the next person, but this feels like straw grasping. If there was something so clearly criminal and the IRS hadn’t already acted on it, then the IRS should have a bunch of people fired.
I guess one can use it as the counter to “We don’t know if we got all her emails” for various political arguments.
On the other hand that agency is only tasked with enforcing the tax code, so if his returns showed evidence of other legal or ethical misconduct then the public wouldn’t learn about them from the IRS.
Exactly. There’s nothing illegal about an American business taking loans from banks owned by Russian oligarchs in thrall to Putin, as long as the loans are reported to the IRS as part of the filing. That’s why the public or their elected representatives seeing the returns is so important: if such loans have existed over the past 7-10 years, chances are good that they would be traceable through his personal and/or coprorate returns.
The IRS has been progressively strangled over the past 40 years by Republicans. They are overburdened. How many IRS prosecutions have come from the Panama papers, which showed American citizens and companies offshoring Ill-gotten gains? Four were finally indicted in December.