Mnuchin rejects Democrats' demand to hand over Trump's tax returns, all but ensuring legal battle

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post



Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Monday told House Democrats he would not furnish President Trump’s tax returns despite their legal request, the latest move by Trump administration officials to shield the president from congressional investigations.

Mnuchin, in a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), said he had consulted with the Justice Department and that they had concluded that it would not be lawful for the Trump administration to turn over the tax returns because of potential violations of privacy. Mnuchin added that requests from Congress “must reasonable serve a legitimate legislative purpose” and that the request from Democrats does not.

A number of legal experts have said it would be unprecedented for Mnuchin to refuse to turn over the tax returns, as the power for lawmakers to seek the returns is written explicitly in a 1924 law. But Mnuchin, Trump’s former campaign finance chairman, has fought to protect the returns from public disclosure and said it would create a dangerous precedent if the returns are released. Mnuchin’s announcement on Monday appears to be his final decision in the matter, though he has hinted for weeks that he would not allow the release.

On April 23, Mnuchin notified House Democrats that he would be consulting with the Justice Department about the request for Trump’s tax returns and planned to reach his final decision on May 6. In his new letter, he said that “In reliance on the advice of the Department of Justice, I have determined that the Committee’s request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose, and...the Department is therefore not authorized to disclose the requested returns and return information.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/mnuchin-rejects-democrats-demand-to-hand-over-trumps-tax-returns-all-but-ensuring-legal-battle/2019/05/06/5483f8ac-7022-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html

---

Original article and headline -

Mnuchin says he won't give Trump's tax returns to Congress -- all but ensuring a court battle

By Washington Post Staff
May 6 at 5:38 PM

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said his department would not meet the Democrats’ demand for six years of President Trump’s tax filings, saying it lacked a “legitimate legislative purpose.”

House Democrats say the returns are part of necessary oversight, while the administration has rejected the request as part of a politically motivated witch hunt.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/05/06/mnuchin-says-he-wont-give-trumps-tax-returns-to-congress-all-but-ensuring-a-court-battle/?utm_term=.7a53e0349db7

[Gothmog]

1. Here is Munchin's letter

Link to tweet

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Thank you!

[Stuart G]

22. What do you suppose Trump is hiding? nt

[cstanleytech]

2. Sounds like he needs to be impeached as much as Barr needs to be disbarred.

[Evolve Dammit]

14. Agreed. Take a number and await justice. Line them up. Lady Liberty gonna be busy.

[George II]

4. Who is he to decide what is or isn't a "legitimate legislative purpose"?

What office has HE ever been elected to?

[a kennedy]

5. GAWD DAMN IT......how can they do this on EVERYTHING

DAMN IT. So courts here we come and by the time this ALL gets settled he’ll be out of office, hopefully.

[SHRED]

6. Isn't this a violation of law?

Have him arrested.

[Grasswire2]

7. It's not up to Mnuchin!!! The law is very specific.

It's up to the IRS commissioner solely.

[FBaggins]

11. That's incorrect

Though the IRS commissioner was who the committee sent the request to, he isn't even mentioned in the text.

[Grasswire2]

24. you are in disagreement with the experts presented on MSNBC.

We have heard from them for weeks now.

[FBaggins]

25. I doubt it.

We're either not in disagreement (IOW, you misunderstood what they said) or they aren't experts... because the language is quite clear. It nowhere says "IRS Commissioner"... but does explicitly say "The Secretary"

(2) Chief of Staff of Joint Committee on Taxation

Upon written request by the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish him with any return or return information specified in such request. Such Chief of Staff may submit such return or return information to any committee described in paragraph (1), 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.

[earthside]

8. Criminal Cronyism

Again ... a cabinet secretary who is protecting Trump before fulfilling their oath of office.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

9. The Tax Law 6103 is blatantly clear......

When Tax Returns are requested, they SHALL be turned over for scrutiny. The applies to the President as well that the IRS Commissioner must comply.

Tax Law 7214 states that failure to comply to Congressional requests or SUBPOENAS SHALL result in termination of position, $10,000 fine and 5 years imprisonment.

What is it these assholes don't understand?

[Honeycombe8]

17. No code or statute is read alone. It builds on others.

For example, I'm sure that Congress has to have legal authority to get the returns in the first place.

Mnuchin's response is saying that the reason Congress wants the tax returns is not legal, that Congress can only request tax returns when needed for a legislative purpose.

Looks like this will be decided by a court.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

20. Michael Cohen in his testimony before Congress....

Last edited Tue May 7, 2019, 09:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Stated that Trump misrepresented himself in financial reports and his taxes when seeking bank loans and avoiding paying any taxes at all. So Congress is taking a legal position in further investigative means. Legal.

[Honeycombe8]

21. Yes, that's the argument. Then there's the other legal argument.

That's why it is going to court. As long as a legal argument can be made for the other side, it will go to court.

I'm sure Pelosi and the Dems' lawyers know they have the legal right. I sure don't.

It's like a criminal defendant pleading "not guilty." The prosecutor may say..."but the evidence is so strong! He clearly is guilty!" But the defendant has the right to plead otherwise. A jury will then decide.

[turbinetree]

10. They the Committee chairs should haul the IRS asshole and this asshole in front of House

and then have the Sargent of Arms lock there fucking ass's up.................................enough is enough....................someone is going to blink................................and it should be these two assholes........................LOCK them UP................. these assholes do not play by the rules..........................they have burned the fucking book, and they should be treated as such.....................this is BULL Shit..............................every knew they were and are going to do this.............................

[SWBTATTReg]

12. This blatant disregard of the laws of this country is putting a nasty stain on rump's admin., ...

that will never come clean. Keep up the work, our fellow democratic leaders in Congress. Stating to Congress that they fail to have a legislative purpose is obstructing Congress' role in oversight. I think that Congress would win in a court should it come to that.

[jalan48]

13. Constitutional Crisis has been the plan from day one. Let's see what the courts say and how long

the process takes.

[Chin music]

15. Let's give them more time.

[LovingA2andMI]

16. Is Anyone Truly Surprised?

This Crook was never going to out another Crook.

[patphil]

18. So what else is new

The rule of law means nothing to these guys.
Lock 'em all up.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

19. Come on Mnunchin

Trump isn't worth throwing your life away over.

[The Liberal Lion]

23. If trump is not subject to the same laws that each and every ordinary citizen is subject to

he is then by definition a tyrant.
Forgetting the fact that his elevation to the white house was both unlawful and an act of treason, the people are in no way obligated to respect any imagined authority this administration believes it posses. That the House represents the will of the people, and in America it is the people who are sovereign, the House has every right to seize what it has requested and to arrest and detain anyone who should resist up to and including trump.

[NoMoreRepugs]

26. Slowly but surely the rule of law is disintegrating in the USA.

[Ellipsis]

27. Put that fucker in jail.

Time to play hardball.


That squeaky fucker wouldn't last a night behind bars.

[Blue Owl]

28. Diaper Donny's Douchebag Dweeb

n/t

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. No need for a lengthy court battle, just follow this simple recipe:

1) begin impeachment of Mnuchin, with simultaneous criminal referral to DOJ;

2) begin impeachment of Rettig, with simultaneous criminal referral to DOJ;

3) if Barr declines to prosecute Mnuchin and Rettig, begin impeachment of Barr;

4) during the course of steps 1-3, if anyone replaces either Barr, Rettig or Mnuchin, and continues to obstruct, impreach them too, with simultaneous criminal referral.



Congress must use every weapon in its arsenal, and not play into Trump's game plan of running out the clock. Only cowardly defeatists will claim that certain victory is more important than the fight itself.

[Firestorm49]

31. The sooner the better.

Again last night I heard a commentator saying that the Democratic Party is still too sheepish, and I couldn’t agree more. We can’t afford to “think about it”. There will be no room for tears if we lose the next presidential election. We need to act now, not next week.

We all obviously know that stalling tactics are their latest ploy, hoping to drag this nightmare out beyond the next election. So, get the f.....k moving NOW!

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. SNL did at least two bits last week portraying the Dems as weak and timid in asserting power

When you've lost SNL, you know you're on the wrong track.

[BumRushDaShow]

33. "Impeachment" does not equal "removal"

You need the Senate for that. They can be "impeached", dust off their shoulders, and continue the obstruction because Turtle will make sure nothing comes of it. So this is where the courts will NEED to be involved in addition to any "impeachment". Impeachment basically only means an "indictment" (a charge).

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. The courts have no impact on impeachment proceedings, particularly removal.

An impeachment inquiry carries long standing legal precedents that compel the release of documents and testimony. Non-impeachment related subpoenas are handled on a case by case basis, with lengthy delay for even a ruling. For impeachment inquiries, rulings have been made many times over, and to resist or obstruct under an impeachment inquiry would be clearly impeachable in and of itself.

We are finding out today that Trump fears Meuller's testimony for all the media coverage it will create. Impeachment hearings for Barr, Rettig and Mnuchin would also create intense media coverage, much more than trying to enforce a subpeona through the courts.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. I never said they had anything to do with "removal"

I am saying that in parallel, the courts will need to be involved regardless of whether you have an inquiry or not, just like they were involved with Nixon to get the subpoenaed materials (the infamous "tapes" ) for the Watergate hearings in preparation for an impeachment inquiry. Nixon resigned just before the inquiry was to start. Laying the ground work for that is what is generally being done right now.

Your argument of "begin impeachment" is not going to have an end result that you seem to be arguing without other things going on simultaneously. This doesn't mean that you don't go through the inquiry process because I am in favor of it, but you cannot summarily dismiss other things that need to happen first. And with high-profile cases, the courts have and will do expedited rulings. We have seen it many times.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. Nixon resigned months after an impeachment inquiry was opened

He resigned as the judicial committee approved three articles of impeachment to send to the full house for a floor vote. The inquiry had been opened months earlier, and the groundwork had been in the works since late 1973.

The expedited rulings that you mention largely were in response to obstruction of an impeachment inquiry (i.e. Nixon turning over the tapes). They are expedited *because* they are connected to an impeachment inquiry. Look back at Watergate, and Whitewater, and you can see things dragged out in the courts for months, until congress opened an inquiry, then things moved a lot quicker.

If you have examples of court rulings on Executive Branch resistance/obstruction to Congressional subpoenas that were expedited *without* an impeachment inquiry being open, I'd love to hear about them.

I'm saying this is settled law, no need to re-litigate. Any obstruction or resistance is grounds for impeachment.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. They hadn't started the impeachment hearings yet

and the unanimous ruling from the SCOTUS requiring submission of the tapes that had been subpoenaed and withheld due to an overly-broad assumption of "Executive Privilege" was the endgame where he resigned 2 weeks after.

And regarding "expediting", the courts expedite high-profile things all the time. Hell here in PA, they expedited rulings on the lack of federal jurisdiction over the gerrymandering here, the courts expedited all kinds of things related to the ridiculous WH Executive Orders...

And regarding this -

If you have examples of court rulings on Executive Branch resistance/obstruction to Congressional subpoenas that were expedited *without* an impeachment inquiry being open, I'd love to hear about them.

You do realize that impeachment has only happened twice right? So you have no examples of any "delays" either. When things get ratcheted up, agencies have generally complied with requests for documents and for sure have done so for anything subpoenaed. I.e., the documents HAVE been produced. I don't know how many times in my agency where the blast email went out requesting if anyone had anything "responsive" to a Congressional request and/or an FOIA request.

The poor schmo who has to deal with run-of-the-mill federal court cases will have their stuff dragged out and delayed (often due to both sets of lawyers requesting those delays). But with high profile issues, they have judges designated for "emergencies" until they can do an en banc.

[onenote]

39. The Nixon tapes case decision does not mention impeachment.

And the case was unrelated to any Congressional subpoena.

And courts expedite consideration of motions to quash subpoenas fairly regularly. https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2:2014cv00013/160573/176

[Firestorm49]

30. Ah, the age old question - why? Damn question just doesn't seem to want to leave the room.

[Dave Starsky]

32. Then it's off to jail with you, Steve. And say bye-bye to your hot Barbie wife.

Ain't no way she's waiting for your sorry ass to get out of the joint.

[onenote]

40. And who is going to bring this prosecution?

Do you think the DOJ is going to prosecute Mnuchin for following the DOJ's guidance in this matter?

[Dave Starsky]

41. Apparently, the House Sergeant-at-Arms has the authority to exercise this arrest.

If he/she knows a couple of high school football players who will physically assist him/her in wrestling that little, miserable shit into a car and then into a holding cell, then it's no problem.

[LiberalLovinLug]

42. I wouldn't put it past the admin to get the SaA to either swear a loyalty oath to Trump or be fired

And be replaced with someone who will. If they can do that with the AG himself, they can do that with anyone.

[onenote]

44. The Sergeant at Arms can only be removed by the House.

The current Sergeant at Arms, Paul Irving, was first elected in 2012 While by statute, he serves until he is removed, in practice the Sergeant of Arms serves until retirement. (There have been 34 SofAs in the 230 year history of the US). He could be removed, but only if a majority in the Democratic-majority House voted to do so:

Any person duly elected and qualified as Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives shall continue in said office until his successor is chosen and qualified, subject however, to removal by the House of Representatives.

[onenote]

43. Never going to happen.

Yes, the courts have recognized that Congress has "inherent" contempt authority. It hasn't been exercised in 80 years and its not going to be exercised now. Doing so would simply add a further delay to the process. Why? Because there would have to be a contempt "trial" in the House. And even before that occurred, there would be a habeas corpus petition filed in court that would raise the issue of whether Mnuchin's decision was lawful or not. While we all may be certain it wasn't, I doubt very much that the Democrats see any benefit in taking the risk of arresting someone only to have the courts rule against them. They can get to the same result by filing a Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Injunctive relief with the courts seeking a ruling that Mnuchin acted unlawfully and ordering him to turn over the returns.

[Dave Starsky]

45. If we're living in a country where the Constitution doesn't matter...

Or it's just too onerous to try to pretend the Constitution matters because [legal detail, legal detail, legal detail] , then who the fuck cares?

Physically haul the bastards in before a televised committee and ask them questions anyway.