So, what is the significance of this new reporting from the New York Times? I suspect that is one of the points or issues that has been getting "kicked around" in the course of this Topic, as I return to this Topic for the first time since I started it more than 24 hours ago.

The House Ways and Means Committee, led by Democratic Congressman "Richie" Neal of Massachusetts, has been trying to get access to the last six years of President Trump's federal tax returns. Mr Neal has said that his request is justified by a law that's been on the books for almost 100 years; a law that was put in place after the Teapot Dome scandal during the Presidential administration of Warren G. Harding, which began in 1921. Trump's Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, wants to block the committee's request.

If this argument eventually becomes a court case, I think this new reporting from the New York Times, which is based on Trump's IRS taxpayer transcripts from 1985 to 1994, could be used by the committee's lawyers to add persuasive legal argument to support the request for access to the last six years of Trump's federal tax returns.

The committee's lawyers could argue that the exceptional character of Trump's IRS filings from 1985 to 1994 ties into the committee's purpose and Congressional oversight functions, as the Ways and Means Committee is supposed to function as the leading House committee on tax-related legislation. The committee's lawyers could argue that the exceptional character of Trump's IRS filings from 1985 to 1994 is in and of itself an argument for the committee's legitimate need for the last six years of Trump's IRS filings as it considers whether there is a need for changing the tax codes that pertain to Real Estate Development and Real Estate Transactions.

This would stand alongside another argument that the Ways and Means Committee lawyers would likely marshal, that the committee needs the last six years of Trump's federal tax filings as part of its oversight function over the IRS. The IRS, by tradition if not by law--as I am not an expert about this--has a responsibility to audit the serving President's IRS filings. The committee's lawyers could argue that the last six years of Trump's IRS filings are data that the committee must have to fulfill its oversight functions over the IRS.

This new reporting from the New York Times could also be marshaled in support of subpoenas from other House committees--Financial Services and Intelligence and/or Judiciary--for Trump business related records from Mazars USA, which has been the accounting firm for Trump's business holdings, and from Deutsche Bank, which has a long financial history with the Trump organization. (I think there is a second bank that has also been subpoenaed.) The Trump administration is trying to block these subpoenas and prevent the House committees from obtaining these records.

All part of a House Democratic-led effort to suss out whether there is some "Sword of Damocles" that is hanging over the President, that calls into question his reliability, in term of his oath to defend the United States and the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and in terms of his ability to preside over the United States government, set policies and make decisions about both foreign and domestic issues, without putting his own self-interest above the genuine interests of the United States. Has the President been compromised by foreign interests? Is he beholden by debt or by knowledge or "Kompromat" to one or more foreign entities, as a consequence of his history of financial and business-related transactions?

To wit.

One last remark here: Did someone inside of the IRS leak Trump's taxpayer transcripts from 1985 to 1994 to a New York Times reporter, and in so doing, commit a federal crime? Not necessarily. These taxpayer transcripts can become part of loan or mortgage applications or other private sector financial transactions. So maybe the Trump taxpayer transcripts came to the New York Times from someone inside of, or someone who was previously employed at Deutsche Bank--for one possibility. Or how about the NFL"s Buffalo Bills? It's known that Trump made an effort (unsuccessful) to obtain ownership of the Buffalo Bills. (I just put this in for some slightly comic relief.)

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-09-2019).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: So, what is the significance of this new reporting from the New York Times? I suspect that is one of the points or issues that has been getting "kicked around" in the course of this Topic, as I return to this Topic for the first time since I started it more than 24 hours ago.

Translation; "I don't care what anyone else posted, I've already made up my mind in this matter and this isn't a discussion as much as it's just me mentally masturbating on here."

quote The committee's lawyers could argue that the exceptional character of Trump's IRS filings from 1985 to 1994 ties into the committee's purpose and Congressional oversight functions, as the Ways and Means Committee is supposed to function as the leading House committee on tax-related legislation. The committee's lawyers could argue that the exceptional character of Trump's IRS filings from 1985 to 1994 is in and of itself an argument for the committee's legitimate need for the last six years of Trump's IRS filings as it considers whether there is a need for changing the tax codes that pertain to Real Estate Development and Real Estate Transactions. This would stand alongside another argument that the Ways and Means Committee lawyers would likely marshal, that the committee needs the last six years of Trump's federal tax filings as part of its oversight function over the IRS. The IRS, by tradition if not by law--as I am not an expert about this--has a responsibility to audit the serving President's IRS filings. The committee's lawyers could argue that the last six years of Trump's IRS filings are data that the committee must have to fulfill its oversight functions over the IRS. This new reporting from the New York Times could also be marshaled in support of subpoenas from other House committees--Financial Services and Intelligence and/or Judiciary--for Trump business related records from Mazars USA, which has been the accounting firm for Trump's business holdings, and from Deutsche Bank, which has a long financial history with the Trump organization. (I think there is a second bank that has also been subpoenaed.) The Trump administration is trying to block these subpoenas and prevent the House committees from obtaining these records.

Wait, so the entire argument is that they need to see the returns so that they can see if the tax laws pertaining to real estate need changed? How do you not see how insane that is? Seriously?

Also, calling the NYT "the paper of record" does not make it so. They are a rag, bent on extreme left propaganda and can't be trusted at all.

[This message has been edited by Fats (edited 05-11-2019).]