re: DC Circuit Rules against Trump re House Request for Tax Records

It is a fishing expedition. Trump will win in the court that really counts.

quote:

---

Why do you care about Trump's tax returns so much?

---

I like analyzing an interesting legal issue.

quote:

---

What right does anyone have to see another citizen's tax returns?

---

You are obsessing over the fact that the documents covered by this subpoena are “tax returns.”

The first question is whether the subpoena itself is valid in nature, regardless of its content. The answer to that question is clearly yes. Legislative bodies can clearly obtain through subpoena documentation relevant to investigations conducted as part of the legislative process.

The next question is whether tax returns would somehow be exempt. They simply are not. Tax returns are not public information, but they are clearly subject to a vast number of legal processes. As an example, They are subject to discovery in EVERY child suport case and in every lawsuit seeking exemplary damages.

They are usually subject to some sort of confidentiality requirement, and the same is true when they are obtained as part of the legislative process.

You will doubtless argue that the confidentiality of these tax returns in particular will not be honored. I think that is a valid concern and I do agree with you.

I think that the penalties for dissemination of documents protected by such confidentiality requirements should be significantly more severe.

I guess my main problem with this is that Trump isn't charged with anything, so this "discovery" fight is obviously based on faulty premise.

So we are just going to allow legal fishing expeditions to find something?

quote:

---

I think that the penalties for dissemination of documents protected by such confidentiality requirements should be significantly more severe.

---

The only thing the ruling did was give the government more power and now allows the party in power to do taxpayer funded oppo research on the candidate of their choice.

I'm not saying you are for this but anyone that is happy about this is nuts.

quote:

---

I guess my main problem with this is that Trump isn't charged with anything, so this "discovery" fight is obviously based on faulty premise.

So we are just going to allow legal fishing expeditions to find something?

---

This. Basically, they are getting the greenlight to subpoena anyone's (In this case Trump, but it would apply to anyone, right?) tax returns to see if they might find something in them that they don't like. And not his tax returns from when he became President and after... from when he was a private citizen.

Seems to me that the American people have already judged his past and found him worthy of being President. So why does Congress thing it should look into his past to see if they can find him... not worthy? The whole thing stinks.

quote:

---

I guess my main problem with this is that Trump isn't charged with anything, so this "discovery" fight is obviously based on faulty premise.

So we are just going to allow legal fishing expeditions to find something?

---

Ironically, this subpoena would likely not be valid if Trump were “charged with a crime.“ In that instance, it would be part of a criminal investigation, rather than a legislative inquiry. That is outside the purview of the legislative branch. That issue is addressed in the DC Circuit opinion.

One of the purported Committee bases for seeking the documents in question lies in potential revision to the Ethics in Government Act, adopted post-Watergate. Apparently, there were inconsistencies in Trump’s financial reporting, as required under that legislation. One purported basis for the subpoena is a desire to determine whether the disclosure requirements of that legislation are adequate and/or subject to adequate enforcement.

Some will believe that justification. Others will not.

Thus, the question arises as to whether we want appellate courts to have the authority to review the justification underlying every congressional investigation.

I tend to fall into the camp that does not want to see appellate courts having that authority. Is far easier to replace an elected official who overstepped his authority than to replace a life-tenured judge who does the same thing.

quote:

---

I guess my main problem with this is that Trump isn't charged with anything, so this "discovery" fight is obviously based on faulty premise.

So we are just going to allow legal fishing expeditions to find something?

---

I just skimmed the beginning of the ruling. Looks like the general argument in favor of the subpoena is related to the financial disclosure forms that the President must produce every year in office. What alerted the committee to potential inaccuracies was the Stormy Daniels hush money payment Trump made to Cohen.

In broader terms, the oversight committee is using the argument that they need the returns to determine if they need to change the laws on the books regarding financial disclosures/ethics that were put into place following Watergate.

Again, I just skimmed the first few pages so I'm sure there is much more to it, but that's at least part of the purpose of the investigation.

quote:

---

They are subject to discovery in EVERY child suport case

---

It's not a divorce where children are involved.

quote:

---

and in every lawsuit seeking exemplary damages.

---

There is no one seeking damages, and no the complete tax return is not needed in EITHER situation.


Try again. What law allows them to his complete tax return.