Any politician in public office who is afraid of disclosing his tax returns is unfit for any public office. Clearly not disclosing tax returns implies that one is a fraud (tax cheat), or a liar(claims to be much weathier than he is), cheap (hasn't donated a dime to charity) or hiding something. Trump meets all these traits is the most incompetent and corrupt President in the history of the United States of America. He is a complete disaster for the American people who deserves impeachment and jail time. Lock him up!
4
Chief Justice John Roberts and his four Republican Justices who began the destruction of our democracy in Citizens United, Vote Now and Gerrymandering will now have a chance to show where they stand on their and our democracy. They may decide to postpone a decision until the next election is over because the financial records may show Russian complete control over President Trump's financial holdings. Even if they decide in favor of the House oversight committee, Trump may have destroyed the records. Then next Deutsche Bank in 2024.
Innocent people don't take a case to the SCOTUS to avoid having to what previous presidents have routinely and voluntarily done for decades...
3
"Congress had no legitimate legislative authority to seek his business records because the panel seeking them ... was primarily trying to determine whether he broke existing laws — not weighing whether to enact a new one"
This is a novel legal concept. They actually said this with a straight face?
1
At least we are getting closer to a resolution.
Although, I would bet a hundred bucks that even if SCOTUS says he has to turn over the tax records he will not do so readily.
Smart money says is already trying to figure out a way to get them out of the office, destroy or steal hard drives etc.
He is a lifelong criminal with much to hide.
2
I confess to having indulged in a bit of schadenfreude when I learned that the Chief Judge of the federal appeals court that handed Trump his latest loss is Merrick Garland.
5
We now wait to see how much control over SCOTUS trump has gained by placing his puppets on the court.
I wonder why you referred to Judge Rao as “Ms. Rao” when all the other male judges were referred to, properly, as “Judge” so and so. I happen to disagree strongly with Judge Rao’s opinion, but seems to me what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. Or vice versa.
2
Trump is running the country like he ran Trump University and the Trump Foundation with no accountability whatsoever. He considers himself above the law. His financial records will show that he is not a billionaire, doesn't pay taxes, hasn't given a dime to charity...ever. Another words it just proves that he is a liar, thief and cares only about self-enrichment. Gee...isn't that what we already know about him from his fraudulent Trump University and Trump Foundation? Impeach and Lock him up....the most incompetent and corrupt President in the history of the United States of America!
11
Why didn't the Bill Elizabeth Warren introduced last year (S.3357 - Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act) get any co-sponsors or public support from either party? It would have required that the President and members of Congress release their tax returns.
Is it possible the 85% of the members of Congress that have refused to release tax returns, don't support transparency?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3357/text
2
Here's the thing. We have spent the past three years wrangling with the outrageous behavior of a man who should have been properly vetted before he was allowed to become a candidate for President. It isn't a job any idiot can do, not even an idiot who has money or claims to have money. The future of the republic is at stake. A president should not be allowed to lie constantly to the people about his tax returns and get away with it. There appears to be criminal behavior here and it must be examined. If SCOTUS lets Trump get away with not showing tax returns it will set a precedent for corruption and no one running for any office will show tax returns in future.
5
Allow me to suggest, any attorney paid by the very White House to raise the 'infantile, middle-finger defense' should lose their license to practice.
The law belongs to all citizens who abide.
His majesty's crimes are not entitled to hide in darkness, unless of course he wishes to make the world better for future royalty like his family members.
Country over everything else. Just a thought.
1
Good, good, good. Let's get it all out there.
Impeachment can’t happen fast enough, like karma...
Unless Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are the SCOTUS-equivalents of Congress's Jordan, Nunes, Gaetz and Graham, (I'm holding out hope -- if not much -- for Roberts), there's no way the Supreme Court grants certiorari.
So I guess 'it' will.
(Catholic men haven't made me as miserable as this 'bunch' since 1969 … the last year time I 'made' any Confessions.)
I don't care about Trump's taxes.....unless... they're going to do him a la Al Capone to bring him down.
The 8 judges who denied the rehearing are a bi-partisan group including a George W. Bush appointee.
By contrast, the 3 dissenters are all republicans, two of whom are Trump appointees.
1
The Roberts Supreme Court, now a political weapon, will have to decide whether to side with Trump or force him to abide by the common law.
Guess what will happen?
2
And we all know full well how the now partisan Supreme Court will rule.
2
This seems to set us up for a republican-controlled Supreme Court to vote along party lines, essentially exonerating Trump. As disgusting as that is, the sadness of the politicization of the judiciary goes beyond this moment. Sure, right now Trump will escape justice, but in the larger picture, a Republican SCOTUS doing what it must to enable his escape (i.e., creating damaging precedent) is eroding our system of checks and balances. The irresponsibility is mind-numbing.
5
I have almost no hope what-so-ever that SCOTUS will not overturn the earlier ruling. Trump's bought and paid for justices will earn their keep, and the other three conservatives couldn't care less about precedent, morals, or American values. They are partisan, activist judges in the very mold conservatives claim to hate, but actually go out of their way to get on the bench. I have a tiny sliver of hope Roberts will decide based on fact, the lawyers briefs, and precedent. But only a sliver. Moscow Mitch's infamy for stealing the seat from Merrick Garland will live on in infamy long after Donald tRump is a barely remembered footnote to history.
1
The Trump appeal is nothing more than a delaying tactic. The full Court of Appeals refused to even hear the case and the Supreme Court should do the same thing on an emergency basis.
But, my guess is that they won't. They'll hear the case and put off a decision long past the time it makes any difference, November 2020.
Throughout his career Trump has successfully "won" hundreds of cases that he would have lost if the plaintiffs could have afforded the enormous legal costs of multitude of appeals. Trump then settled along with no admission of guilt and Non-Disclosure Agreements to cover up the details of the case.
Courts in a misguided, academic and idealistic quest for the "pursuit of justice" have a bad habit of participating in this Circus that lets the richest participant "win" or at least not lose. Conservatives on the Supreme Court, who have virtually never lived anywhere but in the lofty, musty halls of courts simply cannot see that "justice delayed is justice denied." They either don't care or are willing participants in promoting plutocracy.
2
We are locked in a very troubling time when the desire for absolute power has eclipsed truth, the rule of law and dedication to country over party. Now, decisions of the Supreme Court are expected to and will reflect which party has appointed the majority of justices. Chief Justice Roberts may claim otherwise but his words are not aligned with reality. The Court’s justices will vote along party lines.
If the House may not in pursuit of oversight determine whether or not the President’s actions reflect his self interest or violations of law, the Constitution’s provisions for a balance of power among the branches are nothing more than empty promises. And, there is no evidence that Americans appreciate that this pervasive partisanship is an all out attack on our democratic republic. Very troubling times.
You don't insist on this level of secrecy with your financial records when you follow the law. What's he hiding? Thoughts?
America's premier tax-dodger, draft-dodger, bankruptcy-filer, and debt-dodger thinks his tax return's are nobody's business but his own.
But when you're the President - or someone pretending to be President, then your personal finances, your foreign creditors and your tax-dodging all affect public policy.
The tax returns are a very legitimate Congressional oversight subject.
What exactly is Trump hiding from America ?
5
Not to worry. He’s under audit. He said he’ll release the records as soon as that’s over. He told us that himself. Feel better now?
That Trump is so adamant in hiding his tax returns speaks volumes...that he is, indeed, a consummate crook. He has been cheating on us for decades, same as his father, evading paying his fair share by unscrupulous accountants and lawyers doing his bidding. The question is, why is justice's arm so awfully long...before this con man is made to pay back what he owes? Or ought we be content with two sorts of justice, one benign and forgiving for the 'rich', and another cruel and crass for the 'poor'?
It looks like SCOTUS will be ruling on Trump's "absolute immunity" claim. They will need to have some compelling justifications to overrule two Appeals court decisions......you would hope.
1
I trust the IRS to investigate and fine those that break the law. I also trust them to report egregious issues to law enforcement (remember Capone?).
So, why the never-ending demand for financial records? It's not a requirement. If Congress wants it to be, make it a requirement. Do so for ALL elected politicians. Otherwise, start barking up another tree - like giving us a candidate to vote for that doesn't remind me of Doctor Zhivago.
I really hope Trump is forced to disclose his tax returns.
I can’t wait to see what he is so desperately trying to hide.
3
This case is a perfect litmus test of what we can expect from this court. No one will die based on their ruling, and we will get a read on political influence vs defense of the Constitution. Justices in the past have completely surprised Presidents who nominated them. I don’t expect this court to be at all liberal, but the real question is how committed are they to the Constitution? The tax returns may or may not reveal tax fraud, but the larger question is to whom does DJT owe money? Russia? Most likely, as that would explain a lot of his recent behaviors. Voters need to know.
3
So now to SCOTUS. Well, isn't that special. Let's just imagine that instead of SCOTUS, this went to the US Senate to decide. It's pretty much the same thing. SCOTUS has just become another version of the US Senate, a collection of politically selected old people who vote along party lines and who serve as long as they want. Let's not hold our breaths for anything unexpected. (Note: yes, Senators don't get drivers; that's pretty much the only difference.)
I find it interesting the two of the three dissenting opinions are Trump toadies. Impartiality in our Justice system is non-existent anymore. This will go to the SCOTUS and we will see it go in Trump's favor.
How can any American have any faith in our democracy anymore? A tainted Justice system, a criminal Executive system and a warring inept Congress that couldn't compromise if their families lives depended on it. Democracy isn't breathing and the Electorate can't seem to resuscitate it because it too is divided. I can only see that there is only one way to revive this Republic. Educate. Pass one law that simply states if you run for an elected position in any local, state, or federal position, if you tell a LIE (misspoke, alternative fact, whatever) you are disqualified from office. Educate the Electorate. Make Civics and/or American Government classes mandatory. We need to bring our nation back from the abyss of trying to "make America great." We have done anything but. I had high hopes when our last Administration was working to advance our standing worldwide. Now? We are all wallowing in the cesspool created by inept, impartial and criminal government.
1
Why isn't the challenge to the subpoena brouht by the firm, Mazars? How can Trump challenge when he is not the "party"
who received it?
1
I am now in favor of increasing the number of judges on the Supreme Court. There will be only nine at one time, but they need subs like hockey. Justices rotate in and out to keep up with all the Trump-related cases coming their way!
1
As the 8-3 decision shows, it’s not controversial that congress can issue valid subpoenas, or that the president is not above the law.
It would be outrageous, therefore, for the Supreme Court to accept the case. The court’s job is to resolve legal disputes not among disputants, but among courts, so that federal law applies consistently across the country. But lately the Supreme Court can’t resist weighing in where its nose doesn’t belong.
No court has found for Trump in this case. No court has accepted Trump’s ridiculous argument that the president decides on what basis congress may issue a subpoena.
Stare Decisis mandates the court stand down: let the decision stand. Butt out, and let the law work.
44
Good point. But wasted since in the Royal Court of Trump, Vizier Barr hath decreed Trump is above all laws owing to his status as Our Leader, cannot be investigated because he cannot be tried, and the snake bites its own tail. Trump is indeed a man like no other. Lucky for the rest of us, I guess, but cold comfort. Meanwhile, Trump’s is not a principled fight; he is clearly trying to hide something that could be demonstrated or suggested by his tax returns, secrets he is desperate to keep. At this point, does it even matter what the secret is? Would you buy a used colony from this man?
7
For a President who assured voters he would happily share his tax records when they were no longer under audit, Trump is working awfully hard--appealing all the way to the Supreme Court--to prevent them from coming to light.
5
These dissenting judges seem to ignore the fact there is a law on the books, from way back when, that states that Tax Records SHALL be turned over the head of the Financial Services Committee upon request. Full stop. No other justification needed.
That law has never been challenged successfully in its history so it remains to be seen if Trump appointees will continue to try and sow chaos in our courts as well as in Congress.
50
@mike I find it perplexing that this case has any dissenting opinions at all given your point about the 1921 law stating clearly that the House Ways and Means "shall " receive tax records when ordered up. But I think this case originates in the state courts centered in Manhattan and argues differently.
On the other track, I think there is still a claim for tax records from the Ways and Means committee that remains in play???
In any case, and further perplexing is that the Democrats have not advanced a claim for the tax records with an impeachment claim (being that we are in a state of constitutional emergency) so as to "weaponize" the argument, if you will.
We the people have witnessed plenty of illogical, inane, judicial opinions that defy constitutional sense, and now we are line to witness more. Hopefully the Supreme Court in the voice of Mr. Roberts will dismiss this and defer to the full Appeals Court and not commit more judicial folly.
However, the opportunity to affect more presidential / executive authority, may prove too tempting for the hard right to pass on, in which case, except more judicial chaos to erupt out of the halls of justice.
2
@Chuck
The reason I chose to respond based on that particular law is based on the story and connection it makes for this request and trumps "congressional stonewalling" tactics.
The NY state law is now twinned to that particular law in a tangential way as NY passed a new law allowing the State AG to pass along those records to the appropriate Congressional Committees
Trump is claiming that, based on an OLC memo that is legally untested, he has complete immunity from even investigation. It should be noted and trumpeted, that the OLC memo (actually 2 memos) explicitly states that it does NOT bar investigations into a sitting president, just that it bars FEDERAL INDICTMENT.
The OLC memo has no legal value at the state level and is questionable even at the Federal Level as it has never faced a challenge in court.
The two most obvious and consequential questions that can be answered through a review of Donald Trump’s taxes are: 1) whether he committed fraud, as Michael Cohen as asserted, by under-valuing his assets on his taxes and over-valuing his assets when applying for loans; and 2) whether and to what extent Donald Trump is substantially indebted to foreign entities, particularly those controlled by Russia and Saudi Arabia.
Chief Justice Roberts could go a long way to restoring America’s faith in the legitimacy of his Court by fast-tracking this case, preferably with a summary cert denial. If the court decides to hear the appeal, all other matters before the court should be set aside pending a decision.
Simply put, and without exaggeration, the future of our Country hinges on resolving the question of whether Donald Trump is morally fit to be President of the United States of America.
5
What makes anyone think Trump will comply with a Supreme Court ruling? And where do we go from there? That will be a true Constitutional crisis.
1
The new Republican judiciary. Supreme Court justices say that it does not matter that Trump came up with policy justifications to revoke DACA after the fact, since he could just go back and revoke again with a better justification. While the Trump appointee says on the DC circuit says Congress's subpoena is not valid because impeachment hearings started after the subpoena.
It is no longer about facts and law - it about Trump effort to grab power by corroding democracy with the support of the Republican party.
6
Now we find out if Judge Beer lurches along to the same tune as partisans Rao and Katsas. Fruit of a poison tree, all of them, and unfit for any federal position in any office.
16
So now we have another stonewalling leading to another 5-4 SC decision in favor of another stonewall in the most transparent administration in history.
8
If this goes to the Supreme Court, and they accept to hear it, it just proves that Trump has set it up to help no one in this country but himself! If the court is smart, it will ignore it. What precedent will it set? I understand taking issues to the court that will help everyone in the country, and answering constitutional issues, but this case doesn’t help anyone but Trump and definitely not a constitutional problem.
17
@Cindy
What precedent would it set?
really?
If SCOTUS takes the case the possible out come is that Trump and theoretically every future president is completely above State and Federal Law.
Or it could shoot down Trump's claims of absolute immunity.
SCOTUS will punt.
Doubtful that the Supreme Court will grant an appeal.
4
Trump nearly brought down his big Wall Street lenders with his terrible judgments in business, it likely has meant that he has been getting money from foreign sources since those big institutions cut him off. Those sources may very well be people like Russians allied with Putin. That might explain his weaknesses in dealing with Putin.
13
@Casual Observer His sons bragged about all the money they get from Russia, when no one else would supply it at the time. Why would they have been lying about it?
1
I'm not putting much stock into Trump's tax returns being made public. If the case goes to the Supreme Court, which Trump has make sure, has a conservative majority, the ruling will come down exactly how it has been, 4-5 in favor of Trump. See DACA.
4
Trump’s tax returns will undoubtedly reveal key reason’s for Trump’s obvious deference to Putin, which have resulted in weakened US support for Ukraine and the Kurds. If a democratic president behaved in such a treasonous manner, the skies would fall.
27
How is this a case worthy of any Supreme Court of the United States time and consideration?
Donald John Trump,Sr. is an American citizen first and foremost.
Being President of the United States is a temporary job. It is not a title nor an entitlement.
Trump is not and never will be more equal than any other citizen before the law.
26
If the Court was not so conservative, it would not take up the case. It still may not.
5
I think Congress has been wrong to allow Trump associates to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony. I think Congress has been wrong to limit the impeachment hearing to just Ukraine. I think Congress needs to press the courts so that future Presidents will not be able to ignore the rule of law the way the Trump administration has.
Separately, I think all candidates for high office should be required to release their tax returns. We have good reason to believe that Trump has a lot of Russian investors and his personal business needs are corruptly driving his foreign policy.
33
Don't congratulate yourself too early on this win. Trump now owns not only what used to be the Republican Party that now is the Party of Trump, the Justice Department and most of the judges on the Supreme Court. Good Luck!
10
@Gert As frustrating as that is to here it is also true. Allegedly when Marie Louise Yovanovitch resisted Trump's shadow Ukraine foreign policy, the President allegedly remarked that "...she'll have to go through some things...". It appears that this country will also have to go through some things if this plays out like we all fear it will...no removal from office, reelection and an emboldened unleashed President with only extreme right wing sycophants in his administration.
4
I am not convinced the SCOTUS will take this. To do that will place the entire notion of investigating the President in the hands of the court over what; his tax returns? To base the notion of executive branch power over congress when it comes to a president's tax returns seems to be disproportionate to broader implications of executive power.
5
Since the lower courts have continually denied Trump's request, it will be interesting to see how SCOTUS will respond.
This is what the founding fathers wanted, 3 separate parts of the government to oversee each other.
15
@BTO
Pray that the checks and balances work. So far they have not.
9
SCOTUS should have two words for POTUS in this case: Cert denied
54
Obstructing justice is a crime. Most of his last campaign went to jail. He openly asked foreigners to illegally hack Americans. He's abusing his power to help with elections, both now in Ukraine, and on the border with the army and also when they targeted democrats with tax raises while borrowing money to give himself a tax cut.
He's the most immoral President in history, and twitter outbursts are still a stupid way to run a nation.
102
@mjw But none of what you state will be taken into consideration by SCOTUS (especially, Mr. Roberts); I wish this demand for the Tax Records was coming from the Ways and Means Committee in conjunction with the Intelligence Committee and was filed after the House passed the vote to advance the impeachment inquiry. Then there would be less wiggle room for the SCOTUS to claim broad reaches of presidential authority to be above the law, and not be subject to congressional oversight.
@Chuck
Why does it have to be the House Ways and Means committee?
A state has the legal jurisdiction over tax law in their state. There is no legal or Constitutional requirement that says those state laws do not apply to the President.
It’s like a cartoon of Trump clutching his tax returns with all his might and him saying “No one is ever going to get their hands on these! They’re mine, they’re mine, they’re mine!”
Isn’t everything just all about him, him, him?
What happens then if the Supreme Court takes his side? Every other corrupt presidential candidate will get away with this. So crooked.
48
Ambassador Taylor’s ‘exposure’ that “there appeared to be two channels of U.S. policy-making and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular” not only applies to “foreign policy” — but I would strongly argue that what ‘we the American people’ must become aware of is that in Emperor Trump’s anti-democratic and insane attempt to “Make Empire Great Again” (MEGA) this obvious “Empire-builder”, ‘Empire-thinking’, and ‘Imperialist-acting’, EMPEROR TRUMP, has already suborned and perverted through his corrupt control and appointment power of the Office of the President many other levers of ‘our government’ than just the “foreign policy” of America, but also the; ‘extra-legal’ judicial policy, ‘militarist’ policy, ‘media/propaganda/Internet-TV’ policy sector, and even the ‘dual-party Vichy-facade’ policy of our once “promising” and sometimes progress policies of our entire country (PKA) America into a litany of “irregular”, rather than “regular” policies of what is becoming more of an EMPIRE than a once proud democracy of the people!
12
@Alan MacDonald
Very well stated!
1
SCOTUS should refuse to hear the case.
68
The republican controlled Supreme Court will hear the case and will vote straight down party lines. The supreme court is nothing more than a political extension of the party in power at the time of appointment. As so blatantly displayed by Senator Mitch McConnell who stonewalled president Obamas choice in full disgrace of the country. And he smiled. Knowing full well the Supreme Court is a party controlled mouth piece.
101
@J Clark Nope, that would instantly make them irrelevant, Roberts will not let that happen at this point in time.
7
@J Clark
McConnell has gone on record that his “proudest moment” was looking Obama in the eye and telling him he would not allow a vote on his Supreme Court nominee. It doesn’t get more odious.
34
@J Clark That's not a fair assessment. The two latest adds to the court have not voted down 'party lines' (the justices should have no bias, and are solely to uphold the existing laws and constitution). Obama's appointees, however, have always voted down 'party lines.' Where is the bias on the courts?
1
America was truly great 100 years ago. The wealthiest paid their share of income taxes. America did not have a homeless problem. America did not have a military empire polluting Earth. Liars were classified as SINNERS, not winners. America trusted God, and God was with us.
8
@A Voter Actually we were in the same place 100 yrs ago with robber barons running the show. Not until FDR came along did tax rates drain the rich.
3
@A Voter, What DG said, plus if you think we didn't have a military empire, try talking to Spain and almost every country south of the Texas border about that.
1
@A Voter
If there is a God, I pretty sure he isn't so happy about this country that has been racist, manipulative, militaristic, and suppressive. Not as bad as most countries, I'll grant you, but hardly worthy of the gifts God gave it. America worships money and capitalism; not God. It was and is a great place to be if you're a WASP.
1
Let Trump take the matter of his taxes to the Supreme Court. I would suggest going forward that a Federal law be passed with bi-partisan support requiring all candidates running for President and Vice President of the United States to release 10 years of tax returns. The only one to have withheld tax returns since Watergate is Donald Trump.
Every candidate since Watergate and on both sides of the aisle has voluntarily released tax returns as a matter of course, without hesitation and in good faith. But no, not Donald Trump because he simply does not and never has operated on good faith...that is for losers.
You may recall Donald’s excuse - he could not release his tax returns because he was under audit. Warren Buffet debunked that nonsense within days of Donald's excuse that he,too, was under audit but released his tax returns (which this newspaper published) because there is no provision in the tax code prohibiting the release of tax returns while under audit.
Installing Donald Trump as President of the United States will go down in history as the biggest political and ideological mistake of all time. We can only hope for impeachment of the least qualified and mentally unfit person to ever hold the highest office in the world.
Disclosure of Trump's tax returns is essential if we, as a country, want to determine if the Occupant in the Oval Office has been bought and paid for by a foreign country...Russia. And yes, I do wonder whether Trump is being blackmailed.
45
Asking whether the Republican appointed judges would show similar deference to a Democratic president makes me realize we will never see that day. The fact is that no Democrat will be elected without releasing tax returns to the public, because voters...Democrats, independents, and Hypocritical Republicans....would demand it from a Democrat.
19
Eventually, the public will rule with the smell test.
3
I really don't care which party is in power in the House, Congress, WH. I have legitimate distrust regarding all three, and you should as well. My question is this... If the House (or Senate) wants to look at this or any President's tax returns because the majority is a different party ("R" or "D") than the target, how can any of us have any rational belief that we will be safe from political overreaching. While there may exist a legitimate law-making rationale for the House's inquiry, I have not read of it. Instead, the "D" house wants the President's tax returns for what seems like political opportunism. So, my questions for my "D" friends is this, can an "R" House request anything and everything from the next "D" president under the rouse that it has a legitimate law-making rationale, and you will emphatically say "turn EVERYTHING over"?
We all know that the tables ("R" President and "D" House) will be turned one day. When that day comes, I hope my "D" friends say "Mr. President, if you have nothing to hide, please instruct every one of your aids, WH staffers, Administrative personnel to follow to the T all House requests for documents, testimony, appearance, everything." If there are limits to the House's inquiry powers, please state them now, and be prepared to adhere to those limits (or lack thereof) when the "D" and "R" letters are reversed. Intellectual honesty is all I want. Intellectual dishonesty is UNACCEPTABLE!
1
@Joe Both Side-ism does not really work here given every Dem President since 1976 have voluntarily disclosed their tax returns.
6
@Joe The reason to see the tax returns is not "political opportunism," it is simple fair play.
The fact is the president has a long history of selling real estate to opaque entities (which enable money laundering), and he has sold to known oligarchs. This is a fact. By not sharing his tax returns he is concealing years of questionable business practices.
1
The law was put into effect because of the Teapot Dome scandal back in the 1920s. Called the Revenue Act of 1924 because senior members of that administration used their positions to direct below market leases of government property for bribes.
2
Neomi Rao is desperately trying to get Trump's attention so she can get the next spot on the Supreme Court once Ginsberg leaves.
13
The dissenting argument, by Trump appointees is, Trump is above the law and can do whatever he wants! Now, he stealing oil from Syria and that will end badly!
7
The arguments against release of the returns are indeed quite shallow.
The argument that Congress is investigating whether a crime had been committed rather than "legislating" holds no water since it is obviously necessary to determine first if there is a problem before embarking on a legislative solution. If you don't understand reality then you may solve a nonexistent problem or you may solve the wrong problem.
While I agree that a request for tax returns from a single Congressperson could be considered overreaching, such a request from a Congressional Committee seems well within bounds. This is especially true in the current context wherein there are several suits in play asking for the same returns and certainly several committees in the House are also interested. This is to say nothing about the compelling interest of the general public.
Reinforcing my opinion, I need only note the clear political divide of the Appeals Court on the issue where it must be noted that 2 "Always Trumpers" have supported the President who nominated them to the Court.
Nobody is above the Law.
11
If Judge Rao was on staff at the Trump White House why did she not recuse herself in this case? The danger of having Trump load the courts is horrifyingly clear. Trump will be dead and gone and our children will still be dealing with his judicial appointments - we can simply rename the US judicial system the Trump Kangaroo Courts!
27
@Mary Pat Good Point! I wonder if any of the judges on the Appeals Court challenged her to recuse?
Sad, but is there any doubt the Republican Supreme Court will ruled in their fellow Republican's favor.
10
Disclosure would threaten autonomy and independence? How? Does a tax audit, demands for records threaten CEOs? Senators? Representatives? Homemakers?
Even assuming minor tax inconsistencies, errors, I hardly see any president so fearful of disclosure that he/she would be....forced?.... to sign legislation, take a policy stand just to prevent investigation or disclosure of tax records or other papers.
So, is the assumption that major problems can’t be investigated, must be kept hidden....until a formal impeachment begins? Uh, barring the lucky appearance of a whistleblower, how would any Impeachment inquiry ever begin?
This seems just a replay of the ‘president can never be investigated’ royal decree. Makes a nice companion to the ‘president can’t be indicted’ memo. Maybe we should just order the crown and scepter now- the throne can be ordered- if that won’t threaten....a tantrum.
14
“In light of the well-reasoned dissent, we will be seeking review at the Supreme Court,” Mr. Sekulow said in a statement.
______________
Mr. Sekulow would not recognize well reasoned anything. Just another in a long list of "the best and the brightest" flunkies in this circus administration.
12
I don't understand why these judges call Trump's actions for what they are, frivolous law suits. He has been doing the same thing for decades, bringing suits against those he has himself has trespassed against or anyone who dares find traction with his many faults.
17
If high court judges are going to vote along strictly partisan lines, what's the point in believing we are still a Democracy and a nation under the Rule of Law? We've become a 'banana republic,' shamefully.
10
His history is declare bankruptcy and then tie it up in the judicial system. He has done this so many times it is mind blowing. But that's his way of doing business and it is how he leads our Nation.
13
The second leg of an impeachment case, violation of the emoluments clause is in those financial records. No wonder Trump is so desperate to hide them.
15
How is it possible for anyone to think the request for Trump's tax records is partisan? This administration tends to cherry pick campaign promises. The excuse was an audit with a stack of mile high papers on a table in front of him. When the audit was complete he would turn them over in order for the public to see. It's proven whatever he withholds through executive privilege , takes to court is questionable in regards to ethics, violating his oath of office or criminal.
3
Katsas, the Trump appointee and former Trump White House staffer, wrote of the Oversight and Reform Committee’s suit that it’s a “threat to presidential autonomy and independence.” How does one become a federal judge without knowing about the Constitution’s system of checks and balances?
5
The Supreme Court should let stay the Appeals Court ruling and NOT take up the case.
Nonetheless, if they do take the case, they should clear the Supreme Court calendars of other cases and expedite every Trump related court case to the Supreme Court to hear each and every case the soonest.
Justice Roberts. Time for you to decide....do you care more for America or for Republicans. The choice is yours to do the right thing, right now.
5
Not a splendid 24 hours for the president. It will be made worse if the John Roberts Court declines to take it up. It will be great theater to see him defy the courts.
I wonder what “Moscow Mitch” McConnell and the other self-righteous Republican recipients of NRA money (via Russia) will react if money laundering and tax evasion and banking and real estate violations turn up in the president’s tax records.
12
It appears that the intent of the Trump Executive and its allies in the Republican controlled Senate is to subvert the independence of the Judiciary by appointing unqualified party hacks to lifetime appointments. Both McConnell and trump have boasted publicly that this is their goal.
8
With the justice department, Senate and the executive co-opted by anti democratic forces, the judiciary is all that stands between us and full fledged oligarchy. Merely winning 2020 will not be enough. The late Elijah Cummings 'begged us to pay attention to what's going on'. Nothing kills a democracy faster than complacency on part of the population.
6
Are we the American tax payer, subsidizing all of these lawsuits, appeals and lawyers? I would really like to know.
8
So far Trump has managed to delay the final decision and waste a lot of court time and taxpayers money. When this case is heard by the Supreme Court the chance of Trump losing will be very small because the Court has been politicized in a painstaking decades long campaign mounted by the Republicans while the Democrats were asleep at the wheel.
1
For those saying the court is poisoned by politics, you’re not wrong, but it isn’t what you think. This is Republican judges trying to protect Trump from the legal authority of Congress.
Would this have been reversed if it was a Democratic president? No, for two reasons. One, a Democratic President would release the information. Two, and this, I believe, is the hardest for Republicans to understand, is that Democrats want the laws applied fairly to everyone regardless of party.
In short, Democrats want the law to apply to everyone, and Republicans want the law to apply to everyone else.
114
@Paul
We were talking about this yesterday while watching the congressional hearings. If it had been a Democrat acting out a Trump has the Ds would not be trying to turn the proceedings into a circus. They would be prosecuting with every bit as much determination as they are today. Further there would be no question about responding to subpoenas.
Some will say I'm showing a bias but I don't believe that's true. The Democrats are still operating with a modicum of honor and respect for the constitution. The Republicans have shown themselves to be shameless and concerned about nothing but power and party.
12
@BC You're absolutely right. Just look at how the Democratic party handled Al Franken's sexual harassment charges.
Frank Wilhoit said it best...
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
8
@Paul You're absolutely right. Conservatives project their own value judgement system onto Liberals, which is they're willing to cheat to get their way, and assume everyone else is. Which also makes their claims to moral superiority (christian! patriot!) such a joke. They cannot fathom that people (Liberals and Progressives, and even a few Libertarians) actually want a level playing field, consider compromise, and can live with a few hard-to-accept laws that keep the general peace and respect others' wishes. It just ain't in'em.
1
Trump is the would be king that the Constitution was crafted to thwart. Soon we will see if those safeguards are sufficient to protect our democracy or if a president without any moral balance or integrity can trod upon our laws with impunity. I for one am not hopeful.
5
Reading the dissents, it seems that now the entire court would deny President’s request if the Congress made the request as part of its impeachment investigation.
1
Apparently there’s concern that the IRS isn’t doing it’s job. There are no prosecutions of Trump for tax fraud. But Trump is not the only person who may have interesting things that could be discovered from his tax returns. If Congress were serious about the full disclosure of the financial dealings of politicians, they would pass a law requiring that all persons who are in government make public their taxes and finances, including those of their spouses. Why not? What are they hiding? Are they worried that someone may discover their business strategies?
37
@John Bowman
They would have to fully fund the IRS first. The service' ability to audit and prosecute fraud has been systematically diminished over the past few decades. Another gift to the 1%.
15
@BC
Couldn't it be required that their campaigns pay for the audit?
6
@John Bowman You get what you pay for and Trump can inundate and stonewall even the best public servants the IRS has. If you are that good you make money the old fashioned way, "You Steal It".
I'd suggest all judges should be elected by the people, not appointed by elected officials, but gerrymandering districts ruins that idea. Perhaps term limits for all judges instead of lifetime appointments may be the next option to seriously consider in an effort to bring the balance of power back to the American people, for all American people...
3
The entire judiciary has lost its legitimacy. I always found it strange that the same people who hold politicians in disdain somehow think it is acceptable to either elect or have political appointments to lifelong judgeships.
It was just a matter of time before the judges became politicians. Mitch McConnell and Trump have just hastened the process.
Lifelong judgeships need to go. The minimum age should be 50 and retirement age should be 70 with a good pension and a prohibition on private employment after that.
72
@Ruchir
Add to this six year Senate appointments. Senators don't have to follow the will of their constituents until the last two years of their term when they hope everyone has forgotten what came before, and many do forget.
1
@Ruchir @Zoned
Both your ideas require Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
If you believe they should occur then start the movement to make it happen.
@Zoned Hear, hear. Problem being that they don't need to "hope" they will forget - their constituents DO forget...
1
Now we know whether this president selected judicial appointees in order to protect himself from legitimate oversight, and whether those appointees intend to do his bidding, regardless of their constitutional responsibilities. The answer is yes.
7
Can we please just evaluate issues based on the facts, ethics and moral responsibility? I would prefer that we abolish the party system and simply vote for the policies and plans that we believe in.
Truth, Justice, Freedom, Equality, Compassion. Unity. Diversity. The USA Constitution. Those are the things that I believe in. Those ideals shouldn't have a D or a R. Those issues shouldn't be bipartisan.
I wish we could abolish the party system and be a united country again. I wish everyone would simply tell the truth. Some people will agree, others disagree but at least then everyone would know what was real and could make informed choices.
3
You couldn’t handle the truth. Voting Republican to make America Great Again is less embarrassing than saying you want to kill your neighbors, expel people you don’t know based on their heritage, and make the country safe for Christ and heartless exploitation.
Congress shouldn’t have to go to the courts for his tax returns, as they oversee the Executive Branch. They have a legitimate interest in his financial obligations, to help evaluate and mitigate any conflicts of interest.
If his businesses are dependent on Russian financing, the people have a right to know that, and to decide whether that might impact his duties and their security.
Further, Trump promised to release them. Such lying indicates a lack of integrity that should be disqualifying in a leader.
Finally, the political parties should require thorough financial and psychological vetting before anyone gets their nomination.
75
@David Doney -- Ah yes, serious vetting by political parties, aided by the free press, is needed before the launch of a candidate for president.
Some may remember in early 1970s when a strong Democratic presidential candidate Edmund Muskie was accused by journalists of having tears, rather than melting snow on his face at his news conference to defend himself and his wife from false smears by William Loeb, conservative newspaper publisher. That's all it took to remove him from the race, a round of newsy accusations that he might be too soft to lead the nation.
Contrast that attack with the widespread, non-stop party the media threw to win eyes and clicks for the most inconceivable and unfit joke of a candidate, failed casino developer and fading reality show star DT Trump, as they helped present him as a serious candidate for the US presidency.
1
So now the most important Federal Court of Appeals in the nation is virtually completely politicized, Democratic judges on one side and Republican judges on the other. The issues plainly do not matter. If it were Obama's or Biden's tax returns at issue, the vote would be 100% flipped. I weep for the nation we are leaving our children.
152
I disagree. If the tax returns had been Obama’s, the court would have still forced the reveal, but it would have been unanimous. The Democrats seem to follow the rule of law, even to the detriment of their own side, while the Republicans pursue partisanship, even on the bench.
35
@highway Your statement stands only if you believe that a single decision regarding a single individual represents complete corruption on both sides of the political aisle, down to the appointment of judges.
The issues do most certainly matter, and so does how we got here.
It appears to boil down to whether we want a democracy or a dictatorship, and the extent to which the American people are respected as voters whose voices matter.
6
@highway I do not think for a second that the eight members of the D.C. Circuit who were appointed by Democratic presidents would rule differently in this case if a Democrat were in the White House. Virtually no legal scholar believes Trump's arguments rise even to the level of plausibility. I *do* believe, however, that the Trump appointees on the court might well change their ruling if the identity of the parties changed. THAT is the tragedy here--Trump (and Mitch McConnell) have taken an already regrettably politicized federal judiciary over the cliff by appointing ideologues (quite a few of whom were deemed "unqualified" for their new posts by the ABA).
16
An interesting question: Would Judge Rao opine with the same logic for a President from the Democratic Party? Makes one openly debate the merits of impeaching judges who clearly render party aligned opinions. Separation of powers / co-equal branches of government and oversight are founding principles.
127
@Ron
Indeed that is the risk when the legislative and judicial branches of government, in the exercise of their functions, attempt to favour the political party in power: the laws and legal precedents they create to shield this party, can and will be used by the Opposition when they become the government.
And conversely, if a party in the Opposition is demanding, e.g. increased scrutiny of the government, they should keep in mind that they might themselves one day be subjected to the same high scrutiny they asked for.
So, under normal circumstances, blatant favoritism by the other 2 branches of government is a bad medium to long-term strategy for the executive. But I guess these are not normal times.
2
Name the last Democratic President or Presidential candidate whom didn’t release their tax returns. Let’s also remember that the entire impeachment process against Clinton started from the tax issues related to Whitewater. Monica had nothing to do with it, other than the Ken Starr investigation decision to completely change course and find something to investigate
10
@Ron
And like so many other founding principles, being eviscerated before our eyes.