Posted on May 6, 2019
Mnuchin refuses to turn over Trump taxes to House Democrats
1.62K
110
74
3
3
0
Is refusing to turn documents over to Congress, or attempting to prevent people from testifying before Congress an attempt to subvert the checks and balances that are built into the Constitution?
Assuming the third co-equal branch, the Judicial branch, becomes involved, and rules in favor of Congress' power as a check to the Executive, should there be any negative repurcussions to the Executive? What is within it's authority in that regard?
Assuming the third co-equal branch, the Judicial branch, becomes involved, and rules in favor of Congress' power as a check to the Executive, should there be any negative repurcussions to the Executive? What is within it's authority in that regard?
Mnuchin refuses to turn over Trump taxes to House Democrats
Posted from amp.cnn.com
Donald Trump
Congress
Constitution
Supreme Court
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 11
5
5
0
Modern day repeat of Nixon refusing to turn over White House tapes?
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-nixon-refuses-to-hand-over-tapes
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-nixon-refuses-to-hand-over-tapes
President Nixon refuses to hand over tapes
President Richard Nixon refuses to hand over tape recordings and documents that had been subpoenaed by the Senate Watergate Committee. Marking the beginning of
(5)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - Who? When? Before what Committee? citation please.
I have done a search with Google, Bing, and Mozilla. I used the search words "Trump" "Tax" "False" "Fraud" "IRS" "Returns" "Witness" "Loans" "Testify" "Congress."
The only thing I've found which sounds like that of what you are speaking, relates to Paul Manafort, not Donald Trump.
I have done a search with Google, Bing, and Mozilla. I used the search words "Trump" "Tax" "False" "Fraud" "IRS" "Returns" "Witness" "Loans" "Testify" "Congress."
The only thing I've found which sounds like that of what you are speaking, relates to Paul Manafort, not Donald Trump.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj John Bell - House Oversight Committee, Feb. 27, 2019. The witness was asked about a NY Times report of tax fraud by Trump, and stated that Allen Weisselberg would know, but also stated, in response to a question, that it would help the committee to obtain Trump's tax returns. The witness also described how Trump would lower his tax bill, by deflating the value of his assets.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - So who was the witness? Allen Weisselberg? Because I cite an article by NBC news, February 28, 2019, by Ken Dilanian "House will call Trump Org. financial exec Weisselberg to testify" It clearly was not Weisselberg. If I understand you correctly. Your witness did not testify "before Congress that Trump altered his financial statements to increase value for loans and to decrease values for taxes" as you claim. The witness testified that he knows a guy... who knows "that Trump altered his financial statements to increase value for loans and to decrease values for taxes."
Has Mr. Weisselberg testified yet? I cannot find any site that say he has.
Broadly defined, "hearsay" is testimony or documents quoting people who are not present in court, and hearsay evidence is inadmissible for lack of a firsthand witness. When the person being quoted is not present, establishing credibility becomes impossible, as does cross-examination. So, simply put, the hearsay rule says that secondhand testimony is not admissible in court. Or am I mistaken?
Has Mr. Weisselberg testified yet? I cannot find any site that say he has.
Broadly defined, "hearsay" is testimony or documents quoting people who are not present in court, and hearsay evidence is inadmissible for lack of a firsthand witness. When the person being quoted is not present, establishing credibility becomes impossible, as does cross-examination. So, simply put, the hearsay rule says that secondhand testimony is not admissible in court. Or am I mistaken?
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj John Bell - Congress isn't court, and the rules of evidence for court do not apply.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I love it when a non-lawyer (Hoffman) tries to tell a lawyer what the law means...
(3)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MSgt Steve Sweeney - yes, but apparently he decided to lift it.
MSgt David Hoffman - you're misreading the law. If it is an individual return, it has to be in a closed session. But if the subject of the return gives his permission in writing, then it can be in open session. The permission has nothing to do with turning over the returns, which the law requires the Secretary to do, period.
You see, at most law schools, including mine, all 1L students take a class in statutory construction and interpretation. We learn how to read a statute.
As to being hired by you? LOL, no, you don't have to worry about that. I would not represent you for a number of reasons, foremost being that you think that your understanding of the law is equivalent to mine.
MSgt David Hoffman - you're misreading the law. If it is an individual return, it has to be in a closed session. But if the subject of the return gives his permission in writing, then it can be in open session. The permission has nothing to do with turning over the returns, which the law requires the Secretary to do, period.
You see, at most law schools, including mine, all 1L students take a class in statutory construction and interpretation. We learn how to read a statute.
As to being hired by you? LOL, no, you don't have to worry about that. I would not represent you for a number of reasons, foremost being that you think that your understanding of the law is equivalent to mine.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MSgt Steve Sweeney - you may be interested that tender-heart blocked me again. I guess he can't take the heat in the kitchen...
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Wow--opening yourself up to removal from office and a 5-year prison sentence as a convicted felon is never a wise career move. The law requires the Secretary to turn over the returns, period, see 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f). The operative language is "shall turn over...." The failure to comply with the law is a felony offense punishable by removal from office, up to a $10K fine, and five years in prison, see 26 U.S.C. § 7214.
You know, the Dems are going to get tired of this, and they are going to start locking up Trump officials for coercive contempt--which also means that the pardon powers of the President are useless. He'll have to go to court to get them released, and the law isn't on his side.
You know, the Dems are going to get tired of this, and they are going to start locking up Trump officials for coercive contempt--which also means that the pardon powers of the President are useless. He'll have to go to court to get them released, and the law isn't on his side.
(3)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Jeff N. - projecting again, I see...
You know, this same issue came up before. Sen. Sam Ervin threatened officials of the Nixon White House with arrest--and they caved. In 1935, the Senate summoned William P. MacCracken Jr. and three others into the Senate and tried them for contempt. Two were acquitted, but MacCracken and L. H. Brittin were convicted and sentenced to jail. MacCracken filed an application for a writ of habeas, which was denied all the way to SCOTUS, who said that Congress had an absolute right to hold people in contempt and jail them.
You know, if you don't know the law, you probably shouldn't comment when people are talking about it.
You know, this same issue came up before. Sen. Sam Ervin threatened officials of the Nixon White House with arrest--and they caved. In 1935, the Senate summoned William P. MacCracken Jr. and three others into the Senate and tried them for contempt. Two were acquitted, but MacCracken and L. H. Brittin were convicted and sentenced to jail. MacCracken filed an application for a writ of habeas, which was denied all the way to SCOTUS, who said that Congress had an absolute right to hold people in contempt and jail them.
You know, if you don't know the law, you probably shouldn't comment when people are talking about it.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google