Mnuchin refuses to turn over Trump taxes to House Democrats

Capt Gregory Prickett - Yes I am aware.

Are you aware that the Primary Holding was The President cannot shield himself from producing evidence in a CRIMINAL PROSECUTION [emphasis mine] based on the doctrine of executive privilege, although it is valid in other situations. Are you asserting that Chairman Neal is embarking on a criminal prosecution?

The United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) reinforced that Congress cannot go on fishing expeditions. There must be a legitimate legislative or judicial purpose to Congressional inquiries. Who met that bar? What was the basis? When did they do so? , Where did they do so?

The Court's opinion found that the courts could indeed intervene on the matter and that Special Counsel Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment". No such bar has been reached.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - When we want to disregard the law, when we just want to "get the sum bitch", or when we just want the other guys to "just STFU" is when we can least afford to do it. What needs to happen... we need to take a deep breath, and spend a day or two fishing with the M----- F------ on the other side. We might find out we're not such A-------.

Or one of us will drown the other.

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.

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?

Capt Gregory Prickett - We shall see. We will find out someday. probably quite a long time from now as the Dems string stuff along for political reasons.
I may not know the ins and outs of law, but I can read the Constitution. The President can indeed pardon Barr unless they actually go through with impeachment, which they would never get through the Senate.
“The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” - Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.

You and I both know that they don't have the fortitude to impeach either Barr or Trump because they know it would fail in the Senate and they know it will cost them dearly in 2020. And of course 2020 is what this is all about. I have serious doubts it would pass the House if tried.
Taken in context, that makes my position a very solid one - that this all noise and fury and isn't going anywhere.
What might go somewhere is the investigation into DoJ and CIA leakers. That might well nail some folks.
I might not be a lawyer, but I am real good at reading politics.
If you would like to make a little internet wager, I am game.

1SG (Join to see) - Interesting about Mr. Prickett's 'finding of fact,' is that Michael Cohen was convicted for lying (committing perjury) to Congress. It is also an interesting point that a conviction for tax fraud is also a 'finding of fact' that the individual made clearly erroneous statements in writing.
What is even sillier about the argument presented is that the 'majority' lack credibility themselves - "We have evidence or proof that Mr./President Trump is guilty (of something)." Well the bottom line is bring the charges, put it on trail and present your 'evidence' and or 'proof' and get your conviction. But then there would be one of two problems; there is no evidence only innuendo, or the 'evidence' or 'proof' is tainted by being obtained in an illegal manner.

Another thing that people are pointing out is Mr. Trump's property valuations in his financial statements for loans or other purposes. The first thing to point out - property valuations change all the time. And they are not necessarily the same at the same point in time. Property tax valuation can be drastically different than a property sales (market) valuation, then property sales valuation can be drastically different than how much someone is willing to pay for a particular property. Individuals (with extended periods of active duty) should know this all too well but sometimes fail to make this critical evaluation of information. Anyone out there that has been through a situation with an underwater mortgage should know this as well.

SSG Robert Webster - The angle that the Dems are on is one of impeachment, where evidence matters less than politics and public opinion matters more still. They know they don't have what they need, so they are taking a public IO campaign to say "well look at all this nefariousness" - that is, don't vote for Trump in 2020. They'd love to impeach but know it will fail, and fail badly. They also know that what they are looking for simply isn't there in the Mueller report, despite all this noise about what might be under the redacted portion. In a trial in a court where the evidence came from would be an issue; in an impeachment proceding it is only embarrassing. And probably at least some of that embarrassment would reflect poorly on Democrat Jesus himself, Saint Obama the pious.
So the net step is to go fishing by subpoenaing things like tax returns, knowing it will be refused, and pile it up as evidence of obstruction. Except it isn't obstruction. And the gong show continues.
Oh and by the way, Cohen pled guilty, so even he knows that he is a crook and a liar. He said as much in front of Congress.

Capt Gregory Prickett - I will eat my hat if they successfully send the Sergeant-at-Arms to detain the Attorney General of the United States.
When is the last time something like that happened? The 1930's?
It is humorous to me that through all of this, Congress can hide behind the speech and debate clause to lie their asses off for years, then try to nail the AG for "lying" to Congress. They can say whatever they want, it is true. Disingenuous, but true.

I would do this: declassify the whole kit and caboodle and release the Muller report, the FISA applications, the people responsible for what when, who knew what and when they knew it. All of it. Let the public chew on all of that and let sunlight be the disinfectant.
While we are at it, turn over all the Fast and Furious documents and the IRS correspondence during the Lerner scandal. No way in hell all of that is really erased. Throw in Hillary's emails and what we know about foreign intelligence services acting as proxies for the DNC in conducting espionage against a US Presidential candidate.
Release it all, and let the games really begin. Prosecute every last one of the people who violated the law.
Presto! No more talk of tax returns.
Problem solved.

Then I ran into this item. Provides a legal counter argument. With the provision having never been before a judge who knows. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/11/656610711/congress-really-can-demand-and-get-trumps-tax-returns-here-s-how