politics sarah huckabee sanders steve mnuchin Trump

Scholars Mnuchin, Bartiromo ‘Analyze The Law’, Warn Public How ‘Dangerous’ Releasing Trump’s Taxes Would Be

Steve Mnuchin is busy, so don't bother him, ok?

Steve Mnuchin is busy, so don't bother him, ok?
This content has been archived. Log in or Subscribe for full access to thousands of archived articles.

10 comments on “Scholars Mnuchin, Bartiromo ‘Analyze The Law’, Warn Public How ‘Dangerous’ Releasing Trump’s Taxes Would Be

  1. Lol @ anyone in Trump’s orbit including Sanders making claims about anyone’s intelligence

  2. While I understand why people want to see Trump’s returns, I disagree that he has any obligation to share them. I’m appalled that Congress might subpoena them

    and yes, I am no fan of the president

    • Oh, ok. That, despite the fact the he and/or his organization and charity have been implicated in all manner of financial fraud. Would you think it equally disagreeable for Congress to subpoena a suspected drug dealer’s tax returns? If not, why not?

      • And investigating the commission of financial fraud is really an unnecessarily difficult standard where there is already a sound legal basis for Congress obtaining the returns: oversight of the Chief Executive’s financial conflicts of interest–even if they are entirely legal.

        Although with the Justice Department attempting to gut the Emoluments clause, conflicts of interest might not be an issue anymore.

  3. I have no problem with a federal prosecutor subpoena wrt a criminal indictment

    This is nothing more than a political ploy. They’ve been pursuing them since before the election. My objections go back that far. While it is customary for presidential candidates to release their returns, there is no requirement. In my opinion this is nothing but a cynical fishing expedition. Trump has nothing to gain by releasing them

    If there is actual precedent for Congress scrutinizing a president’s finances solely for conflicts of interest then I am open to persuasion

    • “Trump has nothing to gain by releasing them” and everything to lose. Fixed it for you. So let them fish and see what they catch. It’s bound to be tasty

    • lol. Trump and his various operations are the subject of all manner of indictments. which one would you like to read? I mean, Jesus — you are aware of how many indictments handed down over the past two years reference him, his family and his businesses right? and you’re surely aware that his charity was shuttered. and that he was essentially forced to admit to defrauding thousands of “students” in his farcical “Trump U.” and that Democrats have now subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and four other banks for records. and that New York’s insurance regulator is now investigating him on suspicion of fraud. and that there are so many financial-fraud-related cases pending in the SDNY that nobody even knows what they all are. and on and on and on.

      also, did you read this? …. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

      his entire history is nothing but a giant tax fraud — literally.

      of course none of this matters to people who, for whatever reason, want to persist in this fantasy that Democrats are somehow in the wrong for wanting to get to the bottom of what crimes the sitting US president has committed.

    • You’re right, Trump has nothing to gain by releasing them. But the American People have the right to see whether the Executive branch is conducting policy faithfully on behalf of the public–although the argument could be made that with so much ‘winning’ likely going on in those returns, it would be damaging to the psyche of everyday Americans to see them, and thus Trump is performing a vital national service.

      But back to scrutinizing finances. The Revenue Act of 1924, the statute being cited for the tax returns, is a direct legislative response to the infamous Teapot Dome scandal. While this isn’t a perfect analog, it still shows that the opportunity for Executive Branch enrichment poses a problem, and necessitates caution and scrutiny by the other branches of government. The oil-lease transactions setting off that scandal were technically legal, yet aroused enough suspicion to warrant further investigation. Thus the law making sure that these opportunities can be checked by congress.

      To give a better recent example: imagine having gone through the Iraq War and hearing unverified news stories that Dick Cheney had been awarding lucrative military contracts to his old company, one in which he still held a financial interest. In this alternate reality, imagine that his old company wasn’t HAL, a public corporation, but instead a private company. With no public disclosures and no way of verifying the stories, Ol’ Deadeye Dick vehemently denies the extent of any influence between his old company and his new office, reminding everyone that his tax returns, which would verify the truth of the stories, cannot be released because they are under audit–and besides, Congress wouldn’t understand them anyway.

      In the actual timeline, America knew about Cheney’s his conflicts of interest and he was unsuccessfully impeached. It should be pretty evident that there are situations where getting this otherwise-unavailable information into the system of checks and balances is vital for our democracy.

  4. Poor little rich Maria Bartiromo – she was so good for so many years on CNBC until too many CEO’s flatly contradicted her and her tax-cuts-for-the-rich-job-creators and trickle-down economics. Many would not take her bait.
    She had to go to Fox or continue to be humiliated

  5. jamaican

    Also, Trump himself promised to release his tax returns on numerous occasions.
    Here’s a timeline on that:
    The article is 2 years old, which only reinforces the notion that he’s been bulls***ing everbody ever since.
    It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans are willing to turn a blind eye to all of this – do they really believe that this moron is their last and only chance to stay in power? And if so, how sad is that

Speak On It

Skip to toolbar