Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
27. I think you may have misread the explanation
Tue Aug 13, 2019, 04:56 PM
Aug 2019

He didn't say he didn't ask for them because he would be accused of playing politics. He said that asking for the New York returns would undermine the justification of the committee has given for asking for the federal returns. The justification given for getting the Federal returns is oversight of the IRS. The state tax returns do not advance that purpose and, therefore asking for them would bolster Trump's claim that the committee request has nothing to do with oversight but was simply on a political fishing expedition.

Neal has said he fears that getting the state returns would bolster Trump administration arguments that Congress is on a political fishing expedition -- and not, as Neal has claimed, overseeing the Internal Revenue Service’s annual audits of the president.

Neal has crafted his requests to Mnuchin by citing the need for the Ways and Means Committee to oversee the IRS’s annual audits of the president. He fears that seeking the state returns will weaken that argument.

“We don’t have jurisdiction over New York taxes,” Neal said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-05/trump-tax-fight-sows-discord-between-wary-and-warlike-democrats


And he's right.

Moreover, as I said, they're not going to get the New York returns anytime soon anyway- Trump can tie them up in court for years, especially since this law is untested. They are, however, very likely to get the federal returns soon using the federal law and legal strategy they've mapped out and are, fortunately, sticking to, despite the badgering of people from the sidelines.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

We don't live in the 1970s or the 1990s anymore NewJeffCT Aug 2019 #1
Yes empedocles Aug 2019 #2
So we don't even give it our best effort to expose his deeds to the American public? Time for change Aug 2019 #3
there are already several lawsuits making their way through the courts NewJeffCT Aug 2019 #6
The lawsuits will be important mainly to the extent that the American public is more exposed to what Time for change Aug 2019 #16
From a legal standpoint, taking the 5th may be a safe and reasonable thing to do Time for change Aug 2019 #5
From what I understand NewJeffCT Aug 2019 #7
That would be contempt of Congress Time for change Aug 2019 #9
it's been done in the past NewJeffCT Aug 2019 #10
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that Time for change Aug 2019 #23
K&R... spanone Aug 2019 #4
Didn't you use to post here a lot like 15 years ago? Beringia Aug 2019 #8
Thank you, yes Time for change Aug 2019 #14
Your great reduction in posting is DU's loss alas. PufPuf23 Aug 2019 #22
Thank you very much Time for change Aug 2019 #26
When in doubt, do the right thing Martin Eden Aug 2019 #11
I agree with everything you say, absolutely Time for change Aug 2019 #13
I just wanted to express my support for your OP Martin Eden Aug 2019 #20
If House Democrats propose hearings NewJeffCT Aug 2019 #17
Trump will bleat out LIES no matter what the Dems do Martin Eden Aug 2019 #19
and, as I said NewJeffCT Aug 2019 #21
I know it was covered by MSNBC because I watched it. Time for change Aug 2019 #24
It was also covered on some of the YouTube channels procon Aug 2019 #30
Given the mountain of obvious high crimes and misdemeanors you point out, lagomorph777 Aug 2019 #12
Absolutely Time for change Aug 2019 #15
Because accepting them would have undermined and likely destroyed his ability StarfishSaver Aug 2019 #18
That wasn't the excuse that Neal gave Time for change Aug 2019 #25
I think you may have misread the explanation StarfishSaver Aug 2019 #27
I don't understand the concept of the phrase "overseeing the IRS audits" of the President Time for change Aug 2019 #29
The question is not whether Neil can "accept" the returns StarfishSaver Aug 2019 #31
But apparently NY has offered them to Neal Time for change Aug 2019 #32
The law doesn't work that way StarfishSaver Aug 2019 #34
I disagree that the House or any of its memebers would be in legal jeopardy for accepting the NY Time for change Aug 2019 #35
You don't seem to understand how the law works StarfishSaver Aug 2019 #36
I understand the law well enough to know that Congress won't be held in legal jeopardy for Time for change Aug 2019 #38
Thanks for sharing your well thought out and procon Aug 2019 #28
Thank you very much Time for change Aug 2019 #33
Are the Courts dragging their feet on the requests of the House Judiciary Committee? kentuck Aug 2019 #37
I don't know Time for change Aug 2019 #40
Good to see such a well thouht out argument. HCE SuiGeneris Aug 2019 #39
Thank you! Time for change Aug 2019 #41
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Great Need for Impeac...»Reply #27