Impeachment Investigation Is Underway, Judiciary Committee Says

POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Monday, February 3, 2020 01:19
VIEWED: 84495
PAGE 4 of 111

1KIKI

Sunday, July 28, 2019 6:59 PM

Since you know how to cut and paste the proper spelling of 'investigation', I suggest you correct the title of your thread:

Mueller Investagation Is Over

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=63004




tic tac

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, July 28, 2019 8:58 PM

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol

"Allow me to explain my dementia by posting an insane hypothetical that has nothing at all to do with the point I'm trying to make" ~Second

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

6ix, for not the first time, I understand why you are unemployed and worried for your future. I'll simplify why changing the laws about Presidential Income Tax returns won't make Trump's income tax returns available: if a President must keep his taxes a secret, only impeachment and removal from office will overcome his secretiveness. If the Supreme Court ordered Trump to publicize his income tax returns, the Supreme Court can't make him do it. The Senate can't, either, but they can remove him from power. Then his taxes can be publicized, unless the President had the records destroyed by the IRS before leaving office.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Hey dipshit.

It's too late for Trump.

I'm talking about making sure that the next Trump doesn't hide his taxes from you.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

You keep missing the point: no matter what the law is changed to, a future President could simply refuse to obey it. If a future Supreme Court ordered the President to obey those changed laws, the President could stubbornly refuse. The only remedy is the Senate removing a pig-head President from power.

Trump is right now disobeying section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. If Congress had added more law before Trump was elected, it still wouldn't make Trump more obedient, because he probably has a huge tax bill that he does not wish to pay, apparently.

When this goes to the Supreme Court, and if the vote is 5 to 4 forcing Trump to obey section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, we will learn how serious Trump is about keeping his tax returns a secret. But if the Supreme Court chooses Trump's side, then we will never know how stubborn Trump really is about disobeying section 6103 and cheating on his taxes.

If the Supreme Court was in session, I am pretty sure four Republican justices would align with Trump, four Democratic justices would oppose, and Chief Justice Roberts would be the deciding vote on Trump's tax cheating and hiding his tax returns from Congressional expert auditors.

Historical Use of Authority to Obtain Confidential Tax Information
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/
files/documents/2019.07.25%20Memo%20to%20Full%20Committee_0.pdf

Quote:

---

Section 6103 has been used to obtain the tax returns and return information of a sitting President. In researching my request, JCT staff confirmed that, in 1973 and 1974, the JCT Chief of Staff made various requests to the IRS for confidential taxpayer information of President Nixon and others. The current JCT Chief of Staff concluded, based on his review of materials, that “the Joint Committee staff sought and received, under its legal authority, confidential information directly from the Internal Revenue Service that was used in the analysis presented in the [1974] report.”

While it is true that President Nixon voluntarily disclosed his returns for tax years 1969 through 1972, JCT additionally sought from the IRS: (1) President Nixon’s returns for tax years 1963 through 1968, (2) certified copies of the returns voluntarily disclosed, and (3) returns for additional taxpayers. Where records were available, the IRS complied with JCT’s requests without delay or objection.

---

Unlike Nixon's IRS, Trump's IRS is delaying. Without a doubt, Trump privately ordered, leaving no paper trail, the Treasury Secretary to delay Congress's request for Trump's tax returns.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

SECOND

Sunday, July 28, 2019 9:54 PM

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's all about context.

How was 6103 invoked today compared to how was it invoked against Nixon?

Is there REALLY a genuine reason to invoke it today, or are we just going back to the tax thing because Russia didn't work and Orange Man Bad?

And at the end of the day, I don't give a shit that he cheated on his taxes. That's what rich people do. That's what YOU do.

I'm quite happy with the direction of the country right now overall, and I wouldn't have been had Hillary won. I doubt I would be if Pence takes over either.

So, whatever. Let it go to SCOTUS then. I just don't see any parallels between Trump's situation and Nixon's situation.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

1. In 1969, Nixon did not recognize the $142,912 of gain on the sale of his New York City residence. (See B in Exhibit 3.) He reported that he had rolled over the proceeds into a new personal residence, the $1.5 million property he purchased two months later in San Clemente, Calif. Given his prominent address -- The White House (which he even used on the tax returns) -- the obvious issue was that such a tax-free rollover of gain would be disallowed because the San Clemente property would not qualify as his principal residence.

2. A related problem arises on the 1970 tax return when Nixon sold off part of the San Clemente acreage to friends. The amount he received covered 80 percent of the $1.5 million he paid to get the house and land. That sale, for $1,249,000, was reduced by exactly $1,249,000 of basis so that no gain was recognized. [See C in Exhibit 3.] That left the remaining acreage and house with about $250,000 of basis. That overallocation of basis to the acres sold certainly could have been easily challenged.

3. The deduction for the charitable contribution of Nixon's vice-presidential papers in 1969 raised an obvious and basic issue: valuation. Despite having an appraisal for $576,000, the valuation of property donated to charity is normally red-flag issue. With a deduction of almost $600,000, an IRS challenge would be certain for the average taxpayer. [See D in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4.]

4. No state income tax deduction appears on Nixon's 1970, 1971, and 1972 tax returns. The 1969 state income tax deduction was for taxes paid to New York. [See E in Exhibit 2.] The 1969 move to California should have meant that Nixon paid state income tax to California (if that was his true residence) or to the District of Columbia, both jurisdictions having high income tax rates. Nixon apparently did not pay any state or D.C. income tax after 1969. While the issue shows up on the federal returns, certainly state tax officials should have questioned why no state or local income tax was being paid.

5. From 1969 through 1972, Nixon deducted the costs of his Florida house (500 Bay Lane). He claimed use of the house related to his job as president. The costs that were being deducted include depreciation, utilities, and insurance. The obvious question was whether the Florida house was used for personal or business purposes. [See line F in Exhibit 2.]

6. A series of deductions from 1969 through 1972 relate to the fact that Nixon also deducted 25 percent of the cost of the San Clemente home as a deduction r

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME