Trump Administration Ignored Internal Legal Opinion In Withholding Tax Records

I recently testified in the House Judiciary Committee that the Congress must challenge the refusal of the Trump Administration to turn over certain records and to bar certain witnesses from oversight investigations. While I also disagreed with some of Congress’s actions, the Trump Administration has cannot withhold material from oversight authority on the basis of undeclared privileges or ill-defined objections. This is the case in the refusal to turn over tax records demanded by Congress. As I stated earlier, the House has made only generalized claims of a legislative purpose for such records. Nevertheless, the law clearly favors Congress in seeking such material. Notably, the Trump Administration has not claimed executive privilege but only that the Committee lacks a legislative purpose. That is not enough. Now, it appears that the Administration was warned by its own confidential Internal Revenue Service legal memorandum that it would be violating the law by withholding the records without an executive privilege claim. It ignored the legal memorandum and refused the congressional demand.

The memo, obtained by The Washington Post, concluded that he disclosure of tax returns to the committee “is mandatory, requiring the Secretary to disclose returns, and return information, requested by the tax-writing Chairs.” Nevertheless, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin simply refused to turn over the material on the basis that the House lacks a legislative purpose for demanding them.

The IRS stated what some of us have said from the outset: the federal law does not state conditions for this demand and does not die the Secretary discretion to refuse such demands when properly made by a congressional committee: “[T]he Secretary’s obligation to disclose return and return information would not be affected by the failure of a tax writing committee … to state a reason for the request,” it says. It adds that the “only basis the agency’s refusal to comply with a committee’s subpoena would be the invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege.”

Notably, this memo was completed months before Mnuchin made his decision to refuse the demand of the House Ways and Means Committee.

If the Administration is simply seeking to delay investigations, it could achieve that goal but will do so at the cost of creating damaging precedent against the Executive Branch for future presidents.

Here is the memo: IRS Memorandum

241 thoughts on “Trump Administration Ignored Internal Legal Opinion In Withholding Tax Records”

  1. I believe that the commenters on this post are overthinking the issue. Were I advising the House committee, I would urge a straightforward approach. Lawyers know that among the rules governing statutory construction is the principle that language may be either permissive or mandatory. Use of the verb “shall” in the statute in question means that the legal custodian of the requested documents is obligated to comply with the congressional request. In other words, the statute does not contemplate or permit the exercise of discretion. Whether the statute represents an unwise legislative act is immaterial; Congress can always change the law.

    When a government officer refuses to comply with a non-discretionary requirement or attempts to impose conditions or qualifications beyond the scope of a statute, the logical remedy is a writ of mandamus. I have utilized this procedure, for example, to compel a special water district to pay a judgment on a promissory note and to order a federal judge to reinstate a case which the court had sua sponte remanded to state court following the filing of a notice of removal. In re First National Bank of Boston, 70 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 1995). I’m a bit surprised that the Committee has not already commenced an appropriate action in this instance. But what do I know?

    1. Mike, I would refrain from making such a request under the present circumstances, but I like your legal logic and the meaning of the word shall. Shall I believe means exactly what you say, however, that doesn’t prevent the WH from refusing the shall request which may have precedent. I can’t say the result of such actions but overall I think the committee is acting in a disingenuine fashion.

  2. I would like to see Napler’s financial records going back 40 years. Just his tax returns first and then other things which may pop up in the returns.

  3. Three excerpts from The Mueller Report describing the motives, intent and corrupt purposes behind Trump’s obstruction of justice:

    Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President’s conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President’s acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President’s motives. The first phase covered the period from the President’s first interactions with Comey through the President’s firing of Comey. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President’s motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

    [edit]

    Evidence does establish that the President connected the Flynn investigation to the FBI’s broader Russia investigation and that he believed, as he told Christie, that terminating Flynn would end “the whole Russia thing.” Flynn’s firing occurred at a time when the media and Congress were raising questions about Russia’s interference in the election and whether members of the President’s campaign had colluded with Russia. Multiple witnesses recalled that the President viewed the Russia investigations as a challenge to the legitimacy of his election. The President paid careful attention to negative coverage of Flynn and reacted with annoyance and anger when the story broke disclosing that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Just hours before meeting one-on-one with Comey, the President told Christie that firing Flynn would put an end to the Russia inquiries.

    [edit]

    Evidence indicates that the President was angered by both the existence of the Russia investigation and the public reporting that he was under investigation, which he knew was not true based on Comey’s representations. The President complained to advisors that if people thought Russia helped him with the election, it would detract from what he had accomplished.

    Other evidence indicates that the President was concerned about the impact of the Russia investigation on his ability to govern. The President complained that the perception that he was under investigation was hurting his ability to conduct foreign relations, particularly with Russia. The President told Coats he “can’t do anything with Russia,” he told Rogers that “the thing with the Russians” was interfering with his ability to conduct foreign affairs, and he told Comey that “he was trying to run the country and the cloud of this Russia business was making that difficult.”

    [end excerpt]

    Basically, Trump was angry and frustrated that there even was a Russia investigation going on in the first place. Trump’s anger and frustration were mostly centered upon the political pressures that Trump was facing as a result of the ongoing Russia investigation. Those political pressures, in turn, revolved around Trump’s overriding concern that the legitimacy of his historic victory in the electoral college would be called into question in just such a way as to undermine his own willingness and ability to provide sanctions relief and foreign policy concessions to Russia.

    And The Attorney General of the United States, William “Whitewash” “Casting Couch” Barr, claims that Trump’s anger and frustration is supposedly a legitimate excuse for Trump’s obstruction of justice as well as a legitimate basis for launching Putin’s counter-investigation against the United States.

    Contributed by The L4D–Rub The Sick Puppies Noses In The Mess They Made On Our National Carpet–Project

  4. https://www.axios.com/house-democrats-subpoenas-trump-administration-cf3ed351-ff11-4498-89f4-cee588145198.html
    “the House has made only generalized claims of a legslative purpose” (quoted from this column).
    Many of these issues will play themselves out over time in the Court’s, and it seems likely that some will make their way to the Supreme Court.
    Aside from the legal determinations that will be made, there is the political impact of loading up the “Subpeona Cannon” and firing it in all directions.
    This gives the impression that these “generalized claims” are part of a widespread “fishing expedition”, especially on the heels of 2 1/2 years of intense investigations that had a very broad mandate to see what they might be able to “dig up”.
    So from a political perspective, the Trump Administration’s response, a big FU with all due respect to Lipo Nadler and Pencil Neck, is getting traction.
    It appears to be just another chapter in a game that’s been played in one form or another since November 2016.

  5. The memo was written by an anonymous employee of the IRS Office of Chief Counsel. That office is subordinate to the Office of the Treasury General Counsel. It was still in draft form, and whether it was ever finalized and submitted to the Treasury General Counsel is unknown. In any case, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mnuchin, is under no obligation to accept a legal opinion drafted by an attorney at a subordinate agency. He looks to his own Treasury General Counsel for legal advice.

  6. The Trump Admin. should immediately release officially the how to book of “A 1000 & 1 ways that the Democratic party of National Socialist Nazi B*stards & Prof Turley can Go P*ss Up a Rope!”

    LOL;)

    Come On P Turley, don’t let them make you the Butt of their joke!

    1. Oky, why blame Professor Turley? He’s just saying what every legal scholar is saying: ‘Presidents don’t have the right to blow Congress off’. If your sources aren’t telling you that, then you need to expand your scope of sources.

      1. Yes, Congress has every right to fire up a Subpeona Cannon and shoot it in all directions.
        And the Executive Branch is within their rights to tell them to take a hike and take their fishing expedition with it.

        1. Tom, that’s not what legal scholars are saying. That’s what Donald Trump is saying.

          Trump asserts the president is above Congress. If we accept that The President is more like a king.

          Perhaps you mean we should accept until Donald Trump is gone? I think that’s what Trumpers really mean.

          1. As I said, these issues are ultimately likely to work their way through the court system.
            The “legal scholars” will not give the final word on this.
            Another point I was making is that, while “Subpeona Cannons” are a cute trick, it reinforces the perception that this is a fishing expedition .
            That is a political factor, separate from these issues winding their way through the court system.
            If the House is trying to create the impression that this is generalized, the non- specific attempt to try to “find something”, they’re doing a good job of it.
            And on the legal side of this, a big part of the debate will be if they’re fulfilling a legimate legislative oversight function, of taking a scattergun approach to bolster the Democratic presidential chances for 2020.

            1. PS….it isn’to just “Trumpers” who are aware of the 2 1/2 years of investigations that preceeded the House fishing expedition
              Those investigations did not lack the resources nor the motivation to dig deep into and pursue a variety of issues beyond an illegal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.
              And “patience” was advised while the OSC investigation dragged on and on.
              And now, again, “patience” is advised for this dog and pony show.
              They can’t impeach on the results of those investigations, so the strategy now seems to be to hope for something more solid to somehow turn up…….they’re going to milk this thing for everything it’s worth as an inexpensive means of opposition research for the 2020 campaign.

              1. Tom, all those criticisms you cite here could have applied to the Republican House investigations of Hillary Clinton. And one should note that Hillary sat for many hours of questioning.

                1. https://www.10news.com/news/politics/mueller-team-issued-2-800-subpoenas-in-probe.
                  Peter, there are some differences that are worth pointing out. The House’s Benghazi and email investigations did not come on the heels of a lengthy and intensive FBI and OSC investigation.
                  If anyone does not remember the scope and length of those investigations, the linked article might refresh their memory.
                  Hillary was not president when she appeared before Congress, so the “separation of powers” issue wasn’t present.
                  There are now some conflicting versions from Comey and Lynch about the email investigation, or the email “matter”.
                  But it’s not difficult to see the difference in the FBI’s kid gloves investigation of Hillary, and the FBI targeting of the Trump campaign.
                  It’s an apples and orange comparison to cite the Hillary investigation as being similar to the Trump-Russia etc. investigation.

                2. Even you , Peter, will soon be learning that the investigations were far from real investigations. That Hillary got away with destroying her hard drive is incredible especially since Papodopoulus got jail time without ever breaking the law before he sat down with the FBI. I remember Lois Lerner being given immunity and then I remember her not providing any information. I remember the FBI attorney’s first statement that Hillary should be prosecuted. There are so many details that proves government to be corrupt with so many in our government that were complicit that I don’t know if we are really a free people or not anymore. You might have already gotten your wish of a fascist type government. We will have to wait and see how the cards play out.

                  1. Tom, Alan,

                    Republicans controlled both houses of Congress during those last 2 years of Hillary investigations. To say that Congress treated her with ‘kid gloves’ is basically saying ‘Republicans let her off’.

                    What’s more we knew from the start those investigations were intended to take down Hillary’s approval ratings in the run-up to the next election. Those investigations were ‘opposition research’ at the taxpayer’s expense. Now Trump supporters are flipping that accusation. Whatever! Trump should have know ‘before’ he ran for president that investigations go with the turf. If he wasn’t okay with that, he never should have run.

                    1. Peter, Who is saying that Republicans always act responsibly? You of course note how many years the Republicans pledged to repeal the ACA and when in control they didn’t. Republicans don’t adhere as strictly to party lines and many Republicans are more interested in themselves than they are in doing what they promise.

                      I’m for good government and that means I find tremendous fault with both parties. Right now the Democrats are actings like fascists instead of Americans that love their constitutional republic. We can go back to our prior discussions regarding the similarities of JFK and Trump but like in the past you will run away from any in depth discussion. Your mindset deals only with superficialities that change at will. You have no principles, little understanding of economics and no concern for unintended consequences.

                    2. The New PH – was it Republicans who permitted Hillary to destroy evidence, with Bleach Bit and hammers? Was it Republicans who declined to prosecute Hillary who ticked off all the boxes for multiple felonies regarding the handling of classified information? Why, no, it was the politicized FBI in tandem with the politicized DOJ.

                      The investigations proved that the State department denied repeated requests for security, and fumbled, causing death.

                    3. Karen, if you’re talking about Benghazi, the Republican committees couldn’t lay any direct blame on Hillary.

                      And if the FBI was so hostile to Trump, why did Comey not include Trump in his letter to Congress concerning Hillary..??

                    4. Peter,
                      Compare the OSC tactics (c.2800 subpoenas, SWAT-style raids, selective application of FARA laws, etc.) involving a president v. the so-called investigation of Hillary. By the way, I think I mentioned that she was not president, or subject to a Special Counsel investigation into the Benghazi and email “matters”.
                      Also, no one died as a result from even the wildest allegations lodged against Trump and the Trump campaign. People did die in Benghazi, and Hillary was instrumental in destabilizing Libya. That destabilization endangered much if the Libyan population as well as the British and U.N. delegations ( who pulled out of Benghazi prior to the attack on the Steven’s compound.
                      I can point out these distinctions, but I can’t force a Hillaryite like you to recognize them.

          2. “Trump asserts the president is above Congress. If we accept that The President is more like a king.”

            Trump has made no such assertion. In fact Trump has yielded to the left in permitting a special counsel access to all documents and all people something that I believe represents unprecedented transparency. Trump did this despite the fact that Mueller’s team of investigators were all or almost all investigators that were against Trump, that served Hillary, and that refused to do a complete investigation of Russia that included Hillary and Mueller himself.

            Trump never fired Mueller though it was his right to do so. Though Trump wanted certain things done (that were legal) he never saw to it that they were done.

            What Trumper’s mean is elections have consequences stated by none other than Barack Obama. But the left doesn’t believe in democracy and plot to replace democracy with their own fascist ideas.

            1. I would add that Peter seems to ignore the fact that these House “investigations ” are IN ADDITION TO 2 1/2 years of an aggressive FBI/OSC investigation, involving the 2800 subpoenas, the SWAT style raids, etc.
              When “subpoena cannons” are fired off in addition to what to prior FBI/ OSC investgation, it looks more like a fishing expedition rather than legitimate oversight.

        2. Congress is the Boss, where in the Constitution does it give the Executive Branch the right to tell Congress to take a Hike. By the way the Executive is a Department of Government, not a branch, the branches of Government, therefore the Coequal Branches, are the House and the Senate, Not The Executive, Legislative and Judicial, and all the Checks and Balances are Legislative as well, between the The People of the States in the House Balances with the States in the Senate. In that way all Laws must receive the concurrence of the People in their Collective Capacity in the House and the States in their Collective Capacity in the Senate.

          The States as the Union is predominant Governing entity in our Government, if you think you want to tell the Union to take a hike, then they will send you packing through Impeachment and removal from office! Congress doesn’t have oversight of the President and the Executive Department, Congress has Control and directs the President and Executive Department.

          If you think that is wrong, cite the appropriate references from Articles 1, 2, and 3 to support your contention that the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are Coequal Branches. What you will find is that the distribution of power is between the States through the modes of assembly in the Bicameral Legislature, the President is not a decision maker, or leader, the President and Executive are for management of day to day operations of the Government and to have a single point of contact for interactions with Foreign Nations, the President is our Chief Statesman, the Vice President is our Chief Legislator.

          I would continue but you all are so far out in the weeds when it comes to the Assembly and function of our Government that nothing I say will even scratch the surface on your twisted understanding of republican Government, indirect Democracy, and Collective Consensus Decision making! I think you people love the competition of dysfunctional Partisan Government. If that is the kind of government you prefer then move to Europe and leave the other 80% of us to Govern ourselves as the Constitution intends!

          1. Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can embark on a fishing expedition to help kick off a presidential election campaign?

            1. First, there is no justification for a presidential campaign in the Constitution, the electorate for selection of the President and Vice President are the Electors chosen by each State, the whole number of Representatives and Senators to which each State is Entitled, and the Electors Are Chosen on a common date set by Congress, then once chosen the Electors Vote by Ballot on a common date also determined by Congress, in their respective States, list of those receiving votes, and for which office, are compiled, certified, and transmitted to the Seat of Government Directed to the President of the Senate, to be opened and counted before Congress.

              Where in Article 2 Section 1 or the 12th Amendment do you find Presidential Candidates, Party Nominations, Selection of running mates, General Elections, or winner takes all by State, no where! In fact every part of our current election processes are a direct violation of every part of Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment. The Baseball Hall of Fame Selection Process is closer to the Selection Process of Article 2 Section 1, with the only differences in the Selection of the Electors, and 10 ballots for each elector versus 2. The only qualifications which restrict the Electors Choice of persons to place on their ballots is; “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”, and “The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.”!

              I haven’t even started to talk about Congress, but you seem to be having trouble understanding that Congress is an Assembly of the States as the Union, only the States are Members of Congress, the Representatives and Senators are Representatives of the Members, not Members of Congress Themselves! Meaning, there is no Constitutional justification whatsoever for the partisan assembly and control of Congress. Furthermore each branch of Congress has its own responsibilities and duties, but both are assemblies of the States, not Districts or Parties, and only the States have Suffrage in Congress, meaning only the States can participate, through Voting, to reach Majority Consensus Based Upon the mode of Assembly in Congress!

              You are confusing what we call politics and governing today with what the Constitution establishes as a republican form of Government, and no, you will not find anything that we do, and call American Democracy, in the Constitution including your ludicrous assertion of a fishing expedition!

              Get a clue, we are well outside the Constitution with this Party Governing System that we are trying to shoehorn into the republican Government of the Constitution!

              1. If you can find a place in the Constitution that prohibits political campaigns, party nominations, etc., you’d have a lot stronger argument.
                If you want to go by “where does it say in the Constitution?” standard, where does it say in the Constitution that Congress can subpoena the President?

                1. There is a remedy for ignorance, however there is nothing that can be done about stupidity! Get a clue, the Constitution tells us what To Do, Not what Not To Do! Maybe we can start concentrating on what the Constitution says, not what we want it to say!

                  A person is well within their rights to campaign, and they can even do it as part of a Party Nomination Process, but that in no way compels an elector to place their name on one of their two ballots, or for any particular office. If it was that simple then Barry Bonds, Pete Rose, and Roger Clemens would be in the Hall of Fame today.

                  Get a clue, you don’t understand anything about the Constitution or republican Government. You are just consumed with this partisan bickering and tribalism that we call Politics today!

                  1. Federalistpapers,
                    You have repeatedly asked “where does it say in the Constitution” that this or that activity or legislation can be done constitutionally. Then you turn around when you find it expedient and decide that the Constitution does allow activity/ legislation not specified in the Constitution.
                    You might consider running as a candidate who proposes scraping the Constitution and re-establishng the Articles of Confederation.
                    I’ve seen some pretty bizarre and ridiculous arguments made about the Constitution and its meaning, but you are way out in the tulies on the lunatic fringe/ doublespeak edge of the gibberish school in your whacko theories.
                    That may partially explain SNOT’s apparent, detailed support of your views.

                    1. L4D says–I seriously doubt that YNOT is a big fan of The Electoral College. But I do not know for a fact that YNOT opposes The Electoral College. In any case, it seems reasonably clear that The Reverend FedPap is practically obsessed with The Electoral College. Meanwhile, the two major political parties in this great land of ours have a major role in selecting the Electors [Delegates] for The Electoral College. Perhaps the Reverend FedPap might incorporate at least a little bit of the history of the growth and development of our two party system in The Several States, themselves, into The Reverend FedPap’s readings of the U. S. Constitution.

                      How did the two party system get a stranglehold on The State Legislatures in America? When did that happen?

                  2. “federalistpapersrevisited says:
                    May 23, 2019 at 8:00 AM

                    There is a remedy for ignorance, however there is nothing that can be done about stupidity! Get a clue, the Constitution tells us what To Do, Not what Not To Do! Maybe we can start concentrating on what the Constitution says, not what we want it to say! ”

                    See, just as my other post to you, this post of your’s get right to the point in your 1st paragraph.

                    1st, You show your ignorance/stupidity.

                    2nd: The USC is meant to be a list of the Federal Govt’s very limited power & mainly a list of areas the Fed’s are suppose to have No Authority/No Power to interject themselves.

                    IE: Read George. lol;)

      2. “every legal scholar is saying: ‘Presidents don’t have the right to blow Congress off’.”

        I have to inform you Peter, Presidents have been doing that since the founding of the nation.

        1. Alan, when push has come to shove, the courts have backed up the authority of Congress. We can’t have an arrogant, imperial president just dig in his heels and say, “I won’t answer to Congress”. Bill Clinton, for instance, had to comply. Nixon had to comply. I don’t there’s an example of a president who simply said ‘no’ and got away with it.

          1. “Alan, when push has come to shove, the courts have backed up the authority of Congress.”

            When push came to shove we have seen that the authority of both sides has had wins and losses. You make conclusive statements so easily because you lack any in depth knowledge of history or science. You probably would have been one of those that would told Columbus that he would sail off the edge of the earth.

            1. Every president going back to JFK ( at least) has invoked executive privilege. In the latter part of the last century, that claim was successful with the exceptionsions of Nixon-then- Clinton .
              I don’t know the “scorecards” for the Bush 43 and Obama administrations……I think they each claimed executive privilege c.5-10 times? over 8 year Administrations, but each had at least one claim of executive privilege shot down by the court(s).
              So it’s incorrect to assume that claims of executive privilege will defeated by Congressional objections; historically, the opposite has been true.

          2. “when push has come to shove, the courts have backed up the authority of Congress”

            over big things, yes. For good reasons. i will give 3

            1- Congress is the supreme source of legitimacy for all FEDERAL legislation whatever incarnation, Congress must have been the souce

            2 Congress can affect the Supreme Court by packing it or cutting its budget

            3 Congress can do something rarely discussed or understood by non-lawyers and most lawyers forget too:
            IT CAN STRIP THE SCOTUS OF JURISDICTION OF SUBJECTS

            For exmaple, it could strip the SCOTUS of subject matter jurisdiction of abortion.

            But when the prolifers had the votes, they never did this.

            Why? a) too timid b) not convinced of their own rhetoric and most of all,
            c) AFRAID OF THE CONSEQUENCES IF THEY TOOK THAT ON THEMSELVES

            in short they prefer to let it sort out in the courts

            as they often do

            this tax returns thing is a tempest in a teapot but Congress is the ultimate power in the United States Constitutional regime that should be fully understood by all.

            1. Mr. Kurtz,
              The quote in your opening sentence was in reference to investigative powers of Congress v. claims of Executive Privilege. Not all claims of EP are challenged by Congress, and overall those claims have been successfully asserted by presidents going back to Washington.
              Given the impasse that’s developed between the Trump Administration and the Democratic House, it looks like there will be a lengthy set of court battles.
              JT and others have mentioned that a key element in how the courts decide will be whether the courts agree or disagree that the subpoenas serve a legitimate Congressional legislative and oversight function.
              It doesn’t seem likely that either side is in a mood for compromise, so the court battles look inevitable.

              1. yes i agree tom and in such a situation there is always a question, to what extent is the conflict staged?

                is this real constitutional crisis, or as they say in wrestingly, kayfabe?

                1. Mr. Kurtz,
                  I don’t see it as a constitutional crisis, but if the drama queens in the media and/ or political office holders who are drama queens want to present it as such, I don:t really mind. If they want to say that “the sky is falling”, I don’t mind that either.

  7. aha look the Pentagon just admitted clearly and recently that they have investigated UAPs ie unidentified flying phenomenon

    this appears to be more official confirmation of the stories i alluded to earlier from last spring about AATIP program but here’s today news apparently a higher level of “disclosure”

    https://nypost.com/2019/05/22/the-pentagon-finally-admits-it-investigates-ufos/

    but the real disclosures the Democrat leadership is interested in, are Trump’s taxes.

    boring! petty!

  8. The British were involved and Mueller knew before his appointment.

    How did Christopher Wray not know?

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America exposed.

    Uh, oh!
    _________________________________________________________________

    “The trigger for Nunes’s letter was a report published in the British press Sunday that Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer, briefed high-level British government officials about his investigation into possible ties between Trump and the Russian government.

    The U.K. Telegraph reported that a week after Trump’s election win, Steele briefed Sir Charles Farr, who then chaired Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee, about his investigation of Trump’s possible ties to Russia.

    Farr passed the information to other high-level British intelligence officials, including MI5 director Andrew Parker and MI6 director Alex Younger. According to the Telegraph, the prime minister was not briefed on the information.

    Congressman Nunes asserted in his letter that the report raises ‘important questions’ about the British government’s role in ‘spreading

    the dossier’s false allegations and what actions they may have taken in response to the allegations.'”

    – U.K. Telegraph

  9. WHY ARE TRUMP’S TAXES A CULTURE WAR ISSUE?

    Why would a President fight vigorously to keep his taxes secret? ‘He doesn’t want to show them’! It’s a slam-dunk of a deduction.

    Perhaps Donald Trump didn’t expect to get the presidency? He was in no condition to show his taxes to the American public. But Trump didn’t think it would come to that. The campaign was a bluff.

    Strangely Trump got the White House through an Electoral College fluke. The new job comes with scrutiny: ‘Congress wants to see your taxes’. What does a billionaire do when he is highly leveraged? And business partners include many foreign nationals?

    If you’re Donald Trump you make it a Culture War issue. Like Leftists are overstepping! ‘No business prying into the President’s taxes’. Then you keep repeating that and throw public tantrums. As Trump did today in a sudden news conference.

    Any cop can tell you the guilty scream loudest denying their guilt. Especially privileged Whites. They go into fits of indignation when accused of something.

    1. “Perhaps Donald Trump didn’t expect to get the presidency?”

      Did Trump not expect to win, or was he so desperate to win that he conspired with Putin? Dumbass.

      1. Ivan, Donald Trump raises endless questions. No president has ever had such complicated finances.

        Had Trump been the CEO of a blue-chip, publicly traded corporation his financial history would be less complicated. Quarterly reports would tell us how much he actually made. Rex Tillerson, for instance, was rich but easy to verify. As CEO of ExxonMobile, he was an open book.

        1. Peter, Trump’s finances are complicated to you but they aren’t at all that difficult to understand. You seem overly interested in how much money others made. That perhaps is the reason you never made enough money to understand Trumps finances.

          1. Alan, Bob, let’s examine that.

            If Trump’s taxes aren’t that complicated, what’s the problem with releasing them? If they’re totally legal and simple to present, that would be a no-brainer.
            But it’s obviously not that simple.

            Trump is either not as rich as he claims, and, or, highly leveraged. Then too, foreign partners are a strong possibility. These three reasons alone would give Trump a very strong incentive to keep his taxes secret.

            And Trump supporters are playing useful idiots by pretending this issue is one pesky Democrats.

            Trump should have assumed Democrats would be pesky. Republicans spent 4 entire years investigating Hillary. Why wouldn’t Democrats subject Trump to the same? Is Trump’s pedigree so pure he should be above question?? ..Of course not..!

            Trump should have assumed (before he was ever the nominee) that Democrats might take the House and launch investigations. Had Trump started from that assumption, he might have thought twice about pursuing the nomination.

            It’s a case of arrogance on Trump’s part.

            1. “If Trump’s taxes aren’t that complicated, what’s the problem with releasing them?”

              Tax returns can have proprietary and private information. The tax return was specifically limited in nature to provide government a way of knowing how much to tax an individual. It was not meant to be a record open to the public. If you want tax returns open to the public then pass a law. I think we should have known exactly who paid for Obama’s education and all of Obama’s records at the schools he was enrolled in. I think that is more of a benefit to the public than tax returns which aren’t that revealing. Fortunately or unfortunately there was no law forcing Obama to do so. Passing retroactive laws to target individuals is not how a free society acts, but that doesn’t stop the left. After all the left is fascist and makes determinations of law based on how they feel instead of what the law says.

              What is it that you are looking for in his tax returns that hasn’t been released? We know he and his related companies had large losses that were permitted to be deducted from future earnings. That is tax law used by virtually every rich leftist. The IRS forms do not provide an assessment of total wealth. They do not provide details on bankruptcies and since Trump never was personally bankrupt there would be no information in any of the filings other than losses which would be in the corporate books, not his. Once the left illegaly misused the IRS forms they would again say they don’t have enough information and demand release of the corporate income taxes of over 500 corporations along with non corporate partnerships. Of course that information would be misused as well so the left would want the taxes of everyone mentioned in the corporate income taxes and all the corporate books in order to find something that doesn’t exist. In other words anyone with any tie to Trump would suddenly find himself having to release all his private information. That is the type of Stalinist world you and your cohorts of the left wish America to live under.

              Let us simplify everything and have you simply state what you hope to find and what that proves. You can’t do that because you are fishing without a hook or bait. Your way of catching fish is to blow up the entire lake and let the dead fish float to the top.

        2. How do you know just how complicated Pres. Trump’s finances are? Have you seen them? Or is that just your uneducated opinion? Did you see Pres. Regean’s tax returns? Hmmm What BS.

          1. Tillerson’s personal finances/ net worth may have been “an open book”, but his close involvement in business with Russian companies and perhaps the Kremlin itself did raise some questions when he was nominated as Sec. of State. I don’t think he had any experience in bilateral or multilateral diplomacy, as although he did have to deal with the Russian government on behalf of Exxon.

    2. Were there a million dollar cash penalty for any leaks imposed on Nadler, Trump should agree to release his tax data. Otherwise, aske the Supreme Court to decide it. This is entirely clear: the intent is to weaponize the tax code against Trump by plastering his taxes all over the media right up until Election Day.

  10. “Obama lawyers cited ‘presidential communications privilege’ a variation of executive privilege.”
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Huma Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

    “Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?’” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

    The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the “presidential communications privilege,” a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act.

  11. Mr. Kurtz, you just sided with Xi Jinping’s boy and Chinese mole, comrade Yang, who took Universal Basic Income (UBI) straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Just like Chairman Mao, he has a whole lot of other people’s money to spend, doesn’t he? So much for your credibility. Kurtz the Commie. That has a nice ring to it. I’ll bet “regular Democrat folks,” aka parasites, are chomping at the bit to have other people’s money confiscated by the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and handed out to leeches as “entitlements.”

    1. i hear ya george – i always thought it was totally bogus the first few years i heard of it

      i want to sell you on this being a non-communist, interesting idea at least worth exploring

      here’s a few points about Yang’s UBI idea

      a) start with what is money. it is not finite, it is not gold. it is created by banks as credits and debits mostly digital and a small percent paper. it is not rare, in other words. yes, if there is too much growth too fast you get inflation. a valid concern. but this does not require taking stuff from a to give to b.

      b) to the extent that it does require funding, he proposes a value added tax aimed at Amazon and other Silicon valley enterprises. Yes, the same ones that back democrats and hate Trump and censor our free speech on their platforms. OK! Sock it to em

      c) there is good reason to suspect that amazon et al do not sufficiently pay for their success in terms of taxation and more importantly exploitation of publically funded technological research and infrastructure.

      d) Enigma calls you a racist. Let’s take that as suggesting that you are pro white guy. Let me observe something: giving a small pittance to everybody will mean finally young white guys qualify for a handout too. hey everybody else is getting one, how about cutting us in too? or should we just PAY for it all and never dip our beaks?

      e) whomever OWNS more and more AI and automation will put more and more workers out of work, FAST. Demand for “welfare programs’ is going to go UP> How about making some of them pay for what they’re going to do in the near future to put service sector jobs out of work?

      Trump’s doing great but in capitalism the economy doesn’t expand it also contracts. The jobs are out there now, as capitalism adjusts. The thing will slow down eventually and then when the pain sets in people will perhaps wish to consider these ideas

      f.) Yang says its not socialism. It’s capitalism except instead of us all starting at zero income we all start at $1,000 a month. Maybe that is a valid reply?

      Just consider it George. This is not at all like Mao. I have studied Mao and Yang’s only resemblance is his broad flat Chinese face. Yang is a visionary and well worth discussing., Thank you for your reply and have a good day!

      1. The American Founders established freedom, free enterprise and a severely restricted and limited government which exists solely to facilitate the freedom of individuals. They did not create “capitalism” which was coined as a pejorative by Karl Marx. The manipulation of capital exists innately in the freedom and free enterprise established under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. America is not capitalist, America is freedom and free enterprise. America does not engage in capitalism, America engages in freedom and free enterprise. Freedom and free enterprise allow free individuals to engage in capitalism which is simply the manipulation of money.

        Tell your communist friend to end his parasitism and take it to the private sector. Tell the comrade to use gofundme.com in the free markets of the private sector instead of unconstitutional confiscatory taxation for the communistic purpose of redistribution of wealth. He is selling his ideas on redistribution to parasites who will never turn down an offer of “free stuff.
        _____

        “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.”

        – Alexander Fraser Tytler

        1. oh america is plenty capitalist and capitalism is real. marx understood historical forces of economic conflict very well even if he had screwy social values and failed to predict the future correctly.

          i am familiar with this distinction between free enterprise and capitalism. I won’t go into where i have seen it widely discussed before. that would only serve to discredit both of us.

          anyhow. like i said. but american capitalism has borrwed a lot from socialism to co-opt and outflank it. for example. there are how many handout programs?

          Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment and Welfare Programs
          those the big four. they cover a lot of people!
          but there are more. SSDI, section 8 housing, you name it. i bet there are 20 some programs.

          do white guys dip their beaks in these programs? Yes but perhaps a lot less than other demographics! i will let people slice and dice statistics if they want to argue.
          at least Yang knows the young white guy demographic exists.
          i expect you are old like me and even older but we were young once

          i am not friends with yang but i would welcome his friendship
          he was in the private sector and doing just fine by the way

          George, i hope we live long enough to see what happens with AGI. who knows what the future holds.

  12. i would submit trump’s tax records are a petty concern

    what would be a big one?

    well aside from the usual big problems, let’s say, the economy, migration issues, social equality problems, there are things like national defense. what about there? what’s of interest? middle east same old same old?

    anything else? how about something NONBORING like endless whining about Trump

    would it matter for example if there was a government program that had been revealed which documented UFOs? Oh wait there was such a program phased out in 2013 AATIP the acronym

    Which documented and published now declassified incidents of numerous military observers both seeing and recording UFOs. UFOs because they exhibited flight patterns that were far beyond the capability of any existing human technology. And recorded by the US military which pretty well holds the outer edge of what is possible aeronautically. So who knows what they are but they’re not ours.

    gimbal incident

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHwmWnY4P1w

    Who knows what these things are. But this guy is no crank, Luis Elizondo. DIA intel officer working on official DOD government program studying UFOs. This made the rounds last spring. Seeming lack of interest in the mass media since then.

    Why would this not matter to people more than stupid tax returns?

    My only silver lining if Hillary got elected was that Podesta was committed to disclosing information about these things. But the AATIP program had backing by Harry Reid. So this is bipartisan. As it shoudl be.

    This was released last spring but since then all you hear about is dumb stuff like Trump’s tax returns. The loser mass media is obsessed with Trump and the cyberspace partisans keep a laserlike focus on trivia while crazy stuff is happening that should get more attention.

    These things– apparently 5 incidents have been well documented and declassified but there are supposedly a lot more that has not been declassified– these things can go way faster than anything we have, turn on a dime, track jets with ease, and vanish.

    At a minimum, a major threat to national defense. But hey, what about Trump’s tax returns? That’s more consequential according to the obsessives here.

    1. I should have said, COULD BE a major threat to national defense. One rather hopes that since apparently they have been seen for decades, and they don’t appear to be “The Russians,” and whomever “They” are, since they haven’t blown us away since then, they won’t any time soon

      we hope.

      now back to Trumps’ tax returns. UFOs being verified by government declassified F/18 pilots is just too boring and insignificant to notice.

      1. let’s see. maybe i am a kook. Is Michio Kaku a kook? He won the Nobel Prize in Physics. here’s what he had to say about “trying to make contact with them.” He sure sounds like he thinks they are out there. The message was, HOPE that they don’t bother too much with us.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e10MDxUWR7U

        Now enough of the boring stuff and back to Trump’s tax returns.

        1. Turley quoted the IRS memo as stating that the “only basis [for] the agency’s refusal to comply with a committee’s subpoena would be the invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege.”

          Turley neglected to explicate the IRS memo’s claim on that count. Turley has previously argued that there two basic types of executive privilege: deliberative process privilege and Presidential communications privilege. It is not immediately clear how Trump’s tax returns or financial statements for the purpose of tax preparation going back ten years–which includes a substantial period of time when Trump was not yet the sitting President of the United States–could possibly be construed as protected by either deliberative process executive privilege or Presidential communications executive privilege. Chances are that that’s why Turley balked at any legal analysis of the IRS memo’s claim about the doctrine of executive privilege supposedly being the only basis for refusal to comply the committee’s subpoena. Or not. What do you think Turley thinks?

          Contributed by The L4D–Don’t Try To Get Yourself Elected If You Do You’ll Have To Cut Your Hair–Project

    2. “i would submit trump’s tax records are a petty concern”

      It’s not clear how trump’s tax records before he became president are germane to any legitimate oversight function. Maybe this is simply a new frontier of opposition research: Use Congressional subpoena power to get access to confidential information not otherwise available to your oppo research hacks. So why can’t the various Senate Committees should just go ahead and subpoena the tax (and other) records for the 24 goof balls in the Democratic 2020 presidential clown car?

  13. I care about financial conflicts of interest, not individual tax returns. I do not want to see people punished for employing every legal tax advantage they can, or for who donates to what causes to become searchable information.

    I would rather that every candidate for not only the Presidency, but the Vice Presidency, and Congress, all disclose financial interests and conflicts of interest.

    Barring that, if Trump is going to be compelled to disclose his personal tax returns, which are guaranteed private, then the rest of Congress must do so, too. Otherwise, it’s one way for thee, another for me. These people sit on Committees that distribute billions of dollars. We should know who’s paying whom. For them to act horrified about a business man employing every write off possible is hypocritical. Nancy Pelosi employs agricultural write offs because she owns a winery. The lady ain’t no farmer.

    We all know where this leads. Trump has bragged for years that he uses every deduction, loss rollover, and other method to reduce his tax burden significantly. One major loss alone would wipe out income taxes for year. Granted, he pays millions of other taxes, but that’s not what the Democrats will focus on.

    It is unethical to blame anyone for properly following tax law. It is disingenuous to compare investment tax rates with wage rates. Should they ever increase investment rates significantly, it will hit investment hard.

    They are going to say it’s not fair that his loss carried over for years. They are going to say it’s not fair for a wealthy businessman to use tax advantages to reduce his tax burden. However, each and every one of those Congressional critics demands that their tax preparers save them the most money possible.

    While at the same time howling about the loss of the state tax write-off on their own taxes, they will claim it is immoral for Trump to use write-offs and deductions. While writing off their own dinners and car services as work related, they will pour over every one of his itemized deductions.

    It is not Congress’ purview to audit tax returns. That’s the IRS’s job. It is not fair to punish business people who run for office because they have more opportunities for tax write-offs than career politicians. Politicians don’t typically run their own business, aside from side ventures like Pelosi’s winery, with its inherent farmer deductions. They don’t write off business losses or capital depreciation. They’ve often never started a business, let along failed and had to start over. My own husband darn near lost his shirt when he first started out as a new business owner, and then got on stable ground. Those who live cushy lives at the taxpayers’ expense can afford to poo poo others working to build and maintain a business of any size. It’s the typical disdain for the bourgeoisie. Trump may be rich, but he’ll always be merchant class in their eyes.

    If you are going to get hammered for write-offs, then no one other than a career politician will be able to run again.

    Using every legal option to reduce tax burden is fiscal responsibility.

    There is no valid legislative reasoning for this. Everyone knows Trump has suffered losses in some of his business experiments, and that he’s bragged about rolling those losses forward…legally. This is an assault on the business class.

    That said, Congress will probably get their way. Trump’s options are to see if he can delay the release until after 2020, so as to avoid handing the Left the typical anti-rich Socialist talking points. Or he could release them and get ahead of it now, with enough time for people to get over it by 2020. Heck, he could even discuss how everyone who pays taxes goes to their accountant to save money.

    What’s he supposed to have done? Foregone every tax deduction possible for 10 years because he thought he might one day be President?

    1. “Barring that, if Trump is going to be compelled to disclose his personal tax returns, which are guaranteed private, then the rest of Congress must do so, too.”
      With you 100% on that one.
      “What’s he supposed to have done?”
      You really haven’t been paying attention, have you? Money laundering, fraud, and tax evasion for three.

      1. yep so Enigma’s not interested in UFOs i guess. Nor Andrew Yang. Just GET TRUMP

        hey, here’s my idea. GET BRENNAN and the other FISA court defrauders. its coming

        https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-22/no-wonder-obama-intel-chiefs-panicking-trumps-about-declassify-bucket-5-russiagate

        No Wonder Obama Intel Chiefs Panicking – Trump To Declassify “Bucket 5” Russiagate Docs
        Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
        by Tyler Durden

        As Congressional Democrats insist on conducting post-Mueller probes into President Trump and those around him, much of the recent infighting and backpedaling we’ve seen from former Obama intel chiefs is starting to make sense.

        Appearing with Fox News’s Sean Hannity Tuesday night, The Hill’s John Solomon revealed that according to his sources (and Hannity’s as well), President Trump will begin declassifying ‘Russiagate’ documents in the next 6-7 days.

        Among those will be the so-called “Bucket Five” – documents which were originally presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016, which included everything the FBI and DOJ used against Trump campaign aide Carter Page – including the FISA surveillance application and its underlying exculpatory intelligence documents which the FISA court may have never seen.

        Given all Russiagate roads lead back to London and the political climate in UK, this could get bumpy. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/21/declassification-directive-and-current-event-timeline/

        And as ‘Sundance’ of the Conservative Treehouse notes, the release would presumably include the transcripts from FBI wiretaps of George Papadopoulos, who was listed in the Carter Page FISA. Also noted by CT is that declassification would be on target to occur between Trump’s upcoming state visit to Japan (5/25 – 5/28) and his state visit with the UK (6/3 – 6/5).

        Via the Conservative Treehouse:

        No-one really knows the extent of the current documents and/or information that may be subject to a Trump declassification request. However, this is the original list as outlined in September 2018, and the agencies who would be involved in the declassification process:

        All versions of the Carter Page FISA applications (DOJ) (DoS) (FBI) (ODNI).
        All of the Bruce Ohr 302’s filled out by the FBI. (FBI) (ODNI)
        All of Bruce Ohr’s emails (FBI) (DOJ) (CIA) (ODNI), and supportive documents and material provided by Bruce Ohr to the FBI. (FBI)
        All relevant documents pertaining to the supportive material within the FISA application. (FBI) (DOJ-NSD ) (DoS) (CIA) (DNI) (NSA) (ODNI);
        All intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all exculpatory intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court. (CIA) (FBI) (DOJ) (ODNI) (DoS) (NSA)
        All unredacted text messages and email content between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok on all devices. (FBI) (DOJ) (DOJ-NSD) (ODNI)
        The originating CIA “EC” or two-page electronic communication from former CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey that started Operation Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016. (CIA) (FBI) (ODNI)
        ♦ President Trump can prove the July 31st, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation originated from a scheme within the intelligence apparatus by exposing the preceding CIA operation that created the originating “Electronic Communication” memo. Declassify that two-page “EC” document that Brennan gave to Comey. [The trail is found within the Weissmann report and the use of Alexander Downer – SEE HERE]

        ♦ Release and declassify all of the Comey memos that document the investigative steps taken by the FBI as an outcome of the operation coordinated by CIA Director John Brennan in early 2016. [The trail was memorialized by James Comey – SEE HERE]

        ♦ Reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse by declassifying the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Show the FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulent search queries. [Crowdstrike? Fusion-GPS? Nellie Ohr? Daniel Richman?] This was a weaponized surveillance and domestic political spying operation. [The trail was laid down in specific detail by Judge Collyer – SEE HERE]

        ♦ Subpoena former DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) head John Carlin, or haul him in front of a grand jury, and get his testimony about why he hid the abuse from the FISA court in October 2016; why the DOJ-NSD rushed the Carter Page application to beat NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to the FISA court; and why Carlin quit immediately thereafter.

        ♦ Prove the Carter Page FISA application (October 2016) was fraudulent and based on deceptions to the FISA Court. Declassify the entire document, and release the transcripts of those who signed the application(s); and/or depose those who have not yet testified. The creation of the Steele Dossier was the cover-up operation. [SEE HERE]

        ♦ Release all of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages without redactions. Let sunlight pour in on the actual conversation(s) that were taking place when Crossfire Hurricane (July ’16) and the FISA Application (Oct ’16) were taking place. The current redactions were made by the people who weaponized the intelligence system for political surveillance and spy operation. This is why Page and Strzok texts are redacted!

        ♦ Release all of Bruce Ohr 302’s, FBI notes from interviews and debriefing sessions, and other relevant documents associated with the interviews of Bruce Ohr and his internal communications. Including exculpatory evidence that Bruce Ohr may have shared with FBI Agent Joseph Pientka. [And get a deposition from this Pientka fella] Bruce Ohr is the courier, carrying information from those outside to those on the inside.

        ♦ Release the August 2nd, 2017, two-page scope memo provided by DAG Rod Rosenstein to special counsel Robert Mueller to advance the fraudulent Trump investigation, and initiate the more purposeful obstruction of justice investigation. Also Release the October 20th, 2017, second scope memo recently discovered. The Scope Memos are keys to unlocking the underlying spy/surveillance cover-up. [SEE HERE and SEE HERE]

        1. Tell him about comrade Yang’s expansion of “free stuff” as more Generational Welfare and Affirmative Action (UBI) and he’ll start waving his pom poms and jumping in the air. Self-reliance can be so difficult.

        2. Kurtz, I can’t wait for this big revelation! Uh, if it doesn’t happen will you let us know?

          PS “Tyler Durden”, the author of this “article” is a fictional character. There is no real “Tyler Durden”.

          1. From the Wikipedia entry on “Tyler Durden”:

            The Narrator is a fictional character appearing as both the central protagonist and antagonist of the 1996 Chuck Palahniuk novel Fight Club, its 1999 film adaptation of the same name, and the comic book Fight Club 2. The character has dissociative identity disorder, and is depicted as an unnamed everyman known as the Narrator during the day, while he becomes the chaotic and charismatic Tyler Durden at night during periods of insomnia.

            [end excerpt]

            L4D says–Fascinating. Dissociative Identity Disorder. Fascinating.

            1. zerohedge has a following among investors
              i wouldn’t expect that you would be familiar with it

              tyler durden is the editor, yes that is a nom de plume

              if you have not seen fight club, watch it. you will like it.

        3. L4D says–So some guy who calls himself “Sundance” and who writes for “The Conservative Treehouse” assumes that what he doesn’t know can’t hurt Trump but can only hurt Trump’s “enemies.” How so? Because “Sundance” already knows what “Sundance” does not yet know? Gambler’s Fallacy?

          Here’s what “Sundance” ought to know: Any given person who is indicted on the basis of selectively declassified evidence has a right for discovery of exculpatory classified evidence. If the exculpatory classified evidence is not produced in pretrial discovery, then the indictment must be dismissed. If the exculpatory classified evidence is produced in pretrial discovery, then the trial would most likely have to be conducted under CIPA in a SCIF.

          Something else Sundance might want to consider is that Deep State has not yet begun to leak. Do you really want to indict the keepers of secrets? Even while keeping secrets from Congress? Tilting at windmills seems saner than this Sundance fellow.

          1. Anonymous you say, If the exculpatory classified evidence is produced in pretrial discovery, then the trial would most likely have to be conducted under CIPA in a SCIF. Who cares? Just lay out the facts for everyone to see.

            If the IC more what is new. Leakers should be prosecuted, need to know confirmed and the laws enforced. It would be hard to argue that the IC is perfect. They should never have the final word. History is replete with intelligence failures and political CYA strategies on both sides.

            Exculpatory evidence will benefit defendants on both sides. If If IC wants to put their finger on scale then punish them. They are unelected employees not avatars of right and wrong.

      2. Larry Sinclair stated that Obama smoked crack cocaine, had homosexual relations with him and implied that Obama had homosexual relations with a “Donald Young” who was murdered on Dec. 23, 2007, and was the openly gay choir director for Reverend Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Is this true? Did CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PMSNBC, HLN or other outlets of the MSM report this? Why has America not heard this news? Why was the photo of Obama enjoying a visit with Louis Farrakhan not displayed in the MSM?

        1. If an openly gay choir director is shocking to you, you haven’t attended many black churches. Please don’t start, the only reason you would is to imitate Dylann Roof.

        2. George, that guy is not credible. gay drug abuser said what? lies prolly

          I have never been convinced Obama is gay. just seems like nonsense to me. Joan Rivers seriously believed this and that Michelle was a trans as well. Again, seems preposterous.

          Some of these things are disinformation. They are planted out there to make overzealous critics look kooky.

      3. “Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote, ‘the White House is running this.’”

        – Peter Strzok to Lisa Page August 5, 2016

      4. In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Huma Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

        “Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?'” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

        The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the “presidential communications privilege,” a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act.

        1. The past tense of “going to be compelled” no longer applies. He has been compelled, and Wells Fargo and another bank have already turned over records. Your boy is having a meltdown. What’s he hiding?

          1. I’ve always suspected that he’s hiding massive write-offs and losses rolled forward. That’s what he’s bragged about, that he’s great at reducing his tax burden. This is going to be talking points for Democrats. You know, the rich don’t pay their fair share, using deductions is immoral, any business owner who suffers losses sucks, etc.

            I’m not worried about tax evasion because the IRS would catch it.

            1. Your faith in the IRS is laudable. That’s the same IRS currently breaking the law by not turning over Trump’s taxes to the Ways & Means Committee. They are literally taking orders from Trump.

                1. Uh, didn’t happen mespo.

                  “The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI began an investigation into the IRS controversy in May 2013.[32] In October 2015, the DOJ announced it was closing the investigation and would not seek criminal charges.[3] The determination came after an investigation of almost two years, in which the DOJ and FBI interviewed more than 100 witnesses and reviewed more than a million pages of IRS documents.[3]

                  In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, announcing the case closure, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter J. Kadzik wrote that while “our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment, and institutional inertia…Not a single IRS employee reported any allegation, concern or suspicion that the handling of tax-exempt applications—or any other IRS function—was motivated by political bias, discriminatory intent, or corruption.”[3] Kadzik wrote “We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.”[33] Kadzik stated that the investigation specifically absolved Lerner of criminal liability, and determined that Lerner was in fact the first official to recognize a problem and try and correct it.[3][34]”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_Lerner#FBI_finds_no_evidence_to_support_criminal_prosecution

            2. If he has bragged about it then he is not hiding it. Karen don’t think on your own, wait for your talking points.

            3. Karen, besides for being born into a family of tax cheats, which is how he “made” his money, not through business acumen as he brags and why many voted for him, in the 90’s he claimed a larger loss than any other American! He wasn’t close to being among the wealthiest, so how would that work? It would work by either him being in fact the biggest loser, the biggest liar, or maybe both, but probably not. I’m going with liar and tax cheat, since we already know that about him.

              By the way, your grandkids and mine will be paying his taxes, and with the tax cut he got passed, those of Ivanka and Jared. Makes your heart glow, no doubt. Mine too.

              Also, the IRS does not have the resources to play with high priced lawyers all day and studies show the agencies accuracy on reported income is north of 95% while on claimed income (what rich guys do) less than 50%.

              Here’s some bed time reading for you as you contemplate our progeny paying the taxes of this grifter family you helped elect.

              https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

              https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

          2. The British were involved and Mueller knew before his appointment.

            How did Christopher Wray not know?

            The Obama Coup D’etat in America exposed.

            Uh, oh!
            _________________________________________________________________

            “The trigger for Nunes’s letter was a report published in the British press Sunday that Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer, briefed high-level British government officials about his investigation into possible ties between Trump and the Russian government.

            The U.K. Telegraph reported that a week after Trump’s election win, Steele briefed Sir Charles Farr, who then chaired Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee, about his investigation of Trump’s possible ties to Russia.

            Farr passed the information to other high-level British intelligence officials, including MI5 director Andrew Parker and MI6 director Alex Younger. According to the Telegraph, the prime minister was not briefed on the information.

            Congressman Nunes asserted in his letter that the report raises ‘important questions’ about the British government’s role in ‘spreading

            the dossier’s false allegations and what actions they may have taken in response to the allegations.’”

            – U.K. Telegraph

      5. Like he’s a Russian agent? Manchurian candidate? Narcissist? Anti-Semite? Racist? Trying to start a nuclear war with North Korea? Tried to kill Japanese koi? Suffering from dementia? Heart disease?

        What I see is that the Democrats cannot accept they lost an election. They have started so many hoaxes trying to unlawfully unseat him that it’s like an Aesop’s Fable, The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

        No, I have not seen any evidence of money laundering or tax evasion. Lawfully using tax deductions is not illegal tax evasion. That would be for the IRS to investigate, not hyper-partisan Congress. An honest tax investigation would simply be directed towards the IRS.

        I’m really tired of all the desperate coup attempts. Just vote every 4 years. It’s not like he destroyed evidence like using a hammer to his phones and laptops, removed SIM cards, or used Bleach Bit on his server. Now THAT’s destroying evidence.

        If Congress suspects tax evasion then report him to the IRS and let them handle an audit. Again.

        Democrats lost all credibility when they allowed Hillary to destroy evidence in the aforementioned manner, get away with hiding Top Secret Information on a server in her bathroom, backed up to the Cloud, and then investigated her victim, whom she targeted with a scheme using Russian spies to try to discredit him with false allegations just before an election.

        It’s so dirty it’s a pig stye. Total abuse of government power in order to garner attention for the next election. God, this is why I hate politics.

        Trump has been so wrongfully maligned so many times that if he ever does something truly terrible conservatives won’t believe it. The boy who kept crying wolf had trouble getting the villagers to come after he’d kept lying.

        1. Good post Karen! All of that is so obvious that one would need to be suffering a mental illness to deny it. The other option is they know it’s true but they cannot admit it because that would end their party. This will not end well for them.

        2. Is your denial out of reflex or are you truly familiar with the facts? If you haven’t seen anything to suggest money laundering… with Russians, then you have no knowledge of his real estate deals. Trump Tower Panama, Florida, Trump Tower New York, There’s so much information out there you have to avert your eyes not to see it.

          1. Enigma you enterred the Twighlight Zone when you started to obsess over Trump and now you can’t find your way out.

          2. Enigma,
            You should contact the House Democrat leadership and give them evidence so they can cite that in their demand for Trump’s tax returns. Or the FBI, Mueller might have even been able to do something with it. Otherwise this just seems like another of their fishing expeditions and that hasn’t been a very good look for them.

            If you don’t mind sharing that evidence here as well, then we’ll all be as informed as you are. No doubt you have that information right at your fingertips. Thanks in advance.

            1. The House committees, and the State of New York are doing just fine in getting not only his tax returns but his fraudlent insurance and loan applications where he misstated his wealth. Keep telling yourself he’s just a smart businessman who doesn’t pay any more taxes than he has to. Those transactions with Russia flagged by Deutsche Bank (and later buried) are just things everyone does.

              1. So you got nothing, have never provided anything over the last 2.5 years to support any of your allegations, and we should believe you why? We should just start calling you 0Fer, you’ve earned the title.

                1. Olly, you are dealing with Enigma who is afflicted with mythomania and believes Trump is a racist based on a non event that happened about 20 years before Trump was born.

              2. Your tax dollars at work.

                $22 trillion on the generational welfare and affirmative action of the

                Great American Communist Welfare State War on Poverty since 1964.

                Poverty won.

                Merit lost.
                __________

                We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

                – Ben Franklin

  14. while stuck-in-the-past Hillary partisans remain focused on revenge. regular Democrat folks are interested in other candidates who bring a fresh new perspective.

    check out Andrew Yang

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/20/andrew-yang-2020-226931

    Yang is in touch where the average Beltway partisan is out of touch. The things he talks about are relevant. Lots I don’t agree with but his focus on economic trends in the labor force and development is powerful.

    1. I get my half-assed understanding of what motivates the median partisan Democrat from our Facebook wall. It’s 80% Orange Man Bad and 20% Rich People Are Keeping Us from Having Universal Health Care. Don’t think someone with constructive ideas will sell.

      1. i hope you’re wrong. I would like to use the opportunity of the Democrat primary to talk about something more consequential than anti Trump revenge schemes, gay lib, etc.

        Yang is talking about dislocation in the labor force and pointing towards an existing trend going hyperbolic. That is the transition from AI and current automation to AGI artificial general intelligence and what that will bring. This is critical issue and whether his UBI scheme is a good idea or a bad one, at least its an idea instead of blind ignorance and obsessive misfocus on yesterday’s soap operas

        1. For example. Any patterns that can be recognized or image patterns, which up until now have been the province of skilled professionals, now can become the province of a “deep learning” style AI computer program

          https://nypost.com/2019/05/22/googles-new-ai-is-better-at-detecting-lung-cancer-than-doctors/

          which means that cheap computer hardware and software routines can “make doctors more productive”

          making workers more productive sometimes means…. you don’t have to hire as many workers

          lawyers and doctors and many others will feel the BITE of advancing AI.

          Yang is the only one even talking about this.

Leave a Reply