A Deeply Fractured US

[Brad Sallows]

The news here is that the tax returns are being released to the public. There's no need to release them to the public; the committee saw them and undoubtedly law enforcers can see them. Another Rubicon.

 

[GK .Dundas]

As I recall there is no privacy guarantee as there is here.
And U.S. presidents have for the last several decades have realeasd their returns prior to taking office.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I still maintain he won’t do a second of jail time. Most of these white collar mofos skate away from real responsibility and it’s only in the rarest of cases (Bernie Madoff) that serious consequences happen to these arseholes (the Saker Family should all be on death row)

They still have to tie those tax decisions to him personally and not just accountants/tax experts that said "Yea we can do this"

 

[Brad Sallows]

US presidential candidates and/or presidents choosing to release tax returns is different from members of Congress deciding to release them.

US tax returns are essentially private. The code as written is about protecting confidentiality, subject to whatever needful exceptions are written in. Although I haven't read the code exhaustively to find out whether releasing tax returns to aggravate public opinion for political purposes is permitted, I doubt that it is.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The "Steele Dossier" for one. With respect to "allegations", 2016 and 2020 prompted very different responses on the part of media and the FBI.

But how important was the "Steele Dossier?" My understanding is that while the FBI used the dossier for their FISA applications against Carter Page, it didn't have much of an impact in later investigations.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The use in the FISA applications was bad enough. It's unlikely anyone recorded how they allowed their judgement with respect to other matters to be influenced by any of the claims.

Obviously, it was a launch point for at least one line of investigation. Obviously, talking about the dossier wasn't suppressed in or by the media.

 

[KevinB]

US presidential candidates and/or presidents choosing to release tax returns is different from members of Congress deciding to release them.

There is a mandate for IRS to audit sitting presidents though. Historically there is precedence for releasing.

US tax returns are essentially private. The code as written is about protecting confidentiality, subject to whatever needful exceptions are written in. Although I haven't read the code exhaustively to find out whether releasing tax returns to aggravate public opinion for political purposes is permitted, I doubt that it is.

They still have to tie those tax decisions to him personally and not just accountants/tax experts that said "Yea we can do this"

Actually no they don’t. You still have to sign your tax return regardless if it was prepared by a third party.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is a mandate for IRS to audit sitting presidents though. Historically there is precedence for releasing.

Sure, but is your impression that this is calculated to get folks riled up at the IRS for not doing its job, or riled up at Trump for taking advantage of provisions in the tax code just like everyone else who legitimately tries to minimize tax obligations?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Actually no they don’t. You still have to sign your tax return regardless if it was prepared by a third party.

All he has to do is to prove a reasonable doubt and that he relied upon the tax experts and then there my be tax issues, but not intent on his part. Unless he said something stupid or wrote it that can be presented as evidence, there will be nothing more than being forced to pay more and fine, followed by him suing his tax people.

 

[brihard]

followed by him suing his tax people.

Hah, no. He’s not going to put himself in a position to face the discovery phase of a lawsuit where his personal finances and taxes (and communications pertaining thereto) are in play and subject to disclosure in open court.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hah, no. He’s not going to put himself in a position to face the discovery phase of a lawsuit where his personal finances and taxes (and communications pertaining thereto) are in play and subject to disclosure in open court.

He will start it and just not follow through, that he is suing them gets into the papers and then everyone forgets to follow the story.

 

[QV]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1606701397109796866

 

[KevinB]

Judge: Jan. 6 committee evidence suggests Trump asked rally crowd to break the law — POLITICO

The federal ruling is the first to reckon with the select committee’s final report and criminal referrals.

apple.news

 

[KevinB]

Turn around is fair play…

Republicans rage over White House plans to slow investigations — POLITICO

While the House GOP spent the day blasting the Biden administration's move as obstructive, Republicans say it won't change much about how they conduct their investigations.

apple.news

Political hypocrisy knows no bounds apparently, on both sides.

 

[QV]

January 6 Committee Retreats from Its Trump Subpoena Stunt | National Review

Trump wins this media cycle because of the foolishly issued subpoena.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[brihard]

January 6 Committee Retreats from Its Trump Subpoena Stunt | National Review

Trump wins this media cycle because of the foolishly issued subpoena.

www.nationalreview.com

The committee has never had the power to prosecute, and consequently has been the least of his worries for quite some time now. The committee has been important and useful for helping Americans to understand what happened in their capitol on January 6th, but it’s not, in and of itself, an accountability mechanism.

The multiple DOJ and state level criminal investigations, including two under the appointed Special Counsel, have been proceeding at a brisk pace. They simply aren’t as sensational as the committee hearings because their work continues largely behind closed doors, in grand jury chambers and sealed legal filings. What is known from some subpoenas or other filings that have been made public is that some individuals in Trump’s innermost circle have been put in a position to make some hard choices. I think his greater worries right now revolve around what those choices were.

 

[Brad Sallows]

McCarthy's point is that the subpoena was a political stunt to improve Democratic election prospects, which buttresses the contention that the entire committee - its composition, its lack of adversarial input, its timing, the materials it chose to release and not to release - was a political stunt. Political stunts ought not be defended except by political partisans.

 

[Kirkhill]

Turn around is fair play…

Republicans rage over White House plans to slow investigations — POLITICO

While the House GOP spent the day blasting the Biden administration's move as obstructive, Republicans say it won't change much about how they conduct their investigations.

apple.news

Political hypocrisy knows no bounds apparently, on both sides.

Actually, turn about is fair play.

The correct response to the Democrat Jan 6 Committee is to reconvene it as the Republican Jan 6 Committee under identical rules, leaks to the press, stage managed show events and all. Let it run for an identical period of time and release its findings just about Nov 2024.

Then let the Demos judge.

 

[brihard]

McCarthy's point is that the subpoena was a political stunt to improve Democratic election prospects, which buttresses the contention that the entire committee - its composition, its lack of adversarial input, its timing, the materials it chose to release and not to release - was a political stunt. Political stunts ought not be defended except by political partisans.

It was only a political stunt because they knew he would refuse to comply and would run out the clock; hoping to get his testimony was absolutely a valid objective. Him refusing to participate is no less a ‘political stunt’ than asking him to in the first place. However I suspect he’ll have other opportunities in future to plead the fifth.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Except for the fact that they could have started the "clock" much earlier, that is almost a counterpoint. Then there is the whole legal question, on which many commentators weighed in, over whether the courts would uphold an attempt by Congress to establish a benchmark for asserting a power to call former presidents on the carpet. (Most frequent answer: unlikely.)

The use of institutional powers for purposes other than intended, and in particular to pursue political foes and to obtain electoral advantage, is profoundly corrosive to democratic institutions - much more so than habitual lying about one's achievements or saying mean things about people.