“He should be forced out of office,”
“He is a disgrace to our country.”
“In one way you could say it’s a crime what he did,"..."because … he was making horrible statements that he knew were false."
Who said that and who were they talking about?
Amazingly that was uttered by trump...about Adam Schiff...isn't it interesting that trump thinks a Congressman should resign for lying. There's also the "forced out of office" comment...does he even know how that might be accomplished?
From what you have read or heard, do you think there is currently a national emergency along the U.S.-Mexico border?
(NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll, 2/15-17/19)
Claiming the GOP has a better plan. But they refuse to show it.
What idiot believes that at this point in time? The GOP had two years to offer up a better alternative and they did nothing but try to repeal Obamacare.
I doubt there is anything that would rise to the level of an impeachable offense. What could possibly be there that would terrify him to that level?
No he didn't. I'm not sure where you heard this bs but it's not true and neither is your alleged response from trump. You really should be more careful about what you post.Wabash wrote:QR_BBPOST The Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee issued a subpoena for the last six years of Trump's tax returns. Trump is vowing to fight them all the way to the Supreme Court.
Technically you are correct. The Ways and Means Chair sent a letter. Not a subpoena.
Reason: unexplained link removed
I see. Does that mean that "technically" you were incorrect about trump claiming he'd "take it all the way to the SC"?Wabash wrote:QR_BBPOST Huh? Technically you are correct.
Which doesn't change my original point.
Why is he so worried about what is in his returns?
First, the law. While it is true that IRS Code 6103(f) appears to give the committee the power to get tax returns, the statue must be exercised in a way consistent with Congress’s constitutional authority. The Supreme Court has said that Congress has broad authority to conduct inquiries, but that its authority is not unlimited. In the 1881 case of Kilbourn v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that Congress can’t use its powers to delve into someone’s private financial matters unless there is a proper legislative purpose. In 1957, the Supreme Court held in Watkins v. U.S. that a congressional information demand must relate to a “legitimate task of the Congress,” and noted that Congress is not a “law enforcement agency” that can seek information to uncover or expose crimes.
So the legal question will be: Is Congress’s purpose in seeking the president’s tax returns legitimate? As an initial matter, Congress cannot plausibly argue that it is exercising its impeachment authority since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have explicitly disclaimed that the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry.
This is a substantial limitation, as courts have recognized that under our Constitution, Congress’s impeachment powers are vast and exclusive. Instead of invoking impeachment, though, the committee said in its letter to the IRS that its purpose in seeking the president’s tax returns included, but was “not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the federal tax laws against a president.”
The administration would likely argue that this is not a legitimate reason to obtain all of the president’s business and tax returns since 2013, particularly since it could be accomplished without knowing the details of all of the president’s tax information.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... rns-226571
Not grounds for impeachment. But certainly enough to hurt him politically in areas where he is already vulnerable.
You don't need the tax return to do that, Trump already told us he was trying to get a Trump Tower in Moscow. Like I said in my earlier post, it has to be used properly.Wabash wrote:QR_BBPOST The most plausible thing that would show up on a tax return and would be damaging would be transactions involving Russia, such as deductions for interest paid to Russian banks for loans, capital gains or losses on Russian real estate deals, etc. These would undercut his statements that he has no business with Russia.
And there is this: