The Trump Presidency 14

[smartcooky]

This thread is a continuation from Part 13. Any post from any previous part may be quoted freely here.

Posted By: Loss leader

Trump appears to be firing anyone who will not not break the law for him, and will keep doing so until he is surrounded with people who will break any law he tells them to.

In the case of his tax returns, he is outright defying the Law. USC§ 6103 is clear, and unequivocal...

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request.​

Its says "shall" not "may" or "can", but "shall". That is an order, not a request, and the Secretary is not allowed under the Law to disobey it. If he does, he is breaking Federal law.

This looks very much like a power grab to me; Trump is stealing power away from the Legislative branch and installing himself as the sole national authority, with a court system stacked in his favour. He is defeating oversight of what he does. This is the sort of thing that all those militias in the south have been saying about the tyranny of government, but they are actually part of his base, and they are enabling him in this power grab.

I think Trump is testing the limits of what he can get away with, and he is only just getting started. If there is no response (and I mean a real response, not just more talk, talk, talk) to his attempts to suspend the Rule of Law, it will embolden him to take even more outrageous measures.

How hard would it be for Trump to declare that he no longer trusts the Secret Service (using the Chinese woman at Mar-a-lago as a premise) and to decide to set up his own personal private security police?

He's already called liberal media the enemies of the people. How hard would it be for him to have journalists arrested or even murdered (he's already turned a blind eye to the murder of one by a business colleague)

How hard would it be for him to have radio & television channels shut down; newspapers prevented from publishing.

Look back at what America was like before the 2016 elections. Who predicted that it would be like it is now, with a POTUS who


1. Routinely lies dozens of times a day
2. Routinely breaks the law
3. Encourages his heads of department to break the law and offers them pardons if they are convicted.
4. Attacks federal judges
5. Publicly directs personal, denigrating insults towards members of Congress
6. Endorses a policy of tearing children away from their parents
7. Routinely obstructs attempt to investigate him

....

Really, how much of a stretch would be for Trump to suspend the 2020 Federal elections? Who would do anything about it if he tried? He has another 18 months to soften you all up to an attempt to do this by doing the next outrageous thing that pops into his head, and if you don't stop him, the next even more outrageous thing, and then the next, and then then next.

Ask yourself if you think any of the things that have happened in politics in the last two years would have happened, and what America would look and feel like now, under President Hilary Clinton.

Wake up Americans! The Democracy you love so dearly is in mortal danger!

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Trump and his minions sure seem to hide behind the "It was only a joke" excuse a hell of a lot. At some point, anyone with more than half a brain would realize that excuse is getting really old and stop. But not this orange buffoon and his staff. They just keep on keeping on....

And his idiot followers just keep swallowing it.

It's Trump's (rather transparent) strategy. Say a lot of BS so that when something turns out to be smart or correct, his followers can use it as an argument to support him, but if it turns to be untrue, they can just say it was part of Trump's trolling MO.

I've written off the followers he has ATM as trolls a long time ago. Defending and excusing Trump one minute, attacking opponents for the same things the next. Like the thugs around a particularly popular school bully.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Trump has been given until the 23rd of April to hand over his tax returns to Congress, according to Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.

 

[acbytesla]

Trump has been given until the 23rd of April to hand over his tax returns to Congress, according to Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.

That's incorrect. The IRS or Internal Revenue Service has been given that deadline. They are the branch of the United States that processes tax returns. Theoretically and legally, the President has no authority to tell the IRS to do anything.

 

[Leftus]

What does DIF mean?

We are always on the low end for risk of audit, but I don't want to trigger anything

It's the Discriminant Inventory Function (DIF) System

In short, and without giving any privileged information away, there is a comparison between income and deductions. A score is picked to manage inventory. Exam looks at the number of cases, and how many employees they have to work it, picks a DIF score that's going to generate those cases. This is why the chances of audit are at an all time low. The number of auditors have been negatively impacted by budget and hiring freezes.

If you had 20 billion in income and zero deductions there would never be an audit. Because there is nothing to audit. The IRS does not care if you over-report income. And Under reporting is handled by the Automated Under Reporter group and thus is not a factor in the DIF score.

In short, it's the deductions that get audited.

As far as Trump still being under an audit, it's possible for his 2017 returns. Assuming a complicated return, he filed an extension and filed his return in October 2018. Given the holidays and the shutdown, it's possible that those returns are still under those review. Any other year, exceedingly unlikely.

If he is actually under audit for any other year, his accountants are slow walking it and milking the hours.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I don't recall seeing any particular Democrat response to the original taunt beyond telling him he is a complete and utter disgrace. So he has made a threat, pretended it was heeded, and is backing off on it, all on his own? Building more of that fantasy world in his fluff-covered head?

...who is he talking to here??

It's a Miller-Trump straw man conversation. They're the new Rumplestilskin - spinning bull **** out of straw. This is second cousin to "Dems want open borders".

 

[Mumbles]

Trump Tweets


If the Radical Left Democrats all of a sudden don’t want the Illegal Migrants in their Sanctuary Cities (no more open arms), why should others be expected to take them into their communities? Go home and come into our Country legally and through a system of Merit!

He's an idiot, of course. Here's what would happen if he actually went through with his asinine, unethical plan:

First, churches and community groups would come to the aid of the refugees, and anyone else caught up, helping them to get settled in, without notifying the federal government.

Second, other refugees and actual "illegal" immigrants would point them in the direction of employers, help them get fake IDs, and the like.

Third, the people that were dumped (who Dolt 45 is supposedly worried are going to vote in massive numbers illegally) would essentially vanish into society, and if discovered, would have a network of people that they've been in contact with that would come to their aid.

As I said, Dolt 45 and his foaming at the mouth hateful base imagine that they'd be releasing some violent subhuman rapist horde upon their imagined snobby weaklings of the city, and it's these disgusting fantasies that dems are pointing out with revulsion - not to the idea of refugees moving in to cities, we already have plenty of them, they're cool.

(Not saying that you hold the same bloodlust, Swoop, just a general reply to Cheeto Benito)

 

[thaiboxerken]

Trump appears to be firing anyone who will not not break the law for him, and will keep doing so until he is surrounded with people who will break any law he tells them to.

But Trumpublicans assure us that the threat of dictatorship is fantasy.

 

[Mumbles]

Really, how much of a stretch would be for Trump to suspend the 2020 Federal elections? Who would do anything about it if he tried? He has another 18 months to soften you all up to an attempt to do this by doing the next outrageous thing that pops into his head, and if you don't stop him, the next even more outrageous thing, and then the next, and then then next.

I wouldn't be shocked if he were to try.

Problem is, the elections themselves are run by the states, and as I recall the electoral college falls under the view of the Supreme Court. All of the above would likely just say "Nope, shut up Trumpy." and keep it pushing. At that point, he'd likely try to call up the military - and they'd be *very* unlikely to obey any such order to help overthrow democracy itself.

 

[Solitaire]

For some reason, it seems like taxes in the US are fare more complicated
and stressful than here in Canada.

Yes.

Last year I filled out eight letter sized, 8.5 inch by 11 inch, tax forms.
This year I filled out ninety six post card sized, 3 by 5 inch, tax forms.

Just barely got in before the dead line. Normally I'd be a month ahead.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Trump appears to be firing anyone who will not not break the law for him, and will keep doing so until he is surrounded with people who will break any law he tells them to.

In the case of his tax returns, he is outright defying the Law. USC§ 6103 is clear, and unequivocal...

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request.​

Its says "shall" not "may" or "can", but "shall". That is an order, not a request, and the Secretary is not allowed under the Law to disobey it. If he does, he is breaking Federal law.

This looks very much like a power grab to me; Trump is stealing power away from the Legislative branch and installing himself as the sole national authority, with a court system stacked in his favour. He is defeating oversight of what he does. This is the sort of thing that all those militias in the south have been saying about the tyranny of government, but they are actually part of his base, and they are enabling him in this power grab.

If the law is so obvious,are you saying there is no case where they are legally justified for disobeying the request? For example, if they requested the tax returns of LGBT advocates? Or victims of sexual assault by a politician?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's incorrect. The IRS or Internal Revenue Service has been given that deadline. They are the branch of the United States that processes tax returns. Theoretically and legally, the President has no authority to tell the IRS to do anything.

We can only hope.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If the law is so obvious,are you saying there is no case where they are legally justified for disobeying the request? For example, if they requested the tax returns of LGBT advocates? Or victims of sexual assault by a politician?

With no promise of continuing this discussion with you:

You bring up civil rights issues. That slippery slope is only relevant as a secondary side effect here.

Then there is the partisan slippery slope which is relevant because the GOP, especially McConnell, are all too willing to lie, cheat and steal if they can manipulate the democratic process to get their minority views passed into law.

But the failure to use the democratic process to stop the real law-breakers because one fears a slippery slope seems counter-productive.

 

[thaiboxerken]

We can only hope.

Legally, POTUS doesn't have the authority. However, legalities appear to play no role when it comes to the Trump regime's actions.

 

[quadraginta]

With no promise of continuing this discussion with you:

You bring up civil rights issues. That slippery slope is only relevant as a secondary side effect here.

Then there is the partisan slippery slope which is relevant because the GOP, especially McConnell, are all too willing to lie, cheat and steal if they can manipulate the democratic process to get their minority views passed into law.

But the failure to use the democratic process to stop the real law-breakers because one fears a slippery slope seems counter-productive.

Laws can be and often are abused and misused.

This doesn't mean that the laws are wrong, just that they can be abused and misused. Which is one of the reasons we have courts. (As much as that helps, and it isn't perfect either.)


I'm sure that BtC is perfectly aware of this. He just doesn't care as long as he can pretend to the appearance of an Internet Gotcha or two.

 

[BobTheCoward]

With no promise of continuing this discussion with you:

You bring up civil rights issues. That slippery slope is only relevant as a secondary side effect here.

Then there is the partisan slippery slope which is relevant because the GOP, especially McConnell, are all too willing to lie, cheat and steal if they can manipulate the democratic process to get their minority views passed into law.

But the failure to use the democratic process to stop the real law-breakers because one fears a slippery slope seems counter-productive.

To be clear. I wasn't arguing anything about slippery slopes. Smartcooky argued the meaning of the law without qualifiers. I'm asking about that directly. I'm not arguing that letting it happen now could let worse things happen in the future.

 

[Bob001]

If the law is so obvious,are you saying there is no case where they are legally justified for disobeying the request? For example, if they requested the tax returns of LGBT advocates? Or victims of sexual assault by a politician?

In that extremely unlikely event, those people themselves might have standing to go to court. But the IRS can't say "we only obey the law when we feel like it." In this case, the President is a government official, and the Congress is entitled to exercise oversight over the IRS and the President.

Under Section 6103 of our tax code, Treasury officials “shall” turn over the tax returns “upon written request” of the chair of either congressional tax committee or the federal employee who runs Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. No request has ever been refused, a host of former congressional tax aides tell me.
There is, however, a law requiring every federal “employee” who touches the tax system to do their duty or be removed from office.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres...mps-taxes-or-lose-his-office-and-go-to-prison

 

[thaiboxerken]

Remember when Obama refused to give Congress his tax returns when the Republican Congress requested them?

Me neither.



Because he just let them have it. He had nothing to hide.

 

[BobTheCoward]

In that extremely unlikely event, those people themselves might have standing to go to court. But the IRS can't say "we only obey the law when we feel like it." In this case, the President is a government official, and the Congress is entitled to exercise oversight over the IRS and the President.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres...mps-taxes-or-lose-his-office-and-go-to-prison

So, you are saying if Congress chose the most obviously inappropriate person to request tax returns for, the IRS is in no position to refuse? Even if the request explicitly said it was being done to violate the person's rights?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

That's incorrect. The IRS or Internal Revenue Service has been given that deadline. They are the branch of the United States that processes tax returns. Theoretically and legally, the President has no authority to tell the IRS to do anything.

Thanks for the correction.