He thinks he has a choice???

[This_person]

Well, since it seems that the "request" was turned down, I guess their next step will will be an actual subpoena.

Be interesting to see the justification of that.

 

[This_person]

You know that they'll review it in closed session and still somehow the information will find its way to the NY Times or Wash Post. And I predict the information will be used to launch numerous hearings and those hearings will divulge the information "because the American people have a right to know...."

Yet they continue to deny telling us who we taxpayers had to spend millions of dollars for to keep them out of legal trouble for their sexual harassments.

 

[awpitt]

Be interesting to see the justification of that.

Well, for one, the US Code but I guess we'll see as time goes by.

 

[awpitt]

Yet they continue to deny telling us who we taxpayers had to spend millions of dollars for to keep them out of legal trouble for their sexual harassments.

Totally agree but that is a separate issue.

 

[This_person]

Well, for one, the US Code but I guess we'll see as time goes by.

It's one thing to request it per the code - the one that they agreed they'd never use for the purpose they are trying to use it for. It's something else entirely to subpoena it. There'd have to be a reason to do that.

Is there one?

 

[This_person]

Totally agree but that is a separate issue.

Agree. Just pointing out that it's difficult to say you want transparency when you refuse to offer transparency.

 

[awpitt]

It's one thing to request it per the code - the one that they agreed they'd never use for the purpose they are trying to use it for. It's something else entirely to subpoena it. There'd have to be a reason to do that.

Is there one?

Well, for one, the US Code but I guess we'll see as time goes by.

 

[This_person]

Well, for one, the US Code but I guess we'll see as time goes by.

The Code allowing it is insufficient reason to subpoena a specific citizen's tax records. The Code allows them to request it, though makes it clear that it is unusual by demanding that it only be done in closed executive session.

H. Rept. 115-309 - RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO PROVIDE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THE TAX RETURN INFORMATION OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP AS WELL AS THE TAX RETURNS OF EACH BUSINESS ENTITY DISCLOSED BY DONALD

House report on RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO PROVIDE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THE TAX RETURN INFORMATION OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP AS WELL AS THE TAX RETURNS OF EACH BUSINESS ENTITY DISCLOSED BY DONALD J. TRUMP ON HIS OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS FORM...

congress.gov

 

[Kyle]

... And so we are back to having democrats using government agencies as a weapon to attack their political enemies.

 

[This_person]

... And so we are back to having democrats using government agencies as a weapon to attack their political enemies.

"...back to..." implies there was a time that stopped. I am unaware of that time.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Oh well. Just trying to riff on the "we all have choices" by joking about Free Will. As in, do we? Do we really? Apparently, not a good riff on my part.
--- End of line (MCP)

No worries. Might have been having a slow day and missed it. Though, your posit does make one think. If only Option A and Option B are allowed choices, with Option C, Free Will, being the choice not to decide, is not allowed, perhaps you are correct? Do we really have Free Will?

 

[Rommey]

It will be interesting to see what gets "leaked" and you can probably tell how desperate they are when the smallest questionable (yet legal) item in the returns is somehow proof worthy of impeachment.