Will SCOTUS protect Trump's tax returns?

[SpaceCityRaven]

As long as it doesn't come out of campaign funds, it's no big deal.

The act of paying someone off for something that may effect the election is a crime in of itself. If he used campaign funds to do it, it’s a separate crime.

[darb72]

The act of paying someone off for something that may effect the election is a crime in of itself. If he used campaign funds to do it, it’s a separate crime.

Cohen paying the money counts as an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign, if he used his own money instead of Trump's. Paying someone to keep quite about something that could affect an election is not illegal.

[SpaceCityRaven]

Cohen paying the money counts as an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign, if he used his own money instead of Trump's. Paying someone to keep quite about something that could affect an election is not illegal.

That’s Rudy’s spin on it. You got that down.

The problem here is that it wasn’t initially disclosed and the mere act of paying hush money to quiet negative info from getting out is a crime in of itself.

[JimZipCode]

... the mere act of paying hush money to quiet negative info from getting out is a crime in of itself.

I'm not sure that's right?

I think paying hush money to keep info about illegal activities from getting out, is a crime. Not sure that paying hush money to keep info about legal-but-unsavory activities is in fact a crime.

That's distinct from the campaign finance aspects of it, which you covered.

[SpaceCityRaven]

I'm not sure that's right?

I think paying hush money to keep info about illegal activities from getting out, is a crime. Not sure that paying hush money to keep info about legal-but-unsavory activities is in fact a crime.

That's distinct from the campaign finance aspects of it, which you covered.

I should have added “in relation to an election”. My bad.

You and I can pay hush money all day every day. But when we enter into an election, those rules change.

[Vlad the lad]

The act of paying someone off for something that may effect the election is a crime in of itself. If he used campaign funds to do it, it’s a separate crime.

Huh?? All campaign contributions are used to impact elections.

And how do you known it would have impacted the election? Numerous politician had affairs and still won.

Bottom line, it was a non disclosure agreement, that is why nothing ever came from it. In fact, if I recall correctly, didn’t the porn star have to pay trump because of this fake scandal?

[JimZipCode]

There is no legitimate purpose for congress to see trumps returns. They don’t need to see anyone’s return to enact policy. The can’t go after bill gates or warren buffets and they can’t go after trumps.

Yeah, except that by statute the 3 Committees (Ways & Means, Finance, Taxation) are entitled to see ANY return. Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee, the Treasury Secretary shall provide the info. So they in fact CAN go after Bill Gates' returns, or Warren Buffet's, and Trump's.

That's black-letter law. No ambiguity whatsoever.

(Is Congress requesting the returns from the IRS? Or from Trump's accountant, Mazars? The bit of tax code I referenced above might not apply to the accountant. OTOH, if they can get it from Treasury, I don't know why Congress would bother to subpoena from Mazars? New York, I get. Congress, there's something I'm not getting.)

The same reasoning that extends to can’t be prosecuted extends to the forcing of trump to turn over tax returns. It takes away from his ability to act as president.

No. The reasoning for "can't be prosecuted" is that the president is the chief "law executor" of the United States. Anybody (in the Federal chain of command) who might theoretically be deputized to arrest the president, ultimately reports to the president.

That has no relationship whatsoever to Congressional oversight, or investigating the president, or whatever weird thing you're trying to twist it to.

[JimZipCode]

In fact, if I recall correctly, didn’t the porn star have to pay trump because of this fake scandal?

"Fake scandal"? Seems to have all the earmarks of an actual scandal. Secret sex, porn star, hush money, threats & intimidation, a lawyer in prison. J-U-I-C-Y.

What was fake about the scandal?

[Terpsfan82]

"Fake scandal"? Seems to have all the earmarks of an actual scandal. Secret sex, porn star, hush money, threats & intimidation, a lawyer in prison. J-U-I-C-Y.

What was fake about the scandal?

It made his boy look bad.

[BuryRaven]

Truth. Hell: my understanding of my own is superficial. I'm sure Trump's are way more complex & convoluted. I personally would need, like, a forensic accountant holding my hand to walk me thru it. Maybe with frequent adjournments to the whiteboard to explain depreciation and accruals, yadda yadda.

Not sure the relevance, though?

While the tax code and taxes in general are asinine it's not really hard to understand income tax, deductions and the like. Most college aged accountants could see every exemption and credit on a persons taxes and understand the generalities of what is going on.

On the topic at hand, I think this sets legal precedent if established to investigate every elected officials personal income taxes. I'm for transparency but also very wary of gov't being in charge of such a task. Big brother stuff.

[Vlad the lad]

"Fake scandal"? Seems to have all the earmarks of an actual scandal. Secret sex, porn star, hush money, threats & intimidation, a lawyer in prison. J-U-I-C-Y.

What was fake about the scandal?

Yes. Fake scandal.

When this happened, trump was not in public office. So far, from what I hear the left claiming, He had consensual sex. The two came to an agreement to keep the sex private. Trump even paid her to keep it quiet. There was a legal contract. She broke the contract. The only scandal is her breaking the contract

The porn star was ordered to pay trump 300k for breaking the contract.

Fake scandal.

[blah3]

Yeah, except that by statute the 3 Committees (Ways & Means, Finance, Taxation) are entitled to see ANY return. Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee, the Treasury Secretary shall provide the info. So they in fact CAN go after Bill Gates' returns, or Warren Buffet's, and Trump's.

That's black-letter law. No ambiguity whatsoever.

(Is Congress requesting the returns from the IRS? Or from Trump's accountant, Mazars? The bit of tax code I referenced above might not apply to the accountant. OTOH, if they can get it from Treasury, I don't know why Congress would bother to subpoena from Mazars? New York, I get. Congress, there's something I'm not getting.)


No. The reasoning for "can't be prosecuted" is that the president is the chief "law executor" of the United States. Anybody (in the Federal chain of command) who might theoretically be deputized to arrest the president, ultimately reports to the president.

That has no relationship whatsoever to Congressional oversight, or investigating the president, or whatever weird thing you're trying to twist it to.

And the 4th amendment protects individuals from the govt. it’s the constitution. Trumps your statute