So about that congressional request for Trump’s Tax returns...
Yesterday, 24 hours after Treasury Secretary Mnuchin’s ridiculous and contemptible letter of contempt refusing a legal congressional request, we had a very brief comment from Neal himself:
Today we learned that the next stop may indeed be court:
So look for a writ of mandamus?
I don’t pretend to know exactly how Neal will now prosecute the matter, but it’s clear that he has done his homework as is evidenced by the many citations in his April 13th letter.
From Neal’s letter (with my own bold and edits):
First,… ...the statute's use of the "mandatory 'shall'... creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion." Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998); see also, e.g., EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 572 U.S. 489, 509 (2014); Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S.438, 461-62 (2002) (courts "must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there."
and the heart of Neal’s case:
Second, there is no valid basis to question the legitimacy of the Committee's legislative purpose here. The Supreme Court has instructed that Congress's power to investigate is "broad" and "encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes." Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178,187 (1957).
It is not the proper function of the IRS, Treasury, or Justice to question or second guess the motivations of the Committee or its reasonable determinations regarding its need for the requested tax returns and return information. Indeed, the Supreme Court has consistently noted that the motivations underlying Congressional action are not to be second guessed, even by the courts. Eastland v.U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 509 (1975) ("The wisdom of congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto."); Watkins, 354 U.S. at 200 … … Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 132 (1959) ("So long as Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power, the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power.").
Courts have held that, where "a rational legislative purpose is present for investigating a particular person,organization, or institution^] [t]here is no requirement that every piece of information gathered in such an investigation be justified before the judiciary." McSurely v. McClellan,521 F.2d 1024, 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1975); see also Townsend v. United States, 95 F.2d 352, 361 (D.C. Cir. 1938)."A legislative inquiry may be as broad, as searching, and as exhaustive as is necessary to make effective the constitutional powers of Congress." Townsend, 95 F.2d at 361. Furthermore,the Supreme Court has expressly recognized that "[t]o be a valid legislative inquiry there need be no predictable end result." Eastland, 421 U.S. at 509.
This third part is good in that it suggests a discussion of who is acting in bad faith. Exactly who the bad parties are here is an argument we obviously will welcome:
Third, concerns about what the Committee may do with the tax returns and return information are baseless. As my April 3rd letter noted, this request falls squarely within the Committee's oversight authority. It is well-established law in the D.C. Circuit that "[t]he presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties." Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494F.3d 1106, 1117 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted); Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 582, 589 (D.C. Cir. 1978)("committees of Congress will exercise their powers responsibly and with due regard for the rights of affected parties."). In other words, the IRS, Treasury, and Justice must assume that the Committee Members, like all government officials, will act properly in the conduct of their official duties.
Now with yesterday’s NYTimes release of Trump’s tax return summaries, it is much easier to see that it is Trump (and anyone who would seek to shield him from scrutiny) that is interfering with the regular discharge of official duty. That any judge would interfere with this is as being anything other than prudent congressional oversight seems more and more unlikely.
This is posted in case you hadn’t seen the details of Neal’s requests, and/or may be fretting about how this will all turn out. (I think it will turn out quite well for us!)
So enjoy this brief calm before the storm. It looks like the games are finally about to begin!
PS: Why this is so damned important:
The Times article yesterday merely showed the tip of the iceberg of Trump’s preposterous claims of billions in income losses. But deep into the supporting articles we learned this:
Amid the hundreds of figures on 10 years of tax transcripts, one number is particularly striking: $52.9 million in interest income that Mr. Trump reported in 1989.
In the three previous years, Mr. Trump had reported $460,566, then $5.5 million, then $11.8 million in interest.
The source of that outlier $52.9 million is something of a mystery.
Taxpayers can receive interest income from a variety of sources, including bonds, bank accounts and mortgages. Hard data on the workings of Mr. Trump’s businesses is hard to come by. But public findings from New Jersey casino regulators show no evidence that he owned anything capable of generating that much interest. Nor is there any such evidence in a 1990 report on his financial condition, prepared by accountants he hired at his bankers’ request.
WOW! do our legislators need to see these things!