Treasury Department Refuses to Release President Trump Personal Tax Returns…

The Treasury Department informed congress Monday it will not release President Trump’s tax returns.  This follows a politically motivated request from House Democrats, and potentially sets-up a legal battle to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

Letter from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin:

(Link to Letter)

This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, IRS, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, President Trump, propaganda, Uncategorized, US Treasury, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

147 Responses to Treasury Department Refuses to Release President Trump Personal Tax Returns…

  1. conservalicious says:

    Still not tired of winning, winning, winning!

    Liked by 27 people

  2. redline says:

    Mnuchin is another of President Trump’s with whom I’d not start trouble, not on a bet.

    Liked by 20 people

  3. GB Bari says:

    Not unexpected. But welcome, nonetheless.

    The DemoncRATs are establishing a blatantly clear record of asking that laws be violated for their political gain. When will legal action be taken against them for their attempted illegal acts?

    Liked by 26 people

    • Lefty says:

      Have you seen the letter from 400 angry Democrat lawyers who are arguing that there were plenty of indictable offenses committed by Trump laid out in the Mueller Dossier?
      These folks are seriously deranged and no longer show any ability to reason or be fair. But with no pushback by our side, it does not matter, they just keep coming harder and harder and more deranged. Sad (sick!)

      Liked by 22 people

      • snarkybeach says:

        There is another letter of former Generals & State department types that say the President is making the world less safe because of his “tone.”

        Liked by 6 people

      • GB Bari says:

        I read it was 350 or so. Whatever the number, it just proves what we’ve always suspected about most* lawyers: Leftwing and ethically-challenged.

        *certainly not our own Ristvan and others who defend the truth regardless of politics.

        Liked by 8 people

      • bkrg2 says:

        when your enemy keeps making stupid moves and saying dumb things, why stop them?

        the idiot voters that believe this shi!t will never stop hating Trump.

        I’m starting to see evidence that the voters in the middle are slowing turning away from the Demonrats. thats all we need.

        Liked by 9 people

      • 🍺Gunny66 says:

        Lefty,

        Ah……does this not seem like the “Pushback” you are referring to?

        Thanks

        Like

      • WSB says:

        Sounds like the 400 Most Wanted.

        Like

      • Fools Gold says:

        Haven’t seen the letter but I heard Shelia (Shep) Smith report it this afternoon. Folks thought I was stupid and didn’t believe me when I said what a saw the quar say with my eyes while he was smiling. Waiting on Sundance to post the letter…

        Like

  4. Cisco says:

    2013!?
    I’d ask just what I the hell the Dem’s want to go back that far.
    But I know the answer, fishing expedition.

    Liked by 10 people

  5. Tiffthis says:

    Winning!!!!

    Liked by 5 people

    • Linda K. says:

      Haha! Sorry, your request is illegal and we cannot help you without being indicted ourselves! We suggest you look up the limitation of your jurisdiction, which applies to oversight of legislation, not open season investigation of the private finances of U.S. citizens. Thank you and again, Haha.

      Liked by 6 people

  6. decisiontime16 says:

    Has there ever been a candidate or US President in our history more extensively probed and investigated than President Trump?

    Liked by 15 people

  7. rf121 says:

    Letter was too long. Just needed to say “No. See you in court”.

    Liked by 10 people

    • Jay Currie says:

      Er, you forgot the term of art…”No. Pound sand. See you in Court.”

      Liked by 8 people

    • Too long. “Nope” is quite condescending and gets the point across.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Dee Paul Deje says:

      “Let me think about that for a couple of seconds..NO!”

      Liked by 2 people

    • If I had written it, the letter would have been two words.

      Liked by 3 people

    • lotbusyexec says:

      He needed it to SPELL it out — They are like AOC (All Out Crazy) – Court means many things to them. Could mean hoop court, could mean dating – these people are not educated and very SICK!

      Liked by 1 person

    • MTeresa says:

      Exactly. Stop pussyfooting with these people. Outrageous.

      Start asking the democrats…..”will you EVER accept the outcome of the 2016 election?”

      Come up with better ideas the President Trump and pony up your candidate at the next election. Put up or shut up.

      Liked by 1 person

      • 1stgoblyn says:

        They have their base to appease and must keep the hateful division going.One of my FB ‘friends’ and former co-worker posted a meme about a poll showing 60% (% of what/who it doesn’t state) think the way President Trump (they always omit his title) handled the Russia Probe was dishonest and only 37% believe he was honest. When I ‘querstioned’ her about believing polls she replied she goes with her gut instinct and ended the convo with a hashtag; #wrongskincolor. Not exactly sure just how to take that. {sigh} Regardless, the term ‘your president’ was used so I’m guessing unless the president is a POC, he/she will be vilified constantly b/c that’s the only way ‘they’ can keep this division/hate/chaos going.

        Like

    • Putting On Its Shoes says:

      Nope, this letter was actually perfect. They call them on their bluff. They established a legal opinion that instead of just saying no, they have determined it would be illegal for them to release his tax returns. That is a perfect parrry and most likely legally correct.

      Since the Democrats failed to be clever, and create a plausible legislative intent in advance of the request — one that could stand up to robust scrutiny — their attempts now to go back and create one will be viewed by a court in the proper light, i.e., post facto justification.

      They boxed themselves in, and now I have nowhere to go. They’re done, and Mnuchin checkmated them.

      Like

  8. chuckyschmucky says:

    Let AG Barr write a summary of the letter’s conclusions for the committee: “Stuff it, fascists.”

    Liked by 9 people

  9. Sarah Brooks says:

    Democrates want tax info for Nadler’s son ,the private lawyer sueing Trump & Trump companies,he cannot get this info without “Big Daddy” pulling the strings same situation on the Muller report,to use privately,this needs to be stopped immediately

    Liked by 15 people

  10. bosscook says:

    I’d be cool with Trump saying, “Fine. Just as soon as Obama’s sealed records are released to the public”.

    Liked by 11 people

  11. Jederman says:

    I was under the impression that there is some LEGITIMATE suspicion of impropriety that drives an investigation and document searches.

    The dems have now formalized a guilty until proven innocent fishing expedition policy (for PT and assorted enemies only). There will be no fishing in the Lefty fishing holes.

    This isn’t even politics. This is a crazed (media fueled) desperate hysteria.

    Liked by 8 people

    • It’s the Democrats.

      Liked by 2 people

    • David GERKEN says:

      Typical leftist behavior in other words. The ends justify any means.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Fools Gold says:

      Actually it’s a backfire on all of them cucks and all. They should release all tax returns for all senators, congressmen, judges and all. trump should demand it. How would you like see tax returns for cucks that have been there for 30 years including all employees in procurement with your money? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander has always been my motto!

      Like

    • 1stgoblyn says:

      They didn’t have a LEGAL reason to spy on the Trump Campaign either but that didn’t stop them. What about bugs in Trump Tower and the White House? Any reason other than Bammy and his dims wanted to catch the Rs doing something illegal so they could overturn the election/his presidency?

      Like

  12. Dopppler says:

    I have to say that Democratic Congressional leadership – Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Waters, etc. – make up an amazingly unattractive crew to be matched up against our President, and his cabinet. Nadler threatening, condemning, filing lawsuits, soundbiting, just isn’t going to stimulate voter excitement, since so much credibility has been sacrificed through the Mueller investigation.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. mcfyre2012 says:

    What would be funny?

    SCOTUS telling Congress that they have no legal reason to see his tax returns at this time (which they don’t).

    Liked by 3 people

  14. amwick says:

    Sec. Menuchin wrote a very clear response,,, so very clear that I clearly understood it, clearly. That being said, there may be some hope that Ds might understand it as well…
    🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
    Nah, who am I kidding?. They will never understand.

    Liked by 6 people

  15. AmericaFirst says:

    “… we renew our previous offer to provide information concerning the Committee’s stated interest in how the IRS conducts mandatory evaluations of Presidents …”

    Haha, they have NO interest in the process.

    Liked by 4 people

    • chuckyschmucky says:

      This letter was a big middle finger with a smile on their faces.

      Liked by 4 people

    • LafnH20 says:

      To continue your last line, AF…
      “As provided by the Internal Revenue Manual.”

      I’m guessing if, Chairman Neal STILL can’t figure this out, Secretary Mnuchin, will be happy to send someone over to read him the Manual and answer any Questions… He May Still have.
      Extremely thoughtful, imho, of Secretary Mnuchin. I’m sure he doesn’t want the “Chairman” to blunder on.. as if.. He NEVER TOOK THE TIME to due “HIS DUE DILIGENCE”!!!

      Definition of due diligence
      1 law : the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property.

      Liked by 3 people

  16. Carrie says:

    I think we need the “curses, foiled!” Picture of Pelosi here 😁

    Liked by 6 people

  17. Paprika says:

    Ever notice that both congress and the “press” say we have the right to know everything and anything–except about themselves?

    Liked by 6 people

  18. drdeb says:

    Thank you Sundance for not providing click bait nothing to it articles. When Sundance posts something, he/she has thought it out and researched all angles. And, I really enjoy reading the thoughtful replies from fellow Treepers. Thanks, Y’all! (I live in the South)

    Liked by 5 people

  19. Sue Fowler says:

    At long last a sign of spine. Hateful still sore loser dems/RINOS trolling for dirt. The witch hunt continues.
    Hallelujah!

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Concerned Virginian says:

    Perhaps someone can tell Rep. Nadler that the United States operates under Constitutional law, not under NAPOLEONIC LAW (guilty until proven innocent).
    Nah, he already knows that. Doesn’t matter to him.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. JonS says:

    Dear chairman Neal,

    Pound sand.

    Secretary Mnuchin

    Liked by 3 people

  22. Dear Chairman Neal:

    We’re not gonna kneel to your party of hyenas. FOAD.

    Sincerely,
    Steve

    Liked by 5 people

  23. Suzanne H says:

    I would bet my next month’s check that some smug self-righteous “resister” over at the totally corrupt IRS already handed them over to the demwits. They need to have this information publicly given to them before they can use anything that they already know.

    Liked by 6 people

    • chuckyschmucky says:

      They don’t need the IRS to do that — they already have all of Trump’s data from when Obama’s corrupt administration stole it.

      Liked by 2 people

  24. Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

    Most amusing watching these poor Democrat Neanderthals

    excitedly going on all their grand adventures.

    Liked by 4 people

  25. frank field says:

    About 40 years ago a US Marine told me to “NEVER GIVE UP A RIGHT. EVER”. Good advice then. Good advice now. Glad Trump is not yielding.

    Best president of my lifetime. No doubt.

    Massive thanks for Sundance, this site and you Treepers.

    DRAIN IT

    Liked by 9 people

    • jojotom01 says:

      I was told by a lawyer over 30 years ago that I was not even allowed to give up my constitutional rights. Otherwise, someone could deny you your rights, and then they could say you voluntarily gave them up.

      Like

  26. emeraldcoaster says:

    SCOTUS will prove to be critical in this and other matters. I’d feel better with a truly conservative court, but I’m thankful President Trump got Senator McConnell to press confirmation the first two nominees. I suppose it would be bad form to hope for a liberal slot to open up. Okay, it wouldn’t be that bad.

    Liked by 4 people

  27. woodstuff says:

    Where is Rachel Madcow when you need her?

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Linus in W.PA. says:

    “And if it was not clear, Chairman Neal, I formally introduce you to my attorney…a Korean chap, named ‘Phuk Yoo.'”

    Liked by 4 people

  29. Sean Supsky says:

    Do the dems not realize that all of these stunts they are trying to pull, if something succeeds, they can be used against them in the future?

    Liked by 3 people

  30. Timmy-the-Ute says:

    So how come New York State hasn’t released Pres. Trumps State returns?

    Liked by 1 person

  31. A beautiful letter and if the demoRats had any brains they would/should feel stupid!

    Liked by 2 people

  32. ristvan says:

    Predicted. Treepers may want the general legal landscape, since Dems cannot win here. Been predicting this for now two weeks after much legal research. More TDS on display.

    Background: The predecessor to 28USC§6103(f) was legislated in 1924, in response to President Harding’s attempt to cover up the TeaPot Dome scandal (for which his Sec Int went to prison). When 16A was passed in 1913, A1§8.1 was amended to include income tax. Always since presumed private but for exceptions (Al Capone) provided by executive regulation. But after the Nixon/Agnew income tax monkey business in ~1972, in 1976 Congress changed income tax privacy rules from ‘soft’ exec reg to ‘hard’ legislative law. Actually made two changes:
    (1) 28USC6103(f) ‘upon request shall provide’ privacy exception, and
    (2) all presidential and vice presidential returns are subject to a special annual audit, with results passed to the National Archives.

    Current law: 28USC§6103(f) ‘shall provide’ has the foregoing legislative history. But that oversight is still implicit, not explicit, in A1§8. It exists in the ‘penumbra’ of constitutional interpretation. SCOTUS has ruled many times:
    -Legislative investigation is limited to legislative purposes A1§8.1-18. OK, 16A passes §8.1 muster.
    -Legislative investigation must also be related to either:
    (a) A new law, an amended law, or a law repeal under A1§8
    (b) Oversight about whether the executive is properly administering an existing law under §8.

    So, House Ways and Means Chair Neal’s ‘shall provide’ demand, rejected today by Sec. Treas. Mnuchin, must still pass constitutional muster as a legitimate legislative purpose. It doesn’t. There are only three ‘ constitutional purpose’ possibilities:

    1. The request is pursuant to legitimate legislative oversight of the 1976 requirement that all future Presidents/Vice presidents be audited. There are 2 fails to that theory:
    —Neal requested 4 years before PDJT was President, and 2 years before he even declared as a candidate,
    —-Neal should have requested other President audits, say Obama and Bush 43 (who only provided partial returns for some years).

    2. Neal wants fo examine whether real estate developer tax laws are adequate. In which case, he should have also asked for others similarly situated, like Stephen Ross of NYC and Jorge Perez of Miami. Not only one, by name.

    3. Neal wants to examine PDJT before and after election. In which case is plainly unconstitutional via A1§9.3 first clause, prohibition on Bills of Attainder. Was originally an English custom allowing Parliament fo declare a person a criminal (Henry 8 used it to off two wives). But SCOTUS (as a result of Reconstruction Confederate retribution) broadened ‘crimes’ to ‘punishments’ in Cummings v Missouri, 77US 277, 1867. Because ‘punishments’ was later used to try to ‘avoid’ targeted federal regulation (current example in the courts is HuaWei 5g) SCOTUS provided a ‘punishment’ delimiter in Nixon v Admin (433US425, 1977): “Not punishment if can reasonably be said to further nonpunative legislative purposes.”
    But a real estate tax law aimed only at PDJT can only be construed as punitive so unconstitutional.

    So House Dem Neal loses and Mnuchin wins, no matter the inevitable intervening MSM and House noise.

    Liked by 22 people

  33. trapper says:

    Fat Jerry not having a good day.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. HB says:

    I don’t understand why they go to the trouble of writing a civilized reply.

    “Dear POS Neal, go f%#! yourself.”

    Short, no time expended, point made.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. andyocoregon says:

    “Dear Chairman Neal:

    Nuts!

    …Steven T. Mnuchin”

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Justin Green says:

    “Lacks legislative purpose”

    Like everything Congressional Democrats do.

    Liked by 3 people

  37. Dutchman says:

    Yeah, they ain’t gonna get DJT’s tax returns, from ANY year, unless HE releases them, and they knew it, going in.
    Thats why they didn’t even bother to try to legally justify it, by doing the things ristvan suggests, like asking for other developers, or former POTUS returns.

    They just want to say “Trump is STILL refusing to release his taxes! MUST be hiding something!”
    Nobodies listening! Already been litigated.

    And there is NOTHING illegal, immoral, unethical or even embarassing in his tax returns.

    He lost, on paper 900 million $, in one year. Basically, a Billion $. Since he files as a business, he can ‘carry forward losses from one year, to future years.

    Its all in his book, the art of the comeback. There is no there, there.

    Like

  38. California Joe says:

    If the Democrat run New York State legislature changes the state law to allow releasing President Trump’s state income tax (which typically has a copy of the federal return when filed) then IRS can refuse to allow New York State access to it’s records to verify the federal tax filings across the board (sharing).

    Like

  39. Sloth1963 says:

    No more Democrat fishing expeditions on my dime! I rarely get to fish on my own dime!

    Liked by 2 people

  40. Fools Gold says:

    POTUS should demand the last 10 presidents be released if his is gonna be released. Especially their wife’s!

    Like

  41. Republicans should propose legislation that anyone who wishes to be on a national ballot automatically be subject to a mandatory IRS audit with a ten year look back.

    That would end this whole thing overnight.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Palmettoman says:

    Hillary wasn’t talking to the ChiComs about POTUS’ taxes being hacked…she was talking to Deep State subversives still employed at the IRS. She wants his returns leaked.

    Liked by 2 people

  43. wodiej says:

    Let’s see obama’s tax returns, school records, selective service, passports, real birth certificate etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. JIM COMEY IS A WEASEL_DOUG says:

    So many words to just say GFY.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s