Maybe Pelosi Needs A New Chair For House Ways And Means-- Neal Is Dragging His Feet On Trump's Taxes

Mnuchin and Richard Neal, who REALLY doesn't want to get the Adam Schiff treatment from Trumpworld

When the Biden p.r. machine stirs up shit against Bernie-- which they never stop doing (it's like a pit of vipers whispering in the ears of any journalist foolish enough pay them any attention)-- one of the first things they always bring up is that he hasn't released his taxes. Really? When he ran in 2016 he did release his taxes for 2014; they were boring and very white bread. He has since pledged to release 10 years this time, but virtually every anti-Bernie pundit who has raised this, wrongly claims he's never released any tax returns.

You know who didn't release any tax returns of course. And, according to Greg Sargent's column in the Washington Post yesterday, the Democrats-- particularly Richard Neal-- seem to be dragging their feet and screwing it up. Trump's "absurd claim" that Barr's 4-page press release purporting to be a "summary" of the report granting him "total exoneration," is laughable and only hardcore Trump 2-digit IQ worshippers believe it-- oh, and the corporate media. Trump's "efforts to bully Democrats and the media into groveling with forgiveness for supposedly having gotten this scandal wrong, are all about what lies ahead. The obvious game is to chill further scrutiny, which very much constitutes a live threat to Trump that no amount of furious tweeting about 'exoneration' can make disappear." Sargent points out that that is precisely "why Democrats should, if anything, be intensifying their effort to access Trump’s tax returns right now, not dragging their feet on it."

He sites a new memo-- from centrist Dems no less-- hoping to amp up the pressure on Neal and Pelosi, arguing that "getting the returns is a legal slam dunk, and is absolutely justifiable, or even imperative, as a matter of oversight and good governance," since as head of the House Ways and Means Committee, Neal has the law in his side, a law that says he can "request any individual’s tax returns, after which the Treasury Department 'shall' furnish them." Neal has asked multiple House committees to each furnish a rationale rooted in governing or oversight for getting the returns, the theory being that this will place the request on firmer institutional footing and make the legal case stronger. The Trump administration will challenge the request, leading to a long court battle."

Over the weekend, Arthur Delaney at HuffPo reported that the overly cautious "Neal is in no hurry and seemingly doesn’t care if Democrats don’t get the documents before the next election." Back to Sargent:

The idea is that, while it may be understandable for Democrats to want to build a strong institutional and legal case, this cannot become an excuse for further delay. Notably, the memo points out that while there is no precedent for seeking a president’s tax returns under this particular provision of the law, that’s because for decades, presidents and presidential candidates voluntarily released them.

That is, until Trump blithely shredded this most basic norm of transparency-- meaning that his own unprecedented contempt for this norm is what necessitates the House taking this aggressive step in response.

Along those lines, the memo further argues that doing this would represent a thoroughly legitimate and reasonable exercise of Congress’ oversight function. Among the reasons:

• To determine whether Trump’s foreign financial dealings create conflicts of interest, or worse, whether he’s compromised by them in some way. We still do not know whether special counsel Robert S. Mueller III defined his investigation to avoid looking at Trump’s finances. Whether he did or not, the memo argues, Congress has its own obligation to scrutinize these questions.
• To determine whether Trump is violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause by receiving payments from foreign governments without Congress’ consent. The memo argues that the fact that the clause allows for Congress to consent to certain emoluments-- or not to-- itself requires getting the returns, so it can exercise its responsibility to determine whether any particular emoluments either are, or are not, deserving of congressional consent.
• To determine whether-- or to what extent-- Trump and his family have profited off the huge tax cut he signed, which could be substantial. The memo argues that this information could help Congress determine whether to go along with whatever future tax policies Trump proposes, such as making certain provisions in the new tax law permanent.

Here’s the thing. The urgency of all these matters should not in any way be seen as diminished by the conclusion of the Mueller investigation. That’s because, even if no criminal charges were brought for conspiracy with Russia, the Mueller probe and its spinoffs added substantially to the broader case against Trump’s corruption.

This is a case that will continue to build, as the multiple other investigations resulting from Mueller’s work, as well as those launched by House Democrats, proceed. As Timothy L. O’Brien, who understands the depths of Trump financial murk like no one else does, puts it, “reality is likely to keep intruding on everybody who has been ushering Trump-Russia coverage into the grave.”

After all, because of those investigations, we have learned that Trump carried on negotiations with Russia over a Moscow project for many months while GOP voters were picking their nominee; that he has been directly implicated in a criminal campaign finance scheme; and that Trump concealed both these things from America. Getting Trump’s tax returns could help shed light on whether there are other such foreign dealings, and on his tax treatment of the hush money payments, among other things.

We have also learned from Trump’s own former lawyer that he may have gamed assets for insurance and tax fraud purposes, and that Trump’s tax returns could contain clues to those things-- not to mention clues to the extensive history of tax fraud used to inflate his inherited fortune, something we learned about from that big NY Times expose.

Rather than getting drawn into a sad-sack debate over whether Democrats should “move on” from the Mueller investigation, it’s more natural to just keep the focus on Trump’s corruption, as a matter of basic oversight. The political ground for maintaining that focus is actually more fertile right now, due to everything we’ve learned-- and continue to learn-- as a result of the Mueller investigation. And getting Trump’s tax returns is central to that basic mission.

A couple of years ago Dr. Stephanie Sarkis, author of Gaslighting: Recognize Manipulative And Emotionally Abusive People-- And Break Free, wrote a piece for Psychology Today 11 Warning Signs of Gaslighting-- Gaslighting is a manipulation tactic used to gain power. And it works too well. The only way we're going to break free of Trump's gaslighting is at the polls in a little over a year and a half, but it's important to understand one of Trump's most used coping mechanisms. Sarkis defines gaslighting as a common tactic used by abusers, dictators, narcissists and cult leaders to gain more power, while making a victim question their reality. These are her 11 warning signs. How many of them do you recognize in Trumpanzee?

• They tell blatant lies-- with a straight face.
• They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
• They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
• They wear you down over time.
• Their actions do not match their words.
• They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
• They know confusion weakens people.
• They project.
• They try to align people against you.
• 10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.
• 11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.