You had me at "I'll read it to you," Nancy.

[kpete]

"The law is very clear. The law says, and I'll read it to you: Upon written request from the Chairman of Ways and Means...the Secretary SHALL furnish...
-not MAY
-not could
-not should
SHALL furnish the Committee with any return..."


VIDEO:

Link to tweet

[Blecht]

1. "The law is very clear."

Couldn't be any clearer!

[Haggis for Breakfast]

40. He put his tiny hand on the book and SWORE to uphold the laws of this nation.

Failing to do that, he should have been arrested. Tried. Sentenced. Jailed.

[spanone]

2. trump doesn't believe in laws.

[dalton99a]

4. Neither does his law-and-order, strict-construction party

[TrishaJ]

22. Exactly. And I'm afraid the Democrats will

have to arrest some of his appointees to make the point that laws do matter, and he is not above the law. That is, if their only recourse is to arrest them for contempt of Congress.

I'm afraid that's coming. The GOP will push it to the brink.

[bitterross]

39. I'm afraid you may be right about arrests.

Is the House Sgt at Arms empowered to do such a thing? I don't believe s/he he can. That is the only enforcement officer the Speaker has directly at hand though.

The law is a federal law I would think. So it would have to be the FBI or a federal marshal who would enforce it I guess.

This is going to get ugly. Very ugly. We're about to see things that will tarnish every institution.

[TommyCelt]

23. Agreed.

And that is what is so goddamned stomach-turning about this trump.

He doesn't believe in laws unless they benefit him or his interests. Pointing that out to him or his idiot lemmings is pissing into the wind:

"yeah whatever, talk to my lawyers. I'm president and you're not."

He doesn't believe in truth, unless a particular fact is somehow accidentally favorable to him. His casual and complete un accountability to truth is maddening, because he simply won't acknowledge lying. Ever. We can fact-check him and his minions until judgment day; there has never been a downside to his lying, never a negative consequence. His lemmings seem to enjoy that about him:

"HEY at least he's upfront about being a lying fuck!"

How the hell to we strategize against an amoral, smug, lying, disgusting creature like this? There have been no repercussions of any kind for the behavior we so loathe ins which he basks. "Going high" while he gutterizes himself hasn't seem to have been effective. Engaging him where he dwells is a fool's errand; he's a pig and can squeal far better than anyone we can muster.

I fear for my children.

[Dave Starsky]

3. Damn. That was badass.

[corbettkroehler]

6. Nice! (n/t)

[corbettkroehler]

5. Irrelevant! Mnuchin Must Protect Drumpf's "Privacy"

When this wends its way to the Supreme Court, we may see our first example of how much Kavanaugh believes a president is immune from all of our laws.

We had a preview with his statement that no one could sue the government to prevent it from establishing a national religion. I don't even know where to begin with that one.

[crazytown]

24. This will not go to the Supreme Court.

It is unlikely to go further than first instance if that.

[corbettkroehler]

31. I Sure Hope You're Right But Tremble In Fear (n/t)

[defacto7]

32. I would think in no uncertain terms that Kav will be impeached

if he chooses to go the unconstitutional route once the Dems have a super majority again. And I think we will. Separation and "shall not" concerning state religion is pretty clear.

If he's thinking about his future he'd better not go that route.

[NurseJackie]

7. Experience we can trust! NANCY PELOSI ROCKS!!!

, Nancy Pelosi!!

[calimary]

18. To Seth Moulton and Kurt Schrader and the other Pelosi refuseniks

I’m still asking - you still SURE we needed somebody different in that job? Do you still think so? Or is it perhaps just a little bit too uncomfortable to recognize that a woman can have balls bigger than yours?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. I did and do

[raging moderate]

8. They don't know that 3rd-person SHALL is imperative.

English grammar is not their strong suit.

[csziggy]

9. They speak Amurikan, not that foreign language, English!

[pangaia]

20. Right. "But it doesn't say 'will,' or 'must.'

Just 'shall,' so.....

[calimary]

30. Clearly.

[gratuitous]

10. The reporter's question seemed to be that there wasn't a law on the books

That's some poor research there. Congress doesn't need to pass a law, the law is already on the books. And it's pretty got dam clear what it means, even to an originalist or a strict constructionist.

[dalton99a]

11. Dumb reporter.

[FBaggins]

34. Actually, that wasn't it at all

Congress doesn't have unlimited power and they certainly can't just ask for tax returns to go on a fishing expedition. The committee needs to be contemplating using their legislative power in some fashion. That's why the chairman's letter is written so carefully. They want to review the IRS' practices for presidential tax returns... because those are not currently based on legislation, but rather on IRS regulations.

The law on the books that she referred to actually was nonresponsive to the question.

[gratuitous]

35. Nobody is saying that Congress has unlimited power

But the U.S. Code specifies that the chairmen of three specific committees (one House, one Senate, one Joint) have the power, "Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

There are no limitations on that power, no reason needs to be given by any of the specified chairmen under subsection (f). The House Ways and Means Committee can review the requested returns in closed executive session, and may not publicize the return without the consent of the taxpayer whose return was requested. I didn't see any penalty or sanction should the committee reveal the contents of a requested return outside a closed executive session (which is not to say that there isn't a penalty or sanction). Considering the way the Trump administration has conducted its affairs, it would be fitting for it to be treated in the same cavalier manner it has treated the rights of individuals.

Oddly, under subsection (g)(1)(D) pertaining to the Executive or a cabinet Secretary, a request for a taxpayer's return must state a specific reason for the request. So clearly Congress knew how to write legislation so that a reason for a request for taxpayer information could be required (Executive) or not required (Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Committee on Finance or the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation).

[FBaggins]

36. Of course there are limitations on that power

Imagine the chairman decided that he wanted to ruin the life of an ex-girlfriend. Now he has the power to get her taxes, right?

Of course not. Any time Congress vests an individual or administrative body with power and discretion, it is possible to abuse that discretion. For instance, the President absolutely has the power to ban people from certain countries from entering, but a court can block him if it rules that he abused that discretion. Several of Trump's wilder decisions were not overturned on the basis that he didn't have the power to do it, but that he abused that power.

Take a moment to read the actual request from the chairman. It's carefully worded for a reason. He knows that if he just sent a letter says "We've wanted to see those returns for three years now... so send them over" he would never win.

[samnsara]

12. Our side is so damned smart!

[SMC22307]

13. Who's the reporter, which media outlet?

That was good.

[ffr]

14. It is not possible for me to admire her more than I do now, but I do!

[LogicFirst]

15. Republicans do not

expect Trump to follow the law, and they are never disappointed. I really do think that Trump could murder someone in front of a dozen witnesses, and a jury of 12 republicans would find him not guilty.

[tymorial]

16. Those eyes. God, I love Pelosi's eyes

They exude confidence and command respect

[FakeNoose]

17. Well said, Speaker Pelosi! Yet again!

[watoos]

19. I will bet 10 farthings,

that Mnuchin doesn't turn over the taxes. This will drag on until after the election.

[Fritz Walter]

25. It's called "oversight." Look it up.

And then go back to covering school board meetings for whatever Sinclair station you came from.

[Pepsidog]

26. "Shall" in legal terms is direct and unambiguous. Every lawyer and Judge knows the significance of

word “shall” when written in rules, regulations and statues etc. No wiggle room with shall.

[mr_lebowski]

27. Nancy's bit is awesome ... however it's not actually answering the question being asked.

Which is, of course, coming from someone obviously from the Trump camp, let me be clear.

The question being asked is essentially 'what legislative purpose is served by having Trump's tax returns? What law could you pass (as a result of having them) that you could not act upon now?'.

So the question is not 'what law allows you to ask for them'.

The way this is edited makes it look like her answer is actually a non-sequitur, or a misunderstanding of the question.

Is this truly Nancy's answer to that particular question? I rather hope not, because it's not a good answer to that question.

I mean it's a dumb freaking question to begin with ... to be sure, but ...

[JGug1]

28. SHALL

Wow. Now what?

[NastyRiffraff]

29. Mama Nancy schools again!

Do you get the feeling she feels like she's dealing with 8 year old children sometimes? "I'll read it to you."

[defacto7]

33. Exactly.

[Beartracks]

37. "Shall" is even stronger than "will." This isn't liberal interpretation. The law *is* clear. n/t

[dlk]

38. Pelosi is a Strong and Savvy Politician - I Loved Watching Her School those Silly Reporters

Every day, I'm glad Pelosi is Speaker. We need her now more than ever.

[Highway61]

41. Awesome

n/t