Can someone please explain . . . .

[pdsimdars]

why the Democrats are not enforcing the law? As far as I've heard the LAW says they "shall" turn the tax retuens over. The law also says that if anyone fails to fulfill the law they are removed from office and face up to 5 years in prison.

They refused to hand them over, so, shouldn't they be fired and put in prison?

This is why Americans are so fed up with government. If I get a speeding ticket, I have to pay. I can't just refuse. And yet, if you are part of the establishment, no matter which side, you can just say, "no!".

The Democrats did not follow up and do the next step of bringing in law ENFORCEMENT, they don't enforce that law but turn and threaten to subpoena something else.

WHY IS THAT? Is no one else curious as to why they don't ENFORCE the law? Hasn't it been a week by now since they refused to turn over the tax returns? And . . . . . .

Or please explain the dividing line as to how high up in government or industry you have to get so that you are no long subject to the law like other people? Where is that dividing line and can someone please define it for the rest of us?

[babylonsister]

1. Maybe they will once

he delays too long, but I suspect it wouldn't be a good look to cuff and haul the buffoon off to jail.
They're going to have to make a decision when too many subpoenas are ignored and laws broken. I don't know how this will be resolved, or if it will. I do share your frustration.

[uponit7771]

7. "too many" 1 !!! Republicans wouldn't allow even the thought of ignoring request like this

[avebury]

2. The point in making an effort to appear to be reasonable about their requests

will make if harder for the Rethugs to publicly rip apart the Democrats in Congress. Let the Rethugs show themselves for exactly what they are and then hopefully the Democrats will go for the jugulars. Hopefully public perception will favor the Democrats.

[zipplewrath]

3. They haven't refused

Yet.

The "shall" doesn't have a time frame associated with it, and I'd make a small wager that no court in the world would rule that "shall" means "immediately".

[uponit7771]

6. They did by missing the deadline and not answering questions on the subject. Dems should ...

... subpeana and let the courts weigh in.

Of course impeachment would make all that crap moot, they can simply start OoJ charges against stonewallers

[zipplewrath]

8. Not in court

You'd have to establish that congress had the authority to establish a deadline and that failure to meet it established refusal to turn over the documents.

Good luck with that argument in front of a judge.

[uponit7771]

9. Congress has authority by law to ask and get the taxes, how they go about legally is up to them and

... establishing a deadline would be in line with what's in their authority.

Someone ... MISSING ... that deadline on purpose with no good excuse could be charged with obstructing that law.

Doesn't seem complicated, what am I missing ? tia

[zipplewrath]

10. Winning

"how they go about it" is not up to them. It is up to the law, which currently doesn't express a time frame, much less a penalty for not meeting the time frame. It doesn't even empower them to create a time frame.

If they ultimately refuse, then there is a case. If they continue to delay, officials could be forced to testify to explain what is causing the delay. And of course they can skip the courts and just impeach an official. Not sure how that goes over in the senate.

[uponit7771]

11. Dems can impeach and convict and not move for removal. If not what other authority do dems have?

It looks like we're not longer a democracy if we just elect kings for 8 years or longer.

[zipplewrath]

12. How do they convict?

They don't have the votes (At least not yet).

It's not easy impeaching and convicting a sitting member of the administration. It isn't done very often.

[uponit7771]

13. K, got it .. they can vote to impeach and then leave conviction and removal up to senate if they wan

... want to proceed.

They don't have to select "house managers" to carry the case to the senate...

There's nothing compelling the house to do such

[zipplewrath]

14. Yup

None of which gets them the documents they seek.

The court route has a chance of actually getting them.

[smirkymonkey]

4. I am incredibly frustrated with this too.

I feel like they put their foot down, only to back away later on. It is so aggravating and disappointing.

[uponit7771]

5. K&R, impeachment process would give dems stronger means to hold those accountable who don't want

... to follow the law.