,
14 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
This is really well done. It ticks all the boxes needed (per relevant caselaw precedents) to maximize the chances of the courts ordering production of the full report (including grand jury material) despite FRCrimP 6(e) and courts' usual deference to the political branches.
2/ Note that Ways & Means (Neal)'s argument for getting Trump's tax returns is both stronger + weaker than Judiciary (Nadler)'s case for getting the full Mueller report (see tweet above).
...
...
3/ Nadler must find a way around a statute (FRCrimP 6(e)) (again, see first tweet), but Judiciary's broad responsibilities allow him to cite national security and hint strongly that impeachment may be at issue, both of which will receive tremendous deference from the courts. ...
4/ Ways & Means, OTOH, has a statute on its side, but no original jurisdiction over natsec or impeachment, and so has had to pretend that the issue is oversight of IRS audit processes. cnn.com/2019/04/13/pol…
Arguing from a position everyone knows is fictitious is always iffy...
Arguing from a position everyone knows is fictitious is always iffy...
5/ But because the statute that on its face says the IRS SHALL produce tax returns on request (26 USC §6103(f)) specifically names Ways & Means, Neal can't punt to Nadler, but has to play the hand he's dealt. ...
6/ And because Mueller didn't implicate Trump for tax evasion, Nadler has little justification to seek his returns.
Now, if some IRS, FinCen, or DOJ employee lawfully LEAKED evidence of tax fraud to Congress, that could change!
Now, if some IRS, FinCen, or DOJ employee lawfully LEAKED evidence of tax fraud to Congress, that could change!
7/ Takeaway: neither of Congress' requests (Neal's for tax returns, Nadler's for the unredacted Mueller report) is a slam dunk. But both are playing the game exactly right, even though Mnuchin will make PR hay out of the obvious "spin" behind Neal's "oversight" angle.
8/8 Bottom line: yes, I'm buying more popcorn futures.
9/ Good resource here:
10/ Last tweet cites precedents that no legislative purpose need be stated, raising the Q of why Neal went ahead and articulated a (weak but nevertheless colorable) one. My guess: he feared a GOP SCOTUS overruling the "no purpose needed" precedent, and decided it was safer.
11/ Good article supporting my theory in the last tweet that Neal decided it was safer to state a "legislative purpose" even if it's not necessarily required: politico.com/magazine/story…
12/ Related thoughts in this short thread:
13/ Great thread by @LauraWalkerKC. I'll add: Nadler's battle for the "unredacted report" (+ the WH's pleas of 6(e) + priv) isn't really about the report; it's about the actual EVIDENCE UNDERLYING the report, which the House needs to prosecute impeachment.
@LauraWalkerKC 14/ Hey, now we have THREE document requests underway!
(And the short answer to "why isn't Pelosi initiating impeachment proceedings yet?!?" is: you don't ask for a trial date until your discovery's complete.)
(And the short answer to "why isn't Pelosi initiating impeachment proceedings yet?!?" is: you don't ask for a trial date until your discovery's complete.)
