Paul Waldman: Trump's tax return scam has taken another turn

Although the best scam is one in which the victim never even realizes that she has been ripped off, this can rarely be guaranteed. So, crooks need a last argument to make if they are confronted, and the one they use often goes as follows: Of course, I cheated on you. But it's your fault. You were stupid enough to believe me. Now, lose yourself, sucker.

That's what President Donald Trump tells the American public about his tax returns. He has spent years saying that he would issue his statements as soon as the end of the IRS's routine audit, so that the American public can understand exactly where he gets his money and where he could have conflicts of interest as president.

It was and remains a pressing issue because Trump's greed is so all-encompassing that we can never be sure that he is faced with a choice between doing what is in the best interest of the country and winning money for himself, he will not choose the latter. . After all, he was a man who, while running for president, was on a contract in Moscow with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and falsely claimed that he had no commercial interest in Russia.

Indeed, there has never been, in American history, a president for whom it was more important than the public to know all the details of their finances. But now that congressional Democrats have formally asked the IRS to return Trump for six years, as allowed by a 1924 law, Trump and his allies say to the public: You've been stupid enough to believe me when I'm Did I say to show you the returns? It's your fault.

Here is an exchange between Mick Mulvaney, Chief of Staff at the White House, and Bill Hemmer at "Fox News Sunday":

HEMMER: To be clear, do you think the Democrats will ever see the president's tax returns?

MULVANEY: Oh, no, never. They should not either. Do not forget that it is a problem that had already been pleaded during the elections. The voters knew that the president could have given his tax returns, they knew it and they elected him anyway, which, of course, makes the Democrats crazy.

Before going further, let 's remember that if Trump' s tax returns showed nothing more than to be a shrewd and affluent businessman, he would have posted them on billboards everywhere in New York City. The fact that he is so determined to keep them secret is proof that they contain information that, when they will be the subject of a thorough investigation, will be at least scandalous. or even criminal.

And it is not a question of whether the "Democrats" will see the president 's tax returns; it is whether the public will do it. But before turning to the legal question, consider the idea that this question "has already been pleaded during the elections".

If the scandal of Monica Lewinsky had broken out, Bill Clinton had declared: "The American people knew that I was a philosopher when he elected me.All of this was pleaded in 1992, so we should not anymore speak." Or if Richard Nixon had said, "The American people were aware of Watergate when I ran in. All this was pleaded in 1972. It's over, move on."

The idea that, if the president wins the victory, he enjoys a general immunity against everything that appeared during the elections is ridiculous. Meanwhile, the excuse "I can not publish the statements because I am audited" was always a lie. The IRS does not prohibit anyone from making public his statements if they are audited.

We all know that if Hillary Clinton was president and refused to publish her statements, the Republicans would lose their reason. they may have initiated impeachment proceedings on this one issue alone. But currently, they pursue two tracks: a public campaign of ridiculous bad faith arguments to explain why returns must remain secret, and a legal strategy that represents nothing more than a plea to the five conservative judges of the Supreme Court to get a bail Trump out.

The tax code is simple and clear on this issue. It is said that when the president of one of the congressional tax return drafting committees requests a tax return from the Treasury Department (which includes the IRS), "the secretary provides this committee with the return information specified in this request ". He does not say that the president is exempt, or that the Congress must justify his request. That simply says that if they request it, this request "will" have to be honored. Period.

As Daniel Hemel explains in an essay for Medium, this does not mean that such a request could not in principle violate another law or part of the Constitution such as the First Amendment. But there is no doubt that Trump's tax return application serves a legitimate investigative purpose. Given their supervision of the IRS and obvious conflicts of interest of the president, you can justify your request for a dozen reasons. The fact that the Democrats also have political motives does not change that.

Even a highly motivated majority in the Supreme Court would find it difficult to decide otherwise. So, I suspect that what Trump and his legal team are hoping for is one of two results. The first would be that instead of deciding that this claim is out of reach, the five Conservatives of the court will overturn or amend the entire 1924 Act, limiting Congress's ability to obtain tax returns in a manner that would avoid any control at Trump.

The second result, and most likely, is that even if Trump loses in court, he would manage to delay the release of his report after the election of 2020. If he wins, no matter what. they reveal, he will then be able to tell the public: You knew that I was a crook when you elected me. It's your fault if you're so stupid. Now, lose yourself, suckers.

Paul Waldman is an opinion writer for the Plum Line blog.