Seth Abramson @SethAbramson Attorney. Professor @UofNH. Columnist @Newsweek. NYT bestselling author. Proof of Conspiracy @StMartinsPress: tinyurl.com/y484j4ku. Analyses @BBC. Views mine. May. 07, 2019 1 min read

Regarding Trump's tax returns, "shall furnish" is mandatory language—no exceptions. For those who say, "What if the duly appointed Congressional committee chair sought his ex-wife's returns?" the answer is THE IRS WOULD STILL FURNISH THEM but the EX-WIFE would seek an injunction.

1/ And that's *exactly the point of the statute*. Congress wanted to make sure that *no one anywhere in the executive branch* could refuse Congress's request. It could not and did not stop private citizens from seeking injunctions. The GOP has no legal leg to stand on whatsoever.

2/ And incidentally, under the rules of statutory interpretation, it's likely that the only basis for an injunction would be a showing that the Congressman in question had a criminal or otherwise illegal purpose for seeking the return. But that's *not Mnuchin's argument to make*.


You can follow @SethAbramson.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.