As Trump said, “it shows I’m smart,” which they will fully endorse
Trumps Taxes today at the Supreme Court!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
As Trump said, “it shows I’m smart,” which they will fully endorse
He could say 'complete exoneration' and they would endorse it. They've already done that twice. Third times a charm.
Yep, remember before he was elected he normalized political bribery. "I give to all the candidates, and when I call, they pick up the phone, believe me."
Stuff like that. We are in a bad place with this guy. This isn't like admitting you smoked pot no longer being a disqualification, this stuff with Trump always seems
to go to subversion of democracy and becoming more and more like a banana republic is acceptable for America. It's not fucking acceptable.
Oh, man, I’d hate to be Jay Sucksalot today
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
So you buy the democrats argument that in order to set tax policy they have to see Trump's and Trump's alone tax returns? You buy that argument?
Right for rulings consistent with the fact that Trump* must obey the subpoena... HAHAHA
Pelousy's got Russia Derangement Syndrome!
**********
Supreme Court blocks congressional subpoenas for Trump's financial records
JULY 09, 2020 - 10:23 AM
CATEGORIES: Politics
By DEVIN DWYER, ABC News
(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked subpoenas from congressional Democrats for President Donald Trump's financial records.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a 7-2 opinion, reversed a lower court decision upholding four congressional subpoenas for the records, saying that it failed to adequately account for "weighty concerns regarding the separation of powers."
Roberts returned the case to lower courts to reexamine the subpoenas in light of those concerns, not ruling out the possibility that the House subpoenas could be enforced in the future but delaying, for now, the prospect that the documents will be turned over to Democrats before the November election.
"For more than two centuries, the political branches have resolved information disputes using the wide variety of means that the Constitution puts at their disposal. The nature of such interactions would be transformed by judicial enforcement of either of the approaches suggested by the parties, eroding a “[d]eeply embedded traditional way[] of conducting government.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U. S., at 610 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). A balanced approach is necessary, one that takes a “considerable impression” from “the practice of the government,” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 401 (1819); see Noel Canning, 573 U. S., at 524–526, and “resist” the “pressure inherent within each of the separate Branches to exceed the outer limits of its power,” INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 951 (1983), Roberts wrote.
"We therefore conclude that, in assessing whether a subpoena directed at the President’s personal information is “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress,” Watkins, 354 U. S., at 187, courts must perform a careful analysis that takes adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake, including both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the “unique position” of the President, Clinton, 520 U. S., at 698 (internal quotation marks omitted). Several special considerations inform this analysis," Roberts wrote for the majority.
"Congressional subpoenas for information from the President, however, implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns. The judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit and the Second Circuit are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," he wrote.
Despite the court ruling against House Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cast it as a victory for congressional oversight of the president.
"A careful reading of the Supreme Court rulings related to the President’s financial records is not good news for President Trump," she said in a statement.
“The Court has reaffirmed the Congress’s authority to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people, as it asks for further information from the Congress. Congress’s constitutional responsibility to uncover the truth continues, specifically related to the President’s Russia connection that he is hiding," she said.
"We will continue to press our case in the lower courts,” she added.
In a separate but related case handed down just minutes before, Roberts, writing for a 7-2 majority, said Trump did not have immunity from subpoenas for his tax returns for his tax returns and other financial records sought by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance in a grand jury investigation.
**********
Supreme Court blocks congressional subpoenas for Trump's financial records
JULY 09, 2020 - 10:23 AM
CATEGORIES: Politics
By DEVIN DWYER, ABC News
(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked subpoenas from congressional Democrats for President Donald Trump's financial records.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a 7-2 opinion, reversed a lower court decision upholding four congressional subpoenas for the records, saying that it failed to adequately account for "weighty concerns regarding the separation of powers."
Roberts returned the case to lower courts to reexamine the subpoenas in light of those concerns, not ruling out the possibility that the House subpoenas could be enforced in the future but delaying, for now, the prospect that the documents will be turned over to Democrats before the November election.
"For more than two centuries, the political branches have resolved information disputes using the wide variety of means that the Constitution puts at their disposal. The nature of such interactions would be transformed by judicial enforcement of either of the approaches suggested by the parties, eroding a “[d]eeply embedded traditional way[] of conducting government.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U. S., at 610 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). A balanced approach is necessary, one that takes a “considerable impression” from “the practice of the government,” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 401 (1819); see Noel Canning, 573 U. S., at 524–526, and “resist
"We therefore conclude that, in assessing whether a subpoena directed at the President’s personal information is “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress,” Watkins, 354 U. S., at 187, courts must perform a careful analysis that takes adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake, including both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the “unique position” of the President, Clinton, 520 U. S., at 698 (internal quotation marks omitted). Several special considerations inform this analysis," Roberts wrote for the majority.
"Congressional subpoenas for information from the President, however, implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns. The judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit and the Second Circuit are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," he wrote.
Despite the court ruling against House Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cast it as a victory for congressional oversight of the president.
"A careful reading of the Supreme Court rulings related to the President’s financial records is not good news for President Trump," she said in a statement.
“The Court has reaffirmed the Congress’s authority to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people, as it asks for further information from the Congress. Congress’s constitutional responsibility to uncover the truth continues, specifically related to the President’s Russia connection that he is hiding," she said.
"We will continue to press our case in the lower courts,” she added.
In a separate but related case handed down just minutes before, Roberts, writing for a 7-2 majority, said Trump did not have immunity from subpoenas for his tax returns for his tax returns and other financial records sought by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance in a grand jury investigation.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a 7-2 opinion, reversed a lower court decision upholding four congressional subpoenas for the records, saying that it failed to adequately account for "weighty concerns regarding the separation of powers."
Roberts returned the case to lower courts to reexamine the subpoenas in light of those concerns, not ruling out the possibility that the House subpoenas could be enforced in the future but delaying, for now, the prospect that the documents will be turned over to Democrats before the November election.
Roberts returned the case to lower courts to reexamine the subpoenas in light of those concerns, not ruling out the possibility that the House subpoenas could be enforced in the future but delaying, for now, the prospect that the documents will be turned over to Democrats before the November election.
correct. Dems want them for political leaks
correct again. SDNY is a hostile entity towards Trump -they'll use it to harass him -but not charge him
That works
The problem is he was running for president and showing disdain for the laws. The repubs did not care. It should have repulsed them. If the prez is happy to cheat at taxes, then what can you expect from his followers. What respect does he have for any laws. He showed us, none.
He sets the example. To broaden the point, why should anyone obey the law? Me, you, or his followers?
If the potus can be a scam artist and subvert democracy, and flout congress, and cheat taxes, and grab pussy, and silence porn stars with bribes,
and insult the courts, and degrade minorities, and ban religions from immigration, and mock handicapped, and still have 40% of the population gleefully
support him as he gives 60% who despise him the middle finger, what the fuck can I possibly do and feel morally accountable in this system.
If our dear leader is a fucking crook and it's AOK, all bets are off. I will do ANYTHING the fuck I want, and that is my MORAL defense.
All men are created equal. I stand on firm legal ground. And since the potus is a crook without consequence, then I get to be one too.
Last edited:
What ? that was nuts. it was about the power of congress to investigate. They have seen other people's taxes. It is just daffy who fought them. When Nixon's were received, he had to repay almost half a million bucks for cheating.
countryboy
Verified User
TRUMP and the AMERICAN PUBLIC WIN!!!
CONGRESS CANNOT DEMAND PERSONAL FINANCIAL RECORDS FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON.
CONGRESS CANNOT DEMAND PERSONAL FINANCIAL RECORDS FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON.
BartenderElite
Verified User
Why does anyone defend NOT releasing tax returns?
You don't want that information about someone who we elect to lead a country? You'd rather not know?
You don't want that information about someone who we elect to lead a country? You'd rather not know?
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
you have no business seeing them
it is a way for career politicians keeping "civilians" out of government
Will Pelosi release hers and her husbands?
Feinstein?
How about Hunter Biden?
Biden's family?
Why limit it to just the candidate? Why not include family members who profit off of a politicians office?
You don't care about the principle. You are merely trying to trash Trump. You are so transparent