House Dems about to ask for Trump tax returns

[AM64]

I voted for Johnson because Clinton is just as sleezy as Trump.

"Just as"? Your standards are slipping badly.

 

[norrislakevol]

The process was changed to an impeachment investigation/inquiry and my quesiton is whether the ability to shield such information is arguably lessened such that refusing to answer is contempt that can result in criminal liability.

In any event, in the larger picture, some reigns need to be placed on this nebulous "executive privilege" concept, regardless of the administration. If you are asked by the POTUS, regardless of party, to take some overtly illegal act (be it perjury, fail to act, accept a bribe, obstruction, what have you) then the POTUS should not be allowed to claim that instruction is somehow privileged. Again, that is not even specific to Trump, though he has abused the concept here quite a bit.

I hope they do go ahead with impeachment proceedings. Trump would have likely won re-election anyways, now if the house dems go through with it it will be a Trump landslide.

 

[RockyTop85]

Let him walk? WTH are they going to do to him?

He’s been properly subpoenaed. They can jail him until he answers the questions.

At this point, it’s not a question of politics, it’s about whether we continue to have a functioning system checks and balances. If the Dems let this slide, we effectively don’t.

The executive could effectively shut down any impeachment inquiry as easily as he can shut down any DOJ investigation, simply by ordering witnesses not to cooperate.

Whether you think it’s a witch hunt in this case, or not, the integrity of the process has to be maintained so that it functions in instances where it’s unquestionably not a witch hunt.

 

[hog88]

He’s been properly subpoenaed. They can jail him until he answers the questions.

At this point, it’s not a question of politics, it’s about whether we continue to have a functioning system checks and balances. If the Dems let this slide, we effectively don’t.

The executive could effectively shut down any impeachment inquiry as easily as he can shut down any DOJ investigation, simply by ordering witnesses not to cooperate.

Whether you think it’s a witch hunt in this case, or not, the integrity of the process has to be maintained so that it functions in instances where it’s not.

It's been how many decades since Congress tried to jail someone? I seriously doubt they want to run that one up the flagpole over this considering what Holder was allowed to get away with. But let's hope they try.

The dems have the court system to turn to if they're serious about getting executive privilege thrown out, let's see if they do.

Congress, especially lost all credibility long ago.

 

[AM64]

It's been how many decades since Congress tried to jail someone? I seriously doubt they want to run that one up the flagpole over this considering what Holder was allowed to get away with. But let's hope they try.

The dems have the court system to turn to if they're serious about getting executive privilege thrown out, let's see if they do.

Congress, especially lost all credibility long ago.

I remember reading something about that. Seems like congress has one flunky who can arrest him ... if he's on capitol grounds. And they have one cell ... if somebody can find the key. It sounds like pure comedy if compared to the Keystone cops level.

 

[RockyTop85]

It's been how many decades since Congress tried to jail someone? I seriously doubt they want to run that one up the flagpole over this considering what Holder was allowed to get away with. But let's hope they try.

The dems have the court system to turn to if they're serious about getting executive privilege thrown out, let's see if they do.

Congress, especially lost all credibility long ago.

They’re definitely about to lose any that remained.

My understanding is that they’ve never used congressional power to jail someone, since those statutes were passed, but that it does exist.

The DOJ and courts have typically enforced those powers.

The problem now is that the DOJ has refused those efforts, recently, and civil enforcement through the courts is protracted.

I haven’t looked into it myself but had heard that lewandowski didn’t have any claim to executive privilege because he’s not a member of the executive branch. There are similar limitations on other testimonial privileges, so it makes sense. Obviously, what I’m saying is dependent on that being the law. I’m also unclear on whether executive privilege holds in an impeachment.

Nadler needs to be retired if he ****s this up after having the better part of a year to think it through.

 

[AM64]

They’re definitely about to lose any that remained.

My understanding is that they’ve never used congressional power to jail someone, since those statutes were passed, but that it does exist.

The DOJ and courts have typically enforced those powers.

The problem now is that the DOJ has refused those efforts, recently, and civil enforcement through the courts is protracted.

I haven’t looked into it myself but had heard that lewandowski didn’t have any claim to executive privilege because he’s not a member of the executive branch. There are similar limitations on other testimonial privileges, so it makes sense. Obviously, what I’m saying is dependent on that being the law. I’m also unclear on whether executive privilege holds in an impeachment.

Nadler needs to be retired if he ****s this up after having the better part of a year to think it through.

There's never a need to lie to congress. "I do not recall. "I don't remember." "I have no recollection of that." And if all else fails there's the fifth ... one kind to forget, and the other if you can't forget.

 

[hog88]

They’re definitely about to lose any that remained.

My understanding is that they’ve never used congressional power to jail someone, since those statutes were passed, but that it does exist.

The DOJ and courts have typically enforced those powers.

The problem now is that the DOJ has refused those efforts, recently, and civil enforcement through the courts is protracted.

I haven’t looked into it myself but had heard that lewandowski didn’t have any claim to executive privilege because he’s not a member of the executive branch. There are similar limitations on other testimonial privileges, so it makes sense. Obviously, what I’m saying is dependent on that being the law. I’m also unclear on whether executive privilege holds in an impeachment.

Nadler needs to be retired if he ****s this up after having the better part of a year to think it through.

The DOJ refused to enforce contempt charges against Holder and the Rs were too scared to take it to court since they knew it was just political theater. Let’s see if Nadler has the balls.

 

[hog88]

There's never a need to lie to congress. "I do not recall. "I don't remember." "I have no recollection of that." And if all else fails there's the fifth ... one kind to forget, and the other if you can't forget.

I don’t know why anyone even shows up when subpoenaed.

 

[AM64]

I don’t know why anyone even shows up when subpoenaed.

I know. I think most of are in contempt of congress anyway ... at least we view congress as contemptible.

 

[tvolsfan]

LOL, but in fairness the entire Western World that did not get suckered into voting for that rodeo clown Trump pretty much knew what we were in for. And he has not disappointed.

To be fair, you had to be objectively stupid to believe any of it.

 

[AirVol]

Yes, and I'm wondering whether Lewandowski can be held in criminal contempt in this process and go to jail, as he should.

Maybe he should’ve made some notes and give to his attorney friend. Worked well for the last guy.

 

[AirVol]

I voted for Johnson because Clinton is just as sleezy as Trump.

Hank Johnson?

You like big Johnson’s?

 

[Septic]

Hank Johnson?

You like big Johnson’s?

Are you hitting on me again?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

In any event, in the larger picture, some reigns need to be placed on this nebulous "executive privilege" concept, regardless of the administration. If you are asked by the POTUS, regardless of party, to take some overtly illegal act (be it perjury, fail to act, accept a bribe, obstruction, what have you) then the POTUS should not be allowed to claim that instruction is somehow privileged. Again, that is not even specific to Trump, though he has abused the concept here quite a bit.

*rains

 

[DC_Vol]

The continuation of the TrumPutingate hoax. Policy positions that include free money for everyone, reparations, gun grabbing, and taxpayer funded healthcare for illegals. Oh, and that field of Democrat candidates. Wow.

All the Democrats needed to do was nominate someone sane and rational FTW. And this is their answer. What a joke!! LOL.

 

[utvolpj]

You like freedom!

Fixed

 

[RockyTop85]

To be fair, you had to be objectively stupid to believe any of it.

This seems to be the emerging trend in politics. I mean this whole “we’re gonna impeach Kavanaugh” thing is a farce. Elizabeth Warren was dogging the police officer in the Michael Brown case when the Obama justice department cleared him. Everybody who was just running over the constitution in the gun control discussion at the last debate.

Politics is supposed to be about persuasion and forming coalitions by finding common ground with disparate groups. Now it’s just about loudly shouting things that your base already agrees with to get a bigger applause.

Joe Biden, and Buttigieg on a smaller scale, are the only ones actively being inclusive and building political coalitions instead of just trying to turn out progressives. They get called out for being too conservative or pandering, depending on who is doing the calling out.

Each tribe would rather fight with the other tribe than have a say in what policy gets passed. Republicans didn’t learn their lesson from the ACA disaster and now democrats are doing the same thing.

I’m afraid Trumpism is here to stay.

 

[AM64]

This seems to be the emerging trend in politics. I mean this whole “we’re gonna impeach Kavanaugh” thing is a farce. Elizabeth Warren was dogging the police officer in the Michael Brown case when the Obama justice department cleared him. Everybody who was just running over the constitution in the gun control discussion at the last debate.

Politics is supposed to be about persuasion and forming coalitions by finding common ground with disparate groups. Now it’s just about loudly shouting things that your base already agrees with to get a bigger applause.

Joe Biden, and Buttigieg on a smaller scale, are the only ones actively being inclusive and building political coalitions instead of just trying to turn out progressives. They get called out for being too conservative or pandering, depending on who is doing the calling out.

Each tribe would rather fight with the other tribe than have a say in what policy gets passed. Republicans didn’t learn their lesson from the ACA disaster and now democrats are doing the same thing.

I’m afraid Trumpism is here to stay.

One thing about the new order is lack of agreement on anything ... it's cheaper that way. The old order was "compromise" which meant no fiscal restraint by congress ... simply a case of "sure I'll support your billion dollar bill for your worthless program in return for your support on my billion dollar road to nowhere." Unfortunately the stakes are going up ... seems like Trump's little deal (failed fortunately) with the dims to fix infrastructure was something like $12T; for that, give me stalemate any day of the week.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Trump sues Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, who subpoenaed his tax returns

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Judge Blocks California Law Requiring Trump To Release His Tax Returns

A federal judge on Thursday ordered a temporary injunction against California's law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns in order to be on the presidential primary ballot. The law, the first of its kind in the nation, was brought about specifically to target President Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. issued the injunction, saying Trump and other candidates would face “irreparable harm without temporary relief” if a decision wasn't made. The judge will issue his final ruling in the next few days.

Judge Blocks California Law Requiring Trump To Release His Tax Returns

 

[AM64]

Judge Blocks California Law Requiring Trump To Release His Tax Returns

A federal judge on Thursday ordered a temporary injunction against California's law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns in order to be on the presidential primary ballot. The law, the first of its kind in the nation, was brought about specifically to target President Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. issued the injunction, saying Trump and other candidates would face “irreparable harm without temporary relief” if a decision wasn't made. The judge will issue his final ruling in the next few days.

Judge Blocks California Law Requiring Trump To Release His Tax Returns

Right to privacy is a fundamental guarantee. If we change that for one branch of the government, then the change has to apply to all branches, and I can't see congress or the judicial branch letting that happen.

 

[Septic]

Right to privacy is a fundamental guarantee. If we change that for one branch of the government, then the change has to apply to all branches, and I can't see congress or the judicial branch letting that happen.

What's that?

 

[AM64]

What's that?

I realize it's a little abstract for you, however:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The IRS isn't just a collection agency; it there was a violation of tax law, then that is their mandate. In the absence of IRS action against Trump, how can his tax records show probable cause for search of those records? If you don't have probable cause for a case that his financials dealings were fraudulent, where is the probable cause? I guess you may not have been old enough to have seen how the FBI had to nibble around the boundaries on Mafia cases even though they knew for damn sure what was going on ... they just couldn't legally know it much of the time.

I'm still far more interested in knowing how people in congress amass millions on a salary that can't get them there. You may not like Trump's business/real estate racket wheeling and dealing or business vs private bankruptcies - I certainly don't, but he didn't write the rules ... congress or regulatory agencies with congressional approval did that. For the real source of financial abuse and corruption look no further than the group with permanent business offices on capitol hill ... it's implied that corporate "wizards" can make fortunes on what they do, but not congress.

 

[Septic]

I realize it's a little abstract for you, however:

What was abstract is the irony of your boy tweeting about how crooked it looks by Obama and then going on to do it himself. Do you really not see it? The irony of Trump tweets always coming back to show what a doofus he is. There's one for everything.

Thanks for your copy and pasta though.