House Dems about to ask for Trump tax returns

#901
#901
Purple Tiger said:
Debunked or adjudicated? This issue was settled this week in court. Trump was found guilty of fraud and ordered to pay $2 million in restitution. Try to keep up.
Click to expand...
Again. Incorrect.

They raised 2.8 million and gave it to Vet charities. the issue that came from this is a Trump aide handled the transfers. A liberal hack judge said it benefited his campaign

He committed no fraud.
 
#903
#903
BREAKING: Supreme Court Blocks Dems' Subpoena to Review Trump's Financial Records

1ae8ba40-ff26-4ff3-8f42-ceea942d7999.png


Late Monday evening the Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump's request for an emergency injunction to block Congressional Democrats' subpoena for the president's financial records. The subpoena is put on hold until Trump files an appeal with the lower court by Dec. 5, The Washington Times reported.

What happens next will be determined by the lower court. If the court takes up the case, the injunction will remain in place and keep the House Democrats from obtaining the records as part of their impeachment probe. If the court decides not to hear the case, the injunction expires and Trump must turn the documents over to Democrats.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Blocks Dems' Subpoena to Review Trump's Financial Records
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, volfanjustin and Obsessed
#904
#904
Obsessed said:
Again. Incorrect.

They raised 2.8 million and gave it to Vet charities. the issue that came from this is a Trump aide handled the transfers. A liberal hack judge said it benefited his campaign

He committed no fraud.
Click to expand...
That foundation was nothing more than a slush fund. There was tons of fraud, just as was the case with Trump University.
 
#905
#905
What's a plausible legal basis upon which SCOTUS would rule the NY accounting firm doesn't have to comply with the subpoena?
 
#906
#906
Velo Vol said:
What's a plausible legal basis upon which SCOTUS would rule the NY accounting firm doesn't have to comply with the subpoena?
Click to expand...

Take your pick...

Fake News
Epstein didn't kill himself
Democrats did it
Lock her up
Mexico will pay for it
But, but, but Obama
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#909
#909
MontyPython said:
Take your pick...

Fake News
Epstein didn't kill himself
Democrats did it
Lock her up
Mexico will pay for it
But, but, but Obama
Click to expand...
I'm talking an actual court, not Fox News prime time.
hog88 said:
Probable cause.

First question should be "what specifically are you investigating"?
Click to expand...
The court isn't going to review if the state can subpoena someone's tax return. The issue will be if any privilege applies to stop it.
 
#910
#910
Mick said:
Campaign finance violations. He is already an unindicted individual in the Stormy case.
Click to expand...

Is that what the Manhattan DA has said or is that your guess? It's the local DA wanting the records, not the US Attorney.
 
#911
#911
Velo Vol said:
I'm talking an actual court, not Fox News prime time.
The court isn't going to review if the state can subpoena someone's tax return. The issue will be if any privilege applies to stop it.
Click to expand...

I think the court, any court needs to ask the "what are you investigating" question for any subpoena or warrant regardless of who it is.
 
#912
#912
hog88 said:
Is that what the Manhattan DA has said or is that your guess? It's the local DA wanting the records, not the US Attorney.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure. There were state laws broken as well in relation to the Stormy case. Is it your contention that the state doesn't have probable cause?
 
#913
#913
hog88 said:
I think the court, any court needs to ask the "what are you investigating" question for any subpoena or warrant regardless of who it is.
Click to expand...
The court is only going to review issues raised in the lower court. And as far as I know there was no constitutional challenge to the subpoena.
 
#914
#914
Mick said:
Pretty sure. There were state laws broken as well in relation to the Stormy case. Is it your contention that the state doesn't have probable cause?
Click to expand...

They need 8 years of returns and financial statements for something that happened in 2016?
 
#918
#918
Obsessed said:
You didn’t read it then

None of the money was stolen. It was all given as it was promised.
Click to expand...
That is not true. What you are quoting is Trump's statement; not the facts as they were laid out in court. That family is banned from ever sitting on the board of another charity again. Do you think that happens arbitrarily? They misappropriated funds. End/
 
#921
#921
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not true. What you are quoting is Trump's statement; not the facts as they were laid out in court. That family is banned from ever sitting on the board of another charity again. Do you think that happens arbitrarily? They misappropriated funds. End/
Click to expand...
Jesus....

Not Trumps words. Will snopes work for you?


Conclusion
Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.)

Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have “stolen” or kept the funds, and so none “admitted” to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.

The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having “stolen” the donations.

Was Donald Trump Fined for 'Stealing' Money Intended for Veterans?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and volfanjustin
#922
#922
Obsessed said:
Jesus....

Not Trumps words. Will snopes work for you?


Conclusion
Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.)

Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have “stolen” or kept the funds, and so none “admitted” to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.

The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having “stolen” the donations.

Was Donald Trump Fined for 'Stealing' Money Intended for Veterans?
Click to expand...
You are wasting your time, if they don’t hear it on CNN, MSNBC or NPR they don’t believe it. Of course I’m sure you know that already
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#923
#923
Obsessed said:
Jesus....

Not Trumps words. Will snopes work for you?


Conclusion
Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.)

Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have “stolen” or kept the funds, and so none “admitted” to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.

The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having “stolen” the donations.

Was Donald Trump Fined for 'Stealing' Money Intended for Veterans?
Click to expand...
Among Donald Trump's admissions in court papers: The charity gave his campaign complete control over disbursing the $2.8 million that the foundation had raised at a fund-raiser for veterans in Iowa in January 2016, only days before the state's presidential caucuses. The fund-raiser, he acknowledged, was in fact a campaign event.

The president also admitted to using the foundation to settle the legal obligations of companies he owned, including Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Florida, and the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, NY. And he acknowledged that the foundation purchased the $10,000 portrait of Mr. Trump, which was ultimately displayed at one of his Florida hotels.

There are also a multitude of restrictions placed on Trump and his adult kids should they ever try to start a charity again, although they were not permanently banned from it as I had thought.
 
#924
#924
BowlBrother85 said:
Among Donald Trump's admissions in court papers: The charity gave his campaign complete control over disbursing the $2.8 million that the foundation had raised at a fund-raiser for veterans in Iowa in January 2016, only days before the state's presidential caucuses. The fund-raiser, he acknowledged, was in fact a campaign event.

The president also admitted to using the foundation to settle the legal obligations of companies he owned, including Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Florida, and the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, NY. And he acknowledged that the foundation purchased the $10,000 portrait of Mr. Trump, which was ultimately displayed at one of his Florida hotels.

There are also a multitude of restrictions placed on Trump and his adult kids should they ever try to start a charity again, although they were not permanently banned from it as I had thought.
Click to expand...
The claim is he stole from vets. He didn’t.

The clintons used foundation funds to pay for Chelsea’s wedding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#925
#925
Obsessed said:
The claim is he stole from vets. He didn’t.

The clintons used foundation funds to pay for Chelsea’s wedding.
Click to expand...
My claim is that Trump used the foundation to buy a $10,000 portrait of himself so he could hang it in one of his own properties. That is just as irresponsible and self-serving as what the Clintons were doing. Trump also used the foundation to settle some legal obligations from some of his companies. That is misappropriation of funds. Plain and simple.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top