KRC Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: These cases were both punted back to lower courts for more litigation. If NYS does get them eventually, that will be under grand jury, so it will be confidential. Which means it will be leaked shortly thereafter. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Quote The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Trump’s assertion that he enjoys absolute immunity while in office, allowing a New York prosecutor to pursue a subpoena of the president’s private and business financial records. If Cohen is right, tax fraud, insurance fraud, out and out fraud (theft), money laundering, Russian influence and others questions can be answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: If Cohen is right, tax fraud, insurance fraud, out and out fraud (theft), money laundering, Russian influence and others questions can be answered. Just now, BillStime said: 37 minutes ago, B-Man said: More on the above............. Supreme Court: No presidential “absolute immunity” on grand jury subpoena for Tax Returns, but separation of powers may protect from congressional subpoenas Two political wins for Trump: Grand Jury case sent back to lower courts where Trump can raise other objections, and for now his accountants do not have to produce financial records to Democrats in Congress. (more…) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 But the audit! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 18 minutes ago, B-Man said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 36 minutes ago, BillStime said: Next, he will be serving Kool Aid to the fools 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Yup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Quick reminder: for those spinning. The Supreme Court did NOT rule that President trump had to turn over his tax returns. Please resume your spin.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 1 minute ago, B-Man said: Quick reminder: for those spinning. The Supreme Court did NOT rule that President trump had to turn over his tax returns. Please resume your spin.... ??? okay - we learn from the best! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 I think Trump made a mistake in this assuming a POTUS had immunity from investigations while in office. I suppose this was a question that need an answer, however I think moving forward, if he instead uses 4th Amendment right to privacy, and and demand Congress provide probable cause for the investigation, he will still win. Remember, the 4th doesn't have an asterisks that says "except in the case of Congressional claims of oversight". If there is equal justice, there is certainly also equal protections. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 House Democrats get slapped down hard. SCOTUS Rules Against Trump Over Financial Records, But the President Walks Away the Winner Somehow, Donald Trump managed to lose the cases revolving around his financial records today but still walk away the winner. How did he manage that feat? As with most things to come out of the Roberts court, it’s complicated and a matter of timing. The first case involved the New York district attorney, an outspoken anti-Trumper who is pursing a clearly political investigation of the President. Mr. Vance sought Trump’s tax returns and other financial records via subpoena. The White House lost that case 7-2, with the majority noting that blanket immunity does not apply in this case to stop the subpoena. But, and this is the important part, the case is being kicked back down to the lower court with a roadmap provided for how to keep the case going. What you are seeing here is an invitation by Roberts for the Trump administration to re-challenge the subpoena on different grounds. Though they may also lose that fight in the end, it will not be a fight decided before the election. In other words, Trump has successfully shelved this issue until it will no longer matter politically. I will note that given the implications of this investigation on a personal level, it would behoove the President to actually do a better job of trying to win re-election. If he loses, Vance is not going to lose interest. He’s going to do everything he can to “take down” Trump, even out of the White House. Trump will also lose some of the arguments against the subpoena if he becomes a private citizen in early 2021. The second decision is also technically a “loss” for Trump, but only in the most narrow terms. In reality, Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, and House Congress get slapped down hard by SCOTUS, with not even the liberals of the court agreeing that their fishing expedition is proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, Cinga said: I think Trump made a mistake in this assuming a POTUS had immunity from investigations while in office. I suppose this was a question that need an answer, however I think moving forward, if he instead uses 4th Amendment right to privacy, and and demand Congress provide probable cause for the investigation, he will still win. Remember, the 4th doesn't have an asterisks that says "except in the case of Congressional claims of oversight". If there is equal justice, there is certainly also equal protections. Not an attorney, and I do not play one on the internet... reading the decision, Congress was smacked around a lot. That one is unlikely to fly. The NYS one appears more troublesome for Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER DOT COM Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: The NYS one appears more troublesome for Trump. Unfortunately for Trump the NYS one carries much more weight. If congress gets the tax records and finds something wrong the worst outcome is impeachment. When Vance gets the tax records and finds something wrong the worst outcome is prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 4 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said: 10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: The NYS one appears more troublesome for Trump. Unfortunately for Trump the NYS one carries much more weight. If congress gets the tax records and finds something wrong the worst outcome is impeachment. When Vance gets the tax records and finds something wrong the worst outcome is prison. There is still the probable cause issue. Doesn't matter if it's NY or Congress, you still MUST HAVE probable cause to subpoena records. You don't start an investigation in the hopes of finding something. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 1 minute ago, Cinga said: There is still the probable cause issue. Doesn't matter if it's NY or Congress, you still MUST HAVE probable cause to subpoena records. You don't start an investigation in the hopes of finding something. Agreed. Now, will the SC see it that way? You know this ends up back there at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER DOT COM Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, Cinga said: There is still the probable cause issue. Doesn't matter if it's NY or Congress, you still MUST HAVE probable cause to subpoena records. You don't start an investigation in the hopes of finding something. I believe there is probable cause for the Vance case. Trump is identified as Individual 1, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 (edited) You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius. You've chosen to ignore content by BillStime. You've chosen to ignore content by BillStime. You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius. You've chosen to ignore content by BillStime. You've chosen to ignore content by wAcKy ZeBrA. Yummy Edited July 9, 2020 by Unforgiven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts