Trump will not lose. He did not appoint two Republican operates to the bench to lose this kind of case. Republicans have never believed in transparency.
Love the part of the Tax Code where corporations can write off an unlimited amount of losses (see Trump and Bezos) and individuals get a measly 3,000 per year.
Love the part of the Tax Code where corporations can write off an unlimited amount of losses (see Trump and Bezos) and individuals get a measly 3,000 per year.
Don't talk about taxes, you obviously have no idea
No shit, the Clintons and the Obamas enter politics middle class or lower, leave politics multi millionaires
Nothing to see there
The defense was led by Jay Sekulow....an astonishing integer when one would think that if Tiny's claims had legal merit he could have his pick of 100+ highly distinguished law firms across North America
But the defense remains boiled down to his assertion that as POTUS he should enjoy 100% immunity from investigation of his company and personal finances prior to Jan 20, 2017
In his claims, no level of suspected bank fraud, tax fraud, campaign finance fraud, international money laundering, tax evasion merits criminal investigation.
The last two Presidents to claim such blanket 100% immunity were Nixon (lost his argument at SCOTUS in 1974 by an 8-0 vote) and Clinton who lost his case in 1994 by a 9-0 vote
Only three results likely (w presumption that both decisions will fall same direction*)
A) Trump's appeals are upheld, reversing the decision of the four preceding court levels, in what would most certainly be a maximum 5-4
B) Trump's appeals are denied in what would be most likely a 9-0, but possibly lower if one or more of the rightys decides it's time to ignore precedent of Nixon&Clinton cases. In this case Mazars, Deutsche Bank and others named in the trio of subpeonas would turn over pertinent info within a few weeks of the mid-July decision
C) Pretty much same as B, but with attached caveat that those named in the subpeonas are compelled to produce BUT they can retain the info until AFTER Trump leaves office
Also, contrary to the yabba yabba of Tiny-cultists, no one behind or otherwise supporting the cited subpeonas gives a crap how "rich" Tiny is (or not), though that will be a provocative revelation at some point
Rather, the interest is in examining whether his finances and businesses have been involved with federal felony activities as was demonstrated in the language of the subpeonas which must cite one or more probable causes to believe such crimes may have taken place.
There are any number of wholly qualified ex-federal prosecutors who have covered these three cases extensively
If you are aomeone TRULY interested in the true legal aspects in play, take your pick and read up
It will prove far more illuminating than reading the HSO of random sports betting dudes on the rxforum offshore room
-----
*There is a lighter, but nonetheless tenable POV that suggests a "D" in which Tiny could prevail in the appeal vs House Oversight while still getting wiped out in both cases vs State of and County of NY
But the defense remains boiled down to his assertion that as POTUS he should enjoy 100% immunity from investigation of his company and personal finances prior to Jan 20, 2017
In his claims, no level of suspected bank fraud, tax fraud, campaign finance fraud, international money laundering, tax evasion merits criminal investigation.
The last two Presidents to claim such blanket 100% immunity were Nixon (lost his argument at SCOTUS in 1974 by an 8-0 vote) and Clinton who lost his case in 1994 by a 9-0 vote
Only three results likely (w presumption that both decisions will fall same direction*)
A) Trump's appeals are upheld, reversing the decision of the four preceding court levels, in what would most certainly be a maximum 5-4
B) Trump's appeals are denied in what would be most likely a 9-0, but possibly lower if one or more of the rightys decides it's time to ignore precedent of Nixon&Clinton cases. In this case Mazars, Deutsche Bank and others named in the trio of subpeonas would turn over pertinent info within a few weeks of the mid-July decision
C) Pretty much same as B, but with attached caveat that those named in the subpeonas are compelled to produce BUT they can retain the info until AFTER Trump leaves office
Also, contrary to the yabba yabba of Tiny-cultists, no one behind or otherwise supporting the cited subpeonas gives a crap how "rich" Tiny is (or not), though that will be a provocative revelation at some point
Rather, the interest is in examining whether his finances and businesses have been involved with federal felony activities as was demonstrated in the language of the subpeonas which must cite one or more probable causes to believe such crimes may have taken place.
There are any number of wholly qualified ex-federal prosecutors who have covered these three cases extensively
If you are aomeone TRULY interested in the true legal aspects in play, take your pick and read up
It will prove far more illuminating than reading the HSO of random sports betting dudes on the rxforum offshore room
-----
*There is a lighter, but nonetheless tenable POV that suggests a "D" in which Tiny could prevail in the appeal vs House Oversight while still getting wiped out in both cases vs State of and County of NY
Precedent? An intellectually honest argument would understand the difference between being accused of a crime based on evidence vs a fishing expedition. An intellectually honest argument would understand that Trump's defense is multifaceted. A straw-man argument is never an intellectually honest argument.
Barbanman thinks Trump colluded with the Russians, Trump's children are all going to jail, and Kavanaugh is a seriel rapist, about as far from an intellectually honest person as a man can get.
Arguing for Trump, Strawbridge said congressional subpoenas should be held to a high standard. They should have a legitimate legislative purpose that is defined with specificity. The House subpoenas, he argued, fail all the hallmarks of a legitimate legislative purpose and their demand for decades of papers from the president and his family, he added, “opens the door to all sorts of requests.”
Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall also urged a high standard. “The House must explain in a meaningful way why it needs the subpoenaed records in particular. There is a mismatch between breadth and duration of subpoenas and the asserted purposes,” he said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the clash of interests in the Nixon Watergate tapes case, the Whitewater special counsel investigation and the Paula Jones civil suit against then-President Bill Clinton were “much more” serious than the cases before the court involving Trump’s financial records.
Kagan, picking up on a Ginsburg statement, said, “These subpoenas are for personal records, not for official records where the president might have an executive privilege claim or burden the way the executive branch operates. Why doesn’t that suggest a lower standard, not a higher one?”
-----------------------------
Trump is not BELOW the law. The House already proved that they're political hacks with complete disregard for the law
Anyone paying attention to the complete dismantling of the democrats four years of lies in the news recently? It's all connected
Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall also urged a high standard. “The House must explain in a meaningful way why it needs the subpoenaed records in particular. There is a mismatch between breadth and duration of subpoenas and the asserted purposes,” he said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the clash of interests in the Nixon Watergate tapes case, the Whitewater special counsel investigation and the Paula Jones civil suit against then-President Bill Clinton were “much more” serious than the cases before the court involving Trump’s financial records.
Kagan, picking up on a Ginsburg statement, said, “These subpoenas are for personal records, not for official records where the president might have an executive privilege claim or burden the way the executive branch operates. Why doesn’t that suggest a lower standard, not a higher one?”
-----------------------------
Trump is not BELOW the law. The House already proved that they're political hacks with complete disregard for the law
Anyone paying attention to the complete dismantling of the democrats four years of lies in the news recently? It's all connected
George Will on this topic:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bbe27e-9093-11ea-9e23-6914ee410a5f_story.html
"In November, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled unanimously against Trump, holding that state prosecutors can compel third parties to surrender a president’s financial information for use in grand jury proceedings. Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann’s decision included this footnote: “We note that the past six presidents, dating back to President Carter, all voluntarily released their tax returns to the public. While we do not place dispositive weight on this fact, it reinforces our conclusion that the disclosure of personal financial information, standing alone, is unlikely to impair the president in performing the duties of his office.”
During Clinton’s first term, many congressional Republicans were white-hot supporters of the special committee that investigated the Clintons’ role in the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas before he assumed presidential duties. The committee held 300 hours of hearings that generated more than 10,000 pages of transcripts. The committee’s work was facilitated by its power to subpoena pre-presidential financial records of the then-sitting president. The Clinton presidency was not paralyzed by this, and Congress has not subsequently been promiscuously intrusive in subpoenaing financial records of sitting presidents. It is unlikely that even today’s president, with his unusual business and personal histories, will be immobilized by the needs of the New York district attorney in connection with possible criminality.
Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns invites speculation about what he is hiding. His behavior, however, is primarily germane to assessing a Republican Party that since the Whitewater affair has adjusted its principles about many things, including presidential privileges."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bbe27e-9093-11ea-9e23-6914ee410a5f_story.html
"In November, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled unanimously against Trump, holding that state prosecutors can compel third parties to surrender a president’s financial information for use in grand jury proceedings. Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann’s decision included this footnote: “We note that the past six presidents, dating back to President Carter, all voluntarily released their tax returns to the public. While we do not place dispositive weight on this fact, it reinforces our conclusion that the disclosure of personal financial information, standing alone, is unlikely to impair the president in performing the duties of his office.”
During Clinton’s first term, many congressional Republicans were white-hot supporters of the special committee that investigated the Clintons’ role in the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas before he assumed presidential duties. The committee held 300 hours of hearings that generated more than 10,000 pages of transcripts. The committee’s work was facilitated by its power to subpoena pre-presidential financial records of the then-sitting president. The Clinton presidency was not paralyzed by this, and Congress has not subsequently been promiscuously intrusive in subpoenaing financial records of sitting presidents. It is unlikely that even today’s president, with his unusual business and personal histories, will be immobilized by the needs of the New York district attorney in connection with possible criminality.
Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns invites speculation about what he is hiding. His behavior, however, is primarily germane to assessing a Republican Party that since the Whitewater affair has adjusted its principles about many things, including presidential privileges."
