Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I personally do not think even the conservative supreme court members are going to be very keen on overturning 2+ centuries of legal precedence just to create favorable rules to save Trump's a$$. I have a feeling the people pinning hopes on the conservative supreme court pulling his butt out of the fire will be disappointed.
Agreed. John Roberts is not going to allow his Supreme Court's legacy to be tainted by Trump's corruption. He will be the swing vote that rules against this lawless president to preserve his own legacy as Chief Justice.
Well, not worth much. You are simply wrong about the requirements for a subpoena. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I gave the example as is done with the criminal and civil court system. Congressional subpoenas have the same limitations with the exception of when the subpoenas are directly related to the legislative process.
The power to subpoena tax returns by the House Ways and Means committee is limited AND had they truly sought President Trump's tax returns, rather than making political theater, they could have gone directly to the IRS and compelled them BUT that would have removed the political soundbites from the mainstream media. They ALREADY have congressional access, they just don't have it to put on full display as they want. Their access is limited to private executive committee meetings and cannot be released to the public.
I gave my example to show there are rules of evidence in court, just like their are rules of evidence in Congress, as prescribed in law or via SCOTUS precedence.
I suggest we wait until the full DC court of Appeals or SCOTUS weighs in with a decision. As it is now, all anyone can do is speculate. Kelo v. City of New London is a perfect example of a case I swore would have gone the other way. Some times courts can be very fickle.
I gave the example as is done with the criminal and civil court system. Congressional subpoenas have the same limitations with the exception of when the subpoenas are directly related to the legislative process.
The power to subpoena tax returns by the House Ways and Means committee is limited AND had they truly sought President Trump's tax returns, rather than making political theater, they could have gone directly to the IRS and compelled them BUT that would have removed the political soundbites from the mainstream media. They ALREADY have congressional access, they just don't have it to put on full display as they want. Their access is limited to private executive committee meetings and cannot be released to the public.
I gave my example to show there are rules of evidence in court, just like their are rules of evidence in Congress, as prescribed in law or via SCOTUS precedence.
THAT is not wrong and is 100% factual.
They did go directly for the IRS and Mnuchin blocked them from disclosing
Just like a court issuing a search warrant, a subpoena requires probable cause that the material contains evidence of a specific crime, including subpoenaing witnesses. A prosecutor could not subpoena every person in a small town to see if ANY of them might have witnessed a crime. The rules of the court are pretty specific, and the DC circuit court made a bad decision. Neither the prosecutor, nor the court can hide behind a claim of, "If he has nothing to hide, then why doesn't he willingly produce them?" This goes against all rules of evidence. If the prosecutor had lawful probable cause, an affidavit of probable cause could be submitted to the court in order to obtain a search warrant. They, the prosecutors do not have such an affidavit that has been filed, otherwise the FBI or some other law enforcement organization would have already gone into the office and retrieved the files by force.
If President trump complied with this pathetic court order, without challenging it in court, what would prevent the same prosecutors from demanding all the business papers of all the business Trump has done in the past 10 years prior to being elected President, just to see if they could find ANY wrongdoing. SCOTUS has ruled on rules of compelling evidence, requiring probable cause that a specific crime has been committed and that they have probable cause that the specific objects sought will corroborate their probable cause.
Trump's tax returns are nothing more than a witch hunt. The term used by SCOTUS was that evidence could not be sought on a hunch. Read up on and learn what "probable cause" is and means in legal terms.
But then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
Uh huh. Too bad you are 100% wrong about the showing required for the issuance of a subpoena
Agreed. John Roberts is not going to allow his Supreme Court's legacy to be tainted by Trump's corruption. He will be the swing vote that rules against this lawless president to preserve his own legacy as Chief Justice.
Where in the Constitution does it say one must provide their tax returns?
Uh huh. Too bad you are 100% wrong about the showing required for the issuance of a subpoena
I may indeed be wrong BUT there are tons of attorneys who go to court and some win and some lose, the exact same case, the same situation, the same crime and evidence, heck sometimes even with the same attorneys and even the same judge yet have different outcomes. Law is not like physics or math. Law is among the most biased subjects upon which citizens may ever be subjected to and therefore is far from perfect or decided.
Who's the rapist? Oh, wait, I bet you mean the girl who said she was raped, all the while going to these parties that she knew people were getting raped....
Or, maybe is was the kavanuagh boat rapist?
Yea, those are some credible sources....oh and lets not forget balsey ford......that was one hell of a witness that I'm sure you believe....even today....
And the left was silent", "Juanita Broaddrick is an American former nursing home administrator. In 1999, after previously saying otherwise in a sworn statement, she alleged that U.S. PresidentBill Clinton raped her in April 1978"
Where in the Constitution does it say one must provide their tax returns?
Are you asking where it literally mentions tax returns? Right below the section on the right to bear AR-15s in order to form a “well regulated militia and just because.”
There’s no right to “privacy” in the Fourth Amendment either. That right was established by a liberal Supreme Court to prevent a state from banning contraceptives. Later, the Court used this vague, judicially created right to “privacy” to prevent another state from targeting gays by outlawing sodomy in the home.
Curiously, Trump supporters — many of whom complain that states can’t control sexual or reproductive rights — are now extending this mythical privacy right to Trump’s tax returns, even though nothing about this third-party subpoena meets the definition of “search and seizure” under a strict textual reading of the Fourth Amendment.
Where do you stand? Are you a strict textualist when it comes to the Constitution, which means privacy does not exist? Or does your theory change depending on the topic?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
