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.
The fact that you don't like the President isn't a legal justification for never ending investigations when there is nothing to base a suspicion of wrong doing on.
That's sort of the definition of a Witch Hunt.
I get it.....you don't think Congress needs probable cause.
But isn't that really kind of admitting that the whole thing is politically motivated?
It has nothing to do with whether I do or do not like the President and everything to do with whether this subpoena falls within the express power granted by the Constitution. As the decision (which you still haven't read, apparently), the question is whether such records are "pertinent" to the House's legislative, investigative, and oversight authority - and District Judge Mehta carefully agreed that there were at least four independent reasons as to why the records sought were pertinent. The lesser "pertinence" standard (as opposed to "probable cause," which is required for criminal searches) derives directly from long-standing Supreme Court precedent (Sinclair v. United States) governing the scope of Congressional subpoena power.
You can scream about witch hunts and Presidential harassment all you want, but the justification for the decision is discussed there in plain black and white, should you choose to educate yourself instead of shaking your fist angrily at the sky.
Another "legal expert" who hasn't bothered to read the judge's ruling.
These people don't read, they simply listen to Fox News's talking points and Trump's lies. I'm confident that in the long run the Democrats will prevail against this lawless President and his cronies.
It's clearly another attempt by Individual 1 to run his con game. No one with credibility takes him seriously.
We may know more soon because he will continue to lose in court for his stonewalling. Besides the law, here is another reason why: DONALD TRUMP’S SUBPOENA APPEALS NOW HEAD TO MERRICK GARLAND’S COURT
Another "legal expert" who hasn't bothered to read the judge's ruling.
I read it loud and clear. The judge dubiously used Nixon and Clinton as precedents and examples justifying his ruling. The problem with those precedents is that there was strong probable cause already established that crimes occurred and in some cases already ongoing criminal investigations and indictments of people involved in the Watergate theft of the DNC with Nixon and Whitewater and other shady deals with Clinton. Those cases didn't start with Congress simply going on a fishing expedition to find a crime, ANY crime to take down those presidents. They started with solid evidence of crimes or at least strong probable cause of specified violations of federal law. Correct me if I'm wrong but no one has been formerly charged or indicted yet in the Trump/Russian money laundering alleged and no specific formal charges for violation of federal tax law have been alleged against Trump in regards to deflating or inflating his assets so how does this judge's ruling justify forcing Trump to release his records when Congress hasn't even outlined what specific violation of the law they're alleging that would justify Trump having to turn over tax or bank records? Is "thinking" or knowing that a crime "must have been committed" by someone because you "think" they likely broke the law at some point but failing to formerly allege that they've violated a specific law enough grounds to force them to turn over all of their tax and bank records?
This judge's ruling sets are a horrific and scary precedent that if a person (whether president or not) is deemed "bad enough" then they can be compelled to turn over ANYTHING no matter how private. If you take away a citizen's right to privacy and literally and continually force them to turn over more and more private information until they can find a crime then we've officially crossed the line from having a constitutionally protected right to due process and privacy (privacy assuming there's no formal charges compelling you to turn over records) to a police state that goes after the political and personal enemies of those in power.
The bottom line is that for this country's entire history the Constitution has afforded the accused the right not only to face their accuser but also protection against unreasonable search or seizure which restricts the government and/or prosecutors or investigators from forcing someone to turn over their private records without proof of probable cause that they may have committed a crime. In other words, we aren't allowed or use to not be allowed to go in search of crimes by forcing someone to release tax and bank records without first formerly alleging a crime and showing proof of probable cause that said private records are needed to corroborate the alleged crime.
We open formal investigations into SPECIFIC alleged crimes AFTER probable cause is established that the crime may have occurred and THEN compel defendants or targets of an investigation with subpoenas to turn over records, NOT BEFORE. Otherwise, it's a fishing expedition into a person in search of a crime. Heaven help us as a country if we ever let that kind of precedent stand.
Since Trump is so blatantly shameless regarding every other conceivable norm, immune to sex scandals, obvious administrative corruption, national security breaches, serial public lying, emoluments and campaign finance violations, nepotism, pay for play, etc.,
...why would anyone buy the theory that some mere embarrassment at finding out Trump isn't as rich as he claims explains his extreme battle against financial disclosure?
The ONLY skeleton left that could have any real bearing on Trump's tenure and legitimacy would be if these financial records clearly show the hidden sources of Trump's wealth and highlight his ongoing indebtedness and the jeopardy to national security.
Russian oligarchs laundering money through Trump and Kushner enterprises for years coupled with newer foreign sugar daddy "pay for play" transactions would definitively prove who owns Trump. And that is what terrifies him!
I read it loud and clear. The judge dubiously used Nixon and Clinton as precedents and examples justifying his ruling. The problem with those precedents is that there was strong probable cause already established that crimes occurred and in some cases already ongoing criminal investigations and indictments of people involved in the Watergate theft of the DNC with Nixon and Whitewater and other shady deals with Clinton. Those cases didn't start with Congress simply going on a fishing expedition to find a crime, ANY crime to take down those presidents. They started with solid evidence of crimes or at least strong probable cause of specified violations of federal law. Correct me if I'm wrong but no one has been formerly charged or indicted yet in the Trump/Russian money laundering alleged and no specific formal charges for violation of federal tax law have been alleged against Trump in regards to deflating or inflating his assets so how does this judge's ruling justify forcing Trump to release his records when Congress hasn't even outlined what specific violation of the law they're alleging that would justify Trump having to turn over tax or bank records? Is "thinking" or knowing that a crime "must have been committed" by someone because you "think" they likely broke the law at some point but failing to formerly allege that they've violated a specific law enough grounds to force them to turn over all of their tax and bank records?
This judge's ruling sets are a horrific and scary precedent that if a person (whether president or not) is deemed "bad enough" then they can be compelled to turn over ANYTHING no matter how private. If you take away a citizen's right to privacy and literally and continually force them to turn over more and more private information until they can find a crime then we've officially crossed the line from having a constitutionally protected right to due process and privacy (privacy assuming there's no formal charges compelling you to turn over records) to a police state that goes after the political and personal enemies of those in power.
The bottom line is that for this country's entire history the Constitution has afforded the accused the right not only to face their accuser but also protection against unreasonable search or seizure which restricts the government and/or prosecutors or investigators from forcing someone to turn over their private records without proof of probable cause that they may have committed a crime. In other words, we aren't allowed or use to not be allowed to go in search of crimes by forcing someone to release tax and bank records without first formerly alleging a crime and showing proof of probable cause that said private records are needed to corroborate the alleged crime.
We open formal investigations into SPECIFIC alleged crimes AFTER probable cause is established that the crime may have occurred and THEN compel defendants or targets of an investigation with subpoenas to turn over records, NOT BEFORE. Otherwise, it's a fishing expedition into a person in search of a crime. Heaven help us as a country if we ever let that kind of precedent stand.
Over 200 years of precedent is pretty clear that the judiciary has no authority to question the motives of either the executive or the legislature provided they are acting within the scope of their Constitutional authority. Of all people, Trump should know this given that his administration has heavily relied on that deferential concept in all manner of areas since day 1, including his claim of a border emergency, the adding of a citizenship question to the census, and even his actions in the context of the Mueller investigation.
I read it loud and clear. The judge dubiously used Nixon and Clinton as precedents and examples justifying his ruling. The problem with those precedents is that there was strong probable cause already established that crimes occurred and in some cases already ongoing ...
You are expressing an opinion which is not correct.
The prior investigations are directly parallel to this.
The congress has oversight, per the constitution, and that was always the justification for the congressional investigations.
All presidents will claim that there is no probable cause. Nixon did, and now Trump does. It doesn't matter, the congress has the responsibility to oversee the executive branch of government, and from these investigations can (if necessary) propose new legislation.
No evidence of criminality is necessary to justify this activity of the congress, however when possible criminality becomes apparent it can add a sense of urgency to the work.
The Mueller report details Russian activity to interfere in free elections and 12 events of obstruction of justice. That can lend a sense of urgency to the work, but is not necessary to justify the congress to carry on it's oversight functions.
Furthermore, the Executive branch does not have the authority to judge or restrict the activity of the Legislative. The congress does not require an opinion from nor need the approval of any department in the Executive in order to move forward in it's own work.
Guess you missed the little speech by Chief Justice Roberts when he said they were Obama judges, or Trump judges or Bush judges. But anyone who doesn't rule the way you want is automatically the enemy. Funny how that happens.
No, Roberts said that they were not, rather than that they were.
Chief Justice Roberts: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges".
If he has integrity, no. I hope judges put aside their own prejudices to make the right decisions. Besides, his ruling isn't based on how he feels about something, it's about upholding the law.
It seems to me that almost all of these types of decisions go according to the politics of the judge.
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.
