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 law is simple in this case. A president is nit a king and cannot ignore subpoenas. The federal court judge will be upheld by the appellate courts. We can then expect the whiny loser Trump to moan about the unfairness of the courts. I would expect nothing less from him.
Yep because the judge is wrong and has no respect for the constitution or the rule of law. They just ruled on emotion like all leftists do.
So we all are only obligated to follow the laws we agree with?
Interesting perspective - particularly when used in the same sentence complaining about someone else having "no respect for the Constitution or rule of law"
Yawn It isn't going anywhere, just like the other 100 times the Democrats tried to investigate the president. They aren't going to comply with this judges stay
The Trump team will appeal this immediately with the Court of Appeals and ask for a stay there. If it doesn't work there, then it'll go immediately to the SCOTUS.
Dems know that there is no "investigation" going on, this is for the explicit purpose in an attempt to embarrass the President and 'leak' innuendo about his taxes to the left leaning press.
This judge didn't issue a stay. You're out of your depth when you venture beyond the usual fare (Dem witch hunt, NO COLLUSION, Obama judge, etc.). Wait until DOJ issues a statement, and then get your talking points from that. It won't make you more knowledgeable, but you're less likely to screw up the basic procedural history.
the law specifically states that the secretary of treasury will turn over any tax returns or return information requested by the house ways and means committee,
For LEGITIMATE REASONS....they don't have any. They are throwing a fit because their Mueller pal didn't find jack!
For LEGITIMATE REASONS....they don't have any. They are throwing a fit because their Mueller pal didn't find jack!
I know, right? NO COLLUSION! NO OBSTRUCTION!*
*Well, O.K., all of the elements of obstruction were satisfied with respect to multiple incidents, but Mueller did not pursue them because of DOJ's policy against indicting a sitting president. And, sure, he said that his investigation was hampered because of Trump's attempts at obstruction. But Barr said no obstruction, and he's the boss, so NO OBSTRUCTION!!!
Man, it doesn't sound as snappy when you put an asterisk on it.
Yawn It isn't going anywhere, just like the other 100 times the Democrats tried to investigate the president. They aren't going to comply with this judges stay
The Trump team will appeal this immediately with the Court of Appeals and ask for a stay there. If it doesn't work there, then it'll go immediately to the SCOTUS.
Dems know that there is no "investigation" going on, this is for the explicit purpose in an attempt to embarrass the President and 'leak' innuendo about his taxes to the left leaning press.
If one is in support of banana republic style criminality in the executive branch of the government of the USA they are likely not even American.
This judge didn't issue a stay. You're out of your depth when you venture beyond the usual fare (Dem witch hunt, NO COLLUSION, Obama judge, etc.). Wait until DOJ issues a statement, and then get your talking points from that. It won't make you more knowledgeable, but you're less likely to screw up the basic procedural history.
I suppose the 'deph' of ignorance between what someone who routinely clouds their capabilities with what they see on Rachel Maddow and when that same person has the time to run to a message board is roughly less than an hour these days.
Anyway, the NYT's made this specific point:
Quote:
The judge — an appointee of former President Barack Obama — also rejected Mr. Consovoy’s request that, were he to rule against Mr. Trump, he issue a stay of his ruling until the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia completed its review of the case.
I guess, that very same someone who haphazardly throws in "talking points" and "procedural history" doesn't realize that one doesn't have to look at the DOJ's talking points to refute their ignorance--they can just do that from a simple newspaper.
Anyway, continue
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.
.
