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.
So you want people to disregard the judiciary (unconstitutional) because you think the exercise of Congressional oversight and legislative powers (expressly authorized by the Constitution) is a “coup attempt”? That is some Herculean pretzel logic there.
The Constitution does not give the lower courts power over the President. They are created by Congress and, therefore, cannot supersede presidential authority. Only SCOTUS has the power to resolve this conflict between two coequal branches of government.
The Constitution does not give the lower courts power over the President. They are created by Congress and, therefore, cannot supersede presidential authority. Only SCOTUS has the power to resolve this conflict between two coequal branches of government.
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
In this decision? No, I don't. Pretty much every legal scholar agreed from the outset that Trump's legal argument lacked merit and that he would ultimately lose, but that his strategy was to try to run out the clock in hopes that the Republicans take back the House before the records were turned over. It shouldn't surprise anyone that summary judgment was granted in favor of the Oversight Committee.
The Constitution does not give the lower courts power over the President. They are created by Congress and, therefore, cannot supersede presidential authority. Only SCOTUS has the power to resolve this conflict between two coequal branches of government.
Congress isn't compelling the President to do anything with this subpoena. The subpoena was directed at a private company.
Moreover, your premise is fundamentally incorrect. The Constitution vests "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution" with "the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." (U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 1 and 2)(emphasis added).
The you-know-what is going to hit the fan. Releasing the documents from Deutsche Bank, where it is alleged that Kushner and Trump engaged in questionable money transfers to and from Russian individuals (laundering?), just might uncover criminal conduct. And we have 5 bank employees who say Kushner, on behalf of Trump, did some very suspicious transactions.
Popcorn time coming up...
Pass that popcorn!
Seriously, though. To hear that somebody with literally a job title of "anti-money laundering specialist" flagged multiple Trump & Kushner accounts for possible money laundering...she filled out the paperwork and recommended the accounts be investigated by the federal gov't offices who prosecute financial crimes...
Only for her superiors to ignore her and then she was fired a few months later.
This is one the Trump supporters can't talk themselves out of, and one that Donald Trump himself is probably terrified of.
Once again, no wonder Trump is doing everything within his presidential powers (literally, everything) to block all the subpoenas and testimonies he can. Because he's neck-deep in illegal activity.
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.
Look:
(1) There is sworn testimony by Trump's personal lawyer that Trump committed tax and bank fraud by misrepresenting asset values.
(2) There are hard records from Trump's accounting firm that both corroborate these crimes and show that the accounting firm is complicit in them.
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
Seriously, though. To hear that somebody with literally a job title of "anti-money laundering specialist" flagged multiple Trump & Kushner accounts for possible money laundering...she filled out the paperwork and recommended the accounts be investigated by the federal gov't offices who prosecute financial crimes...
Only for her superiors to ignore her and then she was fired a few months later.
This is one the Trump supporters can't talk themselves out of, and one that Donald Trump himself is probably terrified of.
Once again, no wonder Trump is doing everything within his presidential powers (literally, everything) to block all the subpoenas and testimonies he can. Because he's neck-deep in illegal activity.
Exactly.
This is no high minded stand on constitutional grounds. Trump is engaging in these extreme efforts because he knows what is in those records. If he wasn't in up to his neck in corrupt and unethical business practice he would not pick this fight.
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.
