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.
Forget this is about Trump ----- it is concerning that the President would have immunity to any charges right?
The argument being made was that he couldn't be investigated while President which is absurd idea. If he were found to be engaging in criminal activity he would likely have short lived immunity while President. Once he is no longer President he would no longer be immune from prosecution.
If that is the case. Then all public servants should have their private lives sealed - no vetting ! Actually bump the criminal backgrounds and credit checks for jobs etc ! No more checking on folks - they can do the job or not Let’s be fair across the board - not just for this man child.
Or elected officials can operate like adults and stop harassing the President of the United States. Quite the radical thought.
Forget this is about Trump ----- it is concerning that the President would have immunity to any charges right?
Look, I don't know about criminal law and everything Trump is accused of and whether or not it really can be proven in a court of law...so I'm not specifically thinking about Trump.
In general, the fact that a President might be immune to ANY charges is concerning to me.........
AGAIN for me this isn't specific to Trump and wanting him to be guilty of anything.. I don't know if he is, if he can be proven guilty of anything........I have no clue.
The position being pushed by the White House would support such a conclusion. But that is a not a position that's supported by the rule of law or our Constitution. I think a middle ground that the Supreme Court may allow is for such subpoenas to be authorized if a state can show a federal court that the only reasonable way to get information about alleged lawbreaking is via such an intrusion.
So just wondering what the legal precedence for getting Trump's tax returns? ...
It is written into the law.
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
Section 6103(f)(1) Internal Revenue Code
This law was enacted as a result of the Teapot Dome scandal. During the investigations of that scandal the president of the USA (as the boss of the Treasury Secretary) had access to records which the Congress did not, and uncovering the facts was painfully difficult.
To protect congressional oversight this law was enacted.
I listen to the Justices talk sounds like they are not about to give personal immunity to a president for anything he did outside of his elected position. That would open up a big problem for anyone who holds office some for life like Judges can't be prosecuted.
hate to bring it to you kids but below is the crux of the issue that many of you missed in the AP story.
"But the court seemed less clear about exactly how to handle subpoenas from Congress and the Manhattan district attorney for Trump’s tax, bank and financial records"
USSC isn't going to give Congress his taxes. They have no legitimate reason to see them.
hate to bring it to you kids but below is the crux of the issue that many of you missed in the AP story.
"But the court seemed less clear about exactly how to handle subpoenas from Congress and the Manhattan district attorney for Trump’s tax, bank and financial records"
USSC isn't going to give Congress his taxes. They have no legitimate reason to see them.
Watch and Learn.
The law and precedent say otherwise.
That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court will not make an expedient decision based upon politics, but the right of the Congress to ask for and review any tax returns is well established, and has been exercised many times over the last 100 years.
I quoted the relevant section of the Internal Revenue Code in post 34 above.
Do not forget: It is the constitutional responsibility of the congress to raise revenue and designate spending. To that end, the US Congress created the Internal Revenue Service, and has oversight.
I listened to the arguments. No one made that argument. However, the justices (save the “wise” latina woman) seem very skeptical that the multiple, identical subpoenas from various political government entities was anything more than presidential harassment.
Trump is a career criminal, so of course he should be able to be investigated. If he was a competent leader maybe it would be harassment, but he's not, he's a degenerate scumbag.
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.
