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.
Should he not be subjected to the same treatment he dished out to Obama and others?
Perhaps he should have paid better attention to the Golden Rule.
No. And to suggest such is dangerous in my view.
Trump, as a private citizen, attacked a sitting president. He had no legal authority or any other authority to compel Obama to do anything.
This is abusing the legal and political process over personal views, which is far different than Trump ever did. In any case, these tax cases will be dragged out until after the election most likely, so I'm not concerned about the rulings.
For the president it is a win/lose. We will not see his tax returns before the election. The state of New York is free to pursue charges against him and will likely get his tax returns after the election. It will be interesting if he wins a second term and his tax returns are then released.
Ahh, how about Trump pardoning Rod Blagojevich ( ex-gov of IL.) ? He didn't commit a Federal crime.
Yes he did. Indicted by a federal grand jury and convicted on 17 out of 20 charges, served time in federal pen. And Trump did not pardon Blagojevich, he only commuted his sentence, and let the conviction stand.
Its a problem when Trump's two SCOTUS appointees side with the liberal wing of the court. 7-2 vote against Trump
It is a big deal and the over the top reaction by Trumpers on here demonstrates that fact.
What is next?
Trump slamming the court and his appointees via tweet and his followers parroting his tweets here and elsewhere.
It’s never a problem when SCOTUS rules according to the Constitution. Their ultimate task is to NOT rule along party lines.
Where exactly is this “over the top” reaction that you speak of? While Trump fans might be feeling some disappointment, your average conservative believes strongly in the Constitution above all.
I agree. The tax returns issue are a sham. NY and the House both use the word of a convicted felon (Michael Cohen) to support their "investigation," which shows you how much of a harassment hunt this is. Note, these are taxes that are regularly audited by the IRS, which makes the "investigations" all the more loony.
In any case, I don't see resolution before November 3 either, which is fine by me as it means failure for Democrats in their witch hunt to "expose" the president's taxes.
Yes, they take the world of a convicted felon that worked for Trump for a decade.
And how many times are you guys going to deny that Trump said he WOULD release his tax returns on numerous occasions leading up to 2016. Then when he won he said he didn't have to "because he won".
I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine if a Dem pulled that stunt.
The Court ruled that the president does not enjoy absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas and prosecutions under the Constitution. The Court explicitly held that the case will return to the lower district court to determine if other issues (such as harassment) prevent the release of the documents.
All in all, both this case and the congressional case are legal losses for the president, who sought to assert broad immunity. Politically, the cases are likely victories for President Trump, as each case is remanded for future fact finding and legal issues to determine whether the taxes will, in fact, be released. I'm not expecting resolution before the election.
But, to be clear, neither the NY case nor the congressional subpoena case require the president to turn over anything at this point, which the thread headline wrongly claims.
The headline is not wrong.
Again, from The Guardian:
“The justices ruled that Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance may receive the president’s tax returns and financial records. However, even if Vance can get the records soon, they will likely not be made public because they will be turned over to a grand jury, legally requiring them to be kept secret.
In terms of the House subpoenas, the supreme court sent the case back down to the lower court to more closely consider separation of powers issues. That will almost certainly delay the release of Trump’s financial records to the committees until after the election.“
Its a problem when Trump's two SCOTUS appointees side with the liberal wing of the court. 7-2 vote against Trump
It is a big deal and the over the top reaction by Trumpers on here demonstrates that fact.
What is next?
Trump slamming the court and his appointees via tweet and his followers parroting his tweets here and elsewhere.
Sounds like you prefer a SC that rules based on political agenda rather than on the constitution. No, it’s not a problem.
Nobody is parroting Trump slamming the SC. Didn’t happen. Keep dreaming.
Yes, they take the world of a convicted felon that worked for Trump for a decade.
And how many times are you guys going to deny that Trump said he WOULD release his tax returns on numerous occasions leading up to 2016. Then when he won he said he didn't have to "because he won".
I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine if a Dem pulled that stunt.
A convicted felon's word is worthless in court, yet Democrats (in New York and in the House) use it as the basis of "investigations?" Do you not see the silliness in that? Apparently not.
And while President Trump stated that he'd release his tax returns after they were finished being audited by the IRS (can you tell me that such a point has come??), he also said he'd release his tax returns if and when Crooked Hillary released the transcripts to her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other big banks.
I agree. The tax returns issue are a sham. NY and the House both use the word of a convicted felon (Michael Cohen) to support their "investigation," which shows you how much of a harassment hunt this is. Note, these are taxes that are regularly audited by the IRS, which makes the "investigations" all the more loony.
In any case, I don't see resolution before November 3 either, which is fine by me as it means failure for Democrats in their witch hunt to "expose" the president's taxes.
Ahem, that "Convicted Felon" Michael Cohen was Trump's personal attorney and Trump
described "Fixer" long before Trump ever became president.
So the truth of the post is that your sniveling cartoon dog opinion of Cohen is that Trump
HIRED and UTILIZED and TRUSTED IMPLICITLY his lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen was
charged and found guilty of felony conduct. Conduct he engaged in to hide Trump's
payoff to porn star Stormy Daniels. Cohen did not stick his little mushroom head buddy
into Stormy Daniels shortly after Melania gave birth. Trump did. Trump invited Stormy
Daniels over to his place. Trump engaged in unprotected,adulterous sexual contact
with her. Trump then decided he better shut Daniels up about it but realized the payment
could be traced unless Cohen had an idea how to help him cover it up.
You cannot throw feces into a cotton candy spinner and expect to make cotton candy
when you turn the spinner on. You will however, end up with fecal matter all over the
walls. Regardless of who cleans up the mess, you still have the fool who placed fecal
matter in a cotton candy spinner in the first place.
The SC has been a surprise to me too. I think the Trump appointees are trying to be fair, abide by the principles of the Constitution, and are not just Trump puppets. I bet he is surprised by these recent decisions.
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.
