8 Supreme Court cases the justices have yet to rule on

Note first that I have no dog in whatever it is that you two are arguing about. I'm just commenting on the bias aspect and why a site known to be biased is always faced with skepticism and criticism.

A biased site uses selective information. The information that they use may very well be correct. But because they use selective information they are not telling the whole story. They skip over things that may give their opponents justification for what they are saying also. For instance I could tell a blind person that the sky is blue. I'll just fail to mention that the sky is soon to be covered in dark clouds. I'm technically correct. The sky is blue. But what would you rather go swimming under? A blue sky? Or a dark cloudy sky? Not having the full information is the difference between enjoyment, and getting struck by lightening in the middle of a lake because those dark clouds were really a thunderstorm.

 

On a federal tax return and tax fraud cases are referred to either the state of federal agency as in IRS which prosecutes federal tax fraud and the Tax Payer Protection Bureau in New York. If this DA has evidence of tax fraud then he should send it to the TPPB and they will investigate his tax returns just as the IRS would in a federal case.

 

And the DOJ or New York prosecutor would not prosecute the state tax agency would or the IRS would, they would investigate it.

 

Makes you wonder what Vance is attempting to do here then doesn't it...you'd think he'd know that

 

The dereliction of duty was the LA restrictions of abortion case. That will be the Dredd Scott of our day.

 

If the tax returns were part of some sort of civil case, I'd say the SC would probably rule that they had to be released. As part of a criminal case? I'm not so sure. Guess we find out tomorrow.

 

Yeah??

I don't think so.... it certainly won't lead to more abortions in that state.... when that happens, you better just get in that panic room and lock the door.

Even the SCOTUS is fully aware of TRAP laws now...

 

Whatever are you yammering on about now? The idea that you voted against the precedent first, but supported it the second time because it was a precedent... mind blowing. Can you imagine all the times the liberal court would have had to stop legislating had they ever applied this principle??

 

And everything I've read says the distinction is negligible...

This is still the best summary I've seen of the case, written after the oral arguments to SCOTUS, which featured Clinton v Jones where Clinton tried the old 'temporary immunity' dodge...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/supreme-court-clinton-v-jones-trump-v-vance.html

And not that it matters, but all courts have found for the defendants in this case so far...

 

We'll see. If they do side with Vance, that's going to be a much, much bigger decision than just the taxes.

 

Who launders money via a highly regulated entity like a bank?

 

A dumbass who wants to get caught.

 

Vance is asking for more than just tax returns, I understand, but why do you think that?

 

Apparently, a fair amount of people and a fair amount of banks...

Notice the German bank on this list..

https://news.bitcoin.com/how-the-worlds-leading-banks-help-launder-2-trillion-a-year/

 

Yep he is involved in a massive fishing trip

 

Yes, lots of other business forms as well, I'm sure. I say this because the Clinton v Jones decision repeatedly specified that the President was not immune from civil proceedings. The ruling could include expanded comments on criminal proceedings as well, if they side with Vance. That would be huge.

 

The article you quoted says these banks “helped” to launder money, which means they had some high level bankers who were willing to close their eyes on certain things. The banks do not launder money themselves, and whatever these bankers did could be easily done without them by opening accounts in different banks and sending out wire transfers.
The show Breaking Bad did a very good example on what money laundering is: let’s say you have illegal income of $1M from selling heroin. You want to be able to use these money without raising suspicion from others, like how can you be unemployed and own a $10M house. So, you open a business somewhere in service industry (no merch, because inventory valuation can be used to see real money movements), like a car wash. The business could be a money looser, but because it’s a service business, it’s very difficult to see whether incoming money is for a washed car or just came from somewhere else. So, you put $10M into the car wash (as revenue from paying customers), pay income taxes on that money and the after tax leftover is as clean as a freshly cut diamond! Using banks to launder money is the dumbest idea ever because all banks keep very detailed records and anyone with a warrant will be able to see all your shenanigans out in the open.

I used to be a director of finance in the past.

 

Well, remember that it's just an investigation, and indictments are not imminent. I'm not sure if I agree that Trump should be indicted for actions before his presidency, even by the state (the feds won't), with the exception of illegal actions during the campaign, but certainly a president can be investigated while in office.

If there are indictments to come out, they can be sealed now and released after January...

That was one of the arguments made by Trump's lawyers, that this would be open season on a POTUS from every state.

Which is BS, because there has to be jurisdiction based on where Trump has lived or done business, which to my belief is not everywhere. Certainly NY, FLA, NJ and Nevada could investigate him or his businesses...

The alternative is that any president gets a 4 or 8 year extension on any crimes, which could exceed the statute of limitations...

As is, I believe the Stormy payment allegations have a statute of 5 years, so that takes us until October 2021... Not a lot of time if you cannot investigate now...

 

What a load of rubbish to hide the fact that you cannot refute Guttmacher's findings ….Great Sidestep

 

Dude, I don't even know what the hell you two were talking about. Why would I be trying to refute something when I don't even know what the subject is? If I put forth PragerU as a source for Constitutional understanding wouldn't you be skeptical of it? Feel like maybe they're not telling you the whole deal? Come on man. This is common sense 101.

 

How many times has Trump been audited?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
What a load of rubbish to hide the fact that you cannot refute Guttmacher's findings ….Great Sidestep

 

I only give this a like because Breaking Bad is my favorite TV show of all time...

People have been using banks to launder money since the concepts of taxes and banks came together...

 

Not only did I not read Guttmacher's findings I don't even know what the hell you two are arguing about. What part of that do you not understand? I just explained to you why people would be skeptical of any site that is biased. That is all. I have no dog in whatever it is that you two are talking about because I don't know what you two are talking about.

Again: I have no dog in what ever it is that you and that other poster is talking about because I don't know what it is that you're talking about. I don't care about what ever it is you two are talking about. I was just making a point about biased sites. Hell, I never even said that Guttmacher is biased.

 

First time hearing about Deutsche Bank I see.