Big day today! Supreme Court rules on Trump's financials.

And you still don't have cause here. It obviates the 4th amendment. This decision will allow anyone for any reason to require everyone they choose to have to comply with this standard. It is uncontrollable after this decision. So the SDNY will now have the ability to fish absent any probably cause to do so. And that is a standard that you think is great because you don't like the guy. I expect when it gets used against someone, like Biden, you won't like it so much anymore.

 

The SDNY is pursuing their investigation into the Stormy Daniels payments. You don't know what evidence they have, but it was enough to convince a grand jury to subpoena these financials. Seeing as Trump and his team couldn't come up with a better argument than "absolute immunity from criminal process of any kind," I doubt they have any legal grounds for contesting the subpoena.

 

SCOTUS ruled incorrectly.

Federal law is clear as day: "Chairman of the Financial Committee can request tax returns for any individual and IRS shall submit them to the Chairman".

seems pretty unequivacle to me

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/tru...ecords-case-claims-political-prosecution.html



‘political prosecution’

Oh, the irony.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/politics/vindman-retiring-alleged-white-house-retaliation/index.html

 

there is a shitload of probable cause that Trump has committed a host of financial crimes in NY

tax fraud, loan fraud, etc etc.

 

A case they have no ability to settle. This is political fishing. And harken to this, if they don't find anything, then what? It allows the court to obligate anyone for no substantive reason to submit to fishing because the court has just allowed this. Then what? You folks seem eager to destroy the foundational rights of our citizens. You hail these incremental erosions of these rights at every turn. That is the legacy you are applauding here.

And just remember, because folks like Reed certainly chose expedience over good practice, that this djin will ever get put back in the bottle.

 

Think about it as unconstitutional, just like SCOTUS did...

 

SCOTUS today ignored Federal law:

"Specifically, Section 6103(f)(1) of the IRC provides that, upon written request of the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), or Senate Finance Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “tax committees”), the Treasury Secretary “shall furnish” the requested tax returns or return information to the relevant committee. Under 6103(f)(2), the Treasury Secretary also “shall furnish” requested tax return information to the JCT’s chief of staff, who may share the return information to any of the tax committees. Absent the relevant taxpayer’s consent, any personally identifiable tax return information received by a tax committee under 6103(f)(1) or (f)(2) may only be provided when the requesting committee is “in closed executive session.” Section 6103(f)(5) also authorizes a whistleblower who has access to tax return information to disclose it to the tax committees “if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.” Section 6103(f)(3) also directs the Treasury Secretary to provide return information to any other non-tax committee in response to a written request, but only if the House or Senate passes a resolution specifically authorizing such committees to inspect return information."

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/LSB10275.pdf

 

Golly, your certainty. Just like all the time you shouted Russia,... Russia... etc. You have zip for credibility.

 

This is what we have a subpoena process for. You want special treatment and exceptions from the law for your political darlings. I don't.

Courts can subpoena evidence. We have a process for this. I'm sorry this is inconvenient, but it is complete nonsense to call subpoena power the "destruction of the foundational rights of our citizens."

Since you think subpoena powers are an erosion of our rights, what would you like to replace them with?

 

Again, there was apparently enough evidence to convince a grand jury that it was credible.

 

You cannot prove this. You can only prove the prosecutor believes there is evidence for them to review. The grand jury itself doesn't issue the order. Not the way that works. So, you have a political hack as a prosecutor, he collects what he wants, for review. Whether it ever gets to the jury itself, who knows. And when, not if, but when this is leaked to the press, you'll be screaming for justice and the arrest of those who leaked and published?

 

The SC sent the matter of the House getting the Fraud-in-Chief's taxes back to a lower court for clarification so they didn't throw Congress' right of oversight under the bus after all.

 

The records were subpoenaed by a grand jury, bud.

 

The matter NY is investigating has to do with Don's illegal payoffs to the women his adulterously schtoinked in order to defraud the voting public, not necessarily the tax fraud the NYT proved.

 

LOL... Sorry we hit that limit of your understanding so quickly....

 

The name of the court needs to be changed to the WISHY WASHY INDICISIVE COURT. All cases sent to them should require them to make a decision and not send it back to a lower court. The wheels of justice turn too damn slow as it is, and this just adds to the creep.

 

Then I guess we hit the limit of understanding of the Supreme Court as well, which refers repeatedly to "grand jury subpoena" in today's decision. Good to know you know so much more about this than they do. I'm impressed.

 

They know the difference, and they understand the process. And the jury themselves aren't the entity suing, it was the prosecutor, who is masking his personal hackery with this association with the jury. You still cannot provide evidence from the jury that they know anything of this, or the probable cause that is being used as justification for this. So why try to assert that you can? You obviously know nothing of the facts, and clearly nothing of the process.

 

They mention "grand jury subpoena" 26 times in the finding. Funny how you tried shifting goalposts from the subpoena to the "entity suing" the moment I pointed out that they did so.

I'll try to make this as simple as possible: the grand jury approved the subpoena. The lawyer didn't act alone. You claimed otherwise. You were wrong.

Also, I never stated I could produce the evidence. I specifically stated that YOU don't know the evidence since you repeatedly claimed that they don't have enough. All I said is that the evidence was apparently enough to convince a grand jury. Something you are still avoiding.

Man, two goal posts shifted in one post. That's some talent.

 

That's two words: Fake News

 

Judging from the discrepancies in his financials, he's likely lying to someone. Plus we know for sure that his kids were lying to investors about the value of SoHo.

Two words: desperate denial.

 

LOL! It has been obvious since 11/16 that there is nothing in Trump's tax returns that can hurt him. Watching the DP party bosses and their minions spin themselves toward Middle Earth over tax returns is just good political entertainment for Trump's base.

 

Same old Fake News. The DP desperately needs to find smarter political advisors.

 

Documented claims he was a foreign exchange student, for one. Why else are the Columbia records sealed?