Trump must give his tax returns to NY prosecutor, judge rules

because you don’t need to know where i work or what i make or my deductions.

why won’t you answer my question instead? seems much easier anyway

 

lmao, you just contradicted yourself
because you don’t need to know where i work or what i make or my deductions.

 

Who cares?

This thread is about Trump.

Feel free to start a thread about the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton is not the subject of this thread.

In any event, I don't think any of this tax info will become public before the election, BUT Trump (and co.) might have some 'splainin' to do next January after Trump Loses and becomes a private citizen.

 

There is NOTHING ILLEGAL about paying her for a non-disclosure agreement. Got it now? Nothing ILLEGAL about that. Of course he knew about it he paid for it. That way Cohen handled that on HIS end is what got Cohen in trouble.

 

So you don't believe in the right to privacy.

 

what did i contradict and why won’t you simply answer the question? why are you constantly deflecting?

 

FEC did not charge they have found no violation because there was none

Former FEC commissioners: Trump-Cohen 'hush' payments not necessarily a violation

"But he argued the purpose and origin of the payments could be in dispute, and that's what determines whether a campaign-finance violation was committed.


“The blackmail threat by Daniels and McDougal to reveal their claims would exist whether or not Trump was running for office. He was a well-known celebrity, and celebrities face these claims all the time,” he said."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-fec-commissioners-trump-cohen-hush-payments

Cohen testified to Congress that Trump didn't want his wife to find out about it, a personal matter not a campaign matter.

So what campaign violation?

 

But then they have no arguement if they dont talk about Clinton

 

Do not hold your breath until you see the returns.

 

And. You serve in office you are not a private citizen, albiet a citizen.

 

Unless you wanna make financial disclosures illegal, then neither do you. Now we’re just negotiating how little privacy they get it they run for office.

 

He’s spent a lifetime doing it and he’s done it very well. Appropriate that he is now packing the courts with “conservative” judges. The kind of judges that rule against truckers stuck in subzero conditions when their corporate overlords tell them to stay and freeze to death with the load.

 

huh? what did they find?

 

how’s trump wasting the courts time and money? he didn’t bring the case the dem DA did

 

Still wishing it was the early 1970's? This isn't. The subpoena against Nixon dealt with a tapes that had been made in the Watergate matter. These tapes supposedly dealt with a political break in of the DNC offices at the Watergate Hotel. I say supposedly, because they were magically errased. A correlation would be if the Obama Administration refused to turn over exculpatory evidence in the fake Russian Collusion investigation. This matter deals with a supposed Charity that has already been closed, and had nothing to do with the Trump Administration or Campaign. Remember, the Watergate Tapes were made in the Oval Office by a sitting President. Hardly the same merit of case. The Trump Foundation case deals with something that happened before he became President, and then there is the fact that this is nothing more then an attempt at an end run to get the President's tax records to the Democrats. Something that the President has successfully, so-far, blocked.

This case will never be ruled on by the SCOTUS prior to November. There are several cases before the SCOTUS dealing with the President's Taxes, and the Democrats attempts to get them. None of them have been ruled on. So, this one will sit on the pile until after the elections. The last thing any of us should want is the SCOTUS taking a hand in the elections.

 

I never expect to.... nor do I really want to, since it's unlikely I'd personally be able to make heads or tails of it...

But I fully feel Vance and certain Congressional committees have every right to them legally. And they will be able to to understand them.

 

Has nothing to do with the election. Vance was asking for this a full year ago and none of the delay's are his fault.

 

And the Judge waited until just before the elections to issue a ruling. Yet, you think it has nothing to do with the election. Naïve much?

 

Or Pres. Obama.

 

At no point is this week "just before the elections".

Follow the story much?

It's gone like this

Subpoena - 8/19
Trump sues - 9/18/19
Marrero ruling 1 for Vance - 10/7/19
Appeals Court ruling 1 for Vance - 11/4/19
SCOTUS agrees to hear - 12/13/19
SCOTUS actually hears (delayed 2 months for COVID) - 5/12/20
SCOTUS ruling 1 for Vance - 7/9/20
Marrero ruling 2 for Vance - 8/19/20
?

That's simply too long considering the circumstances...

 

The July SCOTUS ruling on Vance stated that the President does not have blanket immunity, but still blocked the prosecution, as well as the Congress, from obtaining the President's tax records. They kicked that portion of the ruling back to the lower courts. Now, if they did not rule in July to give the Grand Jury the Tax records, then why would you think that they would give them the Tax records prior to the elections.

This is what I predict. If the President loses the election in November that the SCOTUS will rule that Vance can have the records. If the President wins, then the SCOTUS would require the prosecution to tailor their subpoena for tax documents that are exculpatory to specifics. And those records to be held as confidential, and blocked from release to any other agency, political body or the public. Of course the steam will go out of the prosecutions' sail with the President's reelection. They will have nothing to gain. The President can not be impeached for personal activities that took place before he was elected President. Of course the Prosecution might reopen the issue in 2024 to harm anyone the President endorses for President.

That of course is just a prediction. We will have to wait to see how it all plays out. We will know by November whether any of it is right.

 

I asked you do you believe we have a right to privacy? Tax returns are protected private documents.

 

Because for some ****ed up reason, they weren't ruling on whether Vance could get the records. They only ruled on the esoteric concept of whether the President is immune from the subpoena, which of course he is not.

It's the same case.... rule on everything at one time... This particular subpoena is valid and the POTUS is never immune from future subpoenas.

****ing silly use of everybody's time, but Trump wins because of the delays...

 

No protected from a criminal investigation.

 

Nor protected from a valid Congressional committee request, despite the law breaking of Steve Munchkin...

SNIP

ENDSNIP

I expect Munchkin will be rarely seen in this country after Biden's inauguration...