Trump's financial records ...

From the Daily Kos: Trump's financial records appeal will go to court - excerpt:

Where's there's the will, there's a way ...

 

I love comedy from the Daily Kossacks.

 

More partisan hackery by The Democrats.

 

Take it up with the record breaking number of Americans who elected Democrats into the House specifically so that SOMEONE would hold Trump accountable.

 

I think the commies are intimating that Garland is a political hack that will rule on his butt hurt and not established law in the Watkins v US SCOTUS decision that clearly reads:

(g) A congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose, because it is beyond the powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168. P. 354 U. S. 198.

(h) It cannot simply be assumed that every congressional investigation is justified by a public need that overbalances any private rights affected, since to do so would be to abdicate the responsibility placed by the Constitution upon the judiciary to insure that Congress does not unjustifiably encroach upon an individual's right of privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion or assembly. Pp. 354 U. S. 198-199.

(i) There is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure where the predominant result can be only an invasion of the private rights of individuals. P. 354 U. S. 200.

If the judge rules with butt hurt then it's a damned good thing he wasn't confirmed.

 

(g) (h) (i) are merely arguments that have been rejected before.

The House has a legislative right to privately revue the President's tax returns, particularly if there is cause for alarm that such business dealings may violate the law or be linked with foreign powers not the friends of the US.

 

Are you just quoting the petition filed, and explicitly rejected, by the district court judge?

 

41 seats compared to the 69 seats the Republicans picked up in 2010 is hardly record breaking.

 

The number of votes is record breaking in comparison to anything the GOP has ever done. Stay on track.

 

Which is why it's great that Merrick Garland isn't on the Supreme Court. We need justices to decide based on law and merit, not political vendettas.

 

One thing we know for sure is that there is something in Trump's financial history that he is terrified of becoming public. We already know that he lied about how much he got from his father. And we know that he lost a lot of money for many years and paid no taxes. And we know that he has had really questionable dealings with Russian oligarchs. And we know that he has had dealings with foreign banks that have raised ethical flags.

 

You just described every politician from the last 50 years.

Would love to see every President's offshore account records. You KNOW all politicians have dirty money. All of them. Donation strategies are wild.

 

So your best Trump defense is he is no more corrupt than every other politician. One has to love snyone who was and stlill is gullable enough to believe the crap about about " draining the swamp"

 

Yeah, people like Kavanagh who have no "history".

Look, the notion that the highest court in the land should be full of "qualified judges" appointed for life needs to be redefined. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court justices should remain there all their lives (or until they decide to leave).

It would be well-enough if they were given a tenure of 10/15 years and then skedaddled to greener pastures. Ditto for seats in either part of Congress that could benefit from "renewal" on both the Left and Right. Politics should not be a lifelong job and tenures need to be made to terminate.

We do that for the presidency? Why not ALL POLITICAL JOBS IN THE NATION (but with variable tenures of office depending upon the office)?

We have a fairly damn good judicial system in the US. But, it could also be better if the two main parties stop "packing" the courts ... !

(And finally, that may be the real-problem. We have established ONLY a two-party system. Maybe one more in the middle that could flop to either side depending upon issue is needed ... ?

 

He's quite possibly not "corrupt". This is the definition of "corrupt": having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

First of all, his "personal gain" to begin with was clean. He inherited one helluva-lotta-muney from his father.

Second, here is a condensed history of the guy (from WashPo, which hates him):

Corruption is this: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.

Where is the corruption of a civil-servant or any other manner of illegality in what he has done? He's a damn fine marketeer and played well in hotelery. He is INDEED a manipulator - but that is not illegal.

So, what is he? He is PotUS and was elected by a mistake* of the Electoral College and the US refuses to acknowledge or correct the long-standing error!**

*That mistake being that the state Electoral College attributes ALL ITS VOTES (which are based upon official examinations of population in a state) to the majority winner of the plebiscite. Instead of simply reporting the Raw Popular-vote number of each candidate to Congress. Which has lead to the incongruous result that the raw national popular-vote majority lost the presidential election five times in the nation's history - and twice in the recent past.
**Both Gerrymandering and the Electoral College were devised and implemented in the very early part of the 19th century.

 

Math 101

Republicans pick up 69 seats in congress in 2010.
Democrats pick up 41 seats in 2018.

How many more seats did the Republican pick up compares to the Democrats?

69 - 41= 28 more.

 

You would not know comedy if it bit you on the nose.

Which is what you deserve ... !

 

Awww did insult your anonymous kook blog? When anyone believes what they read on an anonymous blog it's like believing what's written on the bathroom walls. Good for you.

 

THE REPLICANTS ARE TO BLAME!

Let's look at those numbers under a different light. That is, one that is economic.

In 2010, the American electorate - having made Obama PotUS two years before - decided he was NOT MIRACLE-MAN. Yes, there was still significant unemployment afoot because of the Great Recession. In fact, look at the Employment-to-population ratio here. It had dropped 4.5 percentage points, which is considerable. In 2010 it was beginning to stabilize but since the Replicants (now in control of the HofR) refused any further Spending there was no increase the E-to-p Ratio until much later in 2013 (when America started once again creating jobs).

And the US is still today not out of the employment hole it dug with the Great Recession! People have simply left the workforce.

So, the American public - in a midterm election - gave the Replicants their favoritism. Despite the fact that the Replicants were largely responsible for the Great Recession in 2008 that handed the presidency to Obama to begin with!

And so what? So, this: In any country where people can decide-or-not to vote, then such idiotic political occurrences will continue to happen! What can a nation do?

First - Understand better the workings of its political structure and make Civics a course-requirement for a High-school Degree!
Second - Rid itself of the key voting manipulations in place currently. Namely, that of Gerrymandering the popular-vote as well as the popular-vote negation by the EC that occurs when the entire EC-vote goes only to the winner of the popular-vote. (Which is tantamount to the obliteration of all the popular-votes made by those who did not vote for the winner!)
Third - Make national/state/local voting mandatory (and easy) even if the voter hands in a blank-vote. This too gives indication of one's personal political convictions!

 

No one cares about Repub seats.

Everyone cares that the Dems seriously outvoted the Pubs for an all time record for either party, and that portends horribly for the GOP.

 

The American voter in the mid-terms of 2010 actually voted against Obama by voting the majority to the Replicants! And as regards fickleness, there is no party more ready to jump on the opportunity than the Replicant Party. And again in the next midterms they did not take either of the chambers of Congress away from the Replicants. Which means what?

That the Replicants really-'n-truly know how to manipulate political outcomes. The Dems would be wise to obtain the same level of shrewdness. (Instead of the usual bickering.)

Moreover, as soon as Americans display forcefully at the ballot-box that they are concerned really&truly about either post-secondary education or a national healthcare system, both parties will jump wholeheartedly on board. (Either that or they lose considerably across-the-board in both state and national elections.)

 

Ya gotta love cheap excuses.

 

We pack the court with people who interpret the law as written. That's how it's supposed to be. Your side packs the courts with judges that have politically leftist views who interpret the laws to mean what they want it to mean.

 

As much as you like useless one-liner sarcasm in a Debate Forum ...