SCOTUS on Trump tax returns: Yes to New York prosecutor, no to Congress

[SugarDaddy1]

In a pair of rulings Thursday, the Supreme Court decided that President Trump's tax documents can be sought as a part of a criminal investigation, but that, at least for now, Congress is not able to get his financial records.

In a 7-2 decision in Trump v. Vance, the court rejected arguments by Trump's lawyers and the Department of Justice that the president is immune to a state criminal investigation while in office or that a higher standard is needed to subpoena a sitting president.

The court's decision in Trump v. Mazars, also 7-2, was released only minutes later. The ruling dealt with Congress' subpoena of Trump's financial records.

Source

 

[Rightguide]

Another malicious prosecution of the President. The payments to Stormy Daniels were totally legal. Expect the corrupt Vance to leak shit to the press however attempting to effect the election.

 

[Wrong Element]

1. To a great extent, Congress only has itself to blame. The demand for the tax returns could have been made the first day of the Democratic majority. They waited till last summer, which allowed Trump to run out the clock with the help of

2. John Roberts. This was an easy decision. Holding it till the end of the term provides the illusion of holding Trump accountable while insuring that he won't actually be accountable by Election Day. (Always interesting to see what the Court finds we can wait on, like Trump's taxes; and what needs to be dealt with RIGHT NOW, such as making it less safe to vote in a pandemic.)

3. I was curious to see how Clarence Thomas would square a vote for Trump here with his vote against Bill Clinton in Clinton v. Jones, but while I only scanned his dissent, it appears he dealt with it by ... just not mentioning it? What a fucking hack.

4. BTW, I'm not convinced this is the last news that either Thomas or Alito will be making in the coming days.

 

[Rightguide]

4. BTW, I'm not convinced this is the last news that either Thomas or Alito will be making in the coming days.

There are rumors of retirement, but rumors aren't facts.

 

[pointless]

Another malicious prosecution of the President. The payments to Stormy Daniels were totally legal. Expect the corrupt Vance to leak shit to the press however attempting to effect the election.

well, if it's all on the up and up like you're saying why would there be any leaks that might effect the election?

 

[jaF0]

See post 4 here:

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=92572136&postcount=4

 

[Conager]

I read an interesting piece in RedState that pointed out that Robert's left a yuuuuge invitation to appeal again on a different basis after it gets back to the district court. It pointed out that ot can't be resolved before the election.

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/07/09/scotus-rules-against-trump-but-the-president-walks-away-the-winner/

 

[Ramone45]

Another malicious prosecution of the President. The payments to Stormy Daniels were totally legal. Expect the corrupt Vance to leak shit to the press however attempting to effect the election.

Yes. What will be the consequences when the returns are leaked, which they will be as sure as the sun rises? They were released as evidence to a Grand Jury which is confidential.
My feeling is that intentionally leaking the returns is as great an evil as anything in the returns so it's a wash. I hate everything about Democrats.

 

[Ramone45]

well, if it's all on the up and up like you're saying why would there be any leaks that might effect the election?

So you feel that people don't deserve privacy if they have nothing to hide. How communist of you.

 

[jaF0]

So you feel that people don't deserve privacy if they have nothing to hide. How communist of you.

It's a criminal investigation involving government records. And who says he has nothing to hide?

Remember Capone?

 

[Wrong Element]

BTW, I don't think Gorsuch is in any danger of leaving the Court's conservative wing, but he wrote another 5-4 "liberal" opinion today having to do with Native rights in Oklahoma (Gorsuch is from Colorado and seems to have a lot of pro-Indian sympathies). Ginsburg keeps assigning him these 5-4 opinions, and there's something to be said for trying to find common ground with someone you don't often agree with.

Harry Blackmun joining up with the "liberals" was in large part due to his being ostracized by conservatives after Roe v. Wade, but also because William Brennan, as good at internal Court politics as anyone in history, made winning him over into a personal project. Contrast with Scalia, a very smart guy who couldn't resist insulting pretty much everyone on the Court in his opinions at one time or another.

Yes. What will be the consequences when the returns are leaked, which they will be as sure as the sun rises? They were released as evidence to a Grand Jury which is confidential.
My feeling is that intentionally leaking the returns is as great an evil as anything in the returns so it's a wash. I hate everything about Democrats.

Leaks from Manhattan grand juries are not at all common. It's not Ken Starr's Independent Counsel office or anything like that.

 

[Rightguide]

I read an interesting piece in RedState that pointed out that Robert's left a yuuuuge invitation to appeal again on a different basis after it gets back to the district court. It pointed out that ot can't be resolved before the election.

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/07/09/scotus-rules-against-trump-but-the-president-walks-away-the-winner/

As the article ends, "Trump may have “lost,” but he clearly walks away the winner here."

 

[pointless]

So you feel that people don't deserve privacy if they have nothing to hide. How communist of you.

if he has nothing to hide there will be nothing to reveal. it's pretty simple.

 

[Rightguide]

BTW, I don't think Gorsuch is in any danger of leaving the Court's conservative wing, but he wrote another 5-4 "liberal" opinion today having to do with Native rights in Oklahoma (Gorsuch is from Colorado and seems to have a lot of pro-Indian sympathies).

How does this prove Gorsuch's opinion is a "liberal" opinion? It's about the Constitution. Did the last two 7-2 decisions and the 9-0 decision by the court indicate it's left leaning members are turning conservative?

 

[Ramone45]

BTW, I don't think Gorsuch is in any danger of leaving the Court's conservative wing, but he wrote another 5-4 "liberal" opinion today having to do with Native rights in Oklahoma (Gorsuch is from Colorado and seems to have a lot of pro-Indian sympathies). Ginsburg keeps assigning him these 5-4 opinions, and there's something to be said for trying to find common ground with someone you don't often agree with.

Harry Blackmun joining up with the "liberals" was in large part due to his being ostracized by conservatives after Roe v. Wade, but also because William Brennan, as good at internal Court politics as anyone in history, made winning him over into a personal project. Contrast with Scalia, a very smart guy who couldn't resist insulting pretty much everyone on the Court in his opinions at one time or another.







Leaks from Manhattan grand juries are not at all common. It's not Ken Starr's Independent Counsel office or anything like that.

We'll see

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Another malicious prosecution of the President. The payments to Stormy Daniels were totally legal. Expect the corrupt Vance to leak shit to the press however attempting to effect the election.

Yet Cohen is in jail.

 

[KeithD]

if he has nothing to hide there will be nothing to reveal. it's pretty simple.

Yep, it is. Also, we're talking someone volunteering to hold the job of president. If that person doesn't want to show they aren't financially corrupt and criminal (which Trump has already shown in many instances), they don't need to volunteer to hold an office of public trust.

There's nothing whatsoever trustworthy about Donald Trump, and he exhibits that in public constantly. Not being willing to show his financials (which he pledged he would) is an obvious example of this. He doesn't want to show them because they'll show criminal activity, that he isn't the rich man he claims to be, and that his balls are held and squeezed by the Russians (and probably the Saudis, as well).

 

[FlowersForFun]

if he has nothing to hide there will be nothing to reveal. it's pretty simple.

Still jackbooteded as fuck Nazi boy....chug another big glass of authoritarianism!! You're clearly a huge fan.

 

[HisArpy]

if he has nothing to hide there will be nothing to reveal. it's pretty simple.

So where are YOUR tax returns? Post 'em. Or do you have something to hide?


See how simple it is to cast aspersions on someone for wanting privacy protections afforded to them under the Constitution?

 

[HisArpy]

It's a criminal investigation involving government records. And who says he has nothing to hide?

Remember Capone?

1. The original subpoena was to Trump's tax accountants. These aren't "government records".

2. Who says he does have something to hide?

 

[icanhelp1]

There are rumors of retirement, but rumors aren't facts.

I think SCOTUS did everything possible to extricate themselves from political infighting during an election year. The first ruling is still a legit court battle where Vance could lose in court. Vance smells of Weissmann!

 

[KeithD]

2. Who says he does have something to hide?

Everyone with at least half a brain function. Even you Trumpettes know it. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

[HisArpy]

Everyone with at least half a brain function. Even you Trumpettes know it. Who do you think you're kidding?

Where's the evidence to support your probably cause or reasonable suspicion?

 

[KeithD]

Where's the evidence to support your probably cause or reasonable suspicion?

I don't care if you insist on playing stupid and blind.

 

[HisArpy]

I don't care if you insist on playing stupid and blind.

I'm asking; WHERE'S YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE. You either have some or you don't. If you won't trot it out where everyone can see it, then that's an admission that you don't.

Reasonable suspicion isn't that difficult of a hurdle to get over. So, where are the facts and circumstances that would allow a reasonable person to believe a crime has been, or is being, committed involving Trump's tax returns?