- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DC Circuit Rules against Trump re House Request for Tax Records
Posted on 10/11/19 at 9:36 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 10/11/19 at 9:36 am to AggieHank86
Trump homers are delusional at this point. The wheels on this special needs bus are chaotically bouncing down the street.
This board is a cesspool of indignity. The dominos will fall.
This board is a cesspool of indignity. The dominos will fall.
4
Posted on 10/11/19 at 9:37 am to AggieHank86
quote:That's nice Clark real nice.
Reminder, this was a subpoena from a House committee to the accounting firm which prepares his taxes, not a request to Trump himself OR the Committee request direct to the IRS.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 9:38 am to KANDUUU
quote:Yeah, I’ve not had time in the last ten minutes to read a 134-page opinion either.
So OP....no cliff notes with your twist on it? Why do they say this is constitutional, and based on what precedence?
Nobody got time to read thru this garbage.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 9:41 am to LSU Fan SLU Grad
quote:
This board is a cesspool of indignity. The dominos will fall.
Yall said the same bullshite before Muh Russia was known to be a hoax. You fell for that shite 100%
How pathetic.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 9:43 am to MrLarson
quote:not really.quote:They'd have done just as good to subpoena Trump's dog
Reminder, this was a subpoena to the accounting firm which prepares his taxes, not a request to Trump himself OR the Committee request direct to the IRS.
In the New York case, the opinion made the affirmative statement that the accounting firm had taken no position regarding the discoverability of these documents. In essence, they see it as an interlpleader ... “Here are the documents, and we will produce them if ordered. You folks can fight it out. Just let us know.”
All of the opposition briefing came from Trumps own intervention in the lawsuit, along with Trump’s DoJ. I assume the same is the case here.
When all appeals run out, the accountants WILL produce the documents. I doubt the same is true of Trump.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 9:44 am to LSU Fan SLU Grad
Are the walls closing in?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 9:45 am to AggieHank86
quote:LibbyHank you got heem!
When all appeals run out, the accountants WILL produce the documents. I doubt the same is true of Trump.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 9:49 am to AggieHank86
Do you have any clients?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 9:52 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Just saw the headline. More to come. UPDATE. 134-page opinion, 6 pages from the majority and 68 in the dissent. Reminder, this was a subpoena from a House committee to the accounting firm which prepares his taxes, not a request to Trump himself OR the Committee request direct to the IRS.
Seriously, who cares about Trump's tax returns? We've yet to incarcerate one damn Swamper and you TDS fueled loons are worried about Trump's tax returns? Focus Baw!!!
Posted on 10/11/19 at 9:59 am to AggieHank86
quote:Neoli Reo, a Trump nominee to the appeals court, dissented. Judge Tatel (who authored the opinion) was nominated by President Bill Clinton and Judge Patricia Millett, who joined him in the majority, was selected by President Barack Obama.
“we detect no inherent constitutional flaw in laws requiring Presidents to publicly disclose certain financial information. And that is enough. Without treading onto any other potentially fertile grounds from which constitutional legislation could flower, we conclude that given the constitutionally permissible options open to Congress in the field of financial disclosure, the challenged subpoena seeks ‘information about a subject on which legislation may be had.'”
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:01 am to AggieHank86
Are you about to get him this time?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:03 am to Jbird
quote:
LibbyHank you got heem!
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:04 am to LSU Fan SLU Grad
quote:
Trump homers are delusional at this point. The wheels on this special needs bus are chaotically bouncing down the street. This board is a cesspool of indignity. The dominos will fall.
The irony of calling anyone delusional when we have been hearing this same shite about how ‘Drumph is done, it’s over’ for literally years now. Your ability to work through your cognitive dissonance and continue in gullibility is truly exceptional.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:05 am to Jjdoc
Anyone with an ounce of sense knows why they want them, so they can leak them. They have no legitimate purpose for acquiring them.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:06 am to antibarner
quote:yup
Anyone with an ounce of sense knows why they want them, so they can leak them. They have no legitimate purpose for acquiring them.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:06 am to AggieHank86
Conclusory section
quote:
Though our journey has been long, we find ourselves at the end of a familiar tale. A congressional committee, as committees have done repeatedly over the past two centuries, issued an investigative subpoena, and the target of that subpoena, questioning the committee’s legislative purpose, has asked a court to invalidate it. The fact that the subpoena in this case seeks information that concerns the President of the United States adds a twist, but not a surprising one: disputes between Congress and the President are a recurring plot in our national story. And that is precisely what the Framers intended. As Justice Brandeis wrote, “[t]he doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted . . . not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power.” Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). “The purpose,” he explained, “was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.” Id.
Having considered the weighty interests at stake in this case, we conclude that the subpoena issued by the Committee to Mazars is valid and enforceable. We affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee and against the Trump Plaintiffs.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:06 am to KANDUUU
quote:
So OP....no cliff notes with your twist on it?
Dude, your brain simply does not work on the level of Hank's... How dare you ask him to lower himself to your level to explain something....
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:07 am to AggieHank86
quote:
in laws requiring Presidents to publicly disclose certain financial information.
If they pass law to allow this then I would imagine the first time its applied it would go to the SCOTUS right?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:07 am to AggieHank86
Was a dissent written by the one with common sense?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:08 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
Seriously, who cares about Trump's tax returns?
They think proving trump isn’t a billionaire but rather only worth hundreds and hundreds of millions would be a le epic own even though it’s more than they will ever have in their life. They also have a fantasy that it will finally prove he is some sort of bought Russian agent even though he is as American as apple pie.
This post was edited on 10/11/19 at 10:09 am
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News