- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 10:08 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:08 am to AggieHank86
Yay, now what?
1
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:09 am to Jjdoc
quote:I rather doubt that anything Congress finds in his tax returns will sway many Trump voters. I have never said otherwise.
Are you about to get him this time?
Will they find evidence which would lead to Senate conviction on impeachment? I have not seen the tax returns or supporting data, so it would be silly to opine on that issue.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:10 am to LSU Fan SLU Grad
quote:
This board is a cesspool of indignity.
With people like you, you are 100% correct in that statement. Thanks for playing.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:11 am to PickupAutist
quote:
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.
The thing is none of this can be determined by tax returns.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:12 am to The Maj
quote:I often explain legal rulings ... both those with which I agree and otherwise.quote: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....
So OP....no cliff notes with your twist on it?
I have found that the reaction almost-uniformly ignores the legal analysis and devolves into a partisan pep rally, rendering the substantive explanation rather pointless.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:12 am to AggieHank86
quote:The hope is alive!
Will they find evidence which would lead to Senate conviction on impeachment? I have not seen the tax returns or supporting data, so it would be silly to opine on that issue.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:12 am to AggieHank86
En Banc request for rehearing first, then to the Supremes.
Dissent IDs the bullshite in the first two pages.
Dissent IDs the bullshite in the first two pages.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:13 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.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:14 am to udtiger
quote:LibbyHank didn't mention that!
Dissent IDs the bullshite in the first two pages.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:15 am to AggieHank86
quote:
6 pages from the majority and 68 in the dissent.
Actually, 66 from the majority and 68 in dissent. The majority opinion is very well written. It would be a political stretch for the Supreme Court to reverse. Frankly, the dissent by Rao reads like an attempt to get on Trump's shortlist for Supreme Court, since the way to advance in this administration is to fawn over Trump.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:17 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I have found that the reaction almost-uniformly ignores the legal analysis and devolves into a partisan pep rally, rendering the substantive explanation rather pointless.
This is why no one takes you seriously and I honestly think you mean well, but exactly what you said and how you said it is why I think you suck as a poster...
Most here appreciate an unbiased answer and when they do not agree with the substance of the answer, it is not an attack on you or necessarily partisan but an expression of their support OR dislike of the substance...
Sorry your ego does not allow your brain to separate the two...
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:17 am to TBoy
quote:
Actually, 66 from the majority and 68 in dissent. The majority opinion is very well written. It would be a political stretch for the Supreme Court to reverse. Frankly, the dissent by Rao reads like an attempt to get on Trump's shortlist for Supreme Court, since the way to advance in this administration is to fawn over Trump.
Won't be a stretch at all.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:17 am to Janky
quote:Trump has the option of requesting an en banc review. There are eleven judges on the Court ... Seven Dem appointees and four GOP appointees. Merrick Garland is Chief Judge. Thus, Trump may see such a request as being pointless, but may do it anyway just to buy time.
Yay, now what?
He also has the option of an appeal to SCOTUS.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:18 am to TBoy
quote:Like you would know.
The majority opinion is very well written.
quote:
Frankly, the dissent by Rao reads like an attempt to get on Trump's shortlist for Supreme Court, since the way to advance in this administration is to fawn over Trump.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:18 am to AggieHank86
quote:
He also has the option of an appeal to SCOTUS.
And here we go.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:19 am to TBoy
quote:
It would be a political stretch for the Supreme Court to reverse.
The Supreme Court should be wholly unconcerned with politics, should it not?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:25 am to AggieHank86
So just to clarify. As an attorney, you think it is ok for them to subpoena his tax returns with no evidence of a crime and then use them as evidence in a potential impeachment trial?
This post was edited on 10/11/19 at 10:26 am
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:29 am to The Maj
quote:this may indeed be true of some posters, but it is hardly reflective of the majority.
Most here appreciate an unbiased answer and when they do not agree with the substance of the answer, it is not an attack on you or necessarily partisan but an expression of their support OR dislike of the substance....
How many times in the last year or two and we witnessed a huge celebratory flurry of threads regarding some unimportant procedural ruling in favor of Trump? Dozens of separate instances.
How many times have I or one of the other attorneys on this forum tried to explain the non-substantive nature of the ruling and explain/predict the most-likely subsequent events? Fewer, because most of the attorneys have come to see such explanations as pointless.
What is the majority of the reaction to the persons trying to provide such explanations? More often than not, it is comprised almost entirely of insulting epithets and misrepresentations of the political views of the attorney trying to provide the explanation.
How often are those explanations and predictions proven true, within days or weeks? Almost uniformly.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:33 am to midnight_chopper
quote:To the best of my recollection, I have not expressed any views on the issue.
So just to clarify. As an attorney, you think it is ok for them to subpoena his tax returns with no evidence of a crime and then use them as evidence in a potential impeachment trial?
Given the current state of the law, this sort of investigation would indeed seem to be within the authority of the House, but it is not a “slam dunk“ in my view.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 10:33 am to AggieHank86
You have major insecurities on this board Hank. I don’t understand why you come around if you despise the posters so much.
Might by time to take a hiatus.
Might by time to take a hiatus.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News