- 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: Supreme Court halts turn over of Trump tax returns
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:04 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:04 pm to AggieHank86
quote:But they just took a little action today.
The case at issue is NOT one initiated by Dems in Congress, so about half of the posts are irrelevant right off the bat.
Man LibbyHank loves him some SDNY.
LibbyHank you got heem!
0
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:04 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:This is the sort of post that I was describing. His disclosure financial/tax records required by electoral law? No. But this case is not about electoral law.
It is not required by law. Simple as that. They did it voluntarily. If he doesn't want to do it, they can pound sand because it is not one of those pesky requirements to run for the office. End of story.
It is about a criminal investigation. Yes, compliance with a criminal subpoena IS required by law.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:04 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The first 29 of those 45 were elected BEFORE enactment of the individual federal income tax more than 100 years ago. With the exception of DJT, EVERY President elected in the last 50 years has voluntarily released his tax returns.
Cool. So, of the Presidents who were elected AFTER income taxes were a thing, 7 elected to turn them over voluntarily, 9 didn't.
quote:Your point? OK. Be mad he isn't. That doesn't mean you're entitled to them.
No, it is not mandated by statute, but he promised to do so
quote:Oh pahleez. You aren't stupid. you know this is just an end run.
The records are sought in a STATE criminal investigation, and they are sought by a state subpoena to a third-party accountant — they are not sought directly from Trump. Trump was not a party to the proceeding until he intervened in his individual capacity, and the federal government was CERTAINLY not a party (and thus spending tax dollars) until Trump ordered the DoJ to intervene as well on his behalf.
quote:Mmkay. Guess we'll see
Given abundant existing precedent, only the blindest and most wild-eyed Trump partisan could conceivably believe that the SCOTUS will eventually overrule the Court of Appeals regarding disclosure of this information by the accountant. It is not even a close call legally.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:04 pm to narddogg81
quote:
what a fricking loser
That is uncalled for.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:05 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Corporate America is picking our bones clean while they get us to fight with each other.
Why would they want to do that?? Happy people spend more money!
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:06 pm to Janky
Let's be honest. They only want them to leak them, hopefully to embarrass the President somehow with them.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Don't be silly
This is the sort of post that I was describing. His disclosure financial/tax records required by electoral law? No. But this case is not about electoral law.
Two different discussions.
1. "But every other President blah blah blah". So what. Not required.
2. "But SDNY blah blah blah". Yeah great. Total fishing expedition born of frustration with #1
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:07 pm to antibarner
quote:No doubt, but the AG of NY isn't a political hack!
Let's be honest. They only want them to leak them, hopefully to embarrass the President somehow with them.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:08 pm to antibarner
quote:
Let's be honest. They only want them to leak them, hopefully to embarrass the President somehow with them.
Surprised someone hasn’t leaked fake ones yet. Could get a good laugh at the expense of the media.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:08 pm to FooManChoo
quote:More of the same.
the Dems judge shop to the point where every little thing has to require intervention by the SCOTUS
There was no “judge shopping” in this case. A state prosecutor was conducting a criminal investigation. He issued a subpoena in the ordinary course of business
It was Trump who initiated proceedings to block that subpoena.
This post was edited on 11/18/19 at 2:21 pm
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:09 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Politically motivated.
A prosecutor was conducting a criminal investigation.
quote:So.
It was Trump who initiated proceedings to block that subpoena.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:10 pm to Jbird
quote:And, I mean............they basically ANNOUNCED they were going to engage in political motivated attacks from the outset.
Politically motivated.
Didn't even attempt to pretend otherwise.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:14 pm to More&Les
quote:Now, we are jumping back to the voluntary disclosure issue. I find it entertaining that so many Trump partisans focus upon this “IRS would have found any problems” punchline.
Its none of your fricking business is the big deal, the IRS has had him under audit for a fricking decade, if there was a problem they know how to prosecute.
In the context of voluntary disclosure, we are not talking about only criminal violations. We are talking about behavior that the public might find problematic, even if it were entirely legal.
For instance, it is perfectly legal to own a whorehouse in Nevada. Nonetheless, many Republican voters might find it somewhat problematic to vote for a person whose income tax returns disclose the ownership of a whorehouse in Nevada.
No, I am not implying that Trump himself owns a whorehouse in Nevada. I am simply using a somewhat silly example to show that something can be perfectly legal, but still be problematic to a potential voter.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:15 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Key word
In the context of voluntary disclosure, we are not talking about only criminal violations. We are talking about behavior that the public might find problematic, even if it were entirely legal.
Volunatary
quote:Cool story.
For instance, it is perfectly legal to own a whorehouse in Nevada. Nonetheless, many Republican voters might find it somewhat problematic to vote for a person whose income tax returns disclose the ownership of a whorehouse in Nevada.
Voluntary
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:16 pm to Cheese Grits
There is no federal stat in the that compels a candidate to disclose his or her returns. This is a relatively new thing dating only back to Richard Nixon.
I suspect the Court wants to take time to actually review things and hear arguments. The statute allowing the committee chair to request anyone's returns for any reason has 4th Amendment considerations and doing it to a sitting president has separation of powers concerns.
I suspect the Court wants to take time to actually review things and hear arguments. The statute allowing the committee chair to request anyone's returns for any reason has 4th Amendment considerations and doing it to a sitting president has separation of powers concerns.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:16 pm to cajunangelle
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:17 pm to ShortyRob
Did Mueller and his thugs not have access to Trump's returns?
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:19 pm to Dale51
quote:
Happy people spend more money!
Kid of a friend of mine makes guns for a living.
He says he booms when Dem is POTUS and bust when Rep POTUS
I think fear sells over happy every time
Why do they lead the local news with shootings and car wrecks over kid makes good or granny cares for grandkids?
Because bad outsells good every day of the week.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:21 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Because bad outsells good
quote:
He says he booms when Dem is POTUS
We agree. The Dems are bad people.
Posted on 11/18/19 at 2:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
It is about a criminal investigation. Yes, compliance with a criminal subpoena IS required by law.
You mean because some government lawyer claims he broke the law ?
This case is just one in which people should be able to personally sue government workers , politicians , lawyers and judges.
I know they can sue , but I mean "personally".
Personally = Taxpayers do not have to pay for their defense.
These sorry arse taxpayer lawyers and judges should have to pay for their defense with their "personal" funds.
This is ANOTHER example of stupid government workers wasting taxpayer money.
Page 8 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News