Page 80 of 81 FirstFirst ... 307078798081 LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 805

Thread: Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

  1. #791
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    109,127

    Re: Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    And if that response doesn't change anything about the summery. What then?
    Let us read the complete Report and then make pronouncements on its contents.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #792
    Sage
    Oborosen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Heflin, Alabama
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,281

    Re: Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Let us read the complete Report and then make pronouncements on its contents.
    Fair enough.
    Why do they run?
    Because they have no choice son, such is the way of cowards.
    But even a cornered rat, with no choice, will fight.
    Yes my son and that should tell you more than you need to know about the coward.

  3. #793
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    12,163

    Re: Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

    Quote Originally Posted by uptower View Post
    Yes from the party of 'law and order' applying the law is now 'fishing'.
    What you have to remember is that the state of the law in the US is actually as follows:


    1. "X" is a horrendous thing.
    2. "A" has done "X".
    3. "A" DOES NOT belong to the same political alignment as I do.
    4. "A" must be punished.
    5. "B" has done "X".
    6. "B" DOES belong to the same political alignment as I do.
    7. It is perfectly OK for "B" to do "X" because "A" did it.
    8. The above applies even if Point 2. reads "There is a rumour that possibly there is a chance that 'A' has done something remotely similar to 'X'.".
    9. The above applies even if Point 5. reads "There is absolutely unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence that 'B' has done 'X' AND 'B' has publicly admitted to actually and deliberately doing 'X'.".


    Quote Originally Posted by uptower View Post
    The law is clear. Mnuchin actually has to hand it over.
    No, the law only REQUIRES that he hand it over. Of course, if he does not hand it over then he would be subject to the penalties for non-compliance that are set out in the law BUT the law does not COMPEL him to actualy do anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by uptower View Post
    And while you're right they will probably get to circumvent or just plain ignore it because this admin is above the law as long as the senate is complicit, hiding the report won't help them much either: it's coming out one way or another.
    How much of a 128Meg thumb drive does 800000bytes of memory eat up. Can you hide it in the middle of a photo of you and your kids?

    Quote Originally Posted by uptower View Post
    Twump
    Quote Originally Posted by uptower View Post
    dodges the law by suppressing it; someone else will dodge the law by leaking it. We're going to get to see it one way or another.
    To wit, the enormous "victory" that the US government achieved by having the ICC prosecutor refused permission by the ICC to investigate alleged "war crimes" committed in Afghanistan by letting the ICC know that the US government would "not cooperate" in any such investigation. Of course, that refusal also resulted in the ICC not investigating alleged "war crimes" committed by the Afghan government (which also let the ICC know that it would "not cooperate" [and also resulted in the ICC not investigating alleged "war crimes" committed by the Taliban and/or al-Qa'eda (which also let the ICC know that it would "not cooperate" ]) - but that is totally irrelevant, isn't it?
    I was told that the best things for me were to eat healthy foods, walk up hills, stop smoking cigars, and cut out drinking Scotch.
    With my record, I don't deserve the best. What's second best?
    (Retirement Dinner remarks)

  4. #794
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    12,163

    Re: Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    So yes, lying?
    Nope. "Weasel wording" means that you say something that is actually true, but looks like you have said something different than what you have actually said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Because you'd think that if he misstated anything. That Mueller would be there on his ass.
    Please go back and look at what I actually said. It is quite possible to be "factually correct" and still deliberately mislead people into thinking that something that you said means something completely different than what you actually said. There is no "false statement" involved at all, and if there is no "false statement" then there is no "lie".

    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    I'm going to wait for the report and read it myself, because I'll be damned if I'll trust any of the media to be completely up front with it. I would only trust two of them at this point and one of them is a foreign group.
    Just out of curiosity, what are those two?

    I do agree that it is prudent to wait and see what is actually in the actual report. Most people, however, aren't prepared to do that, nor are they going to be prepared to actually read the report and draw their own conclusions as to what the actual report actually means.
    I was told that the best things for me were to eat healthy foods, walk up hills, stop smoking cigars, and cut out drinking Scotch.
    With my record, I don't deserve the best. What's second best?
    (Retirement Dinner remarks)

  5. #795
    Sage
    Oborosen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Heflin, Alabama
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,281

    Re: Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    Nope. "Weasel wording" means that you say something that is actually true, but looks like you have said something different than what you have actually said.



    Please go back and look at what I actually said. It is quite possible to be "factually correct" and still deliberately mislead people into thinking that something that you said means something completely different than what you actually said. There is no "false statement" involved at all, and if there is no "false statement" then there is no "lie".



    Just out of curiosity, what are those two?

    I do agree that it is prudent to wait and see what is actually in the actual report. Most people, however, aren't prepared to do that, nor are they going to be prepared to actually read the report and draw their own conclusions as to what the actual report actually means.
    BBC and Crowder.
    Why do they run?
    Because they have no choice son, such is the way of cowards.
    But even a cornered rat, with no choice, will fight.
    Yes my son and that should tell you more than you need to know about the coward.

  6. #796
    Student
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    251

    Re: Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    I just want to point out that that is a "policy" position and that is NOT what the law says. In fact, the law is silent on that point.
    It is not a "policy position." It is, in fact, the law. The Supreme Law of the Land as a matter of fact. You might want to read Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution:
    Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    PS - Did you know that a case can be made out that, IF a President is impeached and convicted (or acquitted) because they did "X", THEN any further prosecution of that person for committing "X" was "double jeopardy"?


    Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.

    In short, if your position was valid, if "President Smith" was impeached (because they were accused of raping, murdering, and eating the heart of six year old "Little Bobbie") and NOT convicted in a trial in the Senate (which is a "valid trial"), then would have a valid "double jeopardy" defence if a criminal prosecution was brought against them for raping, murdering, and eating six year old "Little Bobby" - even if there was unimpeachable video evidence showing them doing just that.

    I really don't think that the Founding Fathers had that in mind, do you?
    No, a case cannot be made that impeachment and then a criminal trial for the same charge as they were impeached is somehow double jeopardy because there is no penalty, or "risk of jeopardy," involved with an impeachment. Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate can only lead to removal from office, as the US Constitution states above. There is no jeopardy of losing their liberty, therefore no double jeopardy applies.

  7. #797
    Student
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    251

    Re: Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    Are you saying that Congress has the legal power to do what it is doing but SHOULD NOT be exercising that legal power in the way that it is being exercised?

    Or are you saying that Congress does not have the legal power to do what it is doing and by doing what it is doing is acting illegally?
    Congress is required to abide by the Fourth Amendment, which requires Congress to provide probable cause that a crime has been committed before they are entitled to any private documents. Congress cannot just violate the Fourth Amendment whenever it pleases them. Fascist Democrats have no problem violating the constitutionally protected rights of others. Do you really think a statute law overrides the US Constitution? Seriously?

  8. #798
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    12,163

    Re: Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    BBC and Crowder.
    The BBC I already use in my "First Run 30" but "Crowder" is a new one to me. All I can find out about "Crowder" is that he is a Canadian-American conservative political commentator, actor, and comedian with a website on which he tells you what he thinks about the news that someone else has reported.

    I did take a quick look at his website, and do have to agree that he could get a job writing headlines for ANY of the major media outlets. For example, in his article headlined "Rhode Island Teachers’ Union and ACLU Object to Bill Outlawing Sex with Students" it isn't until you reach the sixth paragraph that you actually find out that neither the Union nor the ACLU are advocating that it be OK for teachers to have sex with students but rather that their objection is to the fact that the legislation makes having sex with students illegal ONLY if one of the parties is a teacher. In short, a very "click bait" headline.

    But, then again, Mr. Crowder doesn't make any pretense at being a journalist - serious or otherwise.
    I was told that the best things for me were to eat healthy foods, walk up hills, stop smoking cigars, and cut out drinking Scotch.
    With my record, I don't deserve the best. What's second best?
    (Retirement Dinner remarks)

  9. #799
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    12,163

    Re: Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    It is not a "policy position." It is, in fact, the law. The Supreme Law of the Land as a matter of fact. You might want to read Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution:
    Yep, and "Double Jeopardy" is a defence that is available "according to law".

    PS - Might I suggest that you learn what "make a case" means to a lawyer?

    PPS - You might also want to consider that the Founding Fathers had absolutely ZERO intention that a sitting President COULD NOT be indicted, tried, convicted, and executed on a charge of "Murder" if that sitting President gunned down a child on the street - EVEN if that sitting President "controlled" enough votes in either the House or Senate to prevent them from being "impeached" (and if "impeached" subsequently "convicted").

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    No, a case cannot be made that impeachment and then a criminal trial for the same charge as they were impeached is somehow double jeopardy because there is no penalty, or "risk of jeopardy," involved with an impeachment. Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate can only lead to removal from office, as the US Constitution states above. There is no jeopardy of losing their liberty, therefore no double jeopardy applies.
    Did you know that there is no requirement that a person be at risk of "losing their liberty" for the "Double Jeopardy" defence to kick it? That defence could be applied if some police officer continually wrote you parking tickets alleging that you parked at the same place and at the same time as had been alleged in the first parking ticket you received REGARDLESS of whether you have been convicted or acquitted with respect to that same set of facts.
    I was told that the best things for me were to eat healthy foods, walk up hills, stop smoking cigars, and cut out drinking Scotch.
    With my record, I don't deserve the best. What's second best?
    (Retirement Dinner remarks)

  10. #800
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    12,163

    Re: Democrats Formally Seek Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From IRS

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Congress is required to abide by the Fourth Amendment, which requires Congress to provide probable cause that a crime has been committed before they are entitled to any private documents.
    I would agree that that might be the case IF a warrant were required for Congress to obtain Income Tax returns.

    Unfortunately for the position you advance, Congress does NOT require a warrant to do what it has the statutory authority to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Congress cannot just violate the Fourth Amendment whenever it pleases them.
    And no one is saying that it can. The fact of the matter is that NO WARRANT IS REQUIRED.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Fascist Democrats have no problem violating the constitutionally protected rights of others. Do you really think a statute law overrides the US Constitution? Seriously?
    Where the constitutional provisions do not apply (i.e. in a case where no warrant is required and where the items sought are already the property of the US government [which filed income tax returns are]) there is NO OVERRIDING involved at all.
    I was told that the best things for me were to eat healthy foods, walk up hills, stop smoking cigars, and cut out drinking Scotch.
    With my record, I don't deserve the best. What's second best?
    (Retirement Dinner remarks)

Page 80 of 81 FirstFirst ... 307078798081 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •