Judge rules against Trump in lawsuit to block Democrats’ subpoena for financial records

dcsports said:

I don't think they want to impeach him. They want to damage him. This is all election politics.

If Trump were impeached (and removed) President Pence would have a year to establish himself as the adult in the room, and Democrats would have to actually focus on governing. It would likely cost Democrats the next 8 years. That's the last thing they want.

Click to expand...

Sure, as long as there were no women in the room too, then he'd have to leave.

apdst said:

The president's bank records, especially those from the period of history before he became president, have not a damn thing to do with checks & balances.

That's ok, though. This leaves Pandora's box wide ass open for Republicans to do the exact same thing to a Democrat president. It also opens the door for President Trump to suboena the private records of every Democrat in Congress.

It's hilarious how the Leftists see this as a win.

Click to expand...

Of course they do. It's exactly the same reason applicants for security clearance need to pass a background check for many years before applying. The logic is that if there is secret information regarding illegal activity several years before -- and a foreign government knows about those dealings - the foreign government could blackmail the applicant.

Regarding a president: if a foreign government knows of illegal or embarrassing information, they are a security risk. When that person personally decides war or peace, this is of the most critical importance.

digsbe said:

They want to remove a president from office abusing congressional powers because they lost an election in 2016. Never before in US history has such hate and vitriol been seen by a political party (Democrats) towards a sitting president. The Republicans didn't like Obama, and sure they did things to hamper his presidency but not to the same level of blind hatred and vitriol that we see from a self-righteous Democrat party. I think since the whole Russian hoax fell through their next power play is obtain tax documents, find some business dealing Trump had in some country and apply that to some "ethical conflict of interest" he must have as president and go after that. I think it could also be a self defense mechanism in the event that the DOJ uncovers corruption or finds improper handling of the collusion investigation or ties to Democrat misconduct/bias fueling government actions to point the finger at Trump over some financial misdeed.

Click to expand...

Congratulations. You managed to pack in every whining conspiracy theory you can in one short post. Nicely done!

If Trump is corrupt, as he appears to be, and they have been given information to investigate, they will and should do it. I realize that "protect Trump" is far more important than anything else to you, but most of us care about the country far more than the reality TV game show host playing President today.

Congress is within their rights, and they will do what they can to either clear his name, or show that he is corrupt. It's in your interest to sit back and let them do their jobs so you don't have vapors about how mean everyone is to Trump. It doesn't matter. He wanted the job - he has it. Now he has to live within the same guidelines every other POTUS has.

Trump said:

"Plausible deniability"

Click to expand...

Infowars response.

MTAtech said:

Of course they do. It's exactly the same reason applicants for security clearance need to pass a background check for many years before applying. The logic is that if there is secret information regarding illegal activity several years before -- and a foreign government knows about those dealings - the foreign government could blackmail the applicant.

Regarding a president: if a foreign government knows of illegal or embarrassing information, they are a security risk. When that person personally decides war or peace, this is of the most critical importance.

Click to expand...

Now, you're saying a president has to pass a security clearance background check? :lamo

Seriously! Where do you people come up with this crap?

Praxas said:

Sure they do. Since congress is looking to see possible stricter ethics and disclosure laws, the financial statements from before Trump was president show a good baseline to compare with now he is president to see what increases or violations could have occurred to determine if stricter laws are needed. Face facts, you cons don't have a leg to stand on for this and even the federal judge could see that.

Click to expand...

A law forcing a presidential candidate to disclose confidential information would violate Article 1, the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment.

apdst said:

Now, you're saying a president has to pass a security clearance background check? :lamo

Seriously! Where do you people come up with this crap?

Click to expand...

I was using an example. But your argument that you previously made, namely, that "[t]he president's bank records, especially those from the period of history before he became president, have not a damn thing to do with checks & balances," was completely rejected by the judge yesterday:

“It is simply not fathomable,” the judge wrote, “that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.”

apdst said:

A law forcing a presidential candidate to disclose confidential information would violate Article 1, the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment.

Click to expand...

The law already requires candidates and presidents to file financial disclosures. I would argue, and I believe successfully, that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply because there is no 4th Amendment protections regarding taxes. (The citations were previously given.)

There may be a 5th Amendment problem, if the candidate is being asked to self-incriminate. If they are, that's a pretty good reason to disqualify that candidate -- he/she won't substantiate that they are not a criminal -- a rather low bar to reach.

MTAtech said:

The law already requires candidates and presidents to file financial disclosures. I would argue, and I believe successfully, that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply because there is no 4th Amendment protections regarding taxes. (The citations were previously given.)

There may be a 5th Amendment problem, if the candidate is being asked to self-incriminate. If they are, that's a pretty good reason to disqualify that candidate -- he/she won't substantiate that they are not a criminal -- a rather low bar to reach.

Click to expand...

Of course there's 4th Amendment protections regarding taxes. That's why tax returns are confidential. The law you all love to post ad nauseum says they're confidential.

There may be a 5th Amendment problem, if the candidate is being asked to self-incriminate. If they are, that's a pretty good reason to disqualify that candidate -- he/she won't substantiate that they are not a criminal -- a rather low bar to reach.

Click to expand...

A criminal record doesn't disaqualify someone from being president. You know that. Right?

apdst said:

A law forcing a presidential candidate to disclose confidential information would violate Article 1, the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment.

Click to expand...

Nope, you are just incorrect.

apdst said:

A criminal record doesn't disaqualify someone from being president. You know that. Right?

Click to expand...

When your are backed into a corner and your defense of Trump breaks down to 'a criminal isn't disqualified from being president,' you lost the argument.

MTAtech said:

When your are backed into a corner and your defense of Trump breaks down to 'a criminal isn't disqualified from being president,' you lost the argument.

Click to expand...

Just to add, there weren't just financial crimes, tax-evasion and obstruction of justice. There also was suborning perjury. He instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.



I truly believe that there is nothing Trump can do that his Stepford spouses won't defend him. The space between Trump’s long-standing authoritarian rhetoric and the deployment of his powers of office is collapsing in front of us. What would have been considered outrageous and abnormal behavior of a president is now matter-of-fact.

MTAtech said:

Just to add, there weren't just financial crimes, tax-evasion and obstruction of justice. There also was suborning perjury. He instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.

I truly believe that there is nothing Trump can do that his Stepford spouses won't defend him. The space between Trump’s long-standing authoritarian rhetoric and the deployment of his powers of office is collapsing in front of us. What would have been considered outrageous and abnormal behavior of a president is now matter-of-fact.

Click to expand...

where's the audio recording?

Trump said:

where's the audio recording?

Click to expand...

Inorite?

Where is Cohen's credibility?

He spews only perfidy.

Cohen is a serial liar.

A serial liar who said Trump is not a Russian agent.

; )

MTAtech said:

When your are backed into a corner and your defense of Trump breaks down to 'a criminal isn't disqualified from being president,' you lost the argument.

Click to expand...

When you try to erroneously claim that a criminal record can disqualify a presidential candidate, then that's the exact answer you'll receive.

MTAtech said:

Just to add, there weren't just financial crimes, tax-evasion and obstruction of justice. There also was suborning perjury. He instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.

I truly believe that there is nothing Trump can do that his Stepford spouses won't defend him. The space between Trump’s long-standing authoritarian rhetoric and the deployment of his powers of office is collapsing in front of us. What would have been considered outrageous and abnormal behavior of a president is now matter-of-fact.

Click to expand...

I'd really like to see Sekulow hauled down and put under oath.

tres borrachos said:

I'd really like to see Sekulow hauled down and put under oath.

Click to expand...

Dems have lost their minds.

You cheer when Law enforcement bust into Cohens office and take everything..now you want Sekulow under oath for who knows what...Dems are rabid out of control brown shirts hell bent on getting their way

tres borrachos said:

You think the Democrats are looking to overturn the election results?

Click to expand...

A concerted effort to disenfranchise 63 million voters who played by the rules is obvious to any willing to observe the events in motion.







Keith Ellison is also famous/infamous for blatant lies attempting to rewrite history and allegedly assaulting his girlfriend.

Not only after the election were democrats scrambling for a do over. Before and during as well.

We were told over and over with the colorfully graphic incorrect polls predicting a Hillary win..

Hillary had control of the DNC, she made love slaves of media and hollywood, Sanders was kicked off the political cliff.

The members of the left immediately set out to reverse the results of the election and have not stopped to this very day.

Jill Stein raised $7.3 million for a 2016 election recount. And she's still spending it. This oddly increased the lead.

The popular vote argument which overturns 200 years of enfranchisement for all US citizens in favor of an authoritarian few population centers ruling the entire country.

So again breaking the agreed upon rules hollywood, democrats, and media try to coerce others to break the long standing agreed upon rules.

Since some continue to follow the laws and traditions set in motion for hundreds of years... Democrats threaten to kill them....
Electoral College voter: I'm getting death threats-CNN

Some democrats even admit they will go after duly elected officials "in every conceivable way."

And some have followed through on their threats.

So how many house democrats rejected the traditions and rules on inauguration day?

More than 50 House Democrats have declared that they plan to boycott Donald Trump’s inauguration Friday

The left did show up however to vandalize the local dc starbucks and adjoining businesses.

What did the businesses there striving to feed their families do exactly to justify that destruction?

So democrats failed to prevent trump from being sworn in...Impeachment talks that have already been in the air begin in earnest. Note the date...He was NOT even in office.

We were not aware at the time that the obama administration seemed to be coordinating with investigative and intel agencies to weaponize russian disinformation specialists connected with putin to attack trump.

Steele’s Meeting With US Official Casts Doubts on FBI’s Official Story

This is a classic case of projection and transference much like ted bundy, where the serial killer blames the victim. "It was all a set-up."

I find it ironic that if progressives somehow actually get what they want, They will become apoplectic with an arguably evangelical Pence.

Democrats have not really thought this through.

Trump said:

Dems have lost their minds.

You cheer when Law enforcement bust into Cohens office and take everything..now you want Sekulow under oath for who knows what...Dems are rabid out of control brown shirts hell bent on getting their way

Click to expand...

A federal judge signed a warrant to seize Michael Cohen's records as they related to illegal activities. In Trumpistan we only investigate personal enemies of the Leader and it's fine to chant "lock them up," about people dutifully administering the laws of the land. It's also fine to bash suspects heads on squad-car roofs. It's just not legitimate to look into any wrongdoing of the Leader. When Trump uses the word "fair" he does it in anything but the dictionary definition of the term. Trump and his cult's notion of "fairness" is purely positional, revolving entirely around his own self-interest. Thus, those who investigate him are "traitors" as he said at a recent Hitler Youth rally. Such devotion to an authoritarian criminal whose support feeds off of hate is dangerous to democracy in this country.

Sekulow is Trump's Bruce Cutler. If Sekulow told Cohen to lie, he isn't covered by an privilege. That's the law. the brown shirt hell that you write is what you want to bring to America.

MTAtech said:

A federal judge signed a warrant to seize Michael Cohen's records as they related to illegal activities. In Trumpistan we only investigate personal enemies of the Leader and it's fine to chant "lock them up," about people dutifully administering the laws of the land. It's also fine to bash suspects heads on squad-car roofs. It's just not legitimate to look into any wrongdoing of the Leader. When Trump uses the word "fair" he does it in anything but the dictionary definition of the term. Trump and his cult's notion of "fairness" is purely positional, revolving entirely around his own self-interest. Thus, those who investigate him are "traitors" as he said at a recent Hitler Youth rally. Such devotion to an authoritarian criminal whose support feeds off of hate is dangerous to democracy in this country.

Sekulow is Trump's Bruce Cutler. If Sekulow told Cohen to lie, he isn't covered by an privilege. That's the law. the brown shirt hell that you write is what you want to bring to America.

Click to expand...

Get a gripe ....your party has committed the worst political crime in the history of Politics with "Crossfire Hurricane"...prepared for IMPACT.... all this crap you're spewing is gonna fly back into Democrats open mouths. )

Trump said:

Get a gripe ....your party has committed the worst political crime in the history of Politics with "Crossfire Hurricane"...prepared for IMPACT.... all this crap you're spewing is gonna fly back into Democrats open mouths. )

Click to expand...

I already have a gripe -- with Trump. Yeah, the right-wing narrative that the problem isn't Russia intervening on behalf of Trump. Oh, no, the problem is the FBI investigating Russia intervening on behalf of Trump.

MTAtech said:

I already have a gripe -- with Trump. Yeah, the right-wing narrative that the problem isn't Russia intervening on behalf of Trump. Oh, no, the problem is the FBI investigating Russia intervening on behalf of Trump.

Click to expand...

You must have been shocked when Mueller Report was released...You're gonna be floored when Durham announces his charges against deep state.

Comey Fired
McCabe Fired
Strzok Fired

see a pattern here

Trump said:

You're gonna be floored when Durham announces his charges against deep state.

Click to expand...

What if Durham fails to lodge any meaningful charges (or any charges at all)?

Would that be enough for you to reconsider your current understanding of events in re the Deep State™?

Simon W. Moon said:

What if Durham fails to lodge any meaningful charges (or any charges at all)?

Would that be enough for you to reconsider your current understanding of events in re the Deep State™?

Click to expand...

no because I'd see that as some lame attempt to save country from ugly partisan fight.

I just don't see Barr pushing this under the rug for the good of the country.

Cardinal said:

Now let's just hope that the same Federal judge will get the Deutsch Bank and tax return cases too.

Being serious, though, I'm pleasantly surprised to see that this ruling was made in such short order. If this is a sign of things to come, we may expect to see similar rulings on the other subpoenas over Trump's financial records with this speed.

In before trump supporters boo hoo over Trump's privacy.

Click to expand...

So is there any time when we can see them?