• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump asks Supreme Court to shield financial records from House Democrats

Common Sense 1 said:
Will the resist mob go after Justice Ginsburg?

U.S. Justice Ginsburg puts temporary hold on Trump financial records dispute

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday put a temporary hold on a court ruling that would require records held by Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp to be handed over to Democratic-led congressional panels.

Trump's lawyers asked the high court to put a hold a Dec. 3 ruling by Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directing the two banks to comply with April subpoenas by the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee and Intelligence Committee for the financial records.

In a brief order, Ginsburg said that the lower court ruling is now on hold until Dec. 13.
Click to expand...

An interesting turn of events. A good question whether 'the resist mob go after Justice Ginsburg?' Kudos.

Here's the article I spotted with further links for those interested.

CNBC reported that Trump application “was submitted to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg because she is assigned to the 2nd Circuit.”
CNN Supreme Court reporter Shimon Prokupecz noted that Ginsburg’s order “reflects that the court wants more time before deciding whether or not to block the House subpoenas.”
In her order, Ginsburg wrote:

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants,
IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Supreme Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, case No. 19-1540, issued December 3, 2019, is hereby recalled and stayed until 5 p.m. on December 13, 2019. It is further ordered that a response be filed on or before December 11, 2019 by 11 a.m.
​

Politico reported, “Trump-related requests are piling up at the Supreme Court — and the outcomes could set precedent on significant questions related to separation-of-power issues and whether a president is immune from state-based criminal investigations while in office.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Halts Democrats’ Attempts To Get Trump Financial Records | The Daily Wire
Click to expand...
 
Exactice said:
In fairness of of how complicated his taxes may be.... Im sure there are SMALL errors I am not sure it would constitute crimes, possible fines and back taxes But doubt full and federal statutory crimes warranted of "Impeachment"


YET that is the GOAL find any "dirt" they can. That being said AGAIN the IRS specializes in the work, WHAT would the Dems find that the IRS couldn't? You say there are bigger crimes, WHAT could it be. I mean seriously its easy to hurl accusations, But kinda hard to prove when nothing lines up.


THE IRS HAS HIS TAXES they are ON him.... Yet he has never been accused or charged with a serious financial crime.... (Compared to Manafort or Cohen as an example) IRS has his Taxes....what more is needed?
Click to expand...

Investigate until we find a crime is their motive.
 
eohrnberger said:
An interesting turn of events. A good question whether 'the resist mob go after Justice Ginsburg?' Kudos.

Here's the article I spotted with further links for those interested.
Click to expand...

This is nothing really. This is a simple case of whether trump has the ability to do this while in office.

Honestly trump should not be arguing that.
He should be arguing that he has filed all the appropriate paper work with the government agencies and they have not found anything wrong.

That he is the target of government harassment by political opponents that are investigating until they find a crime.

They have no evidence of any wrong doing and they are simply running endless investigations to thwart privacy laws.

That is how I would approach this situation and it would be a better argument.
 
HenryChinaski said:
One individual, their yearly income $333,000,000. Employee salaries = $125,000,000. Those salaries are written off, gone. That individual builds a new $100,000,000 facility and gets every penny of that back. On top of that their tax refund from the IRS is $37,000,000. Yeah, no one suffers like the filthy rich.
Click to expand...

you mean their Revenue was 333m?

please be specific with terminology as it matter

and they expensed 125m in employee salaries

and pray tell, how did they get to write off the 100m facility build? on what form? with what code?

and if he got a 37m refund, how much had he PAID IN?
 
ludin said:
This is nothing really. This is a simple case of whether trump has the ability to do this while in office.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Ginsberg's action here is nothing really. All her action does is to give her some more time to review the case. No decision on the matter rendered.

Honestly trump should not be arguing that.
He should be arguing that he has filed all the appropriate paper work with the government agencies and they have not found anything wrong.

That he is the target of government harassment by political opponents that are investigating until they find a crime.
Click to expand...

True. In True Beria fashion, Democrats not thinking for a second that control of the House and similar investigations might fall into the other party's hands. Bad, bad precedent has been set here by the Democrats.

They have no evidence of any wrong doing and they are simply running endless investigations to thwart privacy laws.

That is how I would approach this situation and it would be a better argument.
Click to expand...

May very well be the better argument. Not sure whom is setting the strategy.
 
eohrnberger said:
Agreed, Ginsberg's action here is nothing really. All her action does is to give her some more time to review the case. No decision on the matter rendered.



True. In True Beria fashion, Democrats not thinking for a second that control of the House and similar investigations might fall into the other party's hands. Bad, bad precedent has been set here by the Democrats.



May very well be the better argument. Not sure whom is setting the strategy.
Click to expand...

Trumps lawyers are hedging everything on that dojo memo from the 70's.

I do not think that is a valid argument.

I think a more valid argument is that congress and states are violating due process and privacy laws.

They have no evidence of a crime. They are simply fishing for violations with no evidence of a violation.

That trump has filed his tax forms with the IRS on an annual basis and they have found no wrong doing.

That he is audited every year and was audited before the election as he was supposed to be.

Again the IRS has not found any issues.

So there is no need for them to get his financial records as he has followed all laws and codes and that they are simply fishing for some crime which is unconstitutional.

They are violating 4th amendment and privacy laws of the constitution.
 
ludin said:
Trumps lawyers are hedging everything on that dojo memo from the 70's.

I do not think that is a valid argument.

I think a more valid argument is that congress and states are violating due process and privacy laws.

They have no evidence of a crime. They are simply fishing for violations with no evidence of a violation.

That trump has filed his tax forms with the IRS on an annual basis and they have found no wrong doing.

That he is audited every year and was audited before the election as he was supposed to be.

Again the IRS has not found any issues.

So there is no need for them to get his financial records as he has followed all laws and codes and that they are simply fishing for some crime which is unconstitutional.

They are violating 4th amendment and privacy laws of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Hey, you've convinced me. :)
I'd welcome the protection of, and cessation of the degradation of, the 4th amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom