• 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!

Judge orders Trump Accounts to hand over info to House!

Simon W. Moon said:
What is your argument here?

You are of the opinion that the Legislative Branch lacks any investigative powers which correspond to the Legislative Branch's Constitutional duties to make informed law and to provide oversight?

The Legislative Branch may only work with information it already has?
Click to expand...

The legislative branch is not a law enforcement agency. that is beyond their power.
they can investigate if there is evidence of a crime from a law enforcement agency.

there is no evidence of a crime. they are fishing. that is outside their powers.
 
OscarLevant said:
Blanket instructions to staff and lawyers to defy all subpoenas, no matter the reason.


That is obstruction of justice. There is no "unwarranted search and seizures" because Congress has wide constitutional authority do provide oversight. Moreover, "seizure" means confiscation, such as confiscating assets. Reviewing documents is not "seizure" (afaik).
Click to expand...

No, it is not. Congress has no ability to prosecute for a crime. Since no crime has been committed, then there is no obstruction of justice. You really should take some law classes and get educated instead of looking so lost and illiterate.
 
iguanaman said:
Yes it is important for Congress to provide oversight of the President. The Constitution requires it.
Click to expand...

And it's also important for Congress to pass legislation that keeps America running.

Our infrastructure sucks.
Healthcare is unaffordable...AGAIN!
Drug prices are at all-time highs.
People are pouring over our Southern border by the thousands every week and no place to put them.
Meanwhile, House Democrats have 100% focused all their energy on getting Trump's finances!

I would love to be a fly on the wall at one of these Democrat ****ers' town halls next year when they have to face their constituents and get asked the question: "Why should I vote for you later this year when you haven't gotten a damn thing done that improves my life?"
 
BlueTex said:
The last time an appeals court or SCOTUS denied a congressional subpoena was 1880... Do you really think this is some groundbreaking case?
Click to expand...

Here is the second time. This time, there is no crime so there is no reason for the Congress to subpoena anything.
 
tres borrachos said:
The Mueller report did not declare him innocent. That is a fact.
Click to expand...
Doesn't have to he is already innocent until proven guilty. civics 101. you being obtuse just means as typical you don't know what you are talking about.

If I go online right now and steal someone's identity, I am guilty of a crime. If they don't catch me, I am still guilty of a crime. If I am tried and found to be not guilty, that is a different thing.
Click to expand...

actually you are arrested on probable cause that you commited a crime. you are still innocent until someone proves you guilty.
if the state can't prove you guilty then you are innocent. thanks for supporting the fact that you are innocent until you are proven guilty.

Trump was not on trial. The Mueller report didn't declare him innocent of obstruction. Your lies notwithstanding, that is a fact that people whose brains are working acknowledge.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to be on trial. presumption of innocence exists even outside the courtroom. yes your lies are not withstanding.
it doesn't have to declare him innocent. the report gave no opinion on the matter that by default means he is innocent that is how our system works
no matter what lies you want to tell yourself. then how do you not understand civics 101?

You declared him innocent. That's your choice. But the rest of us want to see what Congress has to say about it. Unfortunately for you, that is what will happen.
Click to expand...
Nope the law says that he is innocent. it isn't my choice has nothing to do with me.

congress will declare him innocent as well. that or you don't understand the impeachment process either.
that is civics 102. might want to go look it up.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Exactly.
And innocent people cannot be investigated, right?
Click to expand...

Not sure in what country you live in but in the US know we usually don't investigate innocent people.

That's why there is never an investigation until after someone is convicted.
Click to expand...

we already have the info no evidence of wrong doing. what more do you want?

Why is that so hard for people to get?
Click to expand...

no evidence
no collusion
no obstruction
no coordination.

what more do you want?

sorry you don't like facts.
 
Roadvirus said:
And it's also important for Congress to pass legislation that keeps America running.

Our infrastructure sucks.
Healthcare is unaffordable...AGAIN!
Drug prices are at all-time highs.
People are pouring over our Southern border by the thousands every week and no place to put them.
Meanwhile, House Democrats have 100% focused all their energy on getting Trump's finances!

I would love to be a fly on the wall at one of these Democrat ****ers' town halls next year when they have to face their constituents and get asked the question: "Why should I vote for you later this year when you haven't gotten a damn thing done that improves my life?"
Click to expand...

They've worked on bills to address health care, drug prices, and infrastructure. The question the people are going to ask is "why does the GOP shoot down every bill that a majority of Americans support?"
 
Cougarbear said:
Here is the second time. This time, there is no crime so there is no reason for the Congress to subpoena anything.
Click to expand...

There does not need to be a crime for a congressional subpoena.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ludin said:
The legislative branch is not a law enforcement agency. that is beyond their power.
they can investigate if there is evidence of a crime from a law enforcement agency.

there is no evidence of a crime. they are fishing. that is outside their powers.
Click to expand...

LOL.. That’s completely divorced from the reality of congressional powers..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Which parts?

Which part of how the SCotUS conducts its business lets the ScotUS stop, or overrule an impeachment?


[emphasis added]

The challenge process involves someone with standing bringing a suit.

As I have asked previously in re the example about the SCotUS intervening in an impeachment proceeding, would the PotUS have to sue the Legislative Branch to get the SCotUS involved?

Or is there some other mechanism which is more particular to the relationship among the three branches of govt?
Click to expand...

So who would the person of standing be?

If the President believed an impeachment was un-constitutional, meaning it did not meet the criteria outlined in the Constitution, the President would be the person of standing who would seek remedy.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Not true. You have not provided links to any such study. That is a blatant falsehood on your part.
Click to expand...

Post #253. I'll look for your apology, but won't expect it.

That's fine, this is rather boring. The posters on this thread have been like locust, which I find most entertaining.
 
ludin said:
Not sure in what country you live in but in the US know we usually don't investigate innocent people.
Click to expand...
Um, what? Lots of innocent people get investigated.


we already have the info no evidence of wrong doing. what more do you want?



no evidence
no collusion
no obstruction
no coordination.

what more do you want?

sorry you don't like facts.
Click to expand...
Uhh, "don't interpret this to mean there was no evidence" is literally in Mueller's report but you ****in do you man.
 
ocean515 said:
So who would the person of standing be?

If the President believed an impeachment was un-constitutional, meaning it did not meet the criteria outlined in the Constitution, the President would be the person of standing who would seek remedy.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has no authority to grant remedy, so questions of standing are irrelevant. Congress is the final authority on impeachemnt.
 
iguanaman said:
No it is the Constitutions problem. That pesky document empowers the Congress with oversight of the Executive. No man is above the law.
Click to expand...

Yep. But their power is not absolute...
 
Chomsky said:
I most certainly do!

Are you familiar with the case of Judge Nixon? It's the unanimous SCOTUS decision that impeachments are not justiciable, and therefore non-reviewable.



And,



Source: (Wikipedia) Nixon v. United States

What I suggest you do, rather than blindly assert and hypothesize, is research the matter and come back with the relevant case-law and precedences supporting your assertions (as I have done).
Click to expand...

What I suggest you do Chomsky, is take a deep breath and calm down.

I appreciate you believe your interpretation is correct. I don't agree with it.

I'll use your wiki link to present a case in point.

Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and David Souter concurred, but voiced concern that the Court was foreclosing the area for review. While they found that the Senate had done all that was constitutionally required, they were concerned that the Court should have the power to review cases in which the Senate removed an impeached officer summarily without a hearing, or through some arbitrary process such as "a coin toss​
 
iguanaman said:
Yes it is important for Congress to provide oversight of the President. The Constitution requires it.
Click to expand...

I agree. All branches of government have various types of oversight, the Constitution lays the groundwork for that. Just as there are checks and balances under Separations of Power.
 
BlueTex said:
There does not need to be a crime for a congressional subpoena.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually, there does have to be some truth and reason for a subpoena. Just like the police, DA, AG and FBI have to have reasons.
 
Deuce said:
The Supreme Court does that plenty with legislation, yes.

But the Supreme Court has no authority to overturn an impeachment. Impeachment is explicitly a constitutionally-mandated duty of Congress. Only a military coup can change that.
Click to expand...

Let's see if you're willing to answer this question.

What if Congress violated the Constitutional rights of a government official, and wrongfully impeached them, meaning they removed them from office, based on fabricated evidence, or no evidence at all?

What legal relief would be available to that government official?
 
Deuce said:
SCOTUS has no authority to grant remedy, so questions of standing are irrelevant. Congress is the final authority on impeachemnt.
Click to expand...

Not when it comes to matters of violating a citizens rights. The Congress could certainly impeach a government official, but that doesn't mean the impeachment would stand, if it can be shown the action taken was outside the scope of their authority.

For example, Congress couldn't impeach a government official simply because the felt like it.

Doesn't work that way.

Why do you think New Democratic Party Leadership is against impeachment?
 
Last edited:
Cougarbear said:
Actually, there does have to be some truth and reason for a subpoena. Just like the police, DA, AG and FBI have to have reasons.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you need to study more about congressional subpoenas. There is no requirement that a crime is being investigated.

When Nunes issued a subpoena for the bank records of Fusion GPS last year, what crime were they “investigating”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
roughdraft274 said:
Exactly what did I type that deserved such a smarmy post that had little to do with what I said?

I never said tax returns show assets. That's a strawman. But on top of that, this subpoena is for numerous financial documents and not just tax returns. So I'm not sure why you'd think that tax returns are the only thing we are discussing here. You could have saved yourself a lot of furious typing if you'd simply stopped and made sure I was saying what you thought I said.

To your next point, congress has staff and experts on hand to ask questions and review documents as required in the same way you have an accountant. But your general assertion (I'm assuming this is your assertion since you just blurted it out but never gave an exact reason for it) that congress shouldn't get these documents because they wouldn't be able to understand them is just a bull**** platitude. No matter what the topic, some members of congress will not be experts. But that is no reason to deny the information to congress if it is requested.

My opinion on what a billionaire has nothing to do with the discussion and is yet another fairly pretentious argument against a strawman that you've created.
Click to expand...

Don Quixote stories always make me laugh. Nothing furious about my response, a laughable bit of tidbits from the world of money. Give more credit to congress, and give yourself disappointment and more frustration. Another word for expert is sycophant.

Not anywhere near the reason I employed a tax attorney and CPA. They were employed to protect me and mine from the government. The greatest threat to freedom is the government. Over reaching by congress should never be tolerated, no matter the excuse.

Donald made himself into the great white whale for the democrats. We all know how that story ended. :lamo
 
ocean515 said:
Let's see if you're willing to answer this question.

What if Congress violated the Constitutional rights of a government official, and wrongfully impeached them, meaning they removed them from office, based on fabricated evidence, or no evidence at all?

What legal relief would be available to that government official?
Click to expand...

Impeachment is not reviewable.. period...

Nixon v. United States :: 506 U.S. 224 (1993) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Unanimous... You might recognize some of the justices in the opinion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom