• 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!

ocean515 said:
Sure. Don't you?

Why does the right to appeal exist?
Click to expand...

An appeal is not a stay... Is there anything about this case that merits a stay or meets the conditions of a stay?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ocean515 said:
Obama Judge. It appears you can't handle that fact. Your burden, not mine.
Click to expand...
I’m bored with your childish and idiotic semantic game. Say what you want, it doesn’t change facts.

ocean515 said:
I've never suggested a citizen has a right to stay a judges order. Where in the law does is say a citizen doesn't have the right to request it?
Click to expand...
Yes, you have. Repeatedly.

ocean515 said:
Yes, the Obama Judge eliminated the citizens right to remain whole pending appeal. Not really surprising, given the alliance.
Click to expand...

ocean515 said:
The fact the Obama Judge explicitly removed the right to stay the order pending appeal shows a citizens right to remain whole is automatic.
Click to expand...

ocean515 said:
This issue involves private information the plaintiff believes has been demanded for unlawful purposes. A citizen has a right to appeal a decision, up to a point, that goes against their position. In normal circumstances, the appeal process would be allowed to play out, before that process is exhausted, as that is the right of every citizen.

The Obama Judge eliminated the right to remain whole pending appeal. That is the Obama Judge's digressionary privilege.
Click to expand...

ocean515 said:
Try to get some information straight. Seems you're having trouble with that.
Click to expand...
It’s apparent that you’re having trouble with your memory and facts.
 
BlueTex said:
An appeal is not a stay... Is there anything about this case that merits a stay or meets the conditions of a stay?


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

Correct, an appeal is not a stay. Not sure why you mentioned that.

Is there anything about this case. Absolutely. The who case is about a request for private information. Without the a stay, that information is released.

What if a different Judge overturns the Obama Judges ruling? The harm would have already been inflicted.

The Obama Judge has every right to deny a stay, or even remove it's possibility, since that was the Obama Judges objective.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I’m bored with your childish and idiotic semantic game. Say what you want, it doesn’t change facts.


Yes, you have. Repeatedly.








It’s apparent that you’re having trouble with your memory and facts.
Click to expand...

Not really. But I can see your frustration is causing you considerable challenges.

Perhaps you should take a break. Nobody cares what you or I write.
 
Fletch said:
The president has not committed any crime. What is going on here is the democrats searching for a crime, not investigating one. This is a search and destroy mission, not a search for justice. You dont care because...Trump.
Click to expand...


Read the first three pages of the Mehta decision. It explains thoroughly why Congress has the authority, especially in this case, to investigate.

READ: Judge Amit Mehta's opinion in Trump's subpoena case - CNNPolitics


And, I thoroughly disagree with your assertion that Trump has not committed any crimes.
 
ocean515 said:
You are correct. Automatic was not the correct reference. "Assumed to be available" or something along those lines.
This issue involves private information the plaintiff believes has been demanded for unlawful purposes. A citizen has a right to appeal a decision, up to a point, that goes against their position. In normal circumstances, the appeal process would be allowed to play out, before that process is exhausted, as that is the right of every citizen.
The Obama Judge eliminated the right to remain whole pending appeal. That is the Obama Judge's digressionary privilege.
Click to expand...
There is no "right to remain whole".
[Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary. It may be located next to the place it says that a PotUS can sue to undo the results of an impeachment proceeding]

Stays are granted when the judge can tell that the requester's case is likely to succeed on its merits.

The judge in this case determined that the plaintiffs' case was unlikely to succeed on its merits.

The judge also noted that the plaintiff and defendants had already agreed to a 7 day delay which started after the ruling was made.

For those two reasons no stay was granted.
 
Fletch said:
Thats not what it means. Clinton was impeached. He was not removed.
Click to expand...


Nitpicking, that is the purpose of the impeachment, to try and remove. That Clinton was not removed does not alter the point I made.

"No one has the inherit right to be president", which I expressed in response to You were (not you, ocean515 or whatever his handle is was) was saying if a president is removed and his rights were violated, blah blah blah.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
There is no "right to remain whole".
[Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary. It may be located next to the place it says that a PotUS can sue to undo the results of an impeachment proceeding]

Stays are granted when the judge can tell that the requester's case is likely to succeed on its merits.

The judge in this case determined that the plaintiffs' case was unlikely to succeed on its merits.

The judge also noted that the plaintiff and defendants had already agreed to a 7 day delay which started after the ruling was made.

For those two reasons no stay was granted.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. On what basis or experience are you basing your opinions on?

It not critical that I know, but I'm just curious.
 
ocean515 said:
I'm curious. On what basis or experience are you basing your opinions on?
It not critical that I know, but I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

The text of the ruling.

It's available online for free.

You should read it sometime.
 
ocean515 said:
Not really. But I can see your frustration is causing you considerable challenges.

Perhaps you should take a break. Nobody cares what you or I write.
Click to expand...
It looks like your frustration is causing you to prevaricate more and more frequently. Yesterday, and again this morning. Pity.

Maybe you should take break.
 
ocean515 said:
How does your reply relate to my post?
Click to expand...


You wrote:

I haven't disputed that.

The Senate can decide to fulfill their part of the process and vote to Impeach. So, the Congress votes to Impeach. Done deal.

Do you think the person who was impeached has no other recourse after that, if they believe their Constitutional rights were violated?


Under your interpretation, Congress could decide to remove a President just because.

What would keep a One Party controlled Congress, with sufficient majorities in both chambers to impeach, from removing every President and Vice President they don't like, or who won't do their bidding?

What would be the purpose of the Executive Branch if Congress actually had that power?
Click to expand...


You are implying that Congress will impeach willy nilly ( just because opposition is president). Yes, I suppose it's possible, but it's highly unlikely given the stakes and potential for backlash if it is done hastily. So, your premise is rather absurd. impeachments are rare, and when they are done, they are done with extreme caution, especially since the Clinton impeachment.

You also implied "a presidents rights are violated what recourse does he have".


Whatever those rights you mention might be trampled on, it can't include the right to be president, as there is no such right.

Moreover, the only right a president has is to not be removed is the same afforded a US Citizen, i.e., you can't be fired for race, religion, or sexual preference ( the latter is being debated and legislated in various states ).

In short, your claim falls pretty much under the "slippery slope" fallacy, as mentioned in the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit. ( google it ), i.e, "if Congress does this, where will it end" type of logic.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The text of the ruling.

It's available online for free.

You should read it sometime.
Click to expand...

Keep it civil Moon, or there is no reason to waste any more time.

I've respected you, I would ask you do the same.

There is more to understanding the law, and how it works, than just reading a ruling.


That's why people go to law school. People like my wife, a practicing attorney. Or my Brother, a member of the Bar as well. Or my Father, who argued cases before the SCOTUS, or my Grandfather, who did the same. Or my brother-in-law, who is a member of the Hawaii State bar.


I'm not an attorney myself. But myprofessional career has made my use of people with that professional skill set an almost daily occurrence. Of course my private family life has been surrounding by attorneys and never ending discussions of the law and current events related to it.


That doesn't mean I have some special legal skill set, but it certainly means my level of understanding about the law, and the mechanisms surrounding how it applies, is likely greater than the average person would be.


You are welcome to disagree to anything you want to. In the end, you have no chance of changing my position on the law, and how the Constitution applies to all citizens.
 
OscarLevant said:
You wrote:




You are implying that Congress will impeach willy nilly ( just because opposition is president). Yes, I suppose it's possible, but it's highly unlikely given the stakes and potential for backlash if it is done hastily. So, your premise is rather absurd. impeachments are rare, and when they are done, they are done with extreme caution, especially since the Clinton impeachment.

You also implied "a presidents rights are violated what recourse does he have".


Whatever those rights you mention might be trampled on, it can't include the right to be president, as there is no such right.

Moreover, the only right a president has is to not be removed is the same afforded a US Citizen, i.e., you can't be fired for race, religion, or sexual preference ( the latter is being debated and legislated in various states ).

In short, your claim falls pretty much under the "slippery slope" fallacy, as mentioned in the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit. ( google it ), i.e, "if Congress does this, where will it end" type of logic.
Click to expand...

No, I am responding to claims that the Congress can impeach on anything they feel like. That's been stated on this thread over and over.


Further, it's been claimed that a citizen has no judicial right of review to Congress impeaching them, even if there were no grounds for impeachment.


That is simply untrue.

The only people on a slippery slope are those who believe Congress can impeach for any reason they choose, and the Constitution is subservient to Congress.
 
ocean515 said:
Correct, an appeal is not a stay. Not sure why you mentioned that.

Is there anything about this case. Absolutely. The who case is about a request for private information. Without the a stay, that information is released.

What if a different Judge overturns the Obama Judges ruling? The harm would have already been inflicted.

The Obama Judge has every right to deny a stay, or even remove it's possibility, since that was the Obama Judges objective.
Click to expand...

The Fusion GPS subpoena got private information on 25 politicians and 30 contractors. Why is this case different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BlueTex said:
The Fusion GPS subpoena got private information on 25 politicians and 30 contractors. Why is this case different?


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

My understanding is the request was to determine who Fusion did business with, not the complete personal private financial information from those people Fusion did business with.

How is the name of a person or business equal the demand for complete personal private financial information?
 
ocean515 said:
My understanding is the request was to determine who Fusion did business with, not the complete personal private financial information from those people Fusion did business with.

How is the name of a person or business equal the demand for complete personal private financial information?
Click to expand...

Your understanding is wrong... it was the details of their financials transactions with Fusion GPS.

Now, what is the difference from the perspective of the law?


Saddle up, the Deutsche Bank hearing is today..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
BlueTex said:
Your understanding is wrong... it was the details of their financials transactions with Fusion GPS.

Now, what is the difference from the perspective of the law?


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

Financial transactions are not the same as private personal financial reports.

Learning who was doing business with Fusion, and how much they spent hiring them, is not anywhere near the same as seeking detailed, multiyear private financial statements and tax records.

Explain how learning someone spent $100k over two years with Fusion is the same as demanding the complete financial returns over multiple years of someone who spent that $100k.
 
ocean515 said:
Financial transactions are not the same as private personal financial reports.

Learning who was doing business with Fusion, and how much they spent hiring them, is not anywhere near the same as seeking detailed, multiyear private financial statements and tax records.

Explain how learning someone spent $100k over two years with Fusion is the same as demanding the complete financial returns over multiple years of someone who spent that $100k.
Click to expand...

How does the law distinguish between these two cases?


Today, Deutsche Bank gets their turn....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BlueTex said:
How does the law distinguish between these two cases?


Today, Deutsche Bank gets their turn....


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

You seem to have difficulty answering relative questions. If that's what you want to keep doing, I'll just move on.
 
ocean515 said:
Keep ... citizens.
Click to expand...
Perhaps your intuitions about legal matters are merely better than yours would otherwise be.
Your ad hoc creation of new rights leaves me sceptical about how deeply the legal expertise of those around you has affected you.


I hope the law experiences of the people around you can help you figure out how the SCotUS becomes the second group — in addition to the Senate — with the power to determine if an impeachment outcome is fitting.
Please ask around and see if any of them are able to say where that idea is supported in the Constitution, or case law, or w/e tf you think that comes from.

It seems like you just hope and feel it must be true that a PotUS could sue to have an impeachment result annulled, overruled, or w/e.
So, please, please ask your kith and kin to help you support your argument.
I note that you have not tried to cite any sources as a basis for your belief that a lawsuit could overturn a presidential impeachment result.


Additionally, the idea that certain conditions must be met for a stay to be granted seems like a common legal knowledge.
I am shocked I tell you, shocked, that your osmotic legal knowledge failed to include this.

All that business you were just asking me about — the stays etc — is literally included in the document under discussion.
When you indicate that you are unaware of the content of the document under discussion, you indicate that you have failed to show yourself respect.

I am also shocked to find out that you were unaware that this content is included in the document under discussion.
Shocked.

attachment.php
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Perhaps your intuitions about legal matters are merely better than yours would otherwise be.
Your ad hoc creation of new rights leaves me sceptical about how deeply the legal expertise of those around you has affected you.


I hope the law experiences of the people around you can help you figure out how the SCotUS becomes the second group — in addition to the Senate — with the power to determine if an impeachment outcome is fitting.
Please ask around and see if any of them are able to say where that idea is supported in the Constitution, or case law, or w/e tf you think that comes from.

It seems like you just hope and feel it must be true that a PotUS could sue to have an impeachment result annulled, overruled, or w/e.
So, please, please ask your kith and kin to help you support your argument.
I note that you have not tried to cite any sources as a basis for your belief that a lawsuit could overturn a presidential impeachment result.


Additionally, the idea that certain conditions must be met for a stay to be granted seems like a common legal knowledge.
I am shocked I tell you, shocked, that your osmotic legal knowledge failed to include this.

All that business you were just asking me about — the stays etc — is literally included in the document under discussion.
When you indicate that you are unaware of the content of the document under discussion, you indicate that you have failed to show yourself respect.

I am also shocked to find out that you were unaware that this content is included in the document under discussion.
Shocked.

attachment.php
Click to expand...

My ad hoc creation of new rights?

LOL

I have the Obama Judges ruling tee'd up right now. I can quote any phrase, punctuation mark, or cite, from any page, immediately.

We're done.

Thanks for the comments.
 
ocean515 said:
My ad hoc creation of new rights?
Click to expand...
Yeah.
At least these:
  • the right a PotUS to appeal impeachment results with the SCotUS
  • the right to a stay
  • the right to remain whole


There're probably others as well.

In each of these cases you supported your argument by mere assertion rather than providing a textual basis for the existence of these rights.

Feel free to back up your assertion that these rights exist outside of your hopes.
 
ocean515 said:
I have the Obama Judges ruling tee'd up right now. I can quote any phrase, punctuation mark, or cite, from any page, immediately.
We're done.
Thanks for the comments.
Click to expand...

Then why were you curious where I got the information?
 
ludin said:
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.



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.



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?


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.
Click to expand...

The fact that you think Trump is on trial just shows how out of touch you are. My cat carries on better discussions than you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom