Trump loses at Supreme Court - NY DA will receive Trump financial records.

Ikari said:

Live updates: Supreme court decision on Trump'''s finances



Looks like it's going back to the lower courts for the House.

Click to expand...

BlueTex said:

The harder one for them to argue will be the NY subpoena... Mazar's has already said they would comply and it's a grand jury subpoena...

Click to expand...

ludin said:

Actually the NY ruling is going to back to the lower courts and the house gets squat.

"President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's majority opinion in the New York case. The court limited its ruling and the arguments before it to whether Trump has "absolute immunity" and state prosecutors are required to show a "heightened need" in order to obtain documents as part of investigations into a president.

The president "may raise further arguments as appropriate," in lower courts in an effort to keep Vance from obtaining his documents, Roberts wrote.

Roberts also authored the opinion in the House case.

"Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could 'exert an imperious control' over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the Framers feared," he wrote.

The rulings, in the near term, represent a partial victory for the president -- he will not have to turn over financial documents in the midst of a fraught presidential election.

Click to expand...

About the rulings: Justices ruled President Trump is not immune from New York’s subpoena — but prosecutors will not get documents now.

They also blocked Congress from getting the President's records for now, sending a controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

Click to expand...

ludin said:

YOu didn't read the ruling did you?
he didn't lose as your thread suggests and they threw the ruling back to the lower court.
Here is what they said though if you would have actually read the ruling.


"President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's majority opinion in the New York case. The court limited its ruling and the arguments before it to whether Trump has "absolute immunity" and state prosecutors are required to show a "heightened need" in order to obtain documents as part of investigations into a president.

The president "may raise further arguments as appropriate," in lower courts in an effort to keep Vance from obtaining his documents, Roberts wrote.


So the case goes back to the lower court and the prosecutors have to justify a "heightened need" to obtain the documents.
So as we said all along the government can't just demand private documents. It has to show valid reason.

Now the next part in where trump wins.

Roberts also authored the opinion in the House case.

"Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could 'exert an imperious control' over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the Framers feared," he wrote.

The rulings, in the near term, represent a partial victory for the president -- he will not have to turn over financial documents in the midst of a fraught presidential election.

SO the poor democrats in the house lose.
The state of NY will have to argue themselves again in court.

the house just got flat out denied.

So it was a 75% win for trump.

Click to expand...

ludin said:

Actually the NY ruling is going to back to the lower courts and the house gets squat.

"President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's majority opinion in the New York case. The court limited its ruling and the arguments before it to whether Trump has "absolute immunity" and state prosecutors are required to show a "heightened need" in order to obtain documents as part of investigations into a president.

The president "may raise further arguments as appropriate," in lower courts in an effort to keep Vance from obtaining his documents, Roberts wrote.

Roberts also authored the opinion in the House case.

"Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could 'exert an imperious control' over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the Framers feared," he wrote.

The rulings, in the near term, represent a partial victory for the president -- he will not have to turn over financial documents in the midst of a fraught presidential election.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

Well it's not quite over. The docs won't be released yet, that's going back to a lower court.

Click to expand...

Craig234 said:

It shouldn't be easy to argue the Congressional subpoena. The law is very clear that Congress has that power. There are no conditions about the purpose, no right for the president to decide if he approves.

Click to expand...

ludin said:

Actually the NY ruling is going to back to the lower courts and the house gets squat.

"President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's majority opinion in the New York case. The court limited its ruling and the arguments before it to whether Trump has "absolute immunity" and state prosecutors are required to show a "heightened need" in order to obtain documents as part of investigations into a president.

The president "may raise further arguments as appropriate," in lower courts in an effort to keep Vance from obtaining his documents, Roberts wrote.

Roberts also authored the opinion in the House case.

"Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could 'exert an imperious control' over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the Framers feared," he wrote.

The rulings, in the near term, represent a partial victory for the president -- he will not have to turn over financial documents in the midst of a fraught presidential election.

Click to expand...

HumblePi said:

This has nothing to do with the House of Representative. This case has already gone through the lower courts. Trump will lose this one and it's a huge loss. This ruling just sealed his loss in November even if his records haven't been turned over yet. Nobody will vote to re-elect a president that's under criminal investigation.

Click to expand...

BlueTex said:

That's the interesting angle here... In the NY case, he isn't even the one being subpoenaed... It's Mazar's who was issued the subpoena...

Click to expand...

BlueTex said:

I agree but they will drag it out as long as possible..

Click to expand...

ludin said:

YOu didn't read the ruling did you?
he didn't lose as your thread suggests and they threw the ruling back to the lower court.
Here is what they said though if you would have actually read the ruling.


"President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's majority opinion in the New York case. The court limited its ruling and the arguments before it to whether Trump has "absolute immunity" and state prosecutors are required to show a "heightened need" in order to obtain documents as part of investigations into a president.

The president "may raise further arguments as appropriate," in lower courts in an effort to keep Vance from obtaining his documents, Roberts wrote.


So the case goes back to the lower court and the prosecutors have to justify a "heightened need" to obtain the documents.
So as we said all along the government can't just demand private documents. It has to show valid reason.

Now the next part in where trump wins.

Roberts also authored the opinion in the House case.

"Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could 'exert an imperious control' over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the Framers feared," he wrote.

The rulings, in the near term, represent a partial victory for the president -- he will not have to turn over financial documents in the midst of a fraught presidential election.

SO the poor democrats in the house lose.
The state of NY will have to argue themselves again in court.

the house just got flat out denied.

So it was a 75% win for trump.

Click to expand...

digitusmedius said:

And I believe Mazars have stated it would abide by the SCOTUS decision.

Click to expand...

Chuck9788 said:

Kind of like Obama and his birth certificate?

There's nothing in his tax returns that would shock me. He's an international businessman that knows tax laws. However, the leftist controlled media and politicians would analyze and scrutinize everything and turn it into another witch hunt. Meanwhile the Democrat politicians constituents will continue to be ignored and misrepresented.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

Apparently, the case for Congress got thrown back down to the lower court.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

You dramatically overestimate how much right wing cultists care about something like that... when it's their guy.

Click to expand...

ludin said:

the house gets squat.
they get nothing.

Even if it goes back to the lower court they can appeal that again back to the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

digitusmedius said:

Since this ruling confirms all the previous lower courts' rulings it would be difficult to get any of those courts to allow for much more delay. Of course, Dirtbag will keep trying but I don't think he'll find much support for trying to run out the clock.

Click to expand...

Craig234 said:

Except apparently the SCOTUS decision was not "turn over the documents", it was "have more court hearings". So, they'll abide having more court hearings presumably.

Click to expand...

BlueTex said:

What arguments do you think the target of the subpoena, MAZAR's, will make? There is NO heightened standard of need required per the supreme court. NONE... The only argument they can make is that the records requested are not relevant to criminal matters the grand jury is considering.

Click to expand...

Craig234 said:

This isn't at the point of 'he has to turn over the documents now'. This is at the point of 'it goes back to court for more arguments'.

Click to expand...

HumblePi said:

Hear ye, hear ye! For all the 'Libruls' that woke up today knowing a big decision was coming down from the Supreme Court and having that gut feeling that Trump is going to win this time because he has Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in his pocket. That's what we thought, so we didn't have much hope in the justice system because of Bill Barr and his bastardization of our rules of law.

Boy were we surprised!! Holy crap libs -- we have Trump behind the eight-ball now. There's no chance for him winning in November. NONE. Even though no financials will likely be turned over before the election, it's not going to matter. Who in their right mind would vote to re-elected Donald Trump when they had to plug their nose to vote for him in 2016 because they didn't like Hillary but now, it's a different story. These fence-sitting voters have seen four years of Trump thumbing his nose at the constitution and rule of law. Will they vote for a president that's under criminal investigation? No way in hell.

This was a watershed decision made by the Supreme Court today and one of the most crucial decisions made in modern times.

Time for a quick celebration dance

Click to expand...

ludin said:

It can be argued again back in the lower court.
Trump can still raise objections as the court ruled.

the house gets squat.

That sounds like a good reason to me. HIs tax returns and other information has nothing to do with whether or not illegal campaigns donations were done.
however based on campaign laws Trump can donate as much to his campaign as he wants to.

also any violation would be against the campaign not trump.

you didn't read the ruling which is not my problem. you read a headline and skipped all the facts.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

Yeah, they can, but SCOTUS referred the case back down to the Lower courts. It's now exactly over.

Click to expand...