Judge orders Trump Accounts to hand over info to House!

[OscarLevant]

Blinded by the cult of Trump, because I don't see the world through your eyes?

LOL

That one took you right off the cliff...…

Incompetent reply.

 

[OscarLevant]

That is my understanding as well. However, a different court could issue a stay and keep the information from being released.

I'm hopeful, and thereby, looking forward to a Senate Committee demanding release of 8 years of financial records from Schiff, Cummings, Pelosi, etc., and then leaking all of it to the Press, as Cummings and Company plan to do if they get the President's records.


This should be interesting.

A stay means that the defendent is trying to delay turning over docs until after the appeal.

The Judge denied the stay. Therefore, they can still appeal, but they must turn over the docs. ( kinda takes the wind out of the appeal ).

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Emoluments clause?

You’ve been saying this BS from day one and have no evidence

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You actually believe that Congress should begin the impeachment process before Congress determines if it is appropriate to begin the impeachment process?

The impeachment process is an investigative one. It is never “not appropriate” to conduct it if they feel they have cause to.

The democrats know they don’t and so want the benefits of using the process without a drawback like political blowback.

 

[BlueTex]

The Constitution protects citizens from government actions involving unreasonable search and seizure among other things.

The President apparently plans to appeal the decision by the Obama Judge.

On what basis do you think they are going to make that appeal?

Are you willing to answer this question? If not, that cool, and I will move on.

Why would I answer about their basis for appeal when I believe they have none? How about asserting a basis for appeal yourself? On what grounds do you suppose they will appeal?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It is never “not appropriate” to conduct it if they feel they have cause to.

What if a Congress decided that rather than having feelings about impeachment proceedings they wanted to use information to determine if they had cause to begin impeachment proceedings?

Would that Congress also be prohibited from gathering information to use when making their determination of whether or not they had cause to begin impeachment proceedings?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You’ve been saying this BS from day one and have no evidence

"No evidence" is inaccurate.

Perhaps it's insufficient evidence, or ineligible evidence, or some other qualifier to describe the evidence's flaws.
But there is evidence.

But there's been enough evidence that a lawsuit has made it to an appeals court.
( So, presumably, the first round went to the plaintiffs. )

So there's evidence of some sort.
And that's different than "no evidence".

Here's a link to get you started.
I think there're enough details in this that you'll be able to Google your way to discovering what flaws the existing evidence has.

Appeals Court Judges Appear Skeptical of Emoluments Case Against Trump - The New York Times​

 

[OldFatGuy]

Either you dont want to actually address what im saying or youre unable. Either way i feel no need to go off on tangents with you.

Thanks for the empty platitudes though.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

You've been directly answered. Pay attention to the metaphors. I did my best to write down to you.

 

[NWRatCon]

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.

I suggest that one not criticize someone else for not knowing the law if one is going to make comments that are completely at odds with the law and Constitution. Neither of the statements included in this comment have any relation to how the law actually works. I hope to god you didn't go to law school. If so, you deserve a refund.

I just scrolled back through the thread. In 30 seconds I found three separate posts that show, Cougarbear, you have no idea how the law works. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Please stop.

 

[Fletch]

You may not be okay with what is happening, but there's no need to upset yourself even further by saying that this is a criminal investigation gone off the rails.


The Legislative Branch is not a law enforcement agency.


The Legislative Branch does not conduct law enforcement investigations.


The Legislative Branch conducts legislative investigations.


The legislative investigations are not subject to the same constraints as criminal investigations.


Legislative investigations are only constrained by the Legislative Branch's own determination of subjects on which “legislation could be had”.

So whats your point?

 

[ocean515]

To you, does that seem like an obvious strawman assertion on your part?

Or are you earnestly confused enough to think that I think no one ever gets any appeal for anything?

To you, the question seemed appropriate to ask, given your apparent position regarding a President being impeached.

 

[ocean515]

How are you still unclear?
I have gone over the issue several times explaining that there is no judicial review of the Senate's impeachment decisions.

Yes, a party could try to **** the country like that.

The Constitution was not designed around the use of modern political parties.

The Constitution was most certainly designed around political parties, modern, or historic.

 

[ocean515]

A stay means that the defendent is trying to delay turning over docs until after the appeal.

The Judge denied the stay. Therefore, they can still appeal, but they must turn over the docs. ( kinda takes the wind out of the appeal ).

Yes, the Obama Judge eliminated the citizens right to remain whole pending appeal. Not really surprising, given the alliance.

Whether the appeal can be done quickly enough to keep the citizen whole remains to be seen.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So whats your point?

I wrote in simple sentences and put a space between each one for ease of reading.

Not sure there's more I can do to help.

gl

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yes, the Obama Judge eliminated the citizens right to remain whole pending appeal. Not really surprising, given the alliance.

Whether the appeal can be done quickly enough to keep the citizen whole remains to be seen.

1. Not Obama judge. Judge.
2. Where, in law, does it say that any citizen has the right to not comply with a judges order pending an appeal? Please cite/link the applicable law.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

To you, the question seemed appropriate to ask, given your apparent position regarding a President being impeached.

My "apparent position" regarding the Senate being the sole authority for determining if an impeachment is warranted?

How is it that you still have doubts about what my position is?
I think I am unable to make it any more clear.

The Constitution says the Senate has the sole authority to try impeachments. Period. Full Stop.
The court battles around Nixon specifically said that impeachments are not subject to judicial review.

It seems quite plain and clear.

You hope / belief that a PotUS can sue Congress for impeaching him to have the SCotUS undo an impeachment are darling, but are not supported by any textual evidence.
[Not that you have tried to provide any]

gl

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yes, the Obama Judge eliminated the citizens right to remain whole pending appeal.

Is that right "to remain whole" listed in the same place it says the SCotUS can undo an impeachment?

 

[ocean515]

1. Not Obama judge. Judge.
2. Where, in law, does it say that any citizen has the right to not comply with a judges order pending an appeal? Please cite/link the applicable law.

Obama Judge. That's a fact. Deal with it.

I've never suggested a citizen has a right to not comply with a Judges order, even an Obama Judge.

The right to appeal is in the law. The fact the Obama Judge explicitly removed the right to stay the order pending appeal shows a citizens right to remain whole is automatic.

Eventually, if a different Judge in a different court does not provide the relief the citizen is seeking, the order must be complied with, or the citizen will be held in contempt.

 

[ocean515]

My "apparent position" regarding the Senate being the sole authority for determining if an impeachment is warranted?

How is it that you still have doubts about what my position is?
I think I am unable to make it any more clear.

The Constitution says the Senate has the sole authority to try impeachments. Period. Full Stop.
The court battles around Nixon specifically said that impeachments are not subject to judicial review.

It seems quite plain and clear.

You hope / belief that a PotUS can sue Congress for impeaching him to have the SCotUS undo an impeachment are darling, but are not supported by any textual evidence.
[Not that you have tried to provide any]

gl

Darling?

I think we are done here.

eace

 

[Simon W. Moon]

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

Where is the right to a stay encoded?

Generally, people in a lawsuit can request a stay.
Then the stay may be granted.

Eventually, if a different Judge in a different court does not provide the relief the citizen is seeking, the order must be complied with, or the citizen will be held in contempt.

In re the current suit, it seems the defendants had previously agreed to seven days from the date of the ruling, then subsequently asked for an additional stay which was denied.

 

[ocean515]

Where is the right to a stay encoded?

Generally, people in a lawsuit can request a stay.
Then the stay may be granted.


In re the current suit, it seems the defendants had previously agreed to seven days from the date of the ruling.

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.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Obama Judge. That's a fact. Deal with it.

I've never suggested a citizen has a right to not comply with a Judges order, even an Obama Judge.

The right to appeal is in the law. The fact the Obama Judge explicitly removed the right to stay the order pending appeal shows a citizens right to remain whole is automatic.

Eventually, if a different Judge in a different court does not provide the relief the citizen is seeking, the order must be complied with, or the citizen will be held in contempt.

Not Obama judge. Judge. You deal with that

Again, where, in the law, does it say a citizen has a right to stay a judges order pending an appeal? Pleas cite and link your supporting evidence.

 

[ocean515]

Not Obama judge. Judge. You deal with that

Again, where, in the law, does it say a citizen has a right to stay a judges order pending an appeal? Pleas cite and link your supporting evidence.

Obama Judge. It appears you can't handle that fact. Your burden, not mine.

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?

Try to get some information straight. Seems you're having trouble with that.

 

[BlueTex]

Obama Judge. That's a fact. Deal with it.

I've never suggested a citizen has a right to not comply with a Judges order, even an Obama Judge.

The right to appeal is in the law. The fact the Obama Judge explicitly removed the right to stay the order pending appeal shows a citizens right to remain whole is automatic.

Eventually, if a different Judge in a different court does not provide the relief the citizen is seeking, the order must be complied with, or the citizen will be held in contempt.

Do you believe a citizen has a right to a stay?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ocean515]

Do you believe a citizen has a right to a stay?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure. Don't you?

Why does the right to appeal exist?