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

BlueTex said:
View attachment 67286730

I expect a hearing within days... :2razz:
Click to expand...

Ya, the outrage is the "delayed for almost a year by the lawsuit."

trump makes an absurd claim making up the term 'absolute immunity', and that causes a delay of almost a year just to get dismissed? What's next, another year delay if trump says the demand is discrimination against orange people?
 
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...

You've been told several times that this ruling had nothing to do with Congress's investigation and subpoenas but continue to conflate them. It's now not a case of just being ignorant but operating on Cult orders.
 
digitusmedius said:
Since the SCOTUS ruling upholds all the rulings at lower court levels, are you sure those courts must entertain more arguments? There may be more motions for any number of ways to try to bog the case down but I don't see that the lower court judges would be obligated to allow them.
Click to expand...

Didn't the ruling specifically say trump can make new arguments in the lower court? I saw quotes saying that.
 
ludin said:
i just did you didn't read not my problem.
Click to expand...

Are you not aware there are two cases here? What argument will be made to prevent a grand jury from getting this records as part of it's criminal inquiry?
 
Acadia said:
Of course Trump is not going to "bow out", but it's telling how desperate the Left is to see him eliminated so they can install a failing, bumbling, 50-year tax suck of a Congressman to the White House.
Click to expand...

The left has done nothing to Trump. A conservative SC made the decision, an overwhelming 7-2 decision, that the president was not above the law.
 
Deuce said:
You dramatically overestimate how much right wing cultists care about something like that... when it's their guy.

Trump will get a very similar amount of votes in 2020 as he did in 2016. It's up to Democrats to show the **** up this time.
Click to expand...

There's no way he will get the same amount of votes as he did in 2016, no way in hell. A large portion of those who cast their vote for him were voting against Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden is not Hillary Clinton. Additionally, many people simply 'sat out' the election, did not even bother to vote because they were certain that HRC would win. But not this time, no way. People are going to come out in droves, like they did in 2018 when the Democrats had a huge blue wave victory.
 
Craig234 said:
And yet he just got support for that by the Supreme Court delaying it further with more hearings instead of resolving the issue.
Click to expand...

On what basis do you assume that lower court judges must allow for more "hearings" other than to bring all the parties to court to issue the order for the documents to be turned over to the NY state attorney's office? At least in the Mazars case, that company has already stipulated that it would follow the SCOTUS decision. That would leave Trump's lawyers little or no ground to keep stringing the court along.
 
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...

Congress has always been allowed access to people's tax returns. It's part of their law making responsibilities.

What makes Trump the exception, other than he is willing to do whatever it takes to hide them?
 
Let's just hope the American People are made aware what is and isn't in them.
 
weaver2 said:
The left has done nothing to Trump. A conservative SC made the decision, an overwhelming 7-2 decision, that the president was not above the law.
Click to expand...

Somehow it seems the Cult of Dirtbag is trying to find a way to tag Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as closet liberals. I thank all the gods who created these people for our sport and enjoyment.
 
Craig234 said:
My guess is that this is how the radical right justices tried to split the issue - by providing delays for trump, while not totally ignoring the law. Apparently getting that much was good enough for the other justices.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they did it to "stall." They do a lot of that avoiding the Big Issue by sending it back to the lower courts. Maybe that's normal, I don't know, but they did it in Masterpiece cakeshop and at least one other recently I can't think of at the moment. From reading their decision in Deutsch and Mazars, they do NOT want to take up a separation of powers case. We'll see how it goes.

Will all this be moot if the cases are delayed until after Trump is voted out of office (IF he is voted out of office)? The ones involving a Congressional subpoena, I mean.
 
digitusmedius said:
You've been told several times that this ruling had nothing to do with Congress's investigation and subpoenas but continue to conflate them. It's now not a case of just being ignorant but operating on Cult orders.
Click to expand...

There were two separate rulings you should pay more attention. not that you will.
I posted the two rulings in this thread.

reading helps.
 
BlueTex said:
Are you not aware there are two cases here? What argument will be made to prevent a grand jury from getting this records as part of it's criminal inquiry?
Click to expand...

I already said go read.
 
Cardinal said:
It's moot, since there's nothing bad or embarrassing in his tax returns anyway.
Click to expand...

It's not moot.

At least you admit, the reason to see his tax returns is so that the anti-Trumps will attempt to embarrass him.
Nothing new there...
 
My bet is he just refuses to turn it over anyway, dares the court to do anything about it.
 
HumblePi said:
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both fulfilled their lifetime dream -- appointment to the SC. Now that they're seated and untouchable, when it matters for the preservation of democracy, they may rule according to the law, not because of their gratitude towards Trump. They no longer have an obligation to kneel and kiss the ring.
Click to expand...

Even if those two had voted against, Trump would have still lost by a majority 5-4 decision.
Such high drama on your part though.

But don't get too excited, this is a "decision that probably means the records will be shielded from public scrutiny under grand jury secrecy rules until after the election, and perhaps indefinitely."

Supreme Court Rules Trump Cannot Block Release of Financial Records
 
trixare4kids said:
It's not moot.

At least you admit, the reason to see his tax returns is so that the anti-Trumps will attempt to embarrass him.
Nothing new there...
Click to expand...

How could that be? There's nothing in his returns that would be embarrassing.
 
MaryP said:
I'm not sure they did it to "stall." They do a lot of that avoiding the Big Issue by sending it back to the lower courts. Maybe that's normal, I don't know, but they did it in Masterpiece cakeshop and at least one other recently I can't think of at the moment. From reading their decision in Deutsch and Mazars, they do NOT want to take up a separation of powers case. We'll see how it goes.

Will all this be moot if the cases are delayed until after Trump is voted out of office (IF he is voted out of office)? The ones involving a Congressional subpoena, I mean.
Click to expand...

It is normal for SCOTUS to remand a case to the original court for resolution. In this instance, since SCOTUS affirmed the original court's ruling the only matter for lower court would be to order the documents in question to be turned over to the NY state's Atty for NYC (Cyrus Vance). There could be an attempt by DoJ or Trump lawyers to draw the case out but as they have no standing I can't see why the court would defer to them. But, I guess there's no guarantee that the court won't do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom