Judge orders Trump Accounts to hand over info to House!

[ttwtt78640]

Did you use straw for that? Or hay?

A bipartisan mix.

 

[Chomsky]

The basic reality seems to be that it is highly doubtful that a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate will vote to give Pelosi her ultimate win. Politicians, after all, are the least likely to give us justice since they tend to favor "just us".

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. In the end, this is purely political.

But remember, we are only one court ruling away from a full-blown Constitutional crisis; something many of us feared with Trump. If Trump decides to go against a final ruling in a court case, he is then acting outside the Constitution. This is a separate issue from the Senate not removing him. If this happens, God help us. Because we will have a rogue sitting President acting un-Constitutionally, and we'll be in truly uncharted waters not knowing where that may take us.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. In the end, this is purely political.

But remember, we are only one court ruling away from a full-blown Constitutional crisis; something many of us feared with Trump. If Trump decides to go against a final ruling in a court case, he is then acting outside the Constitution. This is a separate issue from the Senate not removing him. If this happens, God help us. Because we will have a rogue sitting President acting un-Constitutionally, and we'll be in truly uncharted waters not knowing where that may take us.

That seems to have been possible, with three co-equal branches of government, from the beginning.

 

[ludin]

You are confusing the issue. He has a right to contest congress's actions. He has used this right and he lost. Unless another court comes in and issues something to say that this case will be reviewed etc. then he has no right to stop the handing over of these materials from a private company to congress. He had his day in court. A ruling was made. He can appeal, but that doesn't mean that the first ruling just never happened.

No he has not lost yet. it can be appealed up to the SCOTUS.
this is just 1 case. sorry but you don't just get a 1 and done.
and the judge was wrong not to stay his decision until the appeal process played out.

but that just shows how crooked this judge is.

Trump has a valid argument.
actually he has 7 days to put in his appeal on the stay.

you didn't read the ruling.
what is it with you people and simply just not reading?

that or it is a comprehension problem of what was said and done.

 

[Athanasius68]

If he doesn't, we end-up in a Constitutional crisis, as many of us feared with Trump. Hopefully Trump will go along with the courts.

Not necessarily. The authority and power of Congress is not absolute-- they will never get McGahan to testify, for example.

 

[ludin]

How, my friend, are they to determine if he continues to take such emoluments if they can't see the pattern?

define emolument according to the emoluments clause.

 

[Chomsky]

Obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations for certain, emoluments violations will undoubtedly also be demonstrated, we already know he's a tax cheat (criminal punishment avoided via statute of limitations), and we all know he laundered money -- it's just a matter of it being public record once all his financial records come to light.

I say it's hit the point of sheer ridiculousness, to argue these details.

It's time Trump got charged with an "Abuse of Power" article of impeachment, as Nixon was, and just be done with it. It's senseless to debate a plethora of minutia, when the entire big-picture is staring-us right in the face.

 

[ludin]

You forget Congress makes the legislation (laws), Ocean. That's why they are called "legislators". If they say eating Big Macs is illegal, it is.

cool show us the law that was broken so far no evidence of any laws broken.
and sorry so far there have been no high crimes of office. there is a reason that this is put in place.
it was reserved to stop congress from ousting a president due to politics like what we are seeing here, and
for the president to be removed something really bad must have been done.

 

[ludin]

You say that there is no evidence that emolument violations could have occurred.

But what if there were some evidence that emolument violations could have occurred?

Would you change you mind about the suitability of Congress exercising their authority to investigate things for legislative reasons?

Would you change you mind about the suitability of Congress exercising their authority to investigate things to fulfill their obligations to keep an eye on the Executive Branch?

then let congress produce the evidence not fish find for it.

 

[ludin]

I say it's hit the point of sheer ridiculousness, to argue these details.

It's time Trump got charged with an "Abuse of Power" article of impeachment, as Nixon was, and just be done with it. It's senseless to debate a plethora of minutia, when the entire big-picture is staring-us right in the face.

what abuse of power?
exercising the powers given to the executive branch is not an abuse of power.
geez don't go off the deep end.

 

[roughdraft274]

No he has not lost yet. it can be appealed up to the SCOTUS.
this is just 1 case. sorry but you don't just get a 1 and done.
and the judge was wrong not to stay his decision until the appeal process played out.

but that just shows how crooked this judge is.

Trump has a valid argument.
actually he has 7 days to put in his appeal on the stay.

you didn't read the ruling.
what is it with you people and simply just not reading?

that or it is a comprehension problem of what was said and done.

Lol, I did read it. And I understand it. And you don't.

Trump doesn't have 7 days to appeal. He can appeal whenever he wants. The judges ruling was that the company has 7 days to turnover the documents. They can turn them over today if they want to. A superior court can come down and halt this ruling, but as of right now that company has 7 days to hand over everything requested or they are violating the law. Period.

 

[Athanasius68]

I say it's hit the point of sheer ridiculousness, to argue these details.

It's time Trump got charged with an "Abuse of Power" article of impeachment, as Nixon was, and just be done with it. It's senseless to debate a plethora of minutia, when the entire big-picture is staring-us right in the face.

I think you are getting a bit hysterical for no real reason. What's happening is that Congress is asking for certain information, and the president is contesting the request.
This kind of stuff happens in every administration.

 

[ludin]

Yes, the one that couldn't exonerate him of obstruction and also pointed out so many other things of concern to patriotic Americans.

you mean the report that gave no opinion on obstruction which by default means he is innocent.
you know you are innocent until proven guilty.

since there is no opinion give on whether a crime was committed he is by default clear of any charges and
in fact did not obstruct justice.

that is how our system works tres.

this is civics 101.

 

[Chomsky]

That seems to have been possible, with three co-equal branches of government, from the beginning.

It's not possible Constitutionally. It can only occur un-Constitutionally. If Trump rebukes SCOTUS, tear-up the Constitution and inform the founders & framers they failed ...

 

[What if...?]

then let congress produce the evidence not fish find for it.

So they're supposed to produce evidence they don't find?

Where does the evidence come from if looking for it isn't allowed?

 

[ludin]

Lol, I did read it. And I understand it. And you don't.

Trump doesn't have 7 days to appeal. He can appeal whenever he wants. The judges ruling was that the company has 7 days to turnover the documents. They can turn them over today if they want to. A superior court can come down and halt this ruling, but as of right now that company has 7 days to hand over everything requested or they are violating the law. Period.

no one is arguing that but you people keep saying that he lost that is it.
nope there is an appeal process.

yes he does have 7 days to get a judge to stay the ruling. otherwise it has to be turned over within that time frame.
I see no reason that an upper court judge wouldn't stay the decision.

this judge should have stayed his decision but he is an obama appointee.

 

[Athanasius68]

So they're supposed to produce evidence they don't find?

Where does the evidence come from if looking for it isn't allowed?

That isn't the president' s problem.

 

[tres borrachos]

you mean the report that gave no opinion on obstruction which by default means he is innocent.
you know you are innocent until proven guilty.

since there is no opinion give on whether a crime was committed he is by default clear of any charges and
in fact did not obstruct justice.

that is how our system works tres.

this is civics 101.

No, there was no report that declared him innocent of obstruction.

 

[ludin]

So they're supposed to produce evidence they don't find?

Where does the evidence come from if looking for it isn't allowed?

they either already have evidence that a crime has been committed or they don't.
if they don't then they do not meet the level of probable cause to open an investigation.

that is how the law works.

just like the police can't got on fishing expeditions to find out if you broke thee law neither can congress.
also congress is not a law enforcement body.

this has been ruled on time and time again.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I thought a DA counted as an LEO

:shrug:


eta

I'm not alone in thinking so

Law enforcement officer - Wikipedia

In the broad definition of the term, yes, no argument there. And so is the local dog catcher (animal control) in many locations.
Table of Humane Society Enforcement Powers | Animal Legal & Historical Center

 

[Athanasius68]

No, there was no report that declared him innocent of obstruction.

There doesn't have to be. This is the USA, not Russia. The onus is on the government, not the accused or investigated.

 

[ludin]

No, there was no report that declared him innocent of obstruction.

doesn't have to be. he is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.
this is civics class 101.

so please show us where he was found guilty.
the mueller report gave no opinion.

then Rosestein, and barr looked at the evidence could not find criminal intent and said no obstruction was broken.
so that cleared trump as well.

 

[Chomsky]

Not necessarily. The authority and power of Congress is not absolute-- they will never get McGahan to testify, for example.

Congress does have that power. Political calculations will determine how far they will go. There is precedent in this, from back in the Civil War era when it indeed was done.

In the modern era, they would probably go through the courts to have the courts physically carry-out their actions, as directly locking-up an administration official would appear unseemly, whereas a court procuring someone's testimony is more politically palatable. The courts is how they'll likely get Trump's documents, as well.

 

[tres borrachos]

doesn't have to be. he is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.
this is civics class 101.

so please show us where he was found guilty.
the mueller report gave no opinion.

then Rosestein, and barr looked at the evidence could not find criminal intent and said no obstruction was broken.
so that cleared trump as well.

Nobody said he was proven guilty of anything. Reading trouble today?

There was no report that declared him innocent of obstruction of justice.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's not possible Constitutionally. It can only occur un-Constitutionally. If Trump rebukes SCOTUS, tear-up the Constitution and inform the founders & framers they failed ...

Even a later SCOTUS has "rebuked" (reversed precedent set by) a prior SCOTUS and, of course, the SCOTUS can simply opt not to hear any given appeal leaving our Constitution's "interpretation" in the hands of a lower court judge's decision.