• 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 appeal to stop House subpoena of his tax documents

Trump said:
Did Comey McCabe Strzok contribute to report?

Simple yes or No will do.
Click to expand...

You'll have to ask the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Republican Senator Burr.
 
Lutherf said:
Ah! The House subpoena...

The House needs a legitimate legislative purpose...check that. Let me read the decision first before I reply. I HATE basing these discussions off info presented in threads or "news" articles.
Click to expand...
According to whom? That's not what the law actually states. Besides, who would they demonstrate this "legitimate legislative purpose" to, the people they are demanding the tax-returns?
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
Click to expand...
 
trixare4kids said:
Good for him.
Ain't the laws in his favor just grand?
Click to expand...

The three judge panel ruled down party lines. A justice nominated by Clinton and a justice nominated by Obama votes yes and a justice nominated by Trump voted no citing that the House should have sued for the records under Impeachment proceedings not their legislative status.

This will be slow walked till it reaches the SC.

In the meantime it looks like Horowitz will be releasing his report next week. Can't wait.
 
mrjurrs said:
You'll have to ask the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Republican Senator Burr.
Click to expand...

if any of the report relied on any information provided by Comey McCabe or Strzok..... garbage in garbage out.

Obama said Russia couldn't affect our elections before the elections....i remember that...and after Trump won he said they could
 
MTAtech said:
According to whom? That's not what the law actually states. Besides, who would they demonstrate this "legitimate legislative purpose" to, the people they are demanding the tax-returns?
Click to expand...

In the little bit that I read of the opinion the deal is that there are two separate functions of congress. One is oversight and for oversight they need a legitimate legislative purpose to subpoena. The other function is criminal investigation with regard to impeachment. In the case of impeachment then they can subpoena to get the facts related to the crime.

What is happening is that Trump is saying that they need to make up their mind whether this is a function of oversight or whether it's a function of impeachment. If they are seeking impeachment then they need to have a vote which expresses that intent.
 
Chomsky said:
Ah, well that's been settled law since U.S. vs Nixon in '74.
Click to expand...

Read some of the dissent of Judge Rao. What matters isn't the argument but who's on the bench.

These people didn't come out of the Federalist Society for nothing.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Again, you clearly don't know what the term "private citizen" means if you're claiming that the phrase applies to the President lmfao.
Click to expand...

Show us where ThevConstitution states that the Bill of Rights only applies to "private citizens".
 
Lutherf said:
Just remember that if a state government can compel the public release of federal returns for Trump then they can do it for anybody. The precedent that is being set with this scheme is VERY problematic.
Click to expand...

So now you are claiming that States don't have the right to conduct oversight of their own taxes? Of course they do and always have. Examining taxes to check for errors or criminality is vital to law and order.
 
Cardinal said:
Read some of the dissent of Judge Rao. What matters isn't the argument but who's on the bench.

These people didn't come out of the Federalist Society for nothing.
Click to expand...
God, that is chilling. She claims the courts should determine what is or is not an impeachable offense? Geezus, that's against every bit of jurisprudence and understanding of the Constitution that we have, including Nixon v U.S. I have no idea how someone like that got on the bench. She's an authoritarian radical.
 
apdst said:
Show us where ThevConstitution states that the Bill of Rights only applies to "private citizens".
Click to expand...

You know how court rulings decide what laws are constitutional?

26 USC 6103
(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
Click to expand...

Well a court just ruled.

Next.
 
HAL9000 said:
You know how court rulings decide what laws are constitutional?



Well a court just ruled.

Next.
Click to expand...

That says nothing about subpoenaing private documents from a private accounting firm, but you know what does mention private documents?...

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

How do you like seeing the government wipe it's ass with The Constitution?

Next?
 
apdst said:
That says nothing about subpoenaing private documents from a private accounting firm, but you know what does mention private documents?...



How do you like seeing the government wipe it's ass with The Constitution?

Next?
Click to expand...

Do you know what makes search and seizure reasonable?

Probable Cause.
 
Chomsky said:
God, that is chilling. She claims the courts should determine what is or is not an impeachable offense? Geezus, that's against every bit of jurisprudence and understanding of the Constitution that we have, including Nixon v U.S. I have no idea how someone like that got on the bench. She's an authoritarian radical.
Click to expand...

She was grown in a vial in a laboratory. It's just that the laboratory is the Federalist Society. The whole purpose of this strategy is to make sure that regardless of who wins Congress or the White House, Conservatives will always have an ideological stranglehold on the courts in order to protect and advance republican agendas.

The end result is that legal arguments are immaterial, and that's why you see republicans acting so confidently about where this case will end up.
 
MTAtech said:
I think that an impartial court would rule that Congress decided through law that was signed by the president in 1924, determines when it can see a taxpayer's tax returns. As such, unless certain judges are now activists judges, willing to overturn the will of the legislative branch, would uphold this ruling.
Click to expand...

There is no reason for Dems to look at Trump's tax returns. You don't investigate someone for political reasons trying to find dirt. That's not how America works.
 
Moderate Right said:
There is no reason for Dems to look at Trump's tax returns. You don't investigate someone for political reasons trying to find dirt. That's not how America works.
Click to expand...

No legal reason.
 
Cardinal said:
She was grown in a vial in a laboratory. It's just that the laboratory is the Federalist Society. The whole purpose of this strategy is to make sure that regardless of who wins Congress or the White House, Conservatives will always have an ideological stranglehold on the courts in order to protect and advance republican agendas.

The end result is that legal arguments are immaterial, and that's why you see republicans acting so confidently about where this case will end up.
Click to expand...
I still don't see SCOTUS going for it, even with the current make-up.
 
Chomsky said:
I still don't see SCOTUS going for it, even with the current make-up.
Click to expand...

It's not so hard to imagine. McConnell blew up the entire appointment process for a reason. There's no point in mincing words: it was a coup.
 
apdst said:
Congress can't issue warrants to sieze private property.
Click to expand...

But a judge can issue a warrant when someone ignores a congressional subpoena.
 
Lutherf said:
In the little bit that I read of the opinion the deal is that there are two separate functions of congress. One is oversight and for oversight they need a legitimate legislative purpose to subpoena. The other function is criminal investigation with regard to impeachment. In the case of impeachment then they can subpoena to get the facts related to the crime.

What is happening is that Trump is saying that they need to make up their mind whether this is a function of oversight or whether it's a function of impeachment. If they are seeking impeachment then they need to have a vote which expresses that intent.
Click to expand...
What Trump's lawyers say is now irrelevant, as the court wasn't buying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom