|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 9, 2020 14:22:48 GMT
Decided today.
He's a liar and a criminal to me, so I could care less, but it would be nice to see the law enforced on him for once.
No one is above the law.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 9, 2020 14:30:47 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 14:34:21 GMT
I’ll gladly take that bet. (It was Alito and Thomas). |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 9, 2020 14:35:52 GMT
I’ll gladly take that bet. So if Kav is not one of the two, I will not post for a week. And if he is, you stop for a week. Cool?
Freon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 14:36:28 GMT
I’ll gladly take that bet. So if Kav is not one of the two, I will not post for a week. And if he is, you stop for a week. Cool?
Freon
Absolutely! |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 9, 2020 14:36:30 GMT
I’ll gladly take that bet. So if Kav is not one of the two, I will not post for a week. And if he is, you stop for a week. Cool?
Freon
Ahhh! I already lost.
Ok, see you in a week.
Freon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 14:38:10 GMT
So if Kav is not one of the two, I will not post for a week. And if he is, you stop for a week. Cool?
Freon
Ahhh! I already lost.
Ok, see you in a week.
Freon
Nah, it wasn’t a fair bet. I already knew the answer.  I was just messing with you. Consider the bet void. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 9, 2020 14:39:40 GMT
Ahhh! I already lost.
Ok, see you in a week.
Freon
Nah, It wasn’t a fair bet. I already knew the answer. I was just messing with you. Consider the bet void. I love it! You got me good.
You are a person of honor, and sneaky.
Freon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 14:42:57 GMT
Nah, It wasn’t a fair bet. I already knew the answer. I was just messing with you. Consider the bet void. I love it! You got me good.
You are a person of honor, and sneaky.
Freon
Sneaky, but honorable. I like that! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 14:45:18 GMT
The Mother Fuckers punted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Jul 9, 2020 14:51:34 GMT
The New York DA gets the tax records. OK.
Greg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 15:19:42 GMT
The Mother Fuckers punted. I've only read summaries on this. Why do you consider the ruling a "punt"? |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Jul 9, 2020 15:29:38 GMT
That sadness you must be feeling when your own two SCOTUS appointees rule against you on the release of your tax records to New York prosecutors. So SAD and UNFAIR!
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 9, 2020 15:33:11 GMT
I regard this as a split decision.
The Supreme Court decided to uphold the lower court decision that Trump must turn over to the New York grand jury eight years of his tax records related to the Michael Cohen matter.
However the court also decided that subpoenas for Trump's tax records from three House committees need to go back to the lower courts to show just cause for the information requests.
Because the New York matter is before a secret grand jury, it seems unlikely that Trump's tax returns will be made public any time soon. And who knows how long it will take for the lower courts involved in the House subpoenas to review the cases and renew these requests.
Trump therefore has squirmed out of another one, probably until after the November election. Another loss for democracy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 15:35:20 GMT
That sadness you must be feeling when your own two SCOTUS appointees rule against you on the release of your tax records to New York prosecutors. So SAD and UNFAIR! Almost makes one wonder if all the semi-quadrennial rage and angst we go through over SCOTUS appointments is all just something mostly manufactured and stoked by elected officials to keep us in line on Election Day. Nah... |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Jul 9, 2020 15:35:46 GMT
The Mother Fuckers punted. I've only read summaries on this. Why do you consider the ruling a "punt"? The issue of Congressional subpoenas for obtaining the same records was sent back to the lower courts for further review (On technicalities I think), pretty much tying that up until past election day. Unless New York prosecutors just “accidentally” leaked them to the public of course. Much like FNC “mistakenly” photoshopping Trump out of an Epstein picture. Mistakes happen, ya know. 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Jul 9, 2020 15:39:34 GMT
That sadness you must be feeling when your own two SCOTUS appointees rule against you on the release of your tax records to New York prosecutors. So SAD and UNFAIR! Almost makes one wonder if all the semi-quadrennial rage and angst we go through over SCOTUS appointments is all just something mostly manufactured and stoked by elected officials to keep us in line on Election Day. Nah... Oh, don’t twist it, there are certainly major repercussions for SCOTUS appointments. But like with anyone associated with Trump, he considers “his guys” to constantly support and protect him at every turn. In this case, he lacks the ability directly or indirectly to just get rid of them and replace them with a new crony. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 15:39:56 GMT
I've only read summaries on this. Why do you consider the ruling a "punt"? The issue of Congressional subpoenas for obtaining the same records was sent back to the lower courts for further review (On technicalities I think), pretty much tying that up until past election day. Unless New York prosecutors just “accidentally” leaked them to the public of course. Much like New York “mistakenly” photoshopping Trump out of an Epstein picture. Mistakes happen, ya know. 😂 Ah. I’m not sure how I feel about Congress having that kind of power or whether it’s granted in the Constitution. I get nobody being above the law, but that seems to apply more to the NY prosecutor aspect of the case. Congress doesn’t enforce laws, so that argument is less effective there. They do have some oversight powers, but they aren’t absolute. At least they shouldn’t be. As I said, I’m unsure. Don’t get me wrong. If lies or illegal activity is made known by Trump’s returns, I’d be one of the least surprised people in the country, but that fact has no bearing on what powers Congress has. |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Jul 9, 2020 16:04:37 GMT
I would also love to see the “ Strict Constitutionalist” arguments from the two dissenters to justify Executive Privilege applying to immunity from releasing records to state prosecutors for a legitimate legal matter. The presidency is apparently a reprieve from any legal repercussions while in office?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 16:12:34 GMT
I would also love to see the “ Strict Constitutionalist” arguments from the two dissenters to justify Executive Privilege applying to immunity from releasing records to state prosecutors for a legitimate legal matter. The presidency is apparently a reprieve from any legal repercussions while in office? The Constitution certainly gives no such authority explicitly to the POTUS. However, speaking as a SC myself, I do admit that there are some powers which are implied and which the Founders intended to be implied. But I’d be hard-pressed off the top of my head to justify presidential prosecutorial immunity as one of them. |
|
