myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
trumps taxes and above the law
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 12205
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

what is the moron hiding.. again his attorneys admit his taxes are a joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qOo1MxVJGI



[b]NY AG Letitia James Undaunted By Trump Frenzy To Keep Finances Hidden | Rachel Maddow |


Quote:
New York State Attorney General Letitia James talks with Rachel Maddow about the raft of legal cases she has filed against Donald Trump and the Trump administration, and emphasizes her determination to enforce the rule of law without exception, including for the president of the United States.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 12205
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

geee two sets of books as his fixex lawyer said under oath. Notice trump did not have his jutice department go after Cohen for that testimony for perjury. again he would not even have to pay for it, he could have Barr and his in-justice department go after Cohen.

here we go the evidence is making its way ....

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/10/16/1892844/-Trump-Organization-fraud-A-set-of-books-for-the-tax-guy-and-a-set-for-the-lender?utm_campaign=trending

Trump Organization fraud: 'A set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender'

Quote:
Documents obtained by ProPublica show "major inconsistencies" between the Trump Organization’s tax documents versus its loan documents, and that the organization "reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities." In other words, two sets of books. One made the business look more profitable to lenders, while the other made it look less so to the tax man. Because, of course, Trump is a crook. "For instance," ProPublica reports, "Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017." While he was president, by the way. "He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street."

Real estate professionals—a dozen of them—that ProPublica spoke with said that there isn't any kind of legal explanation for the variances in the documents. Nancy Wallace, a professor of finance and real estate at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, said the discrepancies show "versions of fraud. […] This kind of stuff is not OK." And not legal. Persons signing property tax forms in New Your City are "affirm[ing] the truth of the statements made." In addition, "false filings are subject to all applicable civil and criminal penalties." As Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, who are in prison "for offenses that include falsifying tax and bank records, some of them related to real estate," knew.

"It really feels like there's two sets of books," said financing and real estate expert Kevin Riordan, a professor who reviewed the documents ProPublica obtained through New York's Freedom of Information Law. "[I]t feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender. […] It's hard to argue numbers. That's black and white." Anne Milgram, a former attorney general for New Jersey, is blunt: "Certainly, if I were sitting in a prosecutor's office, I would want to ask a lot more questions."


and trump has a new layer fixer who is now being investigated. Gee rudy even claimes he was doing it pro-bono for trump, is that because trump can not afford legal representation or because a foreign country was paying Rudy. No conflict there is there. Same MO of Manaford.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 12205
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

again the right-wingers went after Jimmy Carters peanut farm finances...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/appeals-court-trumps-tax-returns-must-be-delivered-ny-prosecutors?cid=eml_mra_20191104

Appeals court: Trump’s tax returns must be delivered to NY prosecutors

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 12205
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trump Asks Supreme Court To Stop The Release Of His Tax Returns
The president’s refusal to release those financial documents has dogged him for years.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-supreme-court-tax-returns_n_5dcdd247e4b01f982efed920

Quote:
President Donald Trump has filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to stop a subpoena seeking the release of his tax returns, several outlets reported Thursday.

The request his lawyers filed is a last-ditch effort to reverse a lower court ruling directing his accountants to give New York prosecutors eight years of his tax returns, which he has long refused to make public, despite precedent set by every other modern president.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.
Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.
Subscribe Now
The move comes weeks after a federal appeals court shut down Trump’s claims that presidents are immune from criminal investigation and ruled that his accounting firm, Mazars, must comply with the subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

Trump is asking the court to decide the case by late June, The Associated Press reported, in compliance with a deal he made with Vance, who agreed not to enforce the subpoena if Trump immediately asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this term.

Pressure on Trump to release his tax returns, which would shed important light on any conflicts of interest he may have, is at a high this week. On Wednesday, an appeals court ruled in a separate case that Congress has the right to access his tax returns.

Given Wednesday’s development, The Washington Post reported, chances are high the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case. However, it cannot make that decision for another month.

If the court declines, the accounting firm will have to hand over the documents to Vance, who is investigating whether Trump made alleged hush money payments to two women prior to the 2016 election who said they had sexual relationships with him ― something the president has vehemently denied.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 12205
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-trumps-tax-returns-still-matter-174854435.html




Why Trump’s tax returns still matter


Quote:
You’ve probably tuned out by now. Democrats want to force the publication of President Trump’s tax returns, while Trump resists at every turn. Lawyers are getting rich, while voters learn nothing new.

Yet the Democratic effort to pry loose Trump’s financial information has now made it to the Supreme Court, with a final ruling likely by summer. And the court seems likely to rule that Trump’s banks and accounting firm must release at least some of Trump’s financial information. If there’s a bombshell in the material, we’ll likely know by Election Day in November.

The Supreme Court hearing on May 12 involves subpoenas from two House committees, plus another subpoena from the Manhattan district attorney. The subpoenas aim to obtain a variety of information relating to Trump’s business activities and his personal financial information. The Manhattan DA is also probing hush-money payments to two porn stars Trump allegedly had affairs with. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, pled guilty to campaign-finance felonies for his role in those payments, so Trump, who signed the checks, might be liable as well.

All three subpoenas seek information from third-party companies Trump has done business with—the Mazars accounting firm, Deutsche Bank and Capitol One—rather than from Trump himself. That’s why legal experts think Trump’s defense is weak. The Supreme Court ruled against Richard Nixon in 1974 and Bill Clinton in 1997 when they tried to claim the kind of executive privilege Trump is asserting. Because of the coronavirus pandemic, the Supreme Court is hearing the case remotely, with several news organizations live streaming the hearing, allowing anybody to listen in.

If Trump loses, publication of his financial records could rattle his reelection bid, for at least four reasons. First, it’s possible Trump pays a very low tax rate compared with ordinary workers. As a real estate developer, he enjoys tax breaks that can sharply lower tax payments. And investment income, which is how wealthy people earn much of their money, is typically taxed at lower rates than income on labor.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 12205
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

this is a good read.

https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-blockbuster-case-trump-tax-returns-oral-arguments-2020-5?r=MX&IR=T




Trump's lawyer says he is 'himself a branch of government' and 'not to be treated as an ordinary citizen' in blockbuster Supreme Court case over Trump's financial records


Quote:
The Supreme Court wrapped up over three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday as attorneys for President Donald Trump, the Justice Department, Congress, and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office duked it out over Trump's long-held finances.

In the first case, Trump's lawyers argued that subpoenas from three House committees for Trump's financial records do not serve a legitimate legislative purpose and are instead intended to harass the president.

The House counsel countered that claim, saying that in addition to serving a future legislative purpose, there is a long history of presidents responding — either voluntarily or involuntarily — to congressional requests for information.

The court's conservative majority — Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — were sharply skeptical of Congress' arguments and questioned whether allowing it to proceed would open the floodgates for additional subpoenas that could harass or distract the president.


In the second case, centered around the Manhattan DA's subpoena for Trump's tax returns, the president's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, made a broad and unprecedented claim: that Trump is immune from any criminal investigation or prosecution while in office.

Justices on both sides of the aisle were highly skeptical of Sekulow's argument and repeatedly asked him to elaborate on why Trump should be above the law, and why the court should differentiate between a civil proceeding — like Clinton v. Jones, in which the court ruled that Bill Clinton had to respond to Paula Jones' lawsuit — and a criminal proceeding.

Carey Dunne, the general counsel for the Manhattan DA's office, highlighted the unprecedented nature of Sekulow's argument and said the president has "responsibilities like every other citizen."

He also argued that the office would have been "remiss" not to investigate Trump's taxes after public reports indicated that his company, which is headquartered in Manhattan, may have engaged in illegal activity.


Overall, the justices asked questions that aligned with each of their respective ideological camps. But Roberts frequently questioned lawyers for both sides with equal scrutiny, making it tougher to gauge which way he'll ultimately rule on the cases.

Tuesday's oral arguments began at 10 a.m. ET. Unlike earlier cases, they were conducted over the telephone, and the public was able to listen in.

Currently, the court has a 5-4 conservative majority, and two of the justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, are Trump appointees.

Scroll down for key updates from the hearings:


Lawyer representing the Manhattan district attorney's office says Trump's lawsuit itself is giving him immunity from prosecutorial scrutiny
trump tower
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Carey Dunne, the general counsel for the Manhattan district attorney's office, told the court that the legal process surrounding this case has already set the investigation back months. Further delay could hurt the case even more if evidence disappears or witness memory fades.

In some ways, he said, the delay itself has given Trump immunity from prosecutorial scrutiny.

"We've already lost nine months of time in this investigation due to this lawsuit," Dunne said. "Every minute that goes by without even a decision on the merits here, is granting the kind of temporary absolute immunity that the president is seeking here."

Moreover, "no one should forget that we've got an investigation that is looking at the conduct of other people and businesses" in additon to just Trump, "and waiting like that would benefit those other participants. They could all end up above the law" if statutes of limitation expire during the delay, Dunne said.

If the court ultimately nullifies the Manhattan DA's subpoena, there is "a risk that American presidents and third parties could unwittingly end up above the law."


Manhattan DA's counsel: Presidents are not exempt from being criminally investigated and have 'responsibilities like every other citizen'
donald trump coronavirus white house
President Donald Trump at an event on World Nurses Day in the Oval Office of the White House on May 6, 2020. Evan Vucci/AP Photo
Carey Dunne, the general counsel for the Manhattan DA's office, emphasized during oral arguments that the subpoena imposes "no Article II burden whatsoever" and was not borne of any political animus or intent to harass.

He added that the subpoena was prompted by "public reports that certain business transactions in our jurisdiction were possibly illegal. Given those allegations, our office would have been remiss not to follow up."

Dunne also said that in response to the subpoena, Trump sought to overturn 200 years of legal precedent by declaring himself immune from any investigative scrutiny, even for "prior private acts."

Trump also asked the court to presume that state actors have a "reckless mania" allowing them to harass the president, Dunne said. "There is no historical support for this claim, which flies in the face of federalism. The supposed floodgates have been open for generations and there's never been a flood."




Justice Department distances itself from Trump counsel's 'temporary immunity' claim
noel francisco
Solicitor General nominee Noel Francisco, left, looks at Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division nominee Makan Delrahim as they testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on their nominations, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 10, 2017. Cliff Owen/AP
Solicitor General Noel Francisco represented the Justice Department in the New York case. Francisco did not lean on the same argument Sekulow did — that Trump has "temporary immunity" from criminal investigation or prosecution.

He said that while the DOJ believes Sekulow made a "strong argument" on the matter, it doesn't believe that's an issue the court needs to address until the state prosecutor, in this case Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, Jr., meets "the special needs standard" for the presidency.

Francisco argued that there should be a heightened standard for state prosecutors for two reasons:

State proceedings can pose a greater threat to the presidency, and federal courts should balance prosecutors' local need for information against national interests and those of the president.
Ordinary grand jury rules are not designed to protect Article II interests, which relate to the executive branch and powers of the president.

Sekulow: Trump 'is not to be treated as an ordinary citizen ... he is himself a branch of government'
FILE - In this May 5, 2020, file photo, President Donald Trump talks to the media before boarding Air Force One for a trip to Phoenix to visit a Honeywell plant that manufactures protective equipment, at Andrews Air Force Base, Md. The coronavirus pandemic is complicating what has been a May reelection campaign launch for recent presidents. Trump has told reporters recently he would travel soon to Ohio, a battleground state. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
FILE - In this May 5, 2020, file photo, President Donald Trump talks to the media before boarding Air Force One for a trip to Phoenix to visit a Honeywell plant that manufactures protective equipment, at Andrews Air Force Base, Md. The coronavirus pandemic is complicating what has been a May reelection campaign launch for recent presidents. Trump has told reporters recently he would travel soon to Ohio, a battleground state. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) Associated Press
"The president is not to be treated as an ordinary citizen," Sekulow said. "He has responsibilities — he is himself a branch of government. He is the only individual who is a branch of government in the federal system."

Multiple justices on both the liberal and conservative sides of the court pushed back on Sekulow's argument.

"You are asking for broader immunity than anyone else gets," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said at one point.

"He's the president of the United States. He is a branch of the federal government," Sekulow replied.

"The president isn't above the law," Justice Elena Kagan said later.


Conservative justices are skeptical of the Trump team's claims
jay sekulow
Senate TV
Chief Justice John Roberts — whose confirmation Sekulow helped push through in 2005 — and Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, raised questions about the president's argument in the New York case.

Roberts asked Trump's counsel, Jay Sekulow, why this case is more distracting for the president than Clinton v. Jones, in which the court required then President Bill Clinton to respond to a sexual harassment lawsuit by a former Arkansas state employee, Paula Jones.

"I would have thought the discovery in a case like Clinton v. Jones would be similarly distracting."

Gorsuch echoed that point.

Sekulow responded that Clinton v. Jones was a civil case litigated in federal court, not a state investigation.


Sekulow: Constitution grants Trump 'temporary presidential immunity' from any investigation or prosecution
Jay Sekulow
Jay Sekulow. AP Photo/Steve Helber
Sekulow opened his arguments with a bold claim.

"No county district attorney in our nation's history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States, and for good reason: the Constitution does not allow it," he said. "Temporary presidential immunity is constitutionally required by Article II, and accordingly, the supremacy clause defeats any authority the DA has under state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and should be reversed."

If it isn't reversed, he added, the decision would "weaponize" every local district attorney and allow them to "harass, distract, and interfere with the sitting president."


After a short break, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments in the second case, involving the Manhattan DA's subpoena for Trump's tax returns
President Donald Trump listens during a briefing about the coronavirus in the Rose Garden of the White House, Monday, May 11, 2020, in Washington. In the foreground are testing machines manufactured by Thermo Fisher Scientific. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
President Donald Trump listens during a briefing about the coronavirus in the Rose Garden of the White House, Monday, May 11, 2020, in Washington. In the foreground are testing machines manufactured by Thermo Fisher Scientific. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) Associated Press
Jay Sekulow, Trump's longtime personal defense lawyer who represented him in the FBI's Russia investigation, argued for the president in this case.

The Justice Department solicitor general, Noel Francisco, also argued on Trump's behalf.


Justice Brett Kavanaugh asks whether the House can subpoena Trump's medical records
Brett Kavanaugh
Brett Kavanaugh testified in front of the Senate Judiciary committee over sexual assault allegations made against him. Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images
Kavanaugh, the newest justice appointed to the Supreme Court, asked the House counsel, Douglas Letter, whether Congress has the power to subpoena Trump's medical records.

Letter said Trump's private medical records would likely be outside of the scope of Congress' power.

Records from the president's doctors would most likely be irrelevant to any legislative purpose, and the House would have "no valid reason" to seek them, Letter added.


Justice Samuel Alito says he's 'baffled' by House counsel's argument
Samuel Alito
n this Sept. 14, 2012 file photo, Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito speaks at Roger Williams University Law School in Bristol, R.I AP Photo/Stephan Savoia, File
Alito said he was "baffled" by House counsel Douglas Letter's response to Justice Ginsburg about the use of congressional subpoenas to harass the president. Letter said at the time that the courts can intervene in such cases to settle the dispute.

However, "that's the issue here," Alito said. "Whether something should be done to prevent the use of these subpoenas for the harassment of a president. Can you explain what you meant?"

Letter responded that the court has previously ruled that it will intervene to protect the president if he's facing harassment from Congress or private individuals. However, in this case, Letter said there is a "valid legislative purpose" that four lower courts upheld.

Alito interjected and asked Letter to confirm that the main protection against usage of subpoenas for presidential harassment is "simply the assessment whether the subpoena is conceivably is relevant to some conceivable legislative purpose."

"Correct," Letter said.

"That's not much protection," Alito countered. "In fact, it's no protection."

Letter disagreed, saying that it would be different if Congress was directly interfering with Trump's ability to do his job. However, the subpoenas at issue in this case are to private parties and have not requested anything of Trump directly.

He later reiterated that argument to Justice Elena Kagan, who asked Letter about the Trump team's claim that the subpoenas hamper his ability to do his job.

Letter said that there is a long history of presidents complying with congressional requests for information.

"There is no way this could interfere with the president because he doesn't have to do anything," Letter said. "This was a subpoena to a bank and an accounting firm."


Chief Justice John Roberts asks the House of Representatives' lawyer if there are any limits on Congress' power to seek information about the president
John Roberts
Chief Justice John Roberts at a prayer breakfast in 2008. Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
When Douglas Letter, the counsel for the House of Representatives, began his arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts asked him about the limits of congressional power to seek information about the president.

Letter said the power relates to anything that could have a legislative purpose.

"Your test is not really much of a test," Robert said. "It's not really a limit. Do you have any alternative to that limitless test?"

Letter responded that Congress' power to investigate the president could be limited if it impedes his ability to govern. But he emphasized that the subpoenas in this case — issued to Trump's banks and accounting firm — are not requesting any action from Trump himself and therefore do not restrict his ability to carry out his duties.


Justice Sotomayor points to Trump's business interests before he took office and asks why 'Congress can't believe that looking at longstanding relationships ... is important to knowing what undue influence might be occurring'
Trump Tower
Spencer Platt /Staff/Getty Images
Sotomayor's line of questioning was a reminder that before being inaugurated in 2017, Trump was primarily a businessman. Notably, he hasn't divested his interests in the Trump brand and Trump Organization since taking office.

His properties have also been at the center of several ethics lawsuits questioning whether Trump is profiting from the presidency by having high-ranking diplomats and US officials stay at his resorts and golf clubs and host events there.

If Congress wants to look at Trump's business records, deputy solicitor general Jeffrey Wall said, "it needs to do more than wave its hands about general purposes and saying that the president would be a useful case study about generally applicable laws."

Sotomayor interjected, asking Wall to name any other setting in which an investigative body needs to do more to obtain private records than what Congress did in this case.

Wall began noting that during the Watergate scandal, the special prosecutor had to show a specific need related to obtaining Richard Nixon's Oval Office tapes.

"I don't want you to go to executive privilege cases," Sotomayor said, cutting Wall off. "They're not asking for these records post- being president, they're asking for these papers pre- being president."

Wall responded that he believed that made the issue "worse, not better" because it relates to Trump's personal life before he was a candidate for office.


Justice Breyer homes in on the central question in the case: is Trump above the law?
U.S. President Donald Trump holds a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak response press briefing in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., May 11, 2020. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
U.S. President Donald Trump holds press briefing on coronavirus response at the White House in Washington Reuters
Breyer conceded that it should be "rare" for the courts to weigh in on a tug-of-war between two powerful branches of the government.

But when it does, he asked, why should the same standard that applies to every "human being in the United States" not apply to the president?

Breyer pointed specifically to the court's decision in Clinton v. Jones, in which it opined on special circumstances applying to the president, his personal life, and the needs of his office.

"Would you object to a decision of this court that says apply that, taking into account the special needs of the presidency, just like other human beings sometimes have special needs?" Breyer asked.

Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said he would object, because the subpoenas at issue in this case are different from those issued in Clinton v. Jones, which came from a prosecutor and were focused on exposing potential wrongdoing. In this case, Wall said, the subpoenas to Trump must pertain to a specific legislative purpose.

He added that in Clinton v. Jones, the court rejected an absolute immunity argument but said the president was entitled to some special protections.

"We're here saying the court should take exactly the same approach," Wall said. "We're not saying the House has no power to get at the records of a sitting president. We're saying that it needs to satisfy a heightened standard, because if it doesn't, these requests will become routine. And that weapon in the standing arsenal of the houses of Congress will, I think, be routinely deployed in a way that harms both the separation of powers and that undermines the presidency."


Justice Department weighs in, warns House subpoenas are 'harassing, distracting, and undermining the president'
department of justice building
REUTERS / Jonathan Ernst
Jeffrey B. Wall, the deputy solicitor general appearing on behalf of the Justice Department, also urged the Supreme Court to strike down the House's subpoenas, saying their purpose was not legislative, but to "expose wrongdoing."

"If you look at what they say about intended legislative proposals and why they need the documents, it's paper-thin," Wall said.

He also echoed Patrick Strawbridge, Trump's personal defense lawyer on the case, in saying that the subpoenas pose a "danger of harassing, distracting, and undermining the president."


Trump lawyer emphasizes that Congress is not subpoenaing Trump in connection to a specific bill under consideration
President Donald Trump departs after speaking about the coronavirus during a press briefing in the Rose Garden of the White House, Monday, May 11, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
President Donald Trump departs after speaking about the coronavirus during a press briefing in the Rose Garden of the White House, Monday, May 11, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) Associated Press
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another Trump appointee, also asked whether Congress has a legislative purpose in seeking Trump's records.

In response to both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, Trump's attorney, Patrick Strawbridge, said that unless Congress is subpoenaing Trump's financial records in connection to a specific bill under consideration, it does not have a right to obtain them.

If it did, Strawbridge said, it would be "a door that opens to endless subpoenas and harassment anytime one party controls one house of Congress opposite from the president."

Justice Gorsuch grills Trump's lawyers on why the president should have the power to determine what constitutes a legitimate legislative purpose for Congress
neil gorsuch
In this Sept. 4, 2019 file photo, Justice Neil Gorsuch, speaks during an interview in his chambers at the Supreme Court in Washington. Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite
Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, kicked off his questioning by asking the president's lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge, why the House should not be allowed to determine on its own what amounts to a "substantial legislative need" when issuing subpoenas for documents and testimony.

"Why should we not defer to the House's views about its own legislative purposes?" Gorsuch asked.

Strawbridge responded that there are "several reasons" why, in the Trump team's view:

The subpoena power "is an implied power," and Congress cannot use its "implied powers to challenge the structure of government," and the subpoenas are a "challenge to the separation of powers."
In previous cases involving disputes between the legislative and executive branches, the Supreme Court did not weigh in "precisely because it was a battle between the branches."
"The president has his own powers that are created by the Constitution."
In cases going back to Chief Justice John Marshall, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, it was determined that "we do not proceed against the president as we do against an ordinary litigant."

Justice Elena Kagan: 'These subpoenas are for personal records, where the president is just a man. They're not for official records, where the president might have executive privilege'
Elena Kagan
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan participates in a discussion at the George Washington University Law School, September 13, 2016 in Washington, DC. Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Justice Kagan joined Justices Sotomayor and Breyer in pointing out that the congressional subpoenas for Trump's financial records are not related to his time as president but rather his personal life before he took office.

Kagan also pointed back to Breyer's questioning and asked Patrick Strawbridge, Trump's defense lawyer, to justify why there should be a higher standard for obtaining the president's personal records as opposed to documents pertaining to his time in office, which could be subject to executive privilege claims.

"The fact that they seek personal documents doesn't mean that they're not targeting the president," Strawbridge responded, adding that the oversight and intelligence committees have specified that they're investigating Trump in his role as president.

He added that the Supreme Court previously ruled in Clinton v. Jones, when it rejected a broader immunity argument, that there's "still a need to ensure the president is not going to face undue harassment or distraction and there's a necessity to accommodate him."


Justice Sonia Sotomayor throws a wrench into Trump's claim that subpoenas for his finances impede him from carrying out his duties
Sonia Sotomayor
Wikimedia Commons
Justice Sotomayor noted that Congress has a long history of subpoenaing documents from the executive branch and obtaining them.

"In some of those cases, we have said ... that a congressional subpoena is valid so long as there is a conceivable legislative purpose, and the records are relevant to that purpose," she said. "I see a tremendous separation of powers problem when you're talking about placing a heightened standard or clear statement ... on an investigation that a committee is embarking upon."

Sotomayor pointed specifically to the House Intelligence Committee's stated purpose in seeking Trump's financial records: investigating efforts by foreign entities to influence the US political process.

She asked Trump's lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge to elaborate on why Trump's team argued the subpoenas for his records were "irrelevant to that purpose" and that the investigation itself is illegitimate.

Sotomayor also noted that none of the subpoenas for Trump's financial records have asked him, personally, to turn them over. Instead, the subpoenas are to the president's banks and accounting firm, which raises questions about Strawbridge's argument that the investigations impede Trump from carrying out his duties.




Trump's lawyer says House subpoenas are a 'harassment and infringement' on Trump's ability to govern
Trump Family
Getty Images / Paul Morigi
Justice Stephen Breyer asked Trump's defense lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge, about the Watergate scandal, in which the court turned over Oval Office tapes to the special prosecutor.

"Why isn't whatever standard applies to personal papers a weaker one, not a stronger one?" Breyer asked.

Strawbridge responded that subpoenaing "decades worth of papers" related to Trump and his family "poses an obvious problem with respect to harassment and infringement upon the ability of the executive to discharge his duties 24 hours a day."

"Unlike Congress, the president is never in recess, and these types of subpoenas are going to be particularly troublesome," Strawbridge said.

Breyer cut him off, asking, "Whatever it is, why wouldn't whatever standard applies to personal papers before the presidency be equal to or weaker than the standard for materials that is the working of the administration at the time?"

Strawbridge said that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that Congress does not have the power to inquire about the private affairs of any individual.

"That's distinct from whatever interest they may have informing themselves about the workings of government," he said, adding, "Now, that informing power does not extend to the president, it generally applies to lower executive branch officials and agencies."


Trump's lawyer appears to contradict the White House's position on impeachment
FILE - In this May 7, 2020, file photo, President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting about the coronavirus response in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. The Supreme Court is taking up Trump’s bid to keep his tax, bank and financial records private, a major clash over accountability that could affect the 2020 presidential campaign. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
FILE - In this May 7, 2020, file photo, President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting about the coronavirus response in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. The Supreme Court is taking up Trump’s bid to keep his tax, bank and financial records private, a major clash over accountability that could affect the 2020 presidential campaign. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) Associated Press
Justice Clarence Thomas asked Trump's defense lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge, to distinguish between congressional subpoenas related to impeachment and legislative subpoenas.

Strawbridge responded that the court previously ruled that these are "two very different powers" and that when impeachment is "properly pending before any body of the House, the ability to subpoena pursuant to impeachment is co-extensive with that of the court."

During Trump's impeachment, however, the White House refused to cooperate with any congressional subpoenas, arguing that they were invalid. It also instructed all executive branch employees not to comply with the House's requests for documents and testimony.

On Tuesday, Strawbridge said the committees who subpoenaed Trump's financial records have "waived any reliance on impeachment," and that they "don't even have jurisdiction over impeachment."

He was likely referring to the fact that the House Judiciary Committee oversees impeachment hearings, not the oversight, intelligence, and financial services committees — who subpoenaed Trump's bank and accounting firm for his records.


Justice Clarence Thomas asks Trump's lawyers whether Congress has any power to request or subpoena private documents
Clarence Thomas
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits in his chambers at the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S. June 6, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Justice Clarence Thomas asked Trump's personal defense lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge, whether the House has the power to request or subpoena any private documents.

Strawbridge responded that it may have "limited powers in some cases," and Thomas asked him to elaborate on what those circumstances may be.

Strawbridge stressed that Congress has "some implied power," but that it must be related to a legislative purpose and not an oversight role.

"Most often, that's going to take the view of forward-looking information, perhaps aggregated information, and not an attempt to reassemble a precise factual history," he added.

Trump team notes that the subpoenas are unprecedented, but Justice Ginsburg points out the House has subpoenaed several previous presidents during investigations like Watergate and Whitewater
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during the official Supreme Court group photo in November 2018. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Patrick Strawbridge, one of Trump's personal defense lawyers arguing the case, said the House subpoenas for the president's financial records are unprecedented.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the House has subpoenaed previous presidents, citing the Watergate scandal and in the 1990s during the Whitewater investigation during Bill Clinton's administration.

Strawbridge responded by saying that almost all the cases Ginsburg cited involved "cooperative efforts" and that none involved a challenge to the scope of the legislative committee to request documents.

What you need to know about the cases
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump walks down the West Wing colonnade to the Oval Office before an interview about China, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and other subjects at the White House in Washington, U.S., April 29, 2020. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
U.S. President Trump talks with Reuters in interview at the White House in Washington Reuters
Last year, the president sued the Manhattan district attorney's office in New York to stop investigators from obtaining his tax returns as part of an investigation into his business activities. In arguing the case, Trump's attorneys claimed he has "absolute immunity" not just from criminal prosecution but from any investigation while in office.

The House oversight, financial services, and intelligence committees also subpoenaed Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, and two of his banks, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, as part of an investigation into the president's potential conflicts of interest and foreign business ties.

Trump then sued the oversight committee in federal court in Washington, DC, to block the Mazars subpoena, and he sued the financial services and intelligence committees in New York to block the subpoenas to Deutsche and Capital One. In these congressional cases, Trump's lawyers argued that Congress does not have a legitimate legislative purpose in examining his records and is going on a "sweeping" and "extraordinary" fishing expedition.

In one instance last year, Trump's legal team made headlines when it argued that even if Trump were to "shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue" — as he claimed during the 2016 campaign — he could not be prosecuted or investigated for the crime while in office.

In all three cases, lower courts rejected Trump's arguments and said the president has to turn over his records to congressional and New York state investigators.

Now, the Supreme Court is Trump's last hope to stop the public from gaining access to his closely held financial records.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 15697
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What he is trying to hide from scrutiny:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

He is a danger to our democracy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 12205
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

trump wasting time on twitter while his lawyers argue to the supreme court he is so busy.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-s-public-time-wasting-undercuts-his-case-before-scotus-83378245710?cid=eml_mra_20200513


RACHEL MADDOW
Trump's public time wasting undercuts his case before SCOTUS


Quote:
Rachel Maddow points out that while Americans watched Donald Trump make a spectacle of himself on Twitter apparently while watching cable news, Trump's lawyer was trying to argue to the Supreme Court that Trump's time is too valuable to have any to spare for dealing with criminal investigations.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 12205
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53353953


Trump taxes: Supreme Court says New York prosecutors can see records


Quote:
The US Supreme Court has ruled that President Trump's financial records can be examined by prosecutors in New York.

In a related case, the court ruled that this information did not have to be shared with Congress.

Mr Trump has come under fire for not making his tax returns public like his predecessors.

His lawyers had argued that he enjoyed total immunity while in office and that Congress had no valid justification to seek the records.

How did Donald Trump make his fortune?
Five claims in Trump niece's tell-all book
Two Democratic-controlled House of Representatives committees and New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance - also a Democrat - had demanded Mr Trump's tax documents over several years in order to determine whether current conflict-of-interest laws on a US president were tough enough.

Mr Trump, a Republican, denies wrongdoing and has called the investigation into his tax affairs a "witch hunt".

"The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution," he wrote in a series of tweets following the court rulings.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20004

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Soooooo, who's gonna decide whether Trump's tax returns are legal ... the IRS? Pelosi? Schumer? Schiff? BIDEN, fergoshssakes? Al Capone?

Got bad news for you:
The IRS has audited and approved his returns for many years, long before he had any power.

Maybe he DIDN'T pay any taxes some years. THAT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL if there are offsetting losses, and he lost his ass some years.

Maybe he hasn't donated much to your (collective "your") favorite charity. So freaking what? Many, probably most, very rich politicians donate squat, near squat, or to groups half the nation abhors anyway.

Everyone KNOWS this is nothing more than an undisguised witch hunt seeking minutiae even the IRS doesn't give a damn about ... ANYTHING to taint the election.

Pelosi, who will be running the country with ... gulp! ... AOC if The Biden Puppet Show gets elected, refuses to release her returns. (Yeah, THAT Pelosi ... the freak who dismisses rioting and destruction of public property as "what they do".)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group