Posted on 11/04/2019 11:31:50 AM PST by kiryandil
In a ruling Monday morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied President Donald Trump’s request for a preliminary injunction protecting him from a grand jury subpoena for his tax returns.
The court in an opinion written by Chief Judge Robert Katzmann rejected the notion that the president is immune from all state criminal processes...
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
As usual, ANY article on these things written by the Democrat Media is full of "omissions", lies and shading the facts.
The writer, Jane Wester, makes the claim that " the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied President Donald Trump’s request for a preliminary injunction".
Actually, it was a three-judge panel, not the Second Circuit en banc.
AND FURTHERMORE - Little Janey kind of forgot to mention that all three "judges" are Democrat appointees, which means that they're political commissar "judges", ruling from their ideological beliefs, not the law.
==============================
Case is Trump v "I Kinda Forgot To Prosecute Weinstein" Vance
Before: KATZMANN, Chief Judge, CHIN and DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Robert Katzmann - Rapin Bill "judge"
Denny Chin - ClownBammy "judge"
Christopher F. Droney - ClownBammy "judge"
Democrats gonna Democrat.
Has the appeal already been filed?
Let’s see what SCOTUS says.
It’s a fishing expedition. They don’t even know what they’re looking for. This won’t get much further.
Let's see if John "Jesters Is Politics-Blind" Roberts listens to his heart, or to his blackmailers.
OTOH - Ruth Bader Corpseburg is in charge of the Second Circuit.
These are morons ,otherwise known as Democrats , who wouldn’t even begin to understand how to read Donald J Trump’s tax returns
What is the crime?
Oh yes he can; go away.
The crime is: carrying FL,NC,PA,OH,MI,IN,WI,IA and the 2nd Congressional District of Maine.
Not a lawyer and dont play one on TV.
I am of the opinion that as a general concept, the court is correct. There is no constitutional grounds for asserting that a sitting President is exempt from a state grand jury subpoena. ON THAT NARROW question, there is no room for addressing if the grand jury is legal to investigate.
This is where I believe that the prosecution fails. There must be probable cause (some evidence) that the accused committed a crime. You can’t start an grand jury probe on suspicions or just because you “feel” that something is not right.
But since the proceedings are sealed and not available to the public, we do not know if that standard has been met.
These include applications for emergency stays (including stays of execution in death-penalty cases) and injunctions pursuant to the All Writs Act arising from cases within that circuit, as well as routine requests such as requests for extensions of time. In the past, circuit justices also sometimes ruled on motions for bail in criminal cases, writs of habeas corpus, and applications for writs of error granting permission to appeal.
Ordinarily, a justice will resolve such an application by simply endorsing it "granted" or "denied" or entering a standard form of order. However, the justice may elect to write an opinion—referred to as an in-chambers opinion—in such matters if he or she wishes.
This means that Corpseburg's TOTALLY NON-PARTISAN law clerks will be making the decision on this...
“Oh look! He gave ten dollars to this group that supports something or other we don’t like”
It’s a fishing expedition. They don’t even know what they’re looking for. This won’t get much further.
~~~
What is worse is that it’s political fishing.
There is nothing illegal that would ever be declared on tax returns except fraudulent filings themselves (and the IRS already audited him anyway) so they can’t really be looking for anything legal. They just want to do what the House is doing, conduct investigations so they can leak anything they can use as negative political propaganda
In the end they’re gonna find that Trump paid a shite-tonne of taxes and will be laughing at them.
No political candidate should be required to disclose their tax records, only what is required by election law. None of anyone’s business.
“Show me the man, I’ll find the crime.”
Exactly...
On general principles, if a person is under investigation for an actual crime, I don’t have a problem with those records being revealed. Trump is not under such an investigation.
This is a fishing expedition and nothing more.
Mafia figures, drug lords, others under an actual criminal investigation with other evidence pointing in the direction of a crime having been committed, count me in. This for Trump? No.
a New York grand jury is investigating related to hush-money payments during the 2016 presidential campaign to two women who claimed they had sexual relations with Trump , Vance’s office said in a federal court filing.
This nonsense.
“This is where I believe that the prosecution fails. There must be probable cause (some evidence) that the accused committed a crime. “
The Hussein Heads promised us for three years without evidence that Trump committed a crime, which is enough for half of American voters, all Big Media, and every Rat-appointed judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.