“How is this more burdensome, though, than what took place in Clinton versus Jones? I guess I’m not sure I understand that,” he said, adding: “There, they sought the deposition of the president while he was serving. Here, they’re seeking records from third parties.””
A good solid swipe at Bill Clinton!
That’s cool to see that at the SCOTUS.
Nothing new here! The communist Democrats always find way to win. When half of the SC are communist, America is in real trouble.
I don’t remember who requested these returns in the first place, and for what reason?
I’m sure it’s just to leak them to the press.
B@stards.
As I understand the law above is the standard for Congress to subpoena Trump's or any ones records. There are supposed to be legislators not frivolous imbeciles.
Assuming the justices see through this nonsense, the commie democrat congress critters are trying to pull off, there is no way they get what the records, as we hate Trump is not a legitimate legislative purpose.
So we’re looking for 5-4?
zSCOTUS was wrong in the Clinton case, IMO.
Why is Gorsuch even trying to compare the seeking of personal tax records from a time before Trump was in office, to seeking the deposition of a sitting President? One has nothing to do with the other.
i would raise the extremely real and likely concern his returns will deliberately be leaked to the media by the democrats.
They have been leaking things to the press for a very long time.
After all we now know. is there anyone here who thinks there’s a chance in Hell that Obama Inc, hasn’t already seen every line of Trumps returns for the past 30+years?
starting the day he questioned BO’s BC
“What it seems to me you’re asking us to do is to put a kind of 10 ton weight on the scales between the president and Congress and essentially to make it impossible for Congress to perform oversight and to carry out its functions where the president is concerned,”
Uh, yeah. That’s what that Constitution thingy was written to do. Separation of powers and all that. Wise Latina my ass.
One sure thing: The Old Bolshevik Biddy won’t recuse herself for her prior, multiple, anti-Trump remarks.
So....it’s a bit confusing. To me, if there were ‘crimes’ that were involved with Specific tax records, that they had ample evidence of criminal behavior, like with Clinton vs Jones, Then the POTUS shouldn’t be immune.
The key words are “Ample Evidence” and “Specific Records”. Nobody really asked the Questions: 1)What is the Crime that these records would shed light on? 2)What specific records in Trumps ‘Tax Records’ are needed? 3) What strong evidence do they have that releasing the POTUS tax records would solve a ‘criminal offense’.
I SEE NO EVIDENCE of this discussion. Stormy Daniels, doesn’t cut it. Campaign finance, was completely ignored by Obama, not enforced on Hillary and the ‘Clinton Foundations’ ignored for the entire DNC in the last election cycle. Since the SCOTUS didn’t step in to stop Comey, FISA abuse, or any prior campaign finance issues, then they be ‘partisan hacks’ if they do so now. The Supreme Court siding with the Democrats would mean that only CONSERVATIVES are under the rule of law.
To prove this isn’t a ‘fishing’ expedition, as pertains to the POTUS, the standard should be to demonstrate convincingly that a serious real criminal offense occurred. Moreover, if they have that, then a single line from a single year of his Tax records, could verify that information.
The problem is that this IS a FISHING expedition, and they can’t GIVE specifics because they LACK a real and serious crime, or even specific evidence. They are doing it for political reasons, not for Criminal Justice, and the SCOTUS should tell them to pound sand or come back with hard evidence of a crime, and SPECIFIC portions of his TAX records that are needed.
Forgot one thing in my last post.
I suspect that they will find nothing in Trumps records. He is just baiting everyone to out themselves as one sided partisan hacks. Then, when they get it they will say “we forced him to give up his tax records” while they wince that they got nothing and now look like morons. That’s what Trump does.
Better be 5-4, advantage us.
The libs have asserted that DJT has committed a crime, FALSELY, repeatedly. There is no law that mandates the release of tax history. Let them start there. Pass a law instead of going fishing for a potential crime with no evidence to obtain a warrantless search.
Nice try Kagen. What law do you allege Trump thinks he's above? The House has no evidence of a crime being committed. Without evidence of a crime, on what basis is the House entitled to a private citizen's tax returns, much less a President's.
Lawmakers want to have a look at PDJT’s taxes undoubtedly to make sure that he has never paid taxes that Congress cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. /sarc
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government Democrats and RINOs home in November!
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a third term in office imo.
Remember in November!
"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy, [...]” —Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819.
"The 16th Amendment effectively repealed the involuntary servitude aspect of the 13th Amendment imo, evidenced by unconstitutional federal taxes." —me
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"13th Amendment, Section 1:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude [emphasis added], except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
"16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"It’s politically correct, under the Democratic Party and its tyrant judges, to use your voting power to make your fellow citizens involuntary servants." —me
"The ill-conceived 17th Amendment not only effectively politically repealed the 3/4 state supermajority requirement of the Constitution’s Article V for ratification of proposed amendments to the Constitution imo, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution now prevailing under Democratic judicial tyranny, but also consider this. That amendment also effectively nullified Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers along with the Supreme Court’s clarification of Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes." —me
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"The constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, “union dues” paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes. Belonging to a political party means that you are a subject, not a member.” —me
"Patriots need to support PDJT in demanding that Congress moves "April 15" tax day to the day before election day." —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
In both of the cases argued Tuesday, Trump lost every round of the battle in the lower courts.
But John Kruzel failed to write exactly why Trump lost every round of the lower court battles. Even though John Roberts has said that the Federal courts are not political, they are.
Case 1, Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP was consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG.
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP
Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG
Case 2, Trump v. Vance
As we can see, these cases have been decided politically, by Clinton and Obama political operatives on the Federal courts.
Apparently, DNC political operative John Kruzel did not see that.
Roberts will side with the left. They own him. He is allowed to vote with the right sometimes when it’s not that important but on all the big issues he is reliably on the left. This is a biggie to them.
Have we seen Obama’s college transcripts, or birth certificate?
I didn’t think so.