https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... e=facebook
Supreme court votes 7-2 in favor of Trump having to release tax returns
Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.
Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source
Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.
Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.
Report when things come up.
Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.
Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.
Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source
Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.
Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.
Report when things come up.
Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.
Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
-
jessilin0113
- Regent
- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:42 pm
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch arent paying such big dividends any more, huh? 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... e=facebook
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... e=facebook
-
Francee89
- Regent
- Posts: 4536
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 7:13 pm
Itsssss notttttt faiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir
Seems like a lot of whining for someone who previously said he’d love to release them! ("If I decide to run for office, I'll produce my tax returns, absolutely. And I would love to do that.")
Seems like a lot of whining for someone who previously said he’d love to release them! ("If I decide to run for office, I'll produce my tax returns, absolutely. And I would love to do that.")
-
Lemons
- Donated
-
Princess
- Posts: 11250
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:22 pm
He also actually Tweeted a "whatabout Obama? He got caught spying on me and nothing happened to him!!!" He really is intellectually challenged.
-
Mommamia
- Duchess
- Posts: 1774
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:32 pm
Your title is a lie. The SC did not say he has to release his returns.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/0 ... rds-353428
The Supreme Court has delivered a split decision on subpoenas for President Donald Trump’s tax returns and personal financial records, unanimously rejecting his broadest claims of “absolute” immunity in a New York state criminal investigation, but ruling that lower courts did not do enough to scrutinize congressional subpoenas for similar records.
The pair of highly anticipated decisions likely mean more delays and court proceedings on both subpoenas, increasing the odds that Trump makes it to the Nov. 3 election without releasing his tax and financial details to the prosecutors and congressional committees demanding them.
More significantly, the rulings could permanently curb Congress’ formidable subpoena power against the executive branch, which lawmakers have wielded as a cudgel for information for decades. All the justices said Congress has deployed an over broad interpretation of its own power.
Ruling on several House subpoenas issued to Trump’s accountants and banks, a seven-justice majority said courts did not do enough to examine Democratic lawmakers' claims that they needed the records as part of inquiries aimed at strengthening laws combating a wide range of ills, including money laundering, official conflicts of interest and foreign influence in U.S. elections.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinions Thursday in both of the politically sensitive subpoena disputes, said lower-court judges needed to take “a balanced approach” to the congressional subpoenas, closely examining Congress’ need for the information, ensuring that the subpoenas are tailored to those purposes and considering whether there might be alternate sources of information.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/0 ... rds-353428
The Supreme Court has delivered a split decision on subpoenas for President Donald Trump’s tax returns and personal financial records, unanimously rejecting his broadest claims of “absolute” immunity in a New York state criminal investigation, but ruling that lower courts did not do enough to scrutinize congressional subpoenas for similar records.
The pair of highly anticipated decisions likely mean more delays and court proceedings on both subpoenas, increasing the odds that Trump makes it to the Nov. 3 election without releasing his tax and financial details to the prosecutors and congressional committees demanding them.
More significantly, the rulings could permanently curb Congress’ formidable subpoena power against the executive branch, which lawmakers have wielded as a cudgel for information for decades. All the justices said Congress has deployed an over broad interpretation of its own power.
Ruling on several House subpoenas issued to Trump’s accountants and banks, a seven-justice majority said courts did not do enough to examine Democratic lawmakers' claims that they needed the records as part of inquiries aimed at strengthening laws combating a wide range of ills, including money laundering, official conflicts of interest and foreign influence in U.S. elections.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinions Thursday in both of the politically sensitive subpoena disputes, said lower-court judges needed to take “a balanced approach” to the congressional subpoenas, closely examining Congress’ need for the information, ensuring that the subpoenas are tailored to those purposes and considering whether there might be alternate sources of information.
-
Fliptopz4
- Countess
- Posts: 406
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:26 am
-
californiagirl83
- Regent
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 4:56 pm
Just because I saw this recently, his tantrum made me think of Baby Herman. 5 points if you can ID the movie!
- Attachments
-
-
moviestar
- Duchess
- Posts: 1323
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:20 pm
no
https://www.businessinsider.com/justice ... 16-2019-11
https://www.businessinsider.com/justice ... 16-2019-11
-
jessilin0113
- Regent
- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:42 pm
Meh, tomato, to-mah-to. Technically they ruled that Trump's claim of immunity because he's the president is invalid. Meaning he'll have to give his tax returns if subpoenaed. The end result is the same (to Vance, not to Congress, to clarify)Mommamia wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:50 pm Your title is a lie. The SC did not say he has to release his returns.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/0 ... rds-353428
The Supreme Court has delivered a split decision on subpoenas for President Donald Trump’s tax returns and personal financial records, unanimously rejecting his broadest claims of “absolute” immunity in a New York state criminal investigation, but ruling that lower courts did not do enough to scrutinize congressional subpoenas for similar records.
The pair of highly anticipated decisions likely mean more delays and court proceedings on both subpoenas, increasing the odds that Trump makes it to the Nov. 3 election without releasing his tax and financial details to the prosecutors and congressional committees demanding them.
More significantly, the rulings could permanently curb Congress’ formidable subpoena power against the executive branch, which lawmakers have wielded as a cudgel for information for decades. All the justices said Congress has deployed an over broad interpretation of its own power.
Ruling on several House subpoenas issued to Trump’s accountants and banks, a seven-justice majority said courts did not do enough to examine Democratic lawmakers' claims that they needed the records as part of inquiries aimed at strengthening laws combating a wide range of ills, including money laundering, official conflicts of interest and foreign influence in U.S. elections.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinions Thursday in both of the politically sensitive subpoena disputes, said lower-court judges needed to take “a balanced approach” to the congressional subpoenas, closely examining Congress’ need for the information, ensuring that the subpoenas are tailored to those purposes and considering whether there might be alternate sources of information.
-
Fliptopz4
- Countess
- Posts: 406
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:26 am
They used a dossier full of false information so they could investigate and surveille members of Trump's team.moviestar wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am no
https://www.businessinsider.com/justice ... 16-2019-11
-
moviestar
- Duchess
- Posts: 1323
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:20 pm
Many elements of the originally Republican-commissioned steele dossier has actually been corroborated, and allegations that the FBI acted improperly in securing warrants to surveil some of trump’s many many criminal associates have been investigated and determined unfounded.
Fliptopz4 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:20 amThey used a dossier full of false information so they could investigate and surveille members of Trump's team.moviestar wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:45 am no
https://www.businessinsider.com/justice ... 16-2019-11
Donate to MomConfessions to avoid seeing ads just select donate from the header menu. Please visit our friends:
