Trump wins Supreme Court case, tells Congress no

[hislegacy]

The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 against Congress overstepping it’s bounds and demanding the Presidents tax records.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I am sure that Congress can get a copy from the State of New York; the one’s that the Supreme Court said could get the tax records.

 

[Nithavela]

This is a strange definition of winning.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Bizarre when people applaud the fact that the man selected for the highest office in the country is legally free to hide his corruption and financial ties.

How is this a good for democracy ? How is this good for transparency or less corrupted government ?

I am seriously asking what are the positives of a politician not required to be open about his financial ties to people and government when he repeatedly has to be in contact with them while doing policy that should advance the interests of US and it’s citizens ?

 

[BBAS 64]

I am sure that Congress can get a copy from the State of New York; the one’s that the Supreme Court said could get the tax records.

Good Day,

The case was remained back to district with very good language to assist Trump as to the nature of defenses he could use.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Ouch the house takes a whipping at the hand of the Supreme court.

High Court Roils White House With Punt on House Subpoenas

 

[Sparagmos]

Ouch the house takes a whipping at the hand of the Supreme court.

High Court Roils White House With Punt on House Subpoenas

Hmm, you are saying this ruling was bad for the house and good for Trump, yet your article says that the decision “roils” the White House, and Trump’s two biggest allies on the Supreme Court were the dissenters? Why did Alito and Thomas dissent?

 

[BBAS 64]

Hmm, you are saying this ruling was bad for the house and good for Trump, yet your article says that the decision “roils” the White House, and Trump’s two biggest allies on the Supreme Court were the dissenters? Why did Alito and Thomas dissent?

Have not read the dissenting opion.... yet

 

[durangodawood]

As much as I cant wait to see the Trump crimes exposed to the light of day, I agree congress cant just go on a fishing expedition

 

[Sparagmos]

Have not read the dissenting opion.... yet

Why do you think the decision roiled the White House?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I am sure that Congress can get a copy from the State of New York; the one’s that the Supreme Court said could get the tax records.

Sorry but you are somewhat misinformed . The right of a grand jury to subpoena such records has been upheld . However, the State of New York, is not the grand jury and therefore has no legal access to anything the grand jury subpoenas. Grand juries can not legally share any information prior to a trial.

 

[wing2000]

The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 against Congress overstepping it’s bounds and demanding the Presidents tax records.

...and the other part of the ruling? That's a win as well right?

 

[wing2000]

...seems someone doesn't think it's a win:

“This is all a political prosecution. … I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration! … Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference’. BUT NOT ME!”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...b49d78-bf81-11ea-b178-bb7b05b94af1_story.html

 

[hislegacy]

...and the other part of the ruling? That's a win as well right?

covered exclusively in this thread

Trumps Looses Supreme Court Case: Lets See Tax Statements

I didn’t want to be repetitive

 

[hislegacy]

I am sure that Congress can get a copy from the State of New York; the one’s that the Supreme Court said could get the tax records.

min sure that Congress is aware that Grand Jury information is sealed. They are not legally able to view them.

I am also sure the legality of how to obtain the information they want is a non issue over their wants.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why do you think the decision roiled the White House?

Trump is roiled because he cannot abide losing. It doesn't fit his self image.

Bizarre when people applaud the fact that the man selected for the highest office in the country is legally free to hide his corruption and financial ties.

How is this a good for democracy ? How is this good for transparency or less corrupted government ?

I am seriously asking what are the positives of a politician not required to be open about his financial ties to people and government when he repeatedly has to be in contact with them while doing policy that should advance the interests of US and it’s citizens ?

He is not legally free to hide anything. The House leadership is just not legally allowed to engage in a fishing expedition of political opposition research by disguising it as an attempt to investigate corruption. If the House leadership had evidence that some crime had been committed or that there was probable cause Trump's financial records would expose that crime then I would assume that the Court would rule that Trump would have to comply with a subpeoana. That is not the case here as the House leadership is trying to find a crime without proabable cause that any crime was even committed. Just being suspicious of someone is not probable cause.

 

[hislegacy]

Sorry but you are somewhat misinformed . The right of a grand jury to subpoena such records has been upheld . However, the State of New York, is not the grand jury and therefore has no legal access to anything the grand jury subpoenas. Grand juries can not legally share any information prior to a trial.

True, but in this day and age, don’t be surprised when it is leaked. ***cough cough Schumer***

 

[Caliban]

The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 against Congress overstepping it’s bounds and demanding the Presidents tax records.

There are two threads on this topic now. I don't think For news quite gets it right. Here is the Times.

 

[grasping the after wind]

True, but in this day and age, don’t be surprised when it is leaked. ***cough cough Schumer***

Someone would have to leak it to Schumer first. But I do see your point that the rule of law seems to not be an impediment to those that are politically motivated. Since no prosecutions have been forthcoming for those that have illegally used their positions in government to leak classified information why would a member of a grand jury or a prosecutor be fearful of any repercussions?

 

[grasping the after wind]

There are two threads on this topic now. I don't think For news quite gets it right. Here is the Times.

The Times will most certainly gives the spin you want which IMO would be getting it wrong. I guess I won't know for sure as I am not going to create an account.