Trump's Tax Returns Subpoenaed by Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr.

[Koko78]

Eh, the bottom line is that SCOTUS is going to ultimately rule that they are not going to get involved in second-guessing what a 'legislative purpose' is for Congress to get access to records.

 

The real question is whether or not they'll outright refuse to hear the case, or (assuming they hear it) the timing of when they're going to schedule oral arguments and whether or not they will release the decision before or after the November election.

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Why do I get the feeling this is still going to be going on in 2024 if the Ds hold the House?
 

Supreme Court temporarily halts court order requiring accountants to turn over Trump’s tax returns to Congress
 

* The Supreme Court temporarily blocks a ruling requiring accounting firm Mazars to turn President Donald Trump’s tax returns over to House Democrats.
* The House Committee on Oversight and Reform has until Thursday to respond.
* The president is trying at the top court to block two efforts to obtain his tax returns.
 

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked a ruling that requires President Donald Trump’s longtime accounting firm to turn over his tax returns to Congress.
 

The temporary stay order signed by Chief Justice John Roberts gives the Democratic-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Reform until Thursday to respond. The document did not note any public votes or dissents.
 

</snip>

My entire issue with this demand is this:
 

Quote

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Can someone please explain to me why so called Congressional oversight takes precedent over a person's 4th rights? I don't care what IRS regulations say, Constitutional rights are absolute.

I get it... but they subpoenaed them! Okay, cool... on what grounds? For what crime? You can't subpoena something because you want to look for a crime, just like you can't come in my house without a warrant or my permission. SO what right would you hav e to look at my tax returns without a warrant or my permission?

 

If the Supremes rule against Trump on this based only on the subpoenas with no evidence of a crime, it will be a continuance of the shredding of the Constitution... 

[Koko78]

5 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Can someone please explain to me why so called Congressional oversight takes precedent over a person's 4th rights?

 

There is no privacy interest that binds the government from records that are turned over to a different agency of the government.

 

7 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Constitutional rights are absolute.

 

No, they're not.

[DC Tom]

28 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Constitutional rights are absolute.

 

Then where's my main battle tank?

57 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

Eh, the bottom line is that SCOTUS is going to ultimately rule that they are not going to get involved in second-guessing what a 'legislative purpose' is for Congress to get access to records.

 

They should, simply on the narrow question of "What legislative purpose does Congress have for requesting the records from a private accounting firm and not the IRS?"

[/dev/null]

39 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Can someone please explain to me why so called Congressional oversight takes precedent over a person's 4th rights?

Because #orangemanbad

[Cinga]

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Then where's my main battle tank?

Yeah, or my nuclear bomb... But that isn't what the right to keep and bear was about as I'm sure you know. 

 

But for those that don't. it boils down to a couple things... The word "bear" as in you can carry it, and the reason this right was so important to the militia to begin with, for that. look to The United States vs Miller .

 

You see by this ruling, the court said that yes indeed the state had the right to regulate a shotgun. Weird huh? But it could not regulate modern weapons of war! You see, they decided that since at any time there could be a call to arms, many people may have to bring their own weapons. Meaning that weapon then HAD to be something used in warfare at thew time... and oh... BEARABLE! Howitzers and such the government had to supply I guess, but RPGs, bazookas, LAWS (you can carry these)... and the modern AR15 are off limits to regulation... But if you want to tell me I can't saw off the barrel of my shotgun, well, okay.... I won't.... Wanna tell me I can't hunt elephants with a 22?.... okay... 

 

I really think this is the reason the Court hates to take up any 2nd cases... They LOVE precedent, and this case was a doozy... 

[DC Tom]

Just now, Cinga said:

Yeah, or my nuclear bomb... But that isn't what the right to keep and bear was about as I'm sure you know. 

 

But for those that don't. it boils down to a couple things... The word "bear" as in you can carry it, and the reason this right was so important to the militia to begin with, for that. look to The United States vs Miller .

 

You see by this ruling, the court said that yes indeed the state had the right to regulate a shotgun. Weird huh? But it could not regulate modern weapons of war! You see, they decided that since at any time there could be a call to arms, many people may have to bring their own weapons. Meaning that weapon then HAD to be something used in warfare at thew time... and oh... BEARABLE! Howitzers and such the government had to supply I guess, but RPGs, bazookas, LAWS (you can carry these)... and the modern AR15 are off limits to regulation... But if you want to tell me I can't saw off the barrel of my shotgun, well, okay.... I won't.... Wanna tell me I can't hunt elephants with a 22?.... okay... 

 

I really think this is the reason the Court hates to take up any 2nd cases... They LOVE precedent, and this case was a doozy... 

 

52 minutes to go from "Constitutional rights are absolute" to "No, they're not." 

[Cinga]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

52 minutes to go from "Constitutional rights are absolute" to "No, they're not." 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

Don't speak in absolutes next time.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

The rights are absolute, their protection is not.

 

Tyrants gonna tyrant.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 11/10/2019 at 11:47 AM, Koko78 said:

 

Of course they do! Once they get his tax returns, they will see that he filed a form 4842a, conclusively showing that he received assistance from the Russians and Ukrainians to win the election. There will also be line items deducting the payoffs to the women he supposedly ***** prior to the election, as well as 1099 forms showing income received from foreign bribes!

 

With those tax returns, they will FINALLY have him *THIS* time!!!11111oneoneoneeleven.

I think the whole shebang backfires like a mofo. 
 

The point isn’t Russian assistance, or payoffs to the ladies—the point is he paid his taxes!  ::patriot emoji:: 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1197602596879552519

 

[row_33]

burn them Donald, like Nixon should have burned those tapes

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Supreme Court gives a temporary block to the Democrats from accessing Trump's taxes:

Link to order

Yahoo article, so spelling, punctuation, facts, and clarity are all suspect:

</snip>
 

Monday's Supreme Court’s decision is only temporary.
 

Trump’s lawyers now have until noon on Dec. 5 to file a formal petition to the Supreme Court for a hearing on the case. If the justices decide to take the case, it will set up a showdown between Congress and the president that could have long-term ramifications for the balance of power between the two branches of government.
 

But if the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, then the pause on the lower court order will “terminate automatically,” the Supreme Court said Monday, which would lawmakers the access they're seeking. 

</snip>

[row_33]

Finally, justice at last

[row_33]

———

 

oh, it’s financial documents, just not the tax returns the media is telling us....

 

again they do this....

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, how did this criminal get his money if he was broke and no American bank would lend him money

[Warren Zevon]

 

[Nanker]

Depreciation of capital assets - on paper.

Appreciation of capital assets - per market-driven demand.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Nanker said:

Depreciation of capital assets - on paper.

Appreciation of capital assets - per market-driven demand.

 

the media has no concept of nuance or accounting/tax rules when their mind is already made up