MovieChat Forums > Politics > Court UPHOLDS DEMOCRATS subpoena for SCA...

Court UPHOLDS DEMOCRATS subpoena for SCAM MAN's FINANCIAL RECORDS


MSNBC is discussing the matter now …

More details later …

or GO HERE:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-live

or HERE:

https://www.msnbc.com/hallie-jackson/watch/appeals-court-upholds-democrats-subpoena-for-trump-financial-records-71067717523

DC court of appeals has upheld a subpoena by House Democrats that ordered Trump financial records be turned over to the House. NBC News' Pete Williams has details on the decision.

Oct. 11, 2019

reply

Is this the one Donald trying appealing a few days ago? This idiot commits so many financial crimes that they're all starting to run together in my mind.

reply

That's the difference when there's an open impeachment inquiry. Courts will prioritize these stalling moves and put them on a fast track to adjudication.

reply

Fantastic!

reply

The opinion was pretty cut and dried, most of the written decision was spent shredding the idiotic dissent of the Trump appointed judge on the appeals court (Rao) that replaced Kavanaugh.

But he hasn't exhausted his appeals yet and it's clear he's trying to play stall ball. So next move I expect him to either file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court but more likely first appeal to the 1st District Circuit Court for an en banc hearing and decision. That will stall for a few more weeks and when that fails he'll request an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court and ask John-Boy Roberts to pull his fat ass out of the furnace.

That's when the rubber will really meet the road and we get to find out whether we still live in a republic. Or whether we've regressed into monarchy where the president is king and no longer accountable to the co-equal branch of government known as Congress.

reply

Thanks for the explanations which are also much appreciated Eye.

Maybe the TESTIMONY that the FORMER AMBASSADOR is giving to CONGRESS today (who was also FIRED by the SCAM MAN because she OBJECTED to the way he was trying to DIG UP DIRT on BIDEN), will also put another NAIL in the COFFIN of whatever is left of the SCAM MAN's CAREER running things from the OVAL OFFICE???

And FIONA is also scheduled to TESTIFY next week as well.

So maybe the by the time the RUBBER meets the ROAD (so to speak) we'll have so much other TESTIMONY that there's NO WIGGLE ROOM left anymore, and we won't need to deal with a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS between the 3 BRANCHES???

You know, like the way TRICKY DICK NIXON also got BACKED INTO A CHECKMATED situation, when members of the GOP paid him a visit and told him it was TIME to GET THE HELL OUT of DODGE before they had the TRIAL and found him GUILTY of the ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT the HOUSE drew up against him???

The QUESTION is will THE SCAM MAN take their ADVICE like NIXON did or will he still insist on FIGHTING even AFTER there's so much EVIDENCE against him that they'll have NO CHOICE but to BOOT him out???

That's the situation that has people more worried than the TRIAL does. Because there are also RIGHT WING MILITIA GROUPS who believe all of the other RIDICULOUS BS that he says about how there'll be a CIVIL WAR fought OVER HIM, etc.








reply

Yeah the revelation Fiona Hill would testify to Congress yesterday was another bombshell.

Hill was Trump's Senior Advisor on Russia matters from 2017 until August 2019, after the Trump-Zelensky call, the implementation of the shakedown and the turf war with John Bolton. Hill is cooperating and will testify that Rudy, Sondland, and Trump ran their own shadow foreign policy and circumvented the National Security Council (and hint, hint, the National Security Advisor who attended those meetings ... leakmaster John Bolton, who is now getting his revenge).

This piece of information brings a lot into focus. Bolton is pissed at Trump because Trump went around him to run his own shadow foreign policy through Rudy, Sondland, and AG Barr. Bolton appears to have been keeping tabs on the crew and figured out that what Trump was doing was potentially illegal. Once that Zelensky call happened and it got reported to him he started hoarding receipts and has been dishing them out one by one. But this call also alarmed many people and a good number decided they couldn't turn criminal for Trump here, but I suspect that Bolton had already decided he was headed for the exits and didn't stop anyone (and probably encouraged people to leave).

reply

Again--this is like bad Tom Clancy fanfiction. Wow...

reply

It's as if I'm living in a novel written by Tom Clancy and Robert Ludlum based on the collected works of Franz Kafka. You couldn't make this shit up.

reply

Yeah, where's our Jack Ryan when we need him?

Reminds me of that scene in Clear and Present Danger where Jack Ryan is telling off the president. We could use a little of that now.

reply

Thanks for explaining all this!!

reply

It just amazes me how Donald has gotten away with even a quarter of the sh!t he has. Utterly amazing...and frightening.

reply

It's like we're watching a well-written, very imaginative television drama, and we're now in Season 3. The only thing is we can't shut the television off and make it go away.

reply

lolz. I swear those two Ukrainian goons are straight out of central casting and are dead ringers for the Russians from Sopranos Season 3.

reply

Netflix and Prime are fighting for the rights.

reply

I can't imagine living through the nightmare of the past three years AGAIN. Once was more than enough for me.

reply

Right? The most insane three years if any presidency we've ever seen, hands down.

To be honest, I'm STILL in disbelief that Donald Trump is actually a president.

I can't reconcile that in my mind.

reply

Here's hoping he's taught us all a LESSON that we'll never forget …

and that CONGRESS PASSES LOTS of LAWS …

to make sure if someone else like him is able to take over the OVAL OFFICE AGAIN …

then they won't be able to ABUSE the POWER of the OFFICE the way the SCAM MAN has done!!!

reply

Exactly. Our governmental structure is a whole hell of a lot more fragile than we realized. We have a near-dictator on our hands here. We need a change. FAST.

reply

According to what CNN said a few min ago if the DISTRICT COURT REFUSES to HEAR the MATTER then the SCAM MAN is SCREWED and his TAXES get released.

So apparently once the DISTRICT COURT finds the case has NO MERIT an appeal to the SUP CT isn't even an OPTION or him???



reply

Yeah but he can still make an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court should the district court refuse to hear his appeal.

reply

ARE YOU SURE???

If he can do that then WHY didn't they know that on MSNBC where they also have EXPERTS in the FIELD of LAW ENFORCEMENT as their GUESTS all the time???

PLUS the host ARI MELBER also has his LAW DEGREE.

Are you an ATTORNEY or a POL SCI MAJOR EYE???

Can you also state a CASE which proves that what you say is the case???

Because it's ODD that no one on MSNBC would have mentioned this other possibility or OPTION the SCAM MAN can use to DELAY CONGRESS from getting his TAXES.

And MAXINE also already said that the GERMAN BANK released copies of them TO HER.

But maybe SCHIFF told her to KEEP QUITE about it and PRETEND as if they don't have them as a way to SURPRISE the SCAM MAN at the SENATE TRIAL???

What a HOOT that would be to see them ASKING HIM QUESTIONS about his TAXES that they already have in their possession and that he would NOT be prepared to ANSWER (due to his FALSE assumption that they don't have them).

After the way MANAFORT played them and made FOOLS of MUELLER when he did his investigation, that kind of SNEAKY turn about would also be FAIR PLAY.

:)




reply

This is for the hush money payments that we already have proof of in the form of the actual cancelled checks and the testimony of Cohen who went to jail for his part in it?

reply

No this is for his tax returns.

reply

Question is--will we, Joe Public, actually be made privy to any of that tax info? Clearly the moron is hiding something damning in those taxes. I'd love to know.

reply

If/when the Supreme Court rules that his argument is pure bullshit because this is settled law from 1974 US v. Nixon when SCOTUS ruled in a unanimous 8-0 decision (with Rhenquist recusing himself) that he has to fork over his returns ... then yeah we should expect to be able to see them where due diligence by tax experts can make sense of them.

What worries me is Trump is incapable of getting messages. Even a 9-0 decision would be invalid if it were to go against him. He will literally burn the Supreme Court to the ground before accepting their decision. He might order Barr to step in and just say "no, we're not supporting that" and spark a full blown Constitutional Crises.

Since Barr controls DOJ, who is going to force compliance when Capitol Police and US Marshalls are under his purview?

reply

He will literally burn the Supreme Court to the ground before accepting their decision. He might order Barr to step in and just say "no, we're not supporting that" and spark a full blown Constitutional Crises.

That would be where ARTICLE 25 would come into play.

In that case, they'd probably also get MELANIA or someone else like a SHRINK to issue a DOCUMENT that would have him INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED to a MENTAL INSTITUTION.

As you may or may not recall, several other PROFESSIONALS in the field of Psychiatry have also been WARNING people for a VERY LONG TIME now that the SYMTOMS of his MENTAL ILLNESS will PROGRESS and just get WORSE.

Because GRANDIOSITY is also a part of his NARCISSISM (which is why he keeps saying the PHONE CALL was PERFECT, and the CROWDS were BIGGER than OBAMA'S even though they WERE NOT, etc. etc. etc.

Grandiosity - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity

In the field of psychology, the term grandiosity refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority, characterized by a sustained view of one's self as better than other people, which is expressed by disdainfully viewing them as inferior; and refers to a sense of personal uniqueness, the belief that few other people have anything in common with oneself, and that one can only be understood by a few

Professionals have known all along what a NUT JOB he is, so having one of them do an EVALUATION of him would also be a PIECE of CAKE.

And the result of that EVALUATION would also be to LOCK HIM UP. And if they also have to put him in a STRAIGHT JACKET to be able to do it, then SO BE IT.

reply

25th Amendment would require a majority of his cabinet to vote to oust him. These are mostly the same weaklings who a couple summers ago he staged a bizarre sycophantic round table where he made them all thank him profusely for being president.

No, I don't see his cabinet voting to invoke the 25th. They're too weak and pathetic.

reply

EYE:

If the SCAM MAN is EVALUATED and is found to be "a DANGER to himself and/or to others", then whatever the CABINET votes probably also won't matter. And if he goes PSYCHO and threatens others with the use of FORCE if they try to REMOVE HIM, then he'd also be a DANGER to others.

[b]DTEAM:

I HONESTLY DO NOT think he's going to RUN for office again, because he'll either RESIGN (like NIXON did) or else members of the GOP will VOTE to remove him. Because the POLLS also indicate PUBLIC OPINION keeps growing in favor of IMPEACHING and REMOVING HIM (just like it did in the case of NIXON).

Also NOTE the way the SCAM MAN keeps PHOTOS of his MOTHER and his FATHER on his DESK in the OVAL OFFICE, whereas most MARRIED MEN would keep a PHOTO of their WIFE and/or their KIDS on their desk.

And that's because he's still HAUNTED by the way he was raised, just like the other GUY in HITCHCOCK's PSYCHO was still HAUNTED by the way his mother raised him (the mother that he also DUG UP from the GRAVE and pretended in his SICK MIND as if she was still ALIVE).

In other words, the SCAM MAN also has something in COMMON with the other PSYCHO who ran the HOTEL and KILLED the WOMAN who was staying there (by pretending to be his mother when he kills her).

So after they wrap him up in a STRAIGHT JACKET and HAUL him away ... then they can also place him in a room where he can also EAT FLIES and RANT all he wants to about whatever he likes ... with NONE of the rest of us needing to LISTEN to HIM having his HISSY FITS and his INFANTILE TEMPER TANRUMS anymore
.

:)

reply

He can't be evaluated to be a "danger to himself or others" unless he voluntarily submits himself to a psychiatric evaluation which would never happen. There is no way for a qualified mental health medical professional to diagnose a subject from afar. The subject has to consent to an evaluation.

reply

In the first reply back to you (which was also LOST when my busted ether net cord got yanked out), I also explained how his WIFE could sign a document that would enable them to LOCK HIM UP for further EVALUATION against his will if he shows he's experiencing symptoms of psychosis (OBAMA WIRE TAPPED HIM/the DEEP STATE is out to get him/people will fight a CIVIL WAR over him, etc.)


And since they've supposedly been LISTENING to HIM and those around him, my guess is they've also been listening to the wife as well.

And since she didn't live with him when he first moved into the WHITE HOUSE, and doesn't live there now (but lives in the suburbs with her PARENTS and son), I also suspect they know some things about her that she wouldn't want made public.

So simply let her know what they know (think PRINCESS DI and her relationship with CHARLES), and then get her to sign the DOCUMENT that they need to LOCK HIM UP.

PROBLEM SOLVED because as his WIFE she also has the RIGHT to COMMIT him to a MENTAL INSTITUTION AGAINST HIS WILL.

reply

You'll just have to trust me when I say that will never happen. Even for a spouse the standard of proof to getting someone involuntarily committed is VERY high, and for good reason. Or else people could just get people locked up on accusations. Even if a spouse had a recording of a husband threatening her physical harm it would be very difficult for her to get him involuntarily committed. It'd be all but impossible for Melania to have the President involuntarily committed because there'd be no way to legally enforce it even if she could convince a doctor to come to that determination.

reply

have a feeling literal history is going to be made when Donald's term is up. He'll try every play he has to refuse to concede to an election loss next year.

I really believe this psycho is the ONE president who might just try to hole himself up in the White House and refuse to leave.


As you see from what dteam said, What we're talking about is a situation where he's been FOUND GUILTY of the ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT but still refuses to leave office or has LOST the ELECTION and refuses to leave.

And when they try to remove him, he'd have some of those SELF APPOINTED MILITIA there with him who wouldn't allow the SECRET SERVICE ( or whoever else would attempt to remove him) from doing so.

See what I mean???

In other words, you could also end up with some kind of a WACO situation where he's HOLDING the WHITE HOUSE HOSTAGE by refusing to LEAVE IT even AFTER the GOP VOTES to UPHOLD the ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT.

In that case, if his WIFE signs the document they'd need, they'd also find a way to HAUL him away.

They could either INJECT him with something to KNOCK HIM OUT, or SPIKE his FOOD with something, or GAS the room with something to render him UNCONSCIOUS long enough that they can wrap him up in a STRAIGHT JACKET.

And they'd probably also just SHOOT and KILL the others in the room with him if they tried to protect him (like when they killed bin LADEN and anyone else who tried to protect him).

reply

I'm starting to repeat myself so this is the last I'll speak of this, but like I said, there's no way to legally enforce "hauling him away" when the only way to remove a sitting president is impeachment or 25th amendment which would require a majority vote by his cabinet.

I also don't buy dteam's holing up in the WH scenario. He cares too much about what people think of him than to look like a loon in the White House where the sargeant at arms breaks down the door to haul him off in handcuffs in front of the world should he lose the election.

reply

Hope you're right about how he CARES TOO MUCH about what people think of him to force them to HAUL him away.

But IF he does continue to DETERIORATE the way the SHRINKS predicted he would, then HIS BEHAVIOR ALONE would also be reason enough to have him INVOLUTARILY COMMITTED for OBSERVATION, at which time an EVALUATION would also be done AGAINST his WILL and without his CONSENT.

Because COPS also HAUL people away all the time and LOCK THEM UP in MENTAL WARDS if they think that's the place they need to be.

Also try to keep in mind how we're dealing with someone who's apparently NEVER HAD TO FACE the CONSEQUENCES of his WRONG DOING in his ENTIRE LIFE.

EVEN when the JUDGE found him GUILTY of running the FAKE UNIVERSITY SCAM where he CHARGED people $35,000 to attend his FAKE SCHOOL, he also only had to pay them back $25,000 each, which also means he POCKETS $10,000 per person who'd been CHEATED OUT of that money they paid him.

So what kind of JUSTICE is that when his VICTIMS still end up being $10,000 IN DEBT because of the LIES he told them???

All a VERDICT like that does is ENCOURAGE the SCAM MAN to commit still MORE CRIMES.






reply

Doesn't matter what any shrink, let alone any cop thinks. The President of the United States has legal indemnity and is not subject to the same laws as private citizens while in office. The Constitution spells out the only ways he can be legally removed which is the 25th, impeachment, or being voted out.

reply

Here's HOPING CONGRESS will pass a WHOLE SET of NEW LAWS …

as a way to MAKE SURE the next time we need to get rid of someone …

it won't be as DIFFICULT or as complicated as GETTING RID of the SCAM MAN has turned out to be !!!

reply

I believe it.

I've believed for a long time that, no matter what the circumstances, Donald will fight to the very bitter end before he's removed. Even a theoretical 2020 loss gives me little hope that he'll go peacefully.

I have a feeling literal history is going to be made when Donald's term is up. He'll try every play he has to refuse to concede to an election loss next year.

I really believe this psycho is the ONE president who might just try to hole himself up in the White House and refuse to leave.

What do you think? Do you think he'll fight the election results if he loses? Do you think he'll try to invalidate the election results?

reply

Ok. I thought they wanted his returns for the hush money issue.

reply

We want his returns for more than just proof of hush money payments. That's chickenshit compared to all the other enlightening things we can learn from his returns, like his real net worth and whether his sources of income include dirty money from shell companies (if he was even that careful to try and cover his tracks) that can be traced to Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. This would explain his chaotic and bizarre foreign policy decisions by providing proof he is financially beholden to those countries.

According to his own son Eric told a golf magazine in 2014 they have access to all the funding they want out of Russia.

This is one area Mueller really fell short in his investigation by neglecting to ever bother to follow the money by getting his returns after Trump drew a red line against it. He was too intimidated by Trump and didn't want to turn into an Archibald Cox redux.

reply

I see. Yes, the paying porn stars always seemed minor compared to everything else.

While we all know he’s guilty AF, do you know offhand what facts were used to get the judge to ok the subpoenas?

reply

No judge necessary. The House has authority to issue subpoenas as a full co-equal branch of government conducting its congressional oversight responsibilities of the executive. These are Congressional subpoenas which are different than Judicial subpoenas issued by courts. The "Ways and Means Statute" is the law that gives the Ways and Means chairman authority to get the president's tax returns from Treasury.

The problem was that Trump ordered Mnuchin not to hand them over and contested the congressional subpoena in the courts. That's what this is all about.

reply

Thank you for your knowledge !
So they’ve basically just been stalling knowing they’ll be coughing it up eventually?

reply

Hoping they can run out the clock. And before the House opened an official impeachment inquiry it appeared to be working. Opening an impeachment inquiry puts congressional oversight subpoenas of the President on a fast track to expedited adjudication in the courts.

His hope and a prayer now is that he'll get lucky that some lower court he stuffed with his appointed cronies will agree with his appeal or the Supreme Court to which he's nominated two judges he believes are in his pocket will be enough to tilt the courts to rule in his favor. But while I fully expect the four conservative hacks to rule for Trump, unless Chief Justice Roberts has completely lost his mind I don't see him overturning the prior unanimous consensus in US v. Nixon as the deciding swing vote.

reply

Joi just mentioned that it was Cohen’s testimony and that it contradicted trump’s financial disclosures on becoming president.

reply

Joi's inference is not quite accurate. Congress has been trying to conduct oversight of his finances since the start of this congressional term as part of their oversight responsibilities through the Ways and Means Committee. Problem is that Trump has been stonewalling them at every turn. In fact there was an IRS whistleblower that contacted the committee in July who disclosed political pressure by the president over the mandatory audits IRS is required by law to conduct of the President.

Cohen's additional testimony certainly lends credence and impetus to the lawsuit winding its way up the courts of the need for the House to be able to conduct oversight responsibilities. But it's ancillary at this point, since there's already an impeachment inquiry open and a whistleblower complaint as part of the lawsuit that provides plenty of judicial steam to argue the need to conduct oversight coming from a current whistleblower at IRS who is witness to wrongdoing.

reply

CORRECTION:

Since it was the NBC ARTICLE that was QUOTED, IT is NOT MY INFERENCE (because I also DID NOT WRITE the article that is being referenced here[/b]).

And IF I could write like that, then I'd probably also be much better off FINANCIALLY now.

Which also reminds one of BILLY JOEL's "PIANO MAN" song and the part where it says people SIT at the BAR and put BREAD in his JAR and say "MAN what are you doing here???"

So what are you doing here EYE when you can write like that??? :)

Whatever the case may be, also NOTE the way COHEN also BLEW the WHISTLE (so to speak) back in FEBRUARY (5 months before JULY). Or is your reference also to JULY of 2018 and not to this past JULY???

MSNBC also said the JUDGE who RULED AGAINST the DEMOCRATS and in FAVOR of the SCAM MAN today was also APPOINTED BY THE SCAM MAN. SO WHY wasn't that JUDGE RECUSED from the case the same way as one of the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES were during WATERGATE who was APPOINTED by NIXON???






reply

Yeah I cited in my first post at the top of this thread how the lone dissenting judge (Rao) on the appeals court was appointed by Trump to replace Kavanaugh's promotion to SCOTUS . The majority 66 page opinion spent most of it trashing Neomi Rao's ridiculously illogical pro-Trump opinion that the request for the tax returns was "congressional overreach" when it was clearly payback for the promotion.

“Rao was scrutinized for op-eds she wrote while an undergraduate at Yale University about date rape and sexual assault. She also came under fire for arguing against a ban on dwarf-tossing.”

She's getting a lot of blowback now for being pro dwarf tosser. :)

As for recusal, that's really up to the discretion of the judge. They're supposed to be honorable enough to recuse when they have a personal conflict of interest. Normally a plaintiff can file a motion to recuse and if a judge denies the motion, the case can be appealed to a higher court for review. The problem is the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land; there simply is no higher body to appeal for a judicial review if a SC Justice refuses to recuse. The Supreme Court during Watergate was far more ethical than the conservative hacks that dominate the majority of the court now. This has been obvious since the Bush v. Gore ruling which was easily the worst reasoned Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott since it was obvious the 5-4 majority that interfered with Florida's Supreme Court decision and prevented them from counting all their votes was antithetical to democracy and a nakedly partisan decision to hand the election to Bush.

When I said your inference wasn't quite accurate I was referring to what you wrote here:

"The reason why CONGRESS is doing OVERSIGHT of his FINANCES is because of what COHEN told them"

This isn't accurate because Congress has been trying to conduct oversight of his finances since the beginning of the congressional term in January because that is part of their oversight responsibilities. They didn't just start conducting oversight because of what Cohen fessed to recently, they already had a lawsuit regarding enforcement of congressional subpoena to conduct financial oversight to get his tax returns pending in the courts.

reply

Thank again for the EXPLANATIONS.

What they did to GORE was definitely REPREHENSIBLE, and so is this JUDGE (who I also recall now due to the way you've reminded me of the previous dwarf tossing remarks).

And The FACT that THE SHRUB'S brother JEB was also the GOVENOR of FL at the time makes the matter that much more problematic.

And what I wrote was also based upon what the NBC ARTICLE said (therefore the reason why I said it wasn't MY inference).

But you're also right that the INFERENCE itself is wrong if the situation also goes way back to when CONGRESS began their term in JAN.

And I'd also like to know WTF happened to the TAX RECORDS and DOCUMENTS that MAXINE said the GERMAN BANK handed over to her???

If she already has COPIES of his INCOME TAXES why would they even need to pursue this matter through the court system???





reply

Deutsche Bank was ready to turn over records until Trump stalled it with a lawsuit. After judge ruled they had to turn them over an appeals court announced today Deutsche Bank told them the dog ate the tax returns. In other words they say they lost can't find it. This is interesting since there would have to be some pretty serious leverage at play for them to defy a US subpoena to turn over records. My guess is they're facing serious pressure from Russia who has been their biggest client state in the past to refuse to turn over Trump's returns.

reply

The oversight is standard operating procedure for any new president?

reply

Oversight of the executive branch is one of the primary responsibilities of standing committees in congress, but even more important for committees in chambers controlled by the opposition party since you can't really expect the chambers controlled by the same party to conduct real oversight.

Since GOP controlled both chambers of congress from 2017-2018 no real congressional oversight was ever conducted of Trump. We collectively suffered since, as I'm sure you recall, GOP did everything they could to cover up his crimes instead of conducting real oversight. Remember when Nunes chaired the Intel committee and instead of issuing subpoenas he was conducting secret midnight runs to the White House and trying to frame the Obama administration for wiretapping Trump?

So yeah, it was especially important for Dems winning the House to start providing the necessary public oversight function that had been lacking the previous years. Sure there was the special counsel investigation but that had a different function since that was a criminal investigation very narrowly focused on a very specific violation of federal conspiracy law. Meanwhile Congressional investigations are supposed to serve the public by providing broad oversight and open ended investigation of the executive branch where discovery is a transparent and ongoing process that happens in realtime instead of before secret grand juries and evidence the public never learns about until years later after the fact.

reply

Oh, I see now. Yes, thank you very much for all of the detailed, well informed posts! I appreciate it and I learned a lot!

reply

Not sure if this has anything to do with the HUSH MONEY or not.

It may simply be a result of how the SCAM MAN refuses to turn over his INCOME TAX RECORDS to CONGRESS, even though the LAW CLEARLY STATES that the head of the TREASURY SHALL DO SO upon their REQUEST for them as a part of their OVERSIGHT DUTIES.

Here's what another link says:

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/10/11/dc-circuit-upholds-democrats-subpoena-for-trumps-financial-records/?slreturn=20190911123100

QUOTE:

In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel upheld the Democratic subpoena for Trump’s records from his private accounting firm Mazars.

END QUOTE

So it also seems to have been a 2 vs 1 RULING with one JUDGE voting in favor of the SCAM MAN's opinion???

reply

Same here!

reply

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-loses-appeal-over-house-subpoena-financial-records-n1065016

QUOTE

“While we are reviewing the court’s lengthy decision, as well as Judge Rao’s dissent, we continue to believe that this subpoena is not a legitimate exercise of Congress’s legislative authority,” Trump's personal lawyer Jay Sekulow told NBC News.
House Democrats said they needed the documents to investigate whether the president accurately filled out the required financial disclosure forms. Trump's former longtime attorney, Michael Cohen, told Congress in February that Trump "inflated his assets when it served his purposes" and deflated his assets in others.
Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said Cohen's testimony and other documents "raise grave questions about whether the President has been accurate in his financial reporting."
In a statement Friday, Cummings called the appeals court's ruling "a fundamental and resounding victory for Congressional oversight, our Constitutional system of checks and balances, and the rule of law."
"For far too long, the President has placed his personal interests over the interests of the American people," Cummings said, adding that the committee must "fulfill our stated legislative and oversight objectives and permit the American people to obtain answers about some of the deeply troubling questions regarding the President’s adherence to Constitutional and statutory requirements to avoid conflicts of interest."

Judges David Tatel and Patricia Millett, who were appointed by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively, voted in favor of the committee. In her dissent, Judge Neomi Rao, who was appointed by Trump, said the House exceeded its authority in issuing the subpoena.

Friday's decision came in a case separate from other efforts by Congress and a prosecutor in New York to get access to the president's tax returns. That legal battle is still working its way through the courts.

In the New York case, the president is seeking to block prosecutors from obtaining his financial records related to hush-money payments made ahead of the 2016 presidential election to two women who claim to have had extramarital affairs with Trump
. Trump has denied the affairs.
Trump’s attorneys argued that he was immune from criminal investigations as president, but on Monday, Manhattan federal Judge Victor Marrero rejected that lawsuit, arguing that it was "unqualified and boundless."
Trump swiftly appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a stay on the subpoena until it considers all of the arguments.

END QUOTE

So this is a SEPARATE CASE from the HUSH MONEY case.

reply

Thank you. :) So the conflicts of interest would be reflected in these tax returns from before he was president? How?

This is all very confusing to me. The fact that he’s got foreign officials spending money at his hotels seems like all the proof anyone should need that he’s personally profiting off of his position as the most powerful person in our government.

Normally I find articles to answer these questions myself but I’m very busy working a lot.

reply

You're welcome. :)

The reason why CONGRESS is doing OVERSIGHT of his FINANCES is because of what COHEN told them:

QUOTE:

House Democrats said they needed the documents to investigate whether the president accurately filled out the required financial disclosure forms. Trump's former longtime attorney, Michael Cohen, told Congress in February that Trump "inflated his assets when it served his purposes" and deflated his assets in others.

Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said Cohen's testimony and other documents "raise grave questions about whether the President has been accurate in his financial reporting."


END QUOTE

COHEN got a LIGHTER SENTENCE because he told them what KIND of SCAMS the SCAM MAN was involved in.

The HOTEL ISSUE would be still another CASE that's been filed which comes under the EMOLUMENTS part of the CONSTITUTION that the SCAM MAN keeps violating.

reply

OK! This explains a lot! Thank you!

I would LOVE to see the interviews/interrogations/threat sessions that got Cohen to flip.

What pushed him over the edge and how was it phrased?

reply

Cohen knew he was going to JAIL, so his TESTIMONY before CONGRESS was part of a PLEA BARGAIN DEAL where he would get to serve LESS TIME than if he didn't cooperate.

So when he tells CONGRESS what THE SCAM MAN did back in FEB. that was also part of the AGREEMENT he made to reduce his JAIL SENTENCE.

The PASSAGE QUOTED above from the NBC article is also a DIRECT QUOTE from COHEN:

former longtime attorney, Michael Cohen, told Congress in February that Trump "inflated his assets when it served his purposes" and deflated his assets in others.

In other words, when it was time to PAY INCOME TAXES he LIES and PRETENDS to be POOR.

When he needs a BANK LOAN, he LIES and PRETENDS to have MORE MONEY than he does (which is also a CRIME whenever you LIE to the IRS or to a BANK as a way to get a LOAN).



reply

Goddamn the scam man!

reply

Is this a reference to the LYRICS of the song called "Goddam the PUSHER MAN???"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=qje0UuM8-OU

They should use it for a THEME SONG at the NEXT DNC CONVENTION.

GODDAM the SCAM MAN ...

:)

reply

Works for me!👍

reply

The Pusher:

You know I smoked a lot of grass.
Oh Lord! I popped a lot of pills.
But I've never touched nothin'
That my spirit couldn't kill.
You know I've seen a lot of people walking 'round
With tombstones in their eyes.
But the pusher don't care
If you live -- or if you die.
God Damn! The pusher.
God Damn! The pusher.
I said God Damn! God damn the pusher man.
You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
With a lump of grass in his hand.
But the pusher is a monster
Not a natural man.
The dealer for a nickel
Goin to sell you lots of sweet dreams.
Ah...but the pusher will ruin your body;
Lord he'll leave your mind to scream.

God Damn! The pusher.
God Damn! God damn the pusher.
I said God Damn! God damn the pusher man.
Well now if I were the president of this land
You know I'd declare total war on the pusher man.
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he run,
And I'd kill him with my bible, and my razor and my gun....
GOD DAMN! The pusher
God damn the pusher.
I said God damn! God damn the SCAM MAN !

reply

Goddamn the scam man!

reply

[deleted]