This is going to leave a mark.
SSupreme Court says Manhattan prosecutor may see Trump’s personal financial records
July 9, 2020 at 9:14 a.m. CDT
Add to list
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a New York prosecutor is entitled to see President Trump’s private and business financial records, ending an intense legal battle waged by the president to keep them secret.
The court said Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. had the authority to subpoena the records from Trump’s private accounting firm. Trump had claimed an immunity from criminal investigations while in office.
Vance is investigating whether the Trump Organization falsified business records to conceal hush payments to two women, including pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who claimed they had sex with Trump before he took office. Trump has denied those claims.
Vance is seeking, Trump’s tax returns, among other records. The president has refused to make them public, unlike previous modern presidents. Because the records are for a grand jury investigation, they would not likely be disclosed before the election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...dc8_story.html
- Munchmasterman
- 07-09-2020, 09:36 AM
- HedonistForever
- 07-09-2020, 10:46 AM
This is going to leave a mark.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Like the mark Flynn, Cohen and Mueller were going to leave? Maybe they will find something, maybe like Mueller, they won't because there is nothing to find. Then there is The information is part of a grand jury investigation, so the joint decisions probably dash the hopes of Trump opponents that the information will be available to the public before the election.
So any "mark" probably won't come in time to make a difference in the election not that any illegal payment to Stormy Daniels would stop anybody from voting for Trump that had already made up their mind to vote for Trump and if Trump doesn't win and they want to prosecute private citizen Trump, be my guest, I couldn't care less.
- HedonistForever
- 07-09-2020, 11:55 AM
Since we are on the subject of SCOTUS decisions, how about the 7-2 decision to allow religious exemptions on providing birth control as part of any insurance plan for employees of organizations that have a problem with being told they must have birth control as part of the plan they offer. It's not like said employee is denied the ability to get birth control, they can on any corner drugstore in America. Nuns and other religious leaders just don't want to be told that they have to pay for it.
So I completely agree with the decision even though I am pro choice and believe that Roe V Wade strikes the correct balance on this issue but I also believe Roe should be a states right issue since abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution and to make it a federal mandate is therefore wrong in my opinion.
What really ticks me off about this as with so many other legal decisions is how every single lower court ruling, every one, has made the opposite decision of the court. So all these lower court judges and 2 Supreme Court judges got this legal decision wrong. How can that be?
This is why I believe in a literal reading of the Constitution. Add nothing to your decision that isn't written in the Constitution. This is what legislatures are for. The SC looks at the case before them, they read the Constitution and any applicable laws that apply and render a decision based on what they read and not whether the Constitution needs an upgrade because "times have changed". If times have changed, then it is the responsibility of the Congress to make changes in the areas that they are responsible for but since anything not specifically designated in the Constitution as a federal law, all other laws shall be left up to the states.
That's why abortion should be states rights law because there is literally nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government the right to decide this for the states.
Any organization that decides against including birth control in their insurance package is not discriminating against any employee based on color, religion or sex or now sexual orientation. No employee gets birth control and I would assume that means that no male employee can have their vasectomy paid for by insurance with the exception of medical necessity which is also covered for women who under doctors order must take a pill that that provides relieve for a medical condition but is also a birth control pill.
If you don't like these restrictions from this particular company, find another job. Discrimination laws are based on every Americans needs like public accommodation laws, fair housing and jobs. If a particular organization wants to make a law regarding the insurance they provide as long as it applies to any and all employees for their own religious reasons which do not include color or sex, they should have that right and neither the federal government or a state IMHO should have the right to take away that decision but a state decision would make more sense than a federal one.
How only 7 SC Justices can understand this while 2 others and all lower court opinions can not, is ridiculous and purely political in nature IMHO.
Now if you must, you can return to the OP's opinion which I thoroughly discredited using his own reference of WaPo which you can see above in quotes. .
So I completely agree with the decision even though I am pro choice and believe that Roe V Wade strikes the correct balance on this issue but I also believe Roe should be a states right issue since abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution and to make it a federal mandate is therefore wrong in my opinion.
What really ticks me off about this as with so many other legal decisions is how every single lower court ruling, every one, has made the opposite decision of the court. So all these lower court judges and 2 Supreme Court judges got this legal decision wrong. How can that be?
This is why I believe in a literal reading of the Constitution. Add nothing to your decision that isn't written in the Constitution. This is what legislatures are for. The SC looks at the case before them, they read the Constitution and any applicable laws that apply and render a decision based on what they read and not whether the Constitution needs an upgrade because "times have changed". If times have changed, then it is the responsibility of the Congress to make changes in the areas that they are responsible for but since anything not specifically designated in the Constitution as a federal law, all other laws shall be left up to the states.
That's why abortion should be states rights law because there is literally nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government the right to decide this for the states.
Any organization that decides against including birth control in their insurance package is not discriminating against any employee based on color, religion or sex or now sexual orientation. No employee gets birth control and I would assume that means that no male employee can have their vasectomy paid for by insurance with the exception of medical necessity which is also covered for women who under doctors order must take a pill that that provides relieve for a medical condition but is also a birth control pill.
If you don't like these restrictions from this particular company, find another job. Discrimination laws are based on every Americans needs like public accommodation laws, fair housing and jobs. If a particular organization wants to make a law regarding the insurance they provide as long as it applies to any and all employees for their own religious reasons which do not include color or sex, they should have that right and neither the federal government or a state IMHO should have the right to take away that decision but a state decision would make more sense than a federal one.
How only 7 SC Justices can understand this while 2 others and all lower court opinions can not, is ridiculous and purely political in nature IMHO.
Now if you must, you can return to the OP's opinion which I thoroughly discredited using his own reference of WaPo which you can see above in quotes. .
- bambino
- 07-09-2020, 12:20 PM
If Munchy thinks he’s going to see Trumps tax returns before November, if ever, is just a wet dream. It will not be an issue in the election. Therefore, useless to the Democrats.
- nevergaveitathought
- 07-09-2020, 12:39 PM
doesn't seem like too much of a mark, at least not yet or may be ever, to me:
in real terms, the court’s decision to remand the decision likely means that Vance won’t get Trump’s records anytime soon–if ever. And almost certainly not before November.
Vance will likely have to go back to court with the President to see if subpoenas can be narrowed, but Trump can’t avoid the process,” explained University of Alabama Law Professor Joyce Vance. “Of course, the issue of delay in the courts comes back into play.”
University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck clarified the upshot of the ruling means that the Supreme Court merely rejected “Trump’s categorical objection to grand-jury subpoena” while the remand for further proceedings means “the records remain on hold for now.”
In another 7-2 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts found that Congress may issue subpoenas for the president’s financial records in theory but that the particular reasoning advanced by Congress here–and accepted by multiple federal judges–was simply too broad and would have created a dangerous information-gathering precedent if upheld. The decisions here were vacated and remanded with instructions for the lower courts to apply a more exacting standard of review.
in real terms, the court’s decision to remand the decision likely means that Vance won’t get Trump’s records anytime soon–if ever. And almost certainly not before November.
Vance will likely have to go back to court with the President to see if subpoenas can be narrowed, but Trump can’t avoid the process,” explained University of Alabama Law Professor Joyce Vance. “Of course, the issue of delay in the courts comes back into play.”
University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck clarified the upshot of the ruling means that the Supreme Court merely rejected “Trump’s categorical objection to grand-jury subpoena” while the remand for further proceedings means “the records remain on hold for now.”
In another 7-2 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts found that Congress may issue subpoenas for the president’s financial records in theory but that the particular reasoning advanced by Congress here–and accepted by multiple federal judges–was simply too broad and would have created a dangerous information-gathering precedent if upheld. The decisions here were vacated and remanded with instructions for the lower courts to apply a more exacting standard of review.
- friendly fred
- 07-09-2020, 01:00 PM
Cyrus Vance is a political hack.
Munchy sucks cock.
Munchy sucks cock.
- gfejunkie
- 07-09-2020, 02:06 PM
Hell must have frozen over. I never would have expected the OP to announce what is essentially a win for the President. Anybody who wants to see Trump's financials gets to start all over again. That won't happen until way into or after his second term as President.
LMAO!!!
LMAO!!!
- Tsmokies
- 07-09-2020, 02:13 PM
Trump has nothing to hide people. That's why he is trying to hide everything trump. His ignorant racist redneck supporters will still believe stupid shit though
- oeb11
- 07-09-2020, 04:38 PM
ts and the elitist know it all superiority complex
you do lead the plantation well - ts.
Go ahead with your elitist outlook on 'deplorables' - stay home on Nov 3 an drink chardonnay with H.....
be my guest.
BTW - in your disdain and disgust over anyone of a lower opinion than yourself- did you ever think to try to state and debate cogently and constructively those opinions.
Try that idea on for size - it may too large to fit in with the Elitism.
you do lead the plantation well - ts.
Go ahead with your elitist outlook on 'deplorables' - stay home on Nov 3 an drink chardonnay with H.....
be my guest.
BTW - in your disdain and disgust over anyone of a lower opinion than yourself- did you ever think to try to state and debate cogently and constructively those opinions.
Try that idea on for size - it may too large to fit in with the Elitism.
- HedonistForever
- 07-09-2020, 05:36 PM
Trump has nothing to hide people. That's why he is trying to hide everything trump. His ignorant racist redneck supporters will still believe stupid shit though Originally Posted by Tsmokies
You believe stupid shit like a mob taking over a few city blocks and keeping police out will be a "summer of love"?
You mean the stupid shit that you can burn down all the buildings and businesses you want because it's only property and property can be rebuilt?
You mean believe stupid shit like no police will make you safer?
You mean believe stupid shit like we can cancel all student debt, give everybody a 4 year scholarship whether they have the grades to continue a secondary education or not, retrofit every building in the country to meet climate change goals while banning oil and gas production?
Stupid shit like that?
- bambino
- 07-09-2020, 05:53 PM
You believe stupid shit like a mob taking over a few city blocks and keeping police out will be a "summer of love"?Yes he does. It leaves only on conclusion.
You mean the stupid shit that you can burn down all the buildings and businesses you want because it's only property and property can be rebuilt?
You mean believe stupid shit like no police will make you safer?
You mean believe stupid shit like we can cancel all student debt, give everybody a 4 year scholarship whether they have the grades to continue a secondary education or not, retrofit every building in the country to meet climate change goals while banning oil and gas production?
Stupid shit like that? Originally Posted by HedonistForever
Does anyone remember this boomerang?
https://observer.com/2017/03/rachel-...turn-flop/amp/
- The_Waco_Kid
- 07-09-2020, 07:31 PM
Yes he does. It leaves only on conclusion.
Does anyone remember this boomerang?
https://observer.com/2017/03/rachel-...turn-flop/amp/ Originally Posted by bambino
what a cunt. at least Geraldo didn't blame his "Capone's Vault" fiasco on his viewers
BAHHAHAAA
- the_real_Barleycorn
- 07-10-2020, 02:22 AM
Trump has nothing to hide people. That's why he is trying to hide everything trump. His ignorant racist redneck supporters will still believe stupid shit though Originally Posted by TsmokiesLies, lies, everywhere lies! You make a serious charge little girl. Provide any evidence that Trump supporters are ignorant. Polling says different. Or racist. Photographic evidence says different. Or red neck...I'm not exactly sure what a red neck is politically but you made the charge. Up to the accuser prove her case.
- LexusLover
- 07-10-2020, 06:56 AM
Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutor may see Trump’s personal financial records. Originally Posted by MunchmastermanApparently, you can't read the opinion. Or is it you just can't read?
One of these days you'll realize that most, if not all, of the headlines you post are BULLSHIT! Especially the ones declaring your candidate a winner!
- oeb11
- 07-10-2020, 09:44 AM
Blue Meanie is just responding to the XiNN fake news on the SC decision.
Clueless as usual.
Clueless as usual.