The guy is burning thru his and taxpayer money to keep the public from seeing his financials….
Court cases over President Trump’s tax returns and financial records have seen a flurry of activity in recent weeks.
Lawsuits are pending in federal courts in a host of disputes concerning Democrats’ efforts to obtain information about the president’s finances.
Some of the lawsuits involve efforts by Democratic-led House committees to get their hands on Trump’s financial information. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday said she’s directed the committees to proceed with their investigations under the “umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”
Here’s where the various lawsuits over Trump’s tax returns and financial records currently stand…
A Trump-appointed federal judge decided Monday that President Donald Trump can’t sue New York state officials in a Washington, DC, court at this time to stop the release of his tax returns to Congress.
The case is one of many where the President or his administration have asked federal judges to intervene before House Democrats obtain Trump’s financial records.
Effectively, the ruling is a loss for Trump but a less significant one then the blows other courts have dealt him in cases involving Democrats’ pursuits of his financial records….
More…
Legally getting even….
Matthew Chapman
@fawfulfan
Y’all.
Merrick Garland just ruled Trump has to turn over his accounting records to Congress.
THAT Merrick Garland.
Quote Tweet
Matthew Chapman
@fawfulfan
Appeals court again rejects Trump’s attempt to hide his financial records from Congress — and SCOTUS will likely weigh in: report https://rawstory.com/2019/11/appeals-court-again-rejects-trumps-attempt-to-hide-his-financial-records-from-congress-and-scotus-will-likely-weigh-in-report/
Merrick Garland should rule according to what the actual law is, not any personal bias. I hope we can all agree on that.
And if he wants to be angry at anyone, it should be Hillary. Hillary is the one who lost and who incidentally as a Presidential candidate refused to say she would appoint Garland to the SCOTUS if she won.
Of course Garland should rule according to the law. Why imply that he might not have done so?
Is this yet another example like when You viciously attacked Ford for lying even though unlike Kavenaugh, she passed a lie detector test?
because james phrased it as “getting even”
Maybe he was just being snarky.
AND I USED THE WORD ‘LEGALLY’….
“getting even” has no relevance to the story. But I just assumed you were being snarky.
The lie detector test was irrelevant to what she claimed. She was never asked about Brett Kavanaugh on the lie detector test.
I’ll never forget that Merrick Garland should have been allowed a confirmation vote as President Obama’s Supreme Court pick.
That he was not is one of the biggest crimes against tbe Constitution and the American people in recent memory
Committed by Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans.
The vacancy caused by Scalia’s death should have been filled by the 44tb President.
It’s that simple. Whether or not Hillary Clinton would have appointed Garland if she were elected the 45th President is immaterial.
Just more misdirection to cover up Republican crimes.
And you know also know darn well if the shoe had been on the other foot, Democrats would have done exactly the same thing. Would you have complained about it? I have my doubts.
Just thinking about this.. obviously, we cannot change the Constitution, but I actually think a better system would be that a President only appoints a replacement when the retiring Justice voluntarily leaves, automatically giving their expressed consent to whomever is President to nominate a replacement.
If a sitting Justice dies at any point, the seat could remain vacant until the next Presidential election, with that person making the nomination. The Court can definitely function with 8 or 7 members. (Or that Justice can file a document that says, “in the case of my death during the term of President…., they can….”)
I know “The Pelican Brief” was just a movie and all of that, but crazy times could theoretically have Justices targeted for assassination just so they can be replaced by someone of a different ideological outlook.
Since that is not going to ever be changed, I think the most reasonable compromise for both parties (ie the Biden Rule) is for a vacancy that occurs during the calendar year (January 1) to remain open until the Presidential election.
And a quick Googling of Anthony Kennedy shows “the Biden rule” was never put in place by the Democratic Senate majority in 1988.
But keep blaming Democrats for something they never actually did while letting Republicans off the hook for actually doing it.
But yeah you aren’t
“tribalist”
It’s a laugh a minute around here!
The vacancy occurred in mid 1987, did it not?
Democrats killed two Republican nominations. Is that better?
Lewis Powell announced his retirement in June of 1987.
Reagan nominated Bork and the Democrats rejected Bork. He nominated Ginsburg and Democrats forced Ginsburg to resign. (Biden was heavily involved in both efforts)
Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy, his third choice in November of 1987.
November of 1987 is not 1988.
So, you are obviously conducting a “straw man” argument since Republicans have not voted down a Democrat Supreme Court pick (since Abe Fortas for CJ. He was already on the SC and rejected by a bipartisan group.)
Democrats succeeded, almost entirely based on party lines, to reject Bork, and since then have attempted to reject or filibuster nearly every Republican SC appointee since, often using pretty extreme tactics.
When a Democrat nominates someone to the Supreme Court under traditional circumstances, they always get a lot of Republican votes to confirm.
Bork was voted on was be not?
Several Republicans voted against his confirmation I believe. As well as some Democrats voting for it.
And Gimsburg withdrew his nomination because he (gasp!) smoked pot.
Blame the then First Lady’s “Juat Say No” bullshit for that.
The rejection of Bork was mostly along party lines.
Democrats demanded that Ginsburg be withdrawn.
Kennedy was nominated to placate the Democrats because he was viewed as more moderate (and that turned out to be true.)
All of this happened in the year *before* a Presidential election.
Also, Powell resigning voluntarily is a bit different than Scalia dying suddenly, when everyone knows he would not have left the Court while Obama was President.
I am looking at a picture of Ginsburg in 1987. I can’t believe he was only 41. He looks about 60 there.
Obviously marijuana has some pretty bad effects.
In 1987, we had a neighbor named Doug Ginsburg. He and his wife had a Shih Tzu (Won-Ton) that caused our family to get one as well that year.
The final step.on Trump’s taxes question….
President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to stop a prosecutor’s investigation of his personal finances, a bold assertion of presidential power that seeks a landmark decision from the nation’s highest court.
The filing by the president’s private lawyers represents a historical moment that tests the court’s independence and highlights the Constitution’s separation-of-powers design. It also marks a new phase in the investigations that have dogged Trump throughout his presidency and have culminated in an impeachment inquiry….
More…
The Manhattan district attorney’s office asked the Supreme Court to reject President Trump’s effort to shield his tax returns from a grand jury subpoena, in a case where the president’s lawyers have argued that he is immune to any criminal investigation or prosecution.
A federal appeals court had ruled that Trump’s accounting firm must hand over eight years of tax returns and other financial records and the president last week appealed that decision….
More…
Nice straw man argument.
Get back to me when a Democratic Senate actually does it.
I’ll say it’s wrong.
What will be your excuse then?
I’ll stay it is appropriate.
I am the one saying that if a vacancy occurs after 1/1/20, that Trump should not be able to nominate the replacement.
I am completely consistent on this.
Unless he is reelected obviously.
(and the way Supreme Court politics have worked over the pat few years, it would likely be a benefit to his reelection campaign)
The confirmations of Antonin Scalia was also, as I recall it, also largely along party lines.
Of course someone (although I can’t for the life of me imagine who in the world that could possibly be) could research all those votes on Wikipedia and the tiny left-over remainder of the World Wide Web.
I couldn’t have recalled more poorly. Blame advancing age, failing memory and fuzzy cerebral connections. Antonin Scalia sailed trough the Senate 98-0.
I was thinking of Clarence Thomas’s confirmation in 1991 which, after Anita Hill’s testimony, was by a very close 52-48.
Back in those pre-Gingrich, pre-McConnell, pre-Hastert days, the vote was not strictly along party lines. Two Republicans (James Jeffords of Vermnot & Bob Packwood of Oregon) voted against confirmation while these eleven Democrats (8 of them Southern) voted to confirm (R 41-2 for, D 46-11 against):
David L. Boren D Oklahoma Yea
John Breaux D Louisiana Yea
Dennis DeConcini D Arizona Yea
Alan J. Dixon D Illinois Yea
J. James Exon D Nebraska Yea
Wyche Fowler D Georgia Yea
Ernest Hollings D South Carolina Yea
J. Bennett Johnston D Louisiana Yea
Sam Nunn D Georgia Yea
Chuck Robb D Virginia Yea
Richard Shelby D Alabama Yea
Yes, I did consult Bing and Wikipedia (is that cheating?)