Trump Loses Rule Of Law Yet Again... Court Says Congress Can Have Financial Records (Page 2): For what time period?

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

woodguru wrote:

https://dmlnewsapp.com/breaking-judge-upholds-dem-subpoena-trump-financial-records/

For what time period?

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

archie bunker wrote:

I don't believe it was "alleged", but was obstructed.
Anywhoo...If I were Trump, I would send any, and everyone they demand to, and tell them to plead the 5th. Works every time, right?

Whether it works or not, pleading the 5th seems to be a 'go-to' form of defense for many.

I see my edit/add-ons to previous post were not there when you responded...sorry for the delay.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

dtucker300 wrote:

For what time period?

According to a link posted later, "The subpoena seeks access to a slew of Trump financial documents dating back to 2011."

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

slatten49 wrote:

According to a link posted later, "The subpoena seeks access to a slew of Trump financial documents dating back to 2011."

Ah! I thought they might have been referring to the mid-1980s to mid-90s which were published in the NY Times. Did I think to myself, Why? Yes, since they already had them.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

archie bunker wrote:

I don't believe it was "alleged", but was obstructed.

That was all settled, Arch. Reading the following in its entirety will clear some things up. It's not long.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-conservative/justice-department-settles-with-conservative-groups-over-irs-scrutiny-idUSKBN1CV1TY

Auntie Lulu

Liberty Tree wrote:

An Obama appointee, no surprise.

That was the first bloody thing I thought, then I looked this joker up . . . sure enough, he's an Obama appointee.

My question would be, if Congress can supposedly delve into criminal activity of those who have been duly elected. Then why don't we convein a committee to look into absolutely ascertain for certain that Obama was or was not born in the USA. I realize that he already served his two terms, but if he was not eligible in the first place, then number one--stop his pension, number two--reverse all laws he signed, since he was not eligible. It would be most interesting to understand how he went into the Presidency with very little, yet he came out as a millionaire. We have a whole lot of other thugs who are sitting in various positions in our national government whose backgrounds sorely need to be investigated . . . Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and her children, etc. etc. etc.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

slatten49 wrote:

Whether it works or not, pleading the 5th seems to be a 'go-to' form of defense for many.

I see my edit/add-ons to previous post were not there when you responded...sorry for the delay.

I did respond before you're edit there, quick draw.

Either way, it all looks to me like a Jr. High food fight anymore.
Both parties want power, and to hide their t***sgressions, and don't give two squirts of duck s**t about you, or me.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

slatten49 wrote:

That was all settled, Arch. Reading the following in its entirety will clear some things up. It's not long.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-conservative/justice-department-settles-with-conservative-groups-over-irs-scrutiny-idUSKBN1CV1TY

I was aware of this, and, in my mind it wasn't/isn't settled. Those responsible for abusing their power should be held accountable. Not "retired" and given government pensions.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

archie bunker wrote:

I was aware of this, and, in my mind it wasn't/isn't settled. Those responsible for abusing their power should be held accountable. Not "retired" and given government pensions.

Arch, as I and others have our own lists of disappointments, I understand.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

archie bunker wrote:

I did respond before you're edit there, quick draw.

Either way, it all looks to me like a Jr. High food fight anymore.
Both parties want power, and to hide their t***sgressions, and don't give two squirts of duck s**t about you, or me.

Food fights always bring out Templeton's time at the state fair from 'Charlotte's Web' in me.

Smedley_buzkill

Kevyn wrote:

It will be a true tragedy for the republic if he is able to stack the courts and unqualified ideologues he appointed hold him above the law.

As opposed to the unqualified idealogues that your boy Obama nominated? Presidents do not "appoint judges," they nominated them for Senate approval. Most of the real left wingers were confirmed when the Democraps controlled the Senate.

Liberty Tree

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

As opposed to the unqualified idealogues that your boy Obama nominated? Presidents do not "appoint judges," they nominated them for Senate approval. Most of the real left wingers were confirmed when the Democraps controlled the Senate.

Democrats complain about Trump wanting to pack the court, but if they had their way there would be nine Ginsberg's on the SCOTUS.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

slatten49 wrote:

That was all settled, Arch. Reading the following in its entirety will clear some things up. It's not long.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-conservative/justice-department-settles-with-conservative-groups-over-irs-scrutiny-idUSKBN1CV1TY

The last sentence in the article: "That and the vagueness of the rules often make it difficult for IRS agents to tell which groups overstep and become ineligible for exemption."

Come on...they knew and they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. At least it seems very clear to me, but I, like everyone else, am not without my biases. However, I try to take them into account.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Kevyn wrote:

It will be a true tragedy for the republic if he is able to stack the courts and unqualified ideologues he appointed hold him above the law.

Yes, it would be!
Fortunately, he didn't.
Obama sure did try though.
McConnell did the right thing to not have a confirmation hearing for Garland.

Liberty Tree

dtucker300 wrote:

Yes, it would be!
Fortunately, he didn't.
Obama sure did try though.
McConnell did the right thing to not have a confirmation hearing for Garland.

This whole thing is about the Democrats hatred of Trump. They have been out to get him since before he took office. The rule of law has zero to do with it no matter how much the Democrats use that mantra.