Congress does not have plenary power over the Executive Branch. Moreover, congress has no constitutional authority to investigate or subpoena a president's financial records or business transactions when he was a private citizen. Congress has only one option-impeachment. And the articles of impeachment must be based on actions the POTUS has taken WHILE IN OFFICE. If actions of the POTUS prior to taking office can be connected with sufficient legal proof directly to his actions while in office, these may be considered.

Bottom line, congress is not a law enforcement agency. Congress doesn’t enforce tax or business fraud laws. There are scores of executive branch agencies, federal and state, with that responsibility. What’s happening isn’t a constitutional crisis, it’s a HOR clown act.

Do you understand the rule of law that is being upheld by the courts? You act like every conflict Trump gets into is based on pure partisanship bias. He is wrong and on the wrong side of the rule of law in every case he is refusing to provide documentation or testimony asked for. This isn't the civilian version of the law and courts being blocked up by any stupid premise his attorneys want to float, he is up against the country and the rule of law...the constitution.

There are certain hard cold laws he is violating that the supreme court is going to shoot him down on, there is a point to how far they will go to "side" with him.

Do you understand the rule of law that is being upheld by the courts? You act like every conflict Trump gets into is based on pure partisanship bias. He is wrong and on the wrong side of the rule of law in every case he is refusing to provide documentation or testimony asked for. This isn't the civilian version of the law and courts being blocked up by any stupid premise his attorneys want to float, he is up against the country and the rule of law...the constitution.

There are certain hard cold laws he is violating that the supreme court is going to shoot him down on, there is a point to how far they will go to "side" with him.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/federal-judge-sides-with-house-democrats-over-subpoena-for-trumps-financial-records/ar-AABE1wa?ocid=spartandhp

Fox News' Bill Mears, Edward Lawrence, Brooke Singman, and Kristin Brown contributed to this report.

A Washington, D.C.-based federal judge has sided with House Oversight Committee Democrats seeking to enforce their subpoena of Trump accounting firm Mazars USA, in a major ruling that breathes new life into Democrats' ongoing efforts to probe the president's financial dealings.

The subpoena seeks access to a slew of Trump financial documents dating back to 2011. Democrats pursued the subpoena after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress that the president routinely and improperly altered financial statements.

Barack Obama-appointed judge Amit P. Mehta's 41-page opinion began by comparing President Trump's concerns over congressional overreach to those of President James Buchanan, asserting that Trump "has taken up the fight of his predecessor."

And Mehta acknowledged that he was "well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States."

But, Mehta said, Democrats' subpoena fell within well-established congressional investigative powers. He said he would not stay his ruling pending appeal.

“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry," Mehta wrote.

The president’s legal team, in a filing earlier this month, had asked the judge to prohibit Mazars from “enforcing or complying” with the subpoena, issued April 15.

Trump's lawyers had argued the subpoena to Mazars “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose,” and is an “unconstitutional attempt to exercise ‘the powers of law enforcement.’”

Trump’s lawyers also noted that the House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., is leading several Trump-focused investigations.
.
“Chairman Cummings flat-out admitted that he wanted to ‘investigate whether the President may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office’ and ‘review whether he has accurately reported his finances to the Office of Government Ethics and other federal entities,’” Trump’s lawyers wrote in the filing.

The Trump team filing came after Cummings’ committee issued several subpoenas for Mazars Accounting in an effort to obtain financial documents and audits prepared for Trump and his businesses over the last decade. Cummings also sought independent auditor’s reports, annual statements and other documents related to Trump’s finances spanning from 2011 to 2018.

At the time, Mazars said it “will respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations.”

You may be right, as precedents are routinely being set. But, in this case, the Republicans used the same 1924 law in question to call out the Obama Administration's alleged abuse of the IRS.

Back in 2013, Republicans thought the Internal Revenue Service under President Barack Obama was mistreating conservative groups that wanted to be recognized as tax-exempt nonprofits. So they asked the IRS to hand over tax information for conservative groups such as Crossroads GPS as well as a few liberal groups such as Priorities USA.

Congress has the power to ask for copies of anyone’s tax return thanks to a 1924 law enacted as a check on corruption in the executive branch. The 1924 law gives congressional committees that set tax policy the power to examine tax returns. It was used in 1974 when Congress looked at President Richard Nixon's returns, and in 2014 when the Ways and Means Committee released confidential tax information as part of its investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's handling of applications for nonprofit status.

Has anyone else noticed/realized...

By Alexandra Hutzler

As Donald Trump continues to fight against a congressional subpoena from House Democrats for financial records, he will now have to face the Obama-nominated judge Republicans refused to consider for the Supreme Court.

Merrick Garland is currently the chief judge at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where President Trump’s legal battle will head next as his attorneys attempt to reverse the earlier court ruling in favor of Congress.
Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in 2016 following the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. But congressional Republicans stonewalled his nomination process until after the election, arguing that the incoming president should be the one to nominate a judge to the lifelong position.

After Trump was elected, he quickly nominated conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court. As a result, Garland resumed his position as chief judge of the nation’s most important federal appeals court, where he has served since 1997.

The irony of the situation was highlighted by legal analysts and political commentators on Twitter.

“I wonder who the chief judge is in the circuit where all of the fights between Congress and Trump will play out and whether he cares about partisan norm-busting. Oh that’s right...it’s some guy named Merrick Garland,” Matthew Miller, a former spokesman at the Department of Justice, tweeted.

Dena Grayson, a former Democratic candidate for Congress, wrote on Twitter: “LOL… guess who serves as the chief judge in the circuit court where the legal appeals between Congress and @realDonaldTrump will be heard?”

In late April, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reignited the debate surrounding Garland’s failed nomination when he signed a T-shirt featuring the judge’s face with the quote “gone but not forgotten.”

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Congress is well within its rights to request financial records as part of an investigation into potentially illegal conduct of a sitting president.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee has requested documents from Mazars USA, an accounting firm for the president and the Trump Organization. Democrats are looking for eight years of Trump’s financial records.

Shortly after Mehta’s ruling, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said that his team “will be filing a timely notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.” Sekulow also called the ruling “totally wrong” and “ridiculous.”

In a tweet on Monday, Trump slammed Democrats for investigating his finances instead of “looking into all of the crimes committed by crooked Hillary and the phony Russia investigation?”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trumps-subpoena-appeals-now-head-to-merrick-garlands-court/ar-AABGHLT?ocid=spartandhp

I am curious. did you bother to vote in your state's primary today ? I did. It was a curious thing that does not necessarily foretell anything. However, in my tiny little town, they had two terminals set up for voting. One for Republicans and one for Democrats. I did not know that at the time and I hate waiting in line for anything. In general elections you can use either terminal when it is empty.

Anywho, when I came in both voting terminals were occupied. There was a woman waiting for an empty terminal ahead of me. They told the both of us that we were number twos which I did not grasp at the time. So anyway, terminal one opened up, but the woman did not go over to it. Then I asked if I could use it, and that is when they explained that Terminal number one was only set up for Democrats. They said that if I really could not wait they could set it up for me to vote Republican, but I declined. Terminal Two opened up and the woman ahead of me voted.

It took her a fair amount of time to decide, no doubt because so many local offices were up for voting. Anyway, as I waited and people piled up behind me, the Democrat machine remained empty. I finally voted and left, and still no democrats. Probably means nothing at all.

How is it a bad precedent? Congress has every right to investigate the president for financial wrongdoings. They are doing nothing that isn't within their purview.

As for coin flip--perhaps this is the coin flip for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. With that, there was a backlash because most people saw it as Clinton being impeached for getting a blow job. Only you moral majority conservatives cared about presidential fellatio. Do you think the nation will be equally upset if Trump is impeached for financial misconduct?

Mind you, the lead story in the NY Times today was Kirchner possibly laundering money to individual Russian oligarchs using Deutsche Bank in 2016. Laundering money for the Russians is one of the accusations against your president. He can only be investigated for such if his financial record are looked at. Besides, an investigation isn't the same as an impeachment. For that, they can wait to see if your president is reelected.

How is it a bad precedent? Congress has every right to investigate the president for financial wrongdoings. They are doing nothing that isn't within their purview.

As for coin flip--perhaps this is the coin flip for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. With that, there was a backlash because most people saw it as Clinton being impeached for getting a blow job. Only you moral majority conservatives cared about presidential fellatio. Do you think the nation will be equally upset if Trump is impeached for financial misconduct?

Mind you, the lead story in the NY Times today was Kirchner possibly laundering money to individual Russian oligarchs using Deutsche Bank in 2016. Laundering money for the Russians is one of the accusations against your president. He can only be investigated for such if his financial record are looked at. Besides, an investigation isn't the same as an impeachment. For that, they can wait to see if your president is reelected.

I read it. No indictments issued for obstruction, therefore no prosecution for obstruction, therefore no possibility of conviction.

Intellectual Poverty on the Left

Arrogance is no substitute for intellectual humility.
by Ron Ross
May 21, 2019, 12:06 AM

You may have noticed that conservatives are blessed with an impressive lineup of intellectual heavyweights. Liberals have none, literally none. A few of those on the conservative side are Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, Dennis Prager, Shelby Steele, Jordon Peterson, and Mark Levin.

Thomas Sowell is an economist, ex-Marine, Hoover Institution scholar, and the author of over 30 books. If you’ve never read one you don’t know what you’re missing. Two of his classics are Knowledge and Decisions and The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. He is well known for his many pearls of wisdom which he terms, “random thoughts on the passing scene.” Those now can be found on Twitter.

Jordon Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and Hillsdale College. He is best known for his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Several million copies have been sold. It was even a number-one bestseller in Sweden. If you read that book you will understand life better, and if you follow the rules you will be a better person. The book is nothing short of a masterpiece.

Jordan Peterson is possibly the wisest man alive. Fortunately for the rest of us he shares his wisdom through his books, interviews, podcasts, and seminars. Peterson is despised by the left. That says much more about them than him.

Besides his columns, daily radio show, and books, Dennis Prager is the founder and frequent contributor to Prager University. Prager U presents concise, thoughtful five-minute lectures on a weekly basis, and recently reached a milestone of two billion views. His latest book is The Rational Bible: Genesis.

Victor Davis Hanson is a former professor of classical Greek history and is also a scholar at the Hoover Institution. He writes columns usually once or twice a week and appears on Fox News about as often. The amount of logic and historical perspective he includes in his columns is mind-boggling. His latest book is The Case for Trump.

Mark Levin is founder of the Landmark Legal Foundation, the author of several best-selling books, host of a daily radio show and a weekly hour-long interview show on Fox News. His just published book, Unfreedom of the Press, is the number one best seller on Amazon. Levin never leaves you wondering what he believes.

Shelby Steele is another scholar at the Hoover Institution and the author of The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America, and Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country. His essays appear regularly on the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages.

You cannot name a single liberal who has anything approaching the above credentials or intellectual output. Why? There are a number of reasons.

Liberalism is fundamentally about feelings rather than thoughts. Also the left focuses on intentions, the right focuses on results and the ways by which results are achieved.

An advantage of making intentions your goal is that once you choose and announce them, you’re done. No need to follow up to see if your intentions were realized. No need to consider second or third order effects.

Leftism is about force, conservatism is about freedom and voluntary exchange. The use of force needs no theory or ideology. Anyone willing to rely on force to accomplish his or her objectives doesn’t really need to understand how the world works.

The mindset of the writers listed above reflects what is written in Ecclesiastes, “And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven… and I gave my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly.”

The foremost source of the left’s intellectual poverty is arrogance. Arrogance kills curiosity. Those on the left feel they already know all they need to know. They have nothing left to learn or to bother thinking deeply about. Ironically, they feel intellectually superior to conservatives.

A prerequisite for being a serious thinker is curiosity. It requires being curious about how things work — society, the economy, human nature, for example. Curiosity is the incentive for doing the hard work of study and serious thought.

The left also feels morally superior to any of our predecessors. Conservatives, on the other hand, possess a deep respect and reverence for the wisdom we’ve inherited from, for example, the Greeks, the Bible, Shakespeare, and the Founding Fathers.

Isaac Newton famously said, “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Even Newton needed to know what those preceding him had discovered. On the left there’s no gratitude for the wisdom endowed to us by our forebears. Rather than gratitude there’s disdain, another reflection of their arrogance.

The opposite of arrogance is humility. As Isaac Newton also recognized, “What we know is a drop, what we don’t know is an ocean.”

A 2018 study reported in the Journal of Positive Psychology entitled “Links Between Intellectual Humility and Acquiring Knowledge” found that Intellectual humility (IH)

was associated with a variety of characteristics associated with knowledge acquisition, including reflective thinking, need for cognition, intellectual engagement, curiosity, intellectual openness, and open-minded thinking.… These links may help explain the observed relationship between IH and possessing more knowledge.

The entire study, by Elizabeth Krumrei-Mancuso, Megan Haggard et al., is worth reading.

As long as the left holds on to its arrogance it will never match the richness of the right’s intellectual offerings. It’s another reason why being a conservative is a whole lot more fun than being a liberal.

My ignorance wow your the person ignoring the rule of law. I just wonder how your ignorance would rise to the surface if Obama had defied the over 400 subpoenas issued by your GD republicans over the phony Benghazi, IRS, and email scandals.

Every intel agency in this country reported the Russian hacked our election process in favor of Trump. And that is okay with you and the Trump supporters. And my ignorance is amazing and frightening. Then Trump blocks all subpoenas. He lied about the Trump tower meeting, he lied about the Trump tower Moscow deal. He has lied about his wealth, he lost over a billion dollars in an 8 year period and every US bank refused dealing with Trump. But for some reason Duetsche Bank loaned him millions so all Congress wants to know who was the underwriter just to assure the American people Trump is not compromised by any foreign entities. But you call me ignorant.

Please get a brain and allow a little common sense kick in you just might understand that Trump and his family is a criminal organization that has been laundering Putin money since 2006.