SCOTUS

[MDlaxfan76]

That will be interesting. At least one of the cases, maybe more, involves subpoenas to Trump’s accountant or bank, I think. Pretty sure the non-Trump entities have said they will comply. One of the cases arises from a New York State grand jury subpoena. One would think it would be less likely that the tax returns would leak in that case, but more likely if the House gets them.

I have been saying for a while now that Trump has really screwed this up. As it has turned out, his tax returns may get leaked this summer or fall. Had he released them shortly after he was elected in 2016, this would all be old news by now.

At this point, if his "taxes" are released and the forensic money guys can't nail him for money laundering or something similar, I really don't care any longer.

He already got away with his stocks for bond for a billion dollar write-off.

On second thought, I'd love to know how many times, and how much he has paid out...without admitting guilt.

Thousands and tens of millions has gotta be in the ball park.

My bet would be that the criminal case, if there's one, would more likely be for bank fraud.
Tax fraud is certainly possible, but the comparison between what he told the government and what he told the bankers is the most likely straightforward criminal issue.

That's what Cohen pointed to. The flip side, though, would be that if he told the banks the truth about his assets and income, he may well have defrauded the government by understating the same.

Cohen says they don't line up and that this was on purpose. He called it fraud.

I think 'money laundering' is gonna be difficult to prove from tax returns, but not impossible that they could provide a roadmap to track the sources of income, asset sales, etc. It likely requires some serious digging to look at various cut-out identities...on the other hand, the hubris of these guys may have led them to be sloppy.

But here's the thing...do we actually have confidence in how this SCOTUS will decide these issues...sure, it looks like a no-brainer but...

[a fan]

And now our legal community has pushed the line and pushed the line and pushed the line of precedent as to where no one has standing to hold Trump accountable on the emoluments clause.

Apologies to GGait and other attorneys on this board, but FFS, is your profession lost in the woods with their inability to use simple syllogisms. I've said this before, but this is why philosophy professors make fun of the legal profession. No logical integrity.....which any lawyer will tell you is intentional. Intellectual sleight of hand used to make something appear as settled fact, when in truth nothing of the sort has happened.

In the ruling, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the members of Congress did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit against the president for violating the clause, which bars federal officials from collecting payments from foreign governments without the approval of Congress.

In their unsigned ruling, the judges cited Supreme Court precedent, noting the 215 lawmakers on the lawsuit are not the majority of Congress, and that they might have had standing if they had filed the suit as a majority. "[O]nly an institution can assert an institutional injury," the ruling says.

"Might" have standing if they had filed as a majority. The idea that a citizen cannot file this suit is laughable. OF COURSE a citizen has standing to hold Trump accountable to our laws. We are all injured by the leader of the Executive Branch when he/she breaks the law. The idea that this is even a close call is absurd.

Unbelievable.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... t1N2mXyey0

[jhu72]

Not surprised at the ruling. Think it was a long shot. The courts stated reason makes sense from the reading of the constitution. What does surprise me is they say the two branches as a whole "may" have standing. That is effing crazy, of course they have standing. Tribes idea is good.

[6ftstick]

And now our legal community has pushed the line and pushed the line and pushed the line of precedent as to where no one has standing to hold Trump accountable on the emoluments clause.

Apologies to GGait and other attorneys on this board, but FFS, is your profession lost in the woods with their inability to use simple syllogisms. I've said this before, but this is why philosophy professors make fun of the legal profession. No logical integrity.....which any lawyer will tell you is intentional. Intellectual sleight of hand used to make something appear as settled fact, when in truth nothing of the sort has happened.

In the ruling, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the members of Congress did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit against the president for violating the clause, which bars federal officials from collecting payments from foreign governments without the approval of Congress.

In their unsigned ruling, the judges cited Supreme Court precedent, noting the 215 lawmakers on the lawsuit are not the majority of Congress, and that they might have had standing if they had filed the suit as a majority. "[O]nly an institution can assert an institutional injury," the ruling says.

"Might" have standing if they had filed as a majority. The idea that a citizen cannot file this suit is laughable. OF COURSE a citizen has standing to hold Trump accountable to our laws. We are all injured by the leader of the Executive Branch when he/she breaks the law. The idea that this is even a close call is absurd.

Unbelievable.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... t1N2mXyey0

Whoopsie Wrong again.

[a fan]

The Ruling does NOT make sense under the Constitution.

Does Trump have the consent of Congress to take these monies? Nope. So there goes the role of the Constitution and Congress in this argument.

Now it's a question of following that law. And the idea that the POTUS isn't accountable to American citizens to follow the law, and that they don't have standing is absurd on its face.

But when you pile two hundred years of precedent that assumes each precedent uses air tight logic? You wind up with the syllogisms that conclude that an apple is identical to an orange.

Or that money is the same thing as speech.

Go F yourself with this nonsense, is what I have to say on the matter....

[a fan]

Whoopsie Wrong again.

Yep. Wave it all through. And I'm sure the next guy will be honest, and Trump is a fluke, right?

Oh well. Now the next guy knows you think this is fine. Works for me.

[6ftstick]

The Ruling does NOT make sense under the Constitution.

Does Trump have the consent of Congress to take these monies? Nope. So there goes the role of the Constitution and Congress in this argument.

Now it's a question of following that law. And the idea that the POTUS isn't accountable to American citizens to follow the law, and that they don't have standing is absurd on its face.

But when you pile two hundred years of precedent that assumes each precedent uses air tight logic? You wind up with the syllogisms that conclude that an apple is identical to an orange.

Or that money is the same thing as speech.

Go F yourself with this nonsense, is what I have to say on the matter....

Of course you know more than federal judges.

[a fan]

They know how to follow the system that they set up, no question there.

What I know is that the idea that I as a citizen am not harmed, and therefore have no standing, by a President lining his pockets using the power that we the people gave him is laughable.

But yep, add this to the list of things that you like about Trump. You want a King that doesn't answer to anyone, and that's what you're getting.

The three judges just told you that you have no standing as to what your President does. And you agree. Okie dokie.

Remember this conversation when you're whining nonstop about the next President with a little D by his name.

[Trinity]

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/22/21148529/ ... b-on-scale

SCOTUS does favors for Trump? C’mon.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/us/s ... rsuch.html Chuck is normally way smarter than to make such a stupid statement. It must be the Trump effect giving him brain farts. I'm not sure how you regret the words you spoke while defending the message. I bet there are a plethora of folks on this forum that can decipher and explain the FLP gibberish Chuck used. I guess he got caught up in the moment with the excitement of the cheering crowd.

[6ftstick]

They know how to follow the system that they set up, no question there.

What I know is that the idea that I as a citizen am not harmed, and therefore have no standing, by a President lining his pockets using the power that we the people gave him is laughable.

But yep, add this to the list of things that you like about Trump. You want a King that doesn't answer to anyone, and that's what you're getting.

The three judges just told you that you have no standing as to what your President does. And you agree. Okie dokie.

Remember this conversation when you're whining nonstop about the next President with a little D by his name.

Thats not what they said at all.

Contrary to what that idiot Chuick Shummer thinks constitutionally the branches of government are coequal. Trump can't demand congressional records.

Trump can't demand info on the Supreme Court judges.

Schumer can't threaten to harm individual justices while standing in front of an angry crowd at the steps of the Supreme Court.

[Trinity]

Don’t be mean to the Russian Judges. Got it.

[cradleandshoot]

Don’t be mean to the Russian Judges. Got it.

So you have no opinion about what Chuck said except to try a lame spin attempt at sarcasm? You normally have no trouble being critical of stupid sheepdip that politicans say. If Mitch made a similar comment about Ruth Buzzi at a pro life rally you would be foaming at the mouth in anger. How do you FLP folks spell hypocrisy? That must be a tough one be cause it is not in your vocabulary. OMG... I used the Buzzi term again ... INCOMING!!!

[Trinity]

Schumer was speaking much as Kavanaugh did at his hearing, reaping the whirlwind etc. They both went too far. Except Kavanaugh was also lying under oath and now sits on the court for life. Now let’s do Trump.

[MDlaxfan76]

Don’t be mean to the Russian Judges. Got it.

So you have no opinion about what Chuck said except to try a lame spin attempt at sarcasm? You normally have no trouble being critical of stupid sheepdip that politicans say. If Mitch made a similar comment about Ruth Buzzi at a pro life rally you would be foaming at the mouth in anger. How do you FLP folks spell hypocrisy? That must be a tough one be cause it is not in your vocabulary. OMG... I used the Buzzi term again ... INCOMING!!!

I'm not going to even bother with the Buzzi reference. You know what I think.

I do have an opinion on the Schumer stuff.
I don't really have an issue with what he actually said, as I don't think for a moment he meant to incite or threaten any physical harm to these guys.

But I agree with Roberts that it was highly inappropriate, definitely not the way these top officials should speak about one another, in any way translatable as such a threat by some knucklehead. Also not effective politically.

But particularly the issue of the crazies. It bothers me that Chuck, when given a chance, didn't really dial it back.

But man we're in new territory these days.
I blame the bulk of that on Trump, who truly knows or at least does not respect any bounds of propriety or decency.

And I do think Kavanaugh played heavy, heavy politics in his process, way outside the bounds no matter how much he felt tormented, so I don't have much empathy for any hurt feelings he may have. Gorsuch on the other hand behaved appropriately in his process.

Doesn't mean I don't get why folks are so angry at those two, and at Roberts.

[Nigel]

But he's from Brooklyn so that makes it ok. It's a 'strong language' Cradle. You're just a dumb Upstater.

[a fan]

Thats not what they said at all.

That's great. So if it ain't Congress, and it ain't the SCOTUS.... pray tell, who is in charge of making our President follow the Emoluments Clause and other laws?

[old salt]

I do have an opinion on the Schumer stuff.

I blame the bulk of that on Trump, who truly knows or at least does not respect any bounds of propriety or decency.

Surprise. Suprise. Trump made Schumer do it.
You can find a way to blame everything on Trump.

[MDlaxfan76]

I do have an opinion on the Schumer stuff.

I blame the bulk of that on Trump, who truly knows or at least does not respect any bounds of propriety or decency.

Surprise. Suprise. Trump made Schumer do it.
You can find a way to blame everything on Trump.

Take two sentences and cut the rest and that would appear to make sense.
Of course that's not what I said in toto.

It was the "new territory" that I blame the bulk of on Trump, the zeitgeist loss of respect for the bounds of propriety and decency.

However,

But I agree with Roberts that it was highly inappropriate, definitely not the way these top officials should speak about one another, in any way translatable as such a threat by some knucklehead. Also not effective politically.

But particularly the issue of the crazies. It bothers me that Chuck, when given a chance, didn't really dial it back.

[cradleandshoot]

I do have an opinion on the Schumer stuff.

I blame the bulk of that on Trump, who truly knows or at least does not respect any bounds of propriety or decency.

Surprise. Suprise. Trump made Schumer do it.
You can find a way to blame everything on Trump.

Take two sentences and cut the rest and that would appear to make sense.
Of course that's not what I said in toto.

It was the "new territory" that I blame the bulk of on Trump, the zeitgeist loss of respect for the bounds of propriety and decency.

However,

But I agree with Roberts that it was highly inappropriate, definitely not the way these top officials should speak about one another, in any way translatable as such a threat by some knucklehead. Also not effective politically.

But particularly the issue of the crazies. It bothers me that Chuck, when given a chance, didn't really dial it back.

While I did not think Chuck was threatening the 2 justices, it sure could be taken as a blatant attempt at intimidating them. That is unacceptable for a US Senator that I disagree with but who normally never says such dumb things. He should have retracted and apologized asap. Trying to disavow his own words was Trumpish to say the least.