LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:24 pm flailing is his specialty.

Your team:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:24 pm flailing is his specialty.

Your team:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Counting the days when guys like you flip their story on the electoral college the millisecond Texas flips Democrat.

Tick tock. Only a matter of time. And when that happens? You can forget the White House. For decades.

Suddenly, making sure all American's votes count will sound awful good to you........

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:49 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:24 pm flailing is his specialty.

Your team:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Counting the days when guys like you flip their story on the electoral college the millisecond Texas flips Democrat.

Tick tock. Only a matter of time. And when that happens? You can forget the White House. For decades.

Suddenly, making sure all American's votes count will sound awful good to you........

That democracy stuff is downright scary.

PB, not to worry, there's very little chance that a Constitutional Amendment modifying the process would pass, given the current alignment.

But I agree with a fan that when Texas flips, and indeed it will flip given the current demographic appeals of both parties, the GOP might be clamoring for 'democracy' again.

If the GOP hopes to be relevant nationally after that point, it will need to figure out how to appeal to a younger, more educated, more diverse populace. Us old white suburban and rural men are diminishing pretty darn quickly...even more so the older, non-college grads...you, know, your "REDNECK" pals, those 'true conservatives'.

In the meantime, the GOP appears to be doubling down on trying to limit the demographic shift and to suppress that more diverse voter base. Making it even less appealing to that younger, better educated group.

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:49 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:24 pm flailing is his specialty.

Your team:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Counting the days when guys like you flip their story on the electoral college the millisecond Texas flips Democrat.

Tick tock. Only a matter of time. And when that happens? You can forget the White House. For decades.

Suddenly, making sure all American's votes count will sound awful good to you........

Ahhhh, that good ol' static analysis! Nothing changes. Nobody reacts to action! Texas will turn Dem! Howard Dean scream here please: igh-eeeeeeeee-yahhhhhhhhh.

Want to manage my money, Nostradamus?

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86180/1 ... _86180.pdf

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:16 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:49 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:24 pm flailing is his specialty.

Your team:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Counting the days when guys like you flip their story on the electoral college the millisecond Texas flips Democrat.

Tick tock. Only a matter of time. And when that happens? You can forget the White House. For decades.

Suddenly, making sure all American's votes count will sound awful good to you........

Ahhhh, that good ol' static analysis! Nothing changes. Nobody reacts to action! Texas will turn Dem! Howard Dean scream here please: igh-eeeeeeeee-yahhhhhhhhh.

Want to manage my money, Nostradamus?

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86180/1 ... _86180.pdf

Well, sure, the GOP could decide to stop doubling down on rhetoric and policies designed to appeal specifically to angry, less educated, old, white, male, "Christians". You know, your "REDNECK" pals.

Might happen.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:22 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:16 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:49 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:24 pm flailing is his specialty.

Your team:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Counting the days when guys like you flip their story on the electoral college the millisecond Texas flips Democrat.

Tick tock. Only a matter of time. And when that happens? You can forget the White House. For decades.

Suddenly, making sure all American's votes count will sound awful good to you........

Ahhhh, that good ol' static analysis! Nothing changes. Nobody reacts to action! Texas will turn Dem! Howard Dean scream here please: igh-eeeeeeeee-yahhhhhhhhh.

Want to manage my money, Nostradamus?

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86180/1 ... _86180.pdf

Well, sure, the GOP could decide to stop doubling down on rhetoric and policies designed to appeal specifically to angry, less educated, old, white, male, "Christians". You know, your "REDNECK" pals.

Might happen.

Again, you too are way too guilty of static analysis. Your confirmed bias is this: the more diverse a society and the more educated, those people MUST become Democrats. Until they don't. As a parellel belief, you think that the Rednecks are going down in population, and losing power. Until they don't.

This is the same analogy as when a stockbroker tells you the market is going to keep going up because 'the technical charts say so'. Thank me later after you buy this and read:

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impac ... B002RI99IM

Things change, MDlaxfan; that's the only constant. My only confirmation bias is life always changes; what you think you know, ultimately you really never did (there is one exception, and that's love, but I don't want to get philosophical with lacrosse yo-yo's).

For example, I'd be ecstatic if Democrats end up being the saner of the two guardians of low taxation and less regulations; if you wanted me to stake out that Socratic position, I could, as crazy as the end might sound. Right now, the lines in the sand are clear, but that too will change.

Happy to hear your logic of how the GOP would increase their appeal to the demographic shifts that are definitely coming (absent what, a pandemic disproportionately impacting young, non-whites? or a Holocaust doing the same?).

I offered one suggestion.

You got another?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:53 am Happy to hear your logic of how the GOP would increase their appeal to the demographic shifts that are definitely coming (absent what, a pandemic disproportionately impacting young, non-whites? or a Holocaust doing the same?).

I offered one suggestion.

You got another?

Sure!!! Easy!

In order to wring out the last downward element of any group, often one of the last acts is to elevate the worst possible leader. It's seen throughout history. And once that 'worst of all possible' leaders is elevated, the proceeding history more often than not is significantly different than what preceded it.

Think of Germany today versus Adolf Hitler yesterday. The CDU is the progeny of the Nazi Party. And Angela Merkel and Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer are the most known personalities on the same ideological pendulum side as Hitler, center-right. Something tells me you think both women are competent and sane. But how can that be!!!! They came from Hitler's side! Interesting....

The odds-on favorite today for the Republican leader in 2024 is a first generation Punjabi-American Sikh. I wonder how that will play with immigrants and POC?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 11:05 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:53 am Happy to hear your logic of how the GOP would increase their appeal to the demographic shifts that are definitely coming (absent what, a pandemic disproportionately impacting young, non-whites? or a Holocaust doing the same?).

I offered one suggestion.

You got another?

Sure!!! Easy!

In order to wring out the last downward element of any group, often one of the last acts is to elevate the worst possible leader. It's seen throughout history. And once that 'worst of all possible' leaders is elevated, the proceeding history more often than not is significantly different than what preceded it.

Think of Germany today versus Adolf Hitler yesterday. The CDU is the progeny of the Nazi Party. And Angela Merkel and Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer are the most known personalities on the same ideological pendulum side as Hitler, center-right. Something tells me you think both women are competent and sane. But how can that be!!!! They came from Hitler's side! Interesting....

The odds-on favorite today for the Republican leader in 2024 is a first generation Punjabi-American Sikh. I wonder how that will play with immigrants and POC?

You have a fascinating sense of history, but, sure, I'd agree that in 50 years or so, something called the GOP, might well look very different than Trumpism.

Sure, an ignominious 'loss' by Trumpism in 2020 might well shock the GOP into making very different choices, adopt very different rhetoric, policies and candidate than this racist, nativist, slime ball.

Which was exactly my point...

But another 4 years of Trump won't lead to such a dramatic reversal.

Of course, Hitler did kill himself after an ignominious defeat.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 11:24 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 11:05 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:53 am Happy to hear your logic of how the GOP would increase their appeal to the demographic shifts that are definitely coming (absent what, a pandemic disproportionately impacting young, non-whites? or a Holocaust doing the same?).

I offered one suggestion.

You got another?

Sure!!! Easy!

In order to wring out the last downward element of any group, often one of the last acts is to elevate the worst possible leader. It's seen throughout history. And once that 'worst of all possible' leaders is elevated, the proceeding history more often than not is significantly different than what preceded it.

Think of Germany today versus Adolf Hitler yesterday. The CDU is the progeny of the Nazi Party. And Angela Merkel and Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer are the most known personalities on the same ideological pendulum side as Hitler, center-right. Something tells me you think both women are competent and sane. But how can that be!!!! They came from Hitler's side! Interesting....

The odds-on favorite today for the Republican leader in 2024 is a first generation Punjabi-American Sikh. I wonder how that will play with immigrants and POC?

You have a fascinating sense of history, but, sure, I'd agree that in 50 years or so, something called the GOP, might well look very different than Trumpism.

Sure, an ignominious 'loss' by Trumpism in 2020 might well shock the GOP into making very different choices, adopt very different rhetoric, policies and candidate than this racist, nativist, slime ball.

Which was exactly my point...

But another 4 years of Trump won't lead to such a dramatic reversal.

Of course, Hitler did kill himself after an ignominious defeat.

"50 years"...try 4. Nikki is your next candidate from the R side and most R's love her beyond words. First generation Punjabi-American Sikh. Hard to make that sound bad. But we know Dems will.

Only if Trumpism is crushed first.
You really need to read what I write.
Then disagree.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:05 pm Only if Trumpism is crushed first.
You really need to read what I write.
Then disagree.

Assuming Trump is re-elected, I think his 2nd term will be quiet in relative terms to the first.

The SCOTUS picks will generate noise, and a prosecution of Brennan would get noise, but generally speaking, every 2nd term is quite the denouement from a first and I see no difference here. In fact, the only thing that might make noise imo is a second impeachment over whatever issue the Dems choose to deploy to throw Trump off his game. It is certainly appearing more and more that Brennan coordinated an attack on Trump, and Dems fell for the ruse; I do not think that will be so easy next time.

By the end of his second term, Trump would be almost 80 and way more sure of himself. I'd be willing to bet a ton that he reaches out to Democrats way more in a 2nd term, even if he's impeached a second time, maybe especially if he's impeached a second time. A second term in all likelihood would be far different than you imagine.

And then, whoever wins the R nomination in 2024 (the money is on Nikki), that person will not by default be what you consider a Trumpist, whatever that is. Trump will never be a beloved figure for Democrats, so the opening to do so from a Republican will be quite wide, and arguably quite easy.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:13 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:05 pm Only if Trumpism is crushed first.
You really need to read what I write.
Then disagree.

Assuming Trump is re-elected, I think his 2nd term will be quiet in relative terms to the first.

The SCOTUS picks will generate noise, and a prosecution of Brennan would get noise, but generally speaking, every 2nd term is quite the denouement from a first and I see no difference here. In fact, the only thing that might make noise imo is a second impeachment over whatever issue the Dems choose to deploy to throw Trump off his game. It is certainly appearing more and more that Brennan coordinated an attack on Trump, and Dems fell for the ruse; I do not think that will be so easy next time.

By the end of his second term, Trump would be almost 80 and way more sure of himself. I'd be willing to bet a ton that he reaches out to Democrats way more in a 2nd term, even if he's impeached a second time, maybe especially if he's impeached a second time. A second term in all likelihood would be far different than you imagine.

And then, whoever wins the R nomination in 2024 (the money is on Nikki), that person will not by default be what you consider a Trumpist, whatever that is. Trump will never be a beloved figure for Democrats, so the opening to do so from a Republican will be quite wide, and arguably quite easy.

So, your scenario is that Trump will become 'more Presidential'???

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:16 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:49 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:24 pm flailing is his specialty.

Your team:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Counting the days when guys like you flip their story on the electoral college the millisecond Texas flips Democrat.

Tick tock. Only a matter of time. And when that happens? You can forget the White House. For decades.

Suddenly, making sure all American's votes count will sound awful good to you........

Ahhhh, that good ol' static analysis! Nothing changes. Nobody reacts to action! Texas will turn Dem! Howard Dean scream here please: igh-eeeeeeeee-yahhhhhhhhh.

Want to manage my money, Nostradamus?

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86180/1 ... _86180.pdf

Your understanding of economics is.....wanting.

Remember how guys like you pitched that Trump's win was about economics? And jobs for the "forgotten voter".

Well, guess who forgot to remember the "forgotten voter". That's right. Trump.

Flyover Nation was on life support before this virus hit. Wanna take a wild guess as to what the next few years are going to look like for America's bottom 50% earners that don't live in major cities?

Guess what that means? The exodus from rural America to cities is going to accelerate even more, and people move in droves, looking for work. And guess what happens to Americans' political leanings when they move from small towns to big cities?

Tick tock.

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:51 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:16 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:49 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:24 pm flailing is his specialty.

Your team:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Counting the days when guys like you flip their story on the electoral college the millisecond Texas flips Democrat.

Tick tock. Only a matter of time. And when that happens? You can forget the White House. For decades.

Suddenly, making sure all American's votes count will sound awful good to you........

Ahhhh, that good ol' static analysis! Nothing changes. Nobody reacts to action! Texas will turn Dem! Howard Dean scream here please: igh-eeeeeeeee-yahhhhhhhhh.

Want to manage my money, Nostradamus?

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86180/1 ... _86180.pdf

Your understanding of economics is.....wanting.

Remember how guys like you pitched that Trump's win was about economics? And jobs for the "forgotten voter".

Well, guess who forgot to remember the "forgotten voter". That's right. Trump.

Flyover Nation was on life support before this virus hit. Wanna take a wild guess as to what the next few years are going to look like for America's bottom 50% earners that don't live in major cities?

Guess what that means? The exodus from rural America to cities is going to accelerate even more, and people move in droves, looking for work. And guess what happens to Americans' political leanings when they move from small towns to big cities?

Tick tock.

So you believe that folks are gonna uproot themselves from rural communities to go live in cities where Covid easily spreads? Hmmmm, interesting take.

Yes. Without question. People need to work. How many businesses do you think are about to go belly up in rural America?

This crash is many, many times worse than the 08 crash. And Trump's piddly $1,200 isn't going to do doodly for the bottom 50% earners.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:13 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:05 pm Only if Trumpism is crushed first.
You really need to read what I write.
Then disagree.

Assuming Trump is re-elected, I think his 2nd term will be quiet in relative terms to the first.

The SCOTUS picks will generate noise, and a prosecution of Brennan would get noise, but generally speaking, every 2nd term is quite the denouement from a first and I see no difference here. In fact, the only thing that might make noise imo is a second impeachment over whatever issue the Dems choose to deploy to throw Trump off his game. It is certainly appearing more and more that Brennan coordinated an attack on Trump, and Dems fell for the ruse; I do not think that will be so easy next time.

By the end of his second term, Trump would be almost 80 and way more sure of himself. I'd be willing to bet a ton that he reaches out to Democrats way more in a 2nd term, even if he's impeached a second time, maybe especially if he's impeached a second time. A second term in all likelihood would be far different than you imagine.

And then, whoever wins the R nomination in 2024 (the money is on Nikki), that person will not by default be what you consider a Trumpist, whatever that is. Trump will never be a beloved figure for Democrats, so the opening to do so from a Republican will be quite wide, and arguably quite easy.

I see it, uh, a tad differently.

Putting aside that I think Trump will be defeated in November, if he were to be reelected, his second term would be fascist in nature. He would replace the Winston Churchill bust with one of Francisco Franco. He would spend his term getting back at his enemies, punishing them, even jailing them, if he could, using his equally fascist Attorney General to do so. He would fire as many government employees who don’t agree with him, who “done him wrong” in his eyes, and who aren’t loyal to him, as he possibly could.

Reach out to Democrats? I’d be willing to bet 10 tons he would do no such thing. Assuming the Democrats keep the House and/or take the Senate, he wouldn’t get anything done. I doubt he would care one whit about that.

He’d hold rallies and photo ops. He’d go golfing. He’d enjoy the ruffles and flourishes of the office, but would do little hard work for the people.

If he were to be reelected, he would be keenly aware that he would’ve dodged the prosecution/jail bullet. But instead of being chastened, as most people would, he would be emboldened. Just look at how he acted immediately following Mueller’s testimony.

He would assemble and dictate to the COVID-19 commission whose conclusion I could write right now. So could you.

There would be a pardon-palooza.

He would crush any chances for your heartthrob, Nikki, as the country would have no interest in electing another Republican. Remember, it is very difficult for a candidate to win a third consecutive term for his or her party. Just ask Hillary.

njbill wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:37 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:13 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:05 pm Only if Trumpism is crushed first.
You really need to read what I write.
Then disagree.

Assuming Trump is re-elected, I think his 2nd term will be quiet in relative terms to the first.

The SCOTUS picks will generate noise, and a prosecution of Brennan would get noise, but generally speaking, every 2nd term is quite the denouement from a first and I see no difference here. In fact, the only thing that might make noise imo is a second impeachment over whatever issue the Dems choose to deploy to throw Trump off his game. It is certainly appearing more and more that Brennan coordinated an attack on Trump, and Dems fell for the ruse; I do not think that will be so easy next time.

By the end of his second term, Trump would be almost 80 and way more sure of himself. I'd be willing to bet a ton that he reaches out to Democrats way more in a 2nd term, even if he's impeached a second time, maybe especially if he's impeached a second time. A second term in all likelihood would be far different than you imagine.

And then, whoever wins the R nomination in 2024 (the money is on Nikki), that person will not by default be what you consider a Trumpist, whatever that is. Trump will never be a beloved figure for Democrats, so the opening to do so from a Republican will be quite wide, and arguably quite easy.

I see it, uh, a tad differently.

Putting aside that I think Trump will be defeated in November, if he were to be reelected, his second term would be fascist in nature. He would replace the Winston Churchill bust with one of Francisco Franco. He would spend his term getting back at his enemies, punishing them, even jailing them, if he could, using his equally fascist Attorney General to do so. He would fire as many government employees who don’t agree with him, who “done him wrong” in his eyes, and who aren’t loyal to him, as he possibly could.

Reach out to Democrats? I’d be willing to bet 10 tons he would do no such thing. Assuming the Democrats keep the House and/or take the Senate, he wouldn’t get anything done. I doubt he would care one whit about that.

He’d hold rallies and photo ops. He’d go golfing. He’d enjoy the ruffles and flourishes of the office, but would do little hard work for the people.

If he were to be reelected, he would be keenly aware that he would’ve dodged the prosecution/jail bullet. But instead of being chastened, as most people would, he would be emboldened. Just look at how he acted immediately following Mueller’s testimony.

He would assemble and dictate to the COVID-19 commission whose conclusion I could write right now. So could you.

There would be a pardon-palooza.

He would crush any chances for your heartthrob, Nikki, as the country would have no interest in electing another Republican. Remember, it is very difficult for a candidate to win a third consecutive term for his or her party. Just ask Hillary.

But you just said he’d play more golf! If he plays more golf, he won’t have time for anything else!

Anyway, it happens to every Prez. They fizzle out as the people get worn down by their presence. He’d be no different. I’d expect a relatively quiet second term though I fear for the mental health of millions of Americans if he wins. I should invest in a chain of therapist offices.

Well I agree with you about mental health. I’d fear for mine.

There was some discussion on the coronavirus thread about the Supreme Court's announcement that the oral argument for the Trump tax return cases has been rescheduled to May 12. I thought it would be more appropriate to put this post on this thread.

I don’t think you can read a lot into the Court’s decision to set the argument for later in this term, instead of rescheduling it for next term. I don't think it says anything about how the cases will be decided on the merits. My main takeaway is that Roberts is acting responsibly in keeping the cases in this term because that means they likely will be decided by the summer. To me, that is the right thing to do since the cases are important to the election regardless of how they are ultimately decided.

Nevertheless, the cases could, in theory, be argued this term, but still not be decided until next term. I think that is quite unlikely, however. I’m pretty confident Roberts will see to it that a decision is issued this term, either by the Court’s usual end date of June 30, or shortly thereafter if the term needs to be extended.

Roberts certainly is aware these cases are important in the upcoming election and that the person elected in November could well appoint two or more justices in the next four years. RBG is 87 and in fragile health. Breyer turns 82 this summer. Thomas will be 72 this summer. Alito is 70.

But just for giggles, let’s play the conspiracy game a bit. First, let’s suppose Roberts thinks the Court will rule for Trump. How would he know that? Well, for starters, he might have an idea as to how he, himself, will vote. He also might have a sense for how the other justices will vote. So, a conspiracy theorist might say he wants a pro-Trump ruling this summer to help Trump get reelected. Second, let’s assume the opposite. Roberts thinks the Court will rule against Trump. If Roberts wants to see Trump defeated, maybe he’d push for an anti-Trump decision before the election. You could make similar pro and anti arguments about pushing the argument into the fall.

I don’t really buy into any of these theories, however. Even if Roberts has an idea as to how he is leaning, he is experienced enough to know that predicting how all of the other justices will rule is dicey. Maybe the decision will line up conservative/liberal, but maybe not.

Interestingly (to me), I don’t think the strongest case for getting Trump’s tax returns is even before the Supreme Court yet. That case involves the request of the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for Trump’s tax returns pursuant to a 1976 statute that was enacted in the aftermath of Watergate. That law provides that the Treasury Department “shall” furnish “any” tax return requested by the Chairman. Treasury also refused to comply with the Chairman’s follow up subpoena. The Committee has filed suit to enforce the subpoena. In the lawsuit, the Committee says that nothing in the law requires it to explain its reasons for seeking tax return information, but the Committee cites to its investigations into IRS administration of tax laws and policies relating to presidential tax returns and Trump’s compliance, including the tax agency’s annual audit of returns of sitting presidents.

This case is still bogged down in the trial court which has stayed the action pending the decision from the D.C. Circuit in the Don McGahn case. The D.C. Circuit’s panel’s decision in that case is now being reheard by the full court.

The first of the three cases currently before the Supreme Court involves whether Trump's accounting firm must respond to a grand jury subpoena issued by the Manhattan district attorney. It seeks nearly a decade's worth of tax returns and other financial documents for a criminal investigation of hush money payments made to two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump. In the normal world, it would be next to impossible to block a subpoena like this. The defendant might or might not be able to prevent his tax returns from being introduced at trial, but he wouldn’t ordinarily be allowed to interfere with a grand jury’s broad powers to gather evidence.

This case also includes the issue whether U.S. presidents (including Trump) have absolute immunity from grand jury investigations of criminal conduct until the end of their terms. Trump's lawyers claim total immunity applies even if a president were suspected of shooting someone.

Second, the justices will hear Trump's appeal of lower court rulings upholding subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee for documents from his accounting firm covering 2011 through 2018. The committee said it acted after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified that "Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes." Trump's lawyers contended that the House had no authority to subpoena records unless it seeks information for the purpose of writing laws. In this case, they said, the House was improperly acting as an investigative body in an action that implicates the president.

In the third case, Trump appeals lower court rulings involving subpoenas issued by two other House committees for financial documents from President Trump's accounting firms and two banks. The Financial Services Committee seeks a broad range of records from two banks that have done business with Trump and members of his family — Deutsche Bank and Capital One. The Intelligence Committee wants records from Deutsche Bank, explaining that it was investigating "potential leverage that foreign actors may have over President Trump, his family, and his businesses." The president's lawyers said the subpoenas were extraordinarily broad, because they seek more than a decade's worth of documents and covering members of his family who have never held public office and ask for "virtually every financial detail that the institutions might have" about their private affairs.

Trump, of course, is concerned that his tax returns will be leaked. I think it is much less likely they would be leaked from a grand jury proceeding than from the other two cases.

The Supreme Court has said that it will allow a live audio broadcast of the argument on May 12. The last time I remember an argument being broadcast live was Bush v. Gore.