No Excuses Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Trump is the perfect candidate for a group of voters whose entirely worldview is an artificially manufactured whirlwind of nonsense and stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Plus you can bet that Barr isn't paying for it himself and the taxpayers are paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 hour ago, No Excuses said: Trump is the perfect candidate for a group of voters whose entirely worldview is an artificially manufactured whirlwind of nonsense and stupidity. Talk about a rueful laugh... with the complete ****storm of the 2016 race and his presidency, I almost forgot that the asshole became a far-right, nut-job darling by spreading the bogus birther conspiracy. Seems almost nostalgic to look back on a simpler time when he was just a scamming huckster spreading racist lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 3 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said: Plus you can bet that Barr isn't paying for it himself and the taxpayers are paying for it. I hope that some protesters get mobilized. Stop traffic. Not all-out mayhem, but close. 🤗 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 5 hours ago, visionary said: Gee. I would have thought that they would have learned from the terrible consequences they suffered after they got caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Couple things that I am late on: The Barron Trump thing? She never "attacked Barron Trump." But I did find it especially rich that Melania rose out of her coma to tweet about it when she has continued to be silent about her husband's continual bullying and nonsense. Also, since Barr's hand-picked prosecutor found no wrong-doing or political bias in the Russian investigation, should we be eagerly awaiting Barr's press conference exonerating the FBI and other intelligence officials? Or is he just going to stay silent, bury the report and/or say he disagrees with the findings based on........nothing? Why would the Supreme Court even take up Trump's tax return stuff? There are laws on the books that the lower courts simply followed in their rulings. Same with the congressional subpoena stuff. They should just tell Trump's lawyers to go away and follow the lower court's rulings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 1 hour ago, NoCalMike said: Couple things that I am late on: The Barron Trump thing? She never "attacked Barron Trump." But I did find it especially rich that Melania rose out of her coma to tweet about it when she has continued to be silent about her husband's continual bullying and nonsense. Also, since Barr's hand-picked prosecutor found no wrong-doing or political bias in the Russian investigation, should we be eagerly awaiting Barr's press conference exonerating the FBI and other intelligence officials? Or is he just going to stay silent, bury the report and/or say he disagrees with the findings based on........nothing? Why would the Supreme Court even take up Trump's tax return stuff? There are laws on the books that the lower courts simply followed in their rulings. Same with the congressional subpoena stuff. They should just tell Trump's lawyers to go away and follow the lower court's rulings. How does SCOTUS decide whether to take up a case or not? Does it have to be a unanimous decision among the Justices, a majority, or is it the decision of the Chief Justice? If it is a majority then I will be very worried if they take the case because that probably means it will be a political decision and not one of jurisprudence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 They will take the case because they are now his court, and they will help him continue to hide everything. Sorry if it sounds like i have no faith in our institutions, but.. well.. you see how it is. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 If SCOTUS refuses to take the case or they rule against him, I cannot WAIT to see how ****ing unhinged Trump becomes. That's probably the ONE thing out of everything that he's been the most desperate to hide. And he'll be completely and utterly powerless because he can't refuse since the subpoena isn't for him, it's for Mazars, and they've already said they'll comply with whatever the court rules. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump had a full on a stroke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 21 minutes ago, mistertim said: How does SCOTUS decide whether to take up a case or not? Does it have to be a unanimous decision among the Justices, a majority, or is it the decision of the Chief Justice? If it is a majority then I will be very worried if they take the case because that probably means it will be a political decision and not one of jurisprudence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 I could easily see the SC deciding they don't want to touch this one. Self preservation being one motive. And the desire to not be creating precedent. OTOH, I could also see a 9-0 ruling that consists entirely of "yes, subpoenas do apply to the executive branch." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 11 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four That explains procedural-wise how it is decided, but I am wondering what compels the 4 chosen members to vote the way they do. Lets pretend that politics are not part of the decision. Are there arguments presented to the court ahead of time as to why they should/should not take the case or does the Supreme Court look over the ruling of the lower courts and try to identify something compelling about the case outside of how the lower courts ruled? What I am getting at is, if the Supreme Court looks at the ruling of the lower courts and see that they ruled 100% with what the current laws are, then outside of politics what would compel the Supreme Court to even hear the case? So far as this tax returns thing has made it through the court it seems like the only defense Trump's team has ever put forward is, "I am the President, and I don't want to" Is the Supreme Court really going to look at that defense and say, "hmmm, he has a point, I think we need to hear this case?" Is Team Trump actually challenging the laws on the books or are they just simply trying to make the case that the President should have absolute immunity against anything he does being investigated into because he's the President? (assuming politics are not a part of the decision I mean) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: That explains procedural-wise how it is decided, but I am wondering what compels the 4 chosen members to vote the way they do. Lets pretend that politics are not part of the decision. Are there arguments presented to the court ahead of time as to why they should/should not take the case or does the Supreme Court look over the ruling of the lower courts and try to identify something compelling about the case outside of how the lower courts ruled? What I am getting at is, if the Supreme Court looks at the ruling of the lower courts and see that they ruled 100% with what the current laws are, then outside of politics what would compel the Supreme Court to even hear the case? So far as this tax returns thing has made it through the court it seems like the only defense Trump's team has ever put forward is, "I am the President, and I don't want to" Is the Supreme Court really going to look at that defense and say, "hmmm, he has a point, I think we need to hear this case?" (assuming politics are not a part of the decision I mean) Gotcha. First, the (usually losing) lawyers from the lower court case file a petition for cert that lays out the dispute and why SCOTUS should grant the petition. If SCOTUS grants the petition, then it moves to the next phase where more fulsome briefs get filed, including by amici (persons who aren't named in the case, but are nevertheless stakeholders). Based on that, the Justices decide to grant cert or not. To answer your overarching question, I believe the Justices would decide to grant cert to cases where, even if the law is clear, the constitutionality of that law is either unclear or there isn't precedent (or there is conflicting precedent, i.e., a circuit split). Given that Trump acts so differently from his predecessors, a lot of these constitutional questions are coming up for the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: That explains procedural-wise how it is decided, but I am wondering what compels the 4 chosen members to vote the way they do. Lets pretend that politics are not part of the decision. Are there arguments presented to the court ahead of time as to why they should/should not take the case or does the Supreme Court look over the ruling of the lower courts and try to identify something compelling about the case outside of how the lower courts ruled? What I am getting at is, if the Supreme Court looks at the ruling of the lower courts and see that they ruled 100% with what the current laws are, then outside of politics what would compel the Supreme Court to even hear the case? So far as this tax returns thing has made it through the court it seems like the only defense Trump's team has ever put forward is, "I am the President, and I don't want to" Is the Supreme Court really going to look at that defense and say, "hmmm, he has a point, I think we need to hear this case?" (assuming politics are not a part of the decision I mean) I really really want so badly to believe that with something this seemingly clear cut even guys like Thomas, Alito and Kav may be like "meh...no way am I touching this one...not a hill worth dying on". But I just don't have that faith. Though they'd need one more member to go along with them in order for the court to agree to hear it, from what was posted above. Kav may also be a bit hesitant to go out on such a blatantly partisan limb so early in his career. Unless someone offers him beer for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Here is the extremely helpful, as always, summary from SCOTUSblog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/trump-asks-justices-to-quash-subpoena-for-financial-records/#more-290646 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 1 hour ago, mistertim said: If SCOTUS refuses to take the case or they rule against him, I cannot WAIT to see how ****ing unhinged Trump becomes. That's probably the ONE thing out of everything that he's been the most desperate to hide. And he'll be completely and utterly powerless because he can't refuse since the subpoena isn't for him, it's for Mazars, and they've already said they'll comply with whatever the court rules. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump had a full on a stroke. I dont know why hes so worried about it to be honest. We all know his followers and those on the sideline really wont care if they show anything. It doesn't even have to be arguable. None of their arguments even make sense anymore. Whats one more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 17 minutes ago, Llevron said: I dont know why hes so worried about it to be honest. We all know his followers and those on the sideline really wont care if they show anything. It doesn't even have to be arguable. None of their arguments even make sense anymore. Whats one more? Exactly. His tax returns could include straight up cash payments from the Kremlin, and Kellyanne will just say "this is old news and the American people obviously don't care because they overwhelmingly elected him" or some similar nonsensical bull**** and it'll be news for 24 hours and we will all move on to the next outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 24 minutes ago, Llevron said: I dont know why hes so worried about it to be honest. We all know his followers and those on the sideline really wont care if they show anything. It doesn't even have to be arguable. None of their arguments even make sense anymore. Whats one more? I feel like it's more of a personal compulsion for him than anything else. By now we all know that he could literally have receipts that said "Payment to Putin for election interference" and at the end of the day it wouldn't matter one whit to his cult. But this feels like something that's just super deeply personal to him. Something that will make him feel/look very weak and vulnerable, which we know he absolutely cannot stand. It would also likely show that he's not anywhere near as rich as he claims he is, and that he's actually an objectively awful businessman, which would basically shatter his entire image, which is all that he has. Remember when there was reporting about some old tax returns that showed how he consistently lost ludicrously large amounts of money in the 90s? He went ape**** and lost it on Twitter. Imagine that same sort of info but over his entire business career. He would be completely and utterly exposed in public as a complete fraud and huckster; a joke. The entire world would then truly laugh at him, and he would know it. His ego is so fragile that it simply couldn't handle such a thing. He'd probably have a legitimate psychotic breakdown, because what he's projected about himself is all he is...IMO there is nothing else inside; there is no core "self" of Trump. So that would mean his entire personality would simply cease to exist. That being said, there's also the very distinct possibility that he knows full well that there's super shady and potentially illegal **** in there that could land him in waters deeper than the Mariana Trench. I sort of doubt there's direct evidence in his tax returns themselves of obvious illegal activity, but I wouldn't doubt that there would be plenty of trails that would give investigators and prosecutors reason to dig deeper, and then god only knows what they'd find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 I think with Trump, he feels that anything that can fogged up and made gray is something he can survive. What he doesn't want is his name being stuck to something that is indisputable. When it comes to his taxes his entire shtick is how much of a genius he is and that he pays little to no taxes because of his brilliance. However, if his taxes indeed reveal and confirm things that have popped in the past like say, giving two completely different tax returns to different parties in order to get favorable deductions on property? There is really no getting around that. There is already the good chance either he or one of his accountants forged the signature of someone. The person interviewed said it was their signature but they 100% did not sign off on tax returns for that dollar amount. So there are things there in his taxes that go far beyond "Russia stuff" that can be stuck to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.