It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Deep State Supreme Court Rules Trump Tax Records Can Be Turned Over To Manhattan District Attorney

page: 16
40
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


If he has broken the law, he can be impeached again.

Why wait? He didn't break any laws the first time he was impeached.

According to the Constitution, impeachment cannot extend beyond removal from office. Trump cannot be imprisoned or fined by impeachment. Once he is removed, as a private citizen, he has the right to defend himself against any allegations in court... but at that time he wouldn't be President.

TheRedneck


Wasting your time, they don't understand it as they admitted. Same as the thread creator all they see is orange.




posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Oh I'm loving this.

Trump rages at Supreme Court over tax records case, claims ‘political prosecution’

He is tripping out like anything right now. And I mean, two of his own appointed judges even turned against him. Jesus, this is not a good year for him.
Lol, Ummm, no he isn't and despite liberal twitters best efforts, he currently enjoys several hundred thousands likes to a paltry 20k response, his support is unwaivering.

Also, his latest tweets weren't about the SCOTUS, rather, Hispanic prosperity initiative EO and additional funding for Michigans dam breaking.

You really have zero clue on Trumps position, huh? It's actually comical.
edit on 9-7-2020 by Arnie123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


Just keep on repeating that to yourself Redneck. Whatever helps you settle at night.

Oh, I'm quite settled.

You just keep repeating to yourself that a President can be convicted while he's President. The Constitution says different, but if you dream hard enough maybe that'll change.


Nobody is above the law. I think I made that clear.

You think wrong.

There are actual crimes specified with Biden and Ukraine, and a full confession on video tape. The constant cry in the threads you reference is that he can't be investigated, because he might be the Democratic nominee!

So far, you have failed to provide any criminal statute where there is any hard evidence that Trump is even in violation.


Answers what for Ukraine? Has been legally compelled to do so to date? if the answer is no, then I'll be moving on from here.

Money Laundering, Abuse of Office via improper demands on another sovereign country, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States... that'll do for a start. Those are actual crimes.

Legally compelled? Of course not... he's above the law.

As for you moving on, of course you are. Biden is above the law. Thank you for showing that.


So you believe the president can break laws. There's nothing more to debate on if this is your stance.

Well, you're right about one thing finally: there is nothing to debate. The law is clear. The Office of the Presidency is above the law.

The fact that you cannot understand the difference between the office and the office holder speaks volumes.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Staffordshire1


Wasting your time, they don't understand it...

Yeah, you have a point.

This thread started as a decent debate over the implications of an actual ruling. Now it has devolved into talking points and wild accusations without any basis.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian




Nobody is above the law. I think I made that clear. With regards to Democrats, there's a tonne of threads out there about them on this forum, many of which I'm sure you've participated in with no objection.

...and your silence on them is deafening. You only get exited if it’s some negative # about Trump you can try and spread on the net. You ignore anything of the sort from the left.



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: drewlander

Is this still about a campaign contribution that was paid from a personal account or from a retainer (not from his campaign). They're saying essentially since it effects public perception it should be listed as a campaign contribution.

As if every politician ever hasn't done that at some point?

The slush fund is very valid if that's what this is about. Wonder what is the timeline for use personal funds within a campaign or between campaigning for hush money to need to be calculated into campaign finances?

How if that is the case could a taxpayer funded slush fund exist in the first place. If we ourselves unwittingly pay for our deceit, does that somehow change the lawfulness?



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLead

Ill give you the simplest explanation as I understand this case and other events.

The premise of this case in the brief i read was about getting the tax returns as part of a criminal investigation by SDNY into him paying off women. I dont think it was isolated to Stephanie Cliffords if i recall correctly and was not even necessarily related to the election.

Barr just fired Geoffrey Berman US Atty SDNY. Good timing there. Replaced him with Jay Clayton chairman of the SEC.

SCOTUS ruled in favor of releasing his tax returns to SDNY but NOT to Congress. I think the ruling is idiotic but it is not damaging to trumps re-election.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What is the deal with Pres. Trumps "tax return"? And were is it "returning"? Why are the libs so obsessed with this?

This is a horrible outcome.

I'd like to remind the "Supreme Court" that...

"Two hundred years ago" there wasn't an "IRS" as we know it. It wasn't needed or meant to be "needed" when they wrote the constitution. There was no "federal" provision for "private citizens" to owe the "federal government" anything except being called for "militia duty".
"Taxes" to the federal government was "paid" by the "states", according to the lowest populated state. That's actually in the "constitution"!

Basically a "tax return" is a "contract". And you're an idiot, probably an "educated" one, if you sign it. Try not signing one. Watch the "threats" role in... Because in reality? By "law" no US. Citizen owes "federal taxes". (State is another matter). The 16th. amendment gave Congress, "no new taxing authority" - per. U.S. Supreme Court.
So why do they/IRS do it? The threats?

Are these scum bags that are asking for the Pres's "tax records", going to let "us" see their "books" without a warrant?... You sign a "contract"? You gotta uphold your end of the deal. That's the law!

But it is against the "law" to not sign it? And it is the "law" that you must? How convenient. So basically what the "court" is saying, " you have no 4th. or 5th. amendment right.

This is absolutely "outrageous"!

Even more so, than a private citizen needs to pay a "tax" on "income". Which is, "profit and gain, and not earnings", (per. - U.S. Supreme Court.)... Go figure out, that one! I'll dumb it down for you.
One labor's in the field for $60 a day. Takes 20% and plays the "state lottery" and wins!... That would be "income". It is not "earnings", and it is now "taxable"..."200 years ago..." That was the "law".

Pres. Trump, just like the rest of us. Is a victim of "educated idiots"... That can't just "ride for the brand". Basically they're mentally lazy and physically perverted individuals that have never actually done anything that they, themselves, have paid for.

I'm sorry.! Apparently, a lot of them? Where "community organizers". That made/molded # into "votes"!




.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Oh, I'm quite settled.


You're not settled, hence you're repeating.

Do you want to say it again? Will that make you feel better? Please, I'm all for coping mechanisms.


You just keep repeating to yourself that a President can be convicted while he's President.


I'm not saying it, the Supreme court of the land is. Your quarrel isn't with me, though you're redirecting it to me because you know you have no standing in reality. There's not much more I can say to that.


There are actual crimes specified with Biden and Ukraine


Great, maybe he'll appear upon the Supreme Court one day? Until then, your little youtube videos, sources, they'll stick to the backend of society, in the fringes, along with Obama's birth certificate and Clinton's pedophilia.


So far, you have failed to provide any criminal statute


What do I need to provide? The Supreme Court provided already. I know you need to turn your angst somewhere Redneck, though you won't get much from me.

Have a gooden.




edit on 10-7-2020 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I was unaware the Supreme Court ruled that a President can be convicted (or indeed indicted).
Where did you get that from?
Can you link a source?



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Staffordshire1
You can't put them all in jail when not all are guilty. What happened to that constitution of yours? You're not a bootlicker, more like rectum.


I'd wager that 80% have broken laws including, but not limited to, campaign fraud, insider trading and bribery.

The other 20% I'll just punch in the face.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
DA in Russian means, "Yes".

Commie.



See you in the gulag, big man.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Rush was talking about this today. Its immediately being appealed and as such not effecting the november elections.


He should appeal. Not that I think he's going to win, but he should use what legal recourses there are just like everyone else.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Thanks for admitting you don't have an argument.


Argument to what? I told you I didn't read your post since you're being pedantic.


Tell you what, I'll be nice, once you get your law degree and start working as an ADA we'll talk. What with you thinking you need to be a prosecutor.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: murphy22
I'd like to remind the "Supreme Court" that...


The Deep State-Obeying Supreme Court, including the two massive Trump-appointed Deep State Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, say everyone must obey the law.

Bummer, I know, but that's how it works.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Staffordshire1
No point explaining to pizza boy, they've already been educated by others and still don't see. I'm sure their head is spinning at 33 degrees or 1% or something.


It's spinning at both at the same time.

Now excuse me, I have to drop by your kid's school.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Staffordshire1
Same as the thread creator all they see is orange.


Actually, home slice, red and blue make purple. You know, being they really are the same party, all beholden to lobbyists.

Which, coincidentally, is the same color I'd like to see every politician turn as they are slowly deprived of oxygen.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


You're not settled, hence you're repeating.

Of course I am repeating. The truth is the truth. The words of the Constitution and US statutes are not changing.


I'm not saying it, the Supreme court of the land is.

Link to decision, please? Hell, I'd take the name of a court case right now.


Great, maybe he'll appear upon the Supreme Court one day?

What?


You think the Supreme Court tries criminal cases now?

Oooo... Kaaay...


What do I need to provide? The Supreme Court provided already.

If you want to claim someone committed a crime, you provide title and code. If you want to show unconstitutionality, you provide Article and Section. If you want to show constitutional interpretation, you show case.

Do you even know what you're arguing about?

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: murphy22
I'd like to remind the "Supreme Court" that...


The Deep State-Obeying Supreme Court, including the two massive Trump-appointed Deep State Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, say everyone must obey the law.

Bummer, I know, but that's how it works.


I think the main problem is that everyone doesn't have to obey the law. That has been demonstrated many times over the last few years. Lie under oath for example? - well, it depends on who you are on whether you get indicted.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

That is a major problem with our elected officials. You will never see me defending that.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join