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: 7
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


He's correct, if the Grand Jury asks for them then he must turn them over.

Not exactly. A Grand Jury subpoena does not automatically overturn individual rights. It can, based on a court decision. That's why Grand Jury documents are sealed automatically, as the accused is not convicted yet.

The Supreme Court did not rule on Donald Trump's tax return disclosure. The Supreme Court rejected an argument that was being pressed forward that simply being President makes one immune from Grand Jury subpoenas. It does not. However, there are other considerations based on the existence of Presidency that can be considered when determining if documents must be turned over: national security comes to mind as an example. The likelihood of leaking of those documents and the consequences of such leaks would also be a consideration.

Now the case goes back to the lower court, who will now hear arguments based on other criteria as to whether or not the release of the tax returns is proper. Whatever they decide may again be submitted to the Supreme Court. I'm a bit concerned about the mental acuity of those in the NYSD office, as anyone with half a neuron still functioning would know that Donald Trump is an expert at delaying court cases to enhance his position... any businessman worth his salt is.

Oh, here is the Trump v. Mazar's decision text if anyone cares to actually read the decision. I have not read it completely yet myself; so far the reports I have heard seem completely reasonable.

TheRedneck




posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

It's nice to know that you think the Clintons are innocent.

What were they charged with?

Oh and just bill and hillary, or Chelsea too?



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


We may not always see eye to eye on all but we see eye to eye on the Constitution.

It either works for everyone or it works for no one.

On that point, we do absolutely agree. Goose, gander, and so on.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

The biggest problem with that bullsnip is because taxes fall under Federal and State power.

A New York prosecutor has no legal right to Trumps federal returns.

You were saying some snip about checks and balances.



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Deetermined
I've already mentioned here twice that the source says that NY is investigating the hush money paid to the two women during Trump's campaign.


Grand Jury proceedings are not public, I'm not going to pretend I know what's going on but you can.


This is all related to a lawsuit that Trump filed back in September 2019, which tells us exactly what this case is about...


In this case, Trump is asking a federal judge to bar Vance and Mazars from making any moves to fulfill or enforce the subpoena until Trump has left office.

Vance subpoenaed eight years of Trump's tax returns from Mazars, which had done accounting for both Trump and the Trump Organization, as part of an investigation into hush money payments, CNN reported on Monday.

The subpoena, sent August 29, asked the accounting firm for tax returns, other financial statements and communications related to several Trump companies, the Trump Foundation, the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust and Trump himself.

Vance also in early August used a grand jury in New York to subpoena Trump's business for records related to him. That subpoena asked the company for documents and communications about Michael Cohen, the tabloid publisher American Media Inc and two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, from 2015 to September 2018, according to Thursday's lawsuit.


www.cnn.com...

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Hey man, I'm all for looking into every politician and prosecuting every one of them. I couldn't care less what letter is beside their name. I think it's time to clean house and go after everyone, not just one person. As a Libertarian, that should make you want to eat thousands of bowls of stem cells because I can almost guarantee you that we'd have special elections in damn near every district. And I think those who run should be investigated as well. It's time to keep our reps honest and setting this precedent is giant step in that direction.



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HalWesten
It has nothing to do with supporting Trump or not, I do not believe congress has the right to ask for anyone's returns for political reasons. Their track record with Trump shows they care nothing about the law, they are only interested in political attacks.


I don't care about Congress (snip).

I'm concerned about potential criminal activity and the Grand Jury.


Wait, you said earlier:

I WANT ALL POLITICIANS IN JAIL.


If that's the case then you have to be concerned about congress members as well. Just trying to figure out your stand on this because it seems to be inconsistent.



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
 


In a Deep State-supporting 7-2 ruling, with Deep State Trump-appointed Justices Kavanagh and Gorsuch concurring, the Supreme Court has ruled that President Trump can be compelled to turn over his income tax records to the Manhattan District Attorney.

In their anti-Constitutional statement the Justices said:

The People need to rise up or something. This is outrageous.

Or, no one is above the law. Your choice.



Not sure why you spun it this way... What law did Trump break, does he not get audited every year from the IRS? The one that MSNBC got their hands on showed he paid 35 million in taxes and Rachel Maddow drooled over it until she saw what he paid.

Do you agree that fishing for wrong when nothing is there in the first place is how we need to be? Have not the left been fishing for over 3 years to include literally just making things up, and worst illegally creating narratives against Trump? Is this their Hail Mary hoping...hoooooping.. something is there that an audit could not find, or maybe just hoping it shows he paid zero taxes a year or two which is very possible when you have a negative year.

In the end if they come out I think Trump will have his gotcha smile face on...



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: SaturnFX

The biggest problem with that bullsnip is because taxes fall under Federal and State power.

A New York prosecutor has no legal right to Trumps federal returns.

You were saying some snip about checks and balances.


SDNY is federal just means Southern District of New York.

Liberals there, though...



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
More effective than any antidepressants on the market today and the next 8 years



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: NightFlight

After watching Billions.

I'd say Hollywood got it right on corrupt federal prosecutors.



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: grey580
If we actually had zero tolerance for criminal activity for public officials we'd have a government that worked together to make this country a better place.


^This.


And the fact the wrongdoers' absence from the cesspit would
make the remaining population have less places to hide.
I think safety in numbers has worked against us since a couple
of generations ago: maybe why glut might be an apt four-letter.

If Congress is already in the habit of going Judge Dredd police
with their committees...and the SCOTUS has had the recent,
prevalently progressive bend of legislating from the bench;
who's supposed to be doing the President's job again? Did I miss
something today, or is the Career Carnival pushed back to summer
school?
Hi. I'm Chief Justice John, and I CAN write the opinion AND the dissent.
Because the spice and the money MUST flow... damn the optics.
Sorry about the rant, but it's nice to know occasionally at least one
of our branches of government does its job, controversially or not.
I just hope Chairman Nadler doesn't grow an ulcer over this.

EDIT: I didn't almost forget. Asgard is toast. Orange is the one
hairdue without rhyme or a need for reason. One more thing:
if THEY find one prosecutable violation of anything Mr.
Trump has done since accepting the nomination, I'll eat my RNC
card. NO SALT.
edit on 9-7-2020 by derfreebie because: Bring it SDNY. I'm so excited nao.



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, the grand jury has asked for them. But, while the supreme court has rejected the argument that trump has this special privilege that makes him immune from such inconvenient hassles, they acknowledge that we all have a right to legally fight a sepenea and they are giving trump the opportunity to go back to the lower court and present a better argument. He will probably lose, but that wont happen till after the election.
They said basically the same thing about Congress but with that case it's a little more complicated and not so clean cut.
But, both cases got kicked back down to the lower courts.



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten


I have no issue as long as the GJ does what it's supposed to and doesn't go beyond their rules.

There are actually very few rules for a Grand Jury... they are extremely powerful! I have sat on one, and here's what I can tell you:

The only rule is that no case may be discussed with anyone outside the Grand Jury room. My experience is that Grand Juries are well-treated by the prosecutors for political reasons: the prosecutors desperately want the Grand Jury to like and therefore listen to them, so there are always snacks, good food, plenty of refreshments... in that sense it was a paradise. Everything else is whatever the Grand Jury wants, with the exception that subpoenas are, as always, subject to court review if the person subpoenaed desires. Most requests are approved even if taken to court review, so few go that route.

The Grand Jury basically sees whatever evidence the prosecutor has, both admissible and inadmissible, and then votes to either indict based on that or to dismiss. There is no judge involved. They can ask questions, question potential witnesses, ask for further documentation, and so on, but usually don't. In my case, there were maybe two or three cases we heard where we asked for additional information; most of the rest was show the evidence, indict, next, when do we get to go home?

The fact that the Grand Jury is asking for tax returns tells me that the case is very weak to start with and some of the jurors are not at all satisfied that the case is sound. Otherwise, they would just indict, done, next, go home.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I agree no one is above the law

but...

Democrats appear to be and we do nothing about that. Or... We CAN do nothing about that.


This wouldn't be a big deal for me if it wasn't pulled into the light the way it was. Let's face it... The ONLY reason this was pulled into court was because they don't want him as PotUS. Yes, the charges are pre-presidency but no one acted on it until he became president. There should be a statute of limitations on this for this specific reason.

This is exactly how Biden supporters feel about his and his sons crimes that recently came up.


If the man did wrong... By all means, he has to face the music but if it's simply revenge for winning the White House, that's a no brainer. We're actually giving in to these kinds of games.


That is my concern.
edit on 9-7-2020 by StallionDuck because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2020 by StallionDuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Trueman
I don't think deep state did that.


No? Even though I used 'deep state' a bunch of times?

Nope. Because democrats didn't win anything with this. They're actually blocked.



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: NightFlight

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: SaturnFX

The biggest problem with that bullsnip is because taxes fall under Federal and State power.

A New York prosecutor has no legal right to Trumps federal returns.

You were saying some snip about checks and balances.


SDNY is federal just means Southern District of New York.

Liberals there, though...


The head of the SDNY was just replaced by Attorney General Barr. Someone will be installed who can be trusted to handle the Ghislaine Maxwell case properly.



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


If someone committed a crime, and the statute of limitations has not expired, then they should be charged.

While absolutely true, where the accused is a sitting official and the offense occurred before taking office, it gets more complicated. The President can veto legislation; therefore it would be improper for someone with ties to the opposing party to attempt to blackmail the President with threats of prosecution in exchange for a promise to sign legislation he would not have otherwise signed. That's why a sitting President is not subject to prosecution. Once he is out of office, yes, he can be charged, convicted, etc., like any other citizen. I believe there is also an exception to the statute of limitations that it stops running while the accused is in public office and therefore immune.

That applies to the President and to members of Congress to a slightly lesser degree. Nancy Pelosi cannot be prosecuted for DUI, for example, while she is a member of Congress (but she can be prosecuted for certain serious crimes according to the US Constitution).

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Relax folks, the OP is correct, essentially, no one is above the law.

Now, don't get me wrong, this is still highly and completely political, however, all of this will air out after the elections, the Presidents attorneys will put up a fight in the lower courts.


Both matters will go back to lower courts to determine if Trump needs to turn over any documents, which will not likely be settled before Election Day.

In otherwords, as the title says, "He'll have to actually fight to keep his records sealed as even Presidency aren't fully immune to this."

However, the SCOTUS had a few barbs for both the lower courts and the House Dems...


In the congressional case, Roberts wrote that the lower courts "did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the president's information."
"The standards proposed by the president and the solicitor general — if applied outside the context of privileged information — would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities," Roberts said.
But, Roberts added, "The House's approach fails to take adequate account of the significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoenas for the president's information



All in all, this will result in dragging on and on, oh and this...


Because of grand jury secrecy, however, Trump's tax returns would be unlikely to become public if they are handed over to the DA unless prosecutors file criminal charges against current or former employees of the Trump Organization. And even then, disclosure of the returns would probably be limited.

Lets be honest folks, his financial records would eventually come to the surface, I'm actually surprised it wasn't leaked already, which probably reaffirms nothing. Most people tend to think the worse when people want privacy.

Either or, I'm not bother by this at all, Trump will of course react in typical fashion, three tweets in and making great points I might add.



posted on Jul, 9 2020 @ 11:10 AM
link   
This is fair. If I did anything wrong, they'd pin me to the wall. Justice should be applied equally to everyone. Including Trump.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join