Trump sues to block U.S. Congress subpoena for his financial records

[hugocnx]

8 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

You are too full of yourself. I don’t hate you, or people like yourself. I lament *some* of your choices, *if* those choices result in vulnerable people, for example, losing healthcare due to pre-existing conditions, or perfectly innocent muslims being banned from coming for medical treatment or visiting their family simply because they are from certain countries, or innocent children locked in cages, or genuine asylum seekers being treated as criminals, etc

 

Ask yourself why you choose to support politicians who do those things and then examine whether it’s really a part of you that hates you.

I second Thainess. The left is taking it to far. And by 'it' I mean that there seems to be no limit to their actions and they haven't been able to prove anything (yet). Loud mouthing is not only a Potus characteristic.

[hugocnx]

6 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

well, the special counsel did not find anything, a 9 month FBI investigation did not find anything, but if you just let them keep looking they will....

there is the lefts insanity on full display

The FBI is very well capable of finding whatever they want to find. It seems the FBI is not yet under total control of the democrazies.

[stevenl]

43 minutes ago, hugocnx said:

Proof please.

See the tax records, there is your proof.

[hugocnx]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

See the tax records, there is your proof.

You mean to say you saw the tax records and that's why you know?

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, hugocnx said:

I second Thainess. The left is taking it to far. And by 'it' I mean that there seems to be no limit to their actions and they haven't been able to prove anything (yet). Loud mouthing is not only a Potus characteristic.

How is “the Left” taking it (what “it” are you referring to, btw—your explanation does not explain?) “too far?”

 

It was a Republican FBI Director, Comey, who began the initial investigation, it was a Republican AG (Sessions) who voluntarily recused himself after advice from department lawyers (and, presumably his own personal lawyers), and it was the Trump-appointed Republican Deputy AG that appointed the Special council, who himself *also* happens to be a lifelong Republican. 

 

Mueller, a Republican (not that it should matter, as he has not spoken publicly and has just allowed his work products to speak for him), in his report says he found insufficient (not zero) evidence of—to use the common term—Collusion, and certainly no evidence to rule it out categorically. He also laid out systematically in his report instances of attempted, though ultimately failed, obstruction actions by Trump and stated that since department policy prohibits him from charging a sitting president, he chose to refrain from expressing a conclusion from the evidence as that breaches basic rules of fairness. (That is, if policy prevents you from charging someone, thus preventing that person from defending themselves in court, it would be unfair to give a conclusion that says “yes, we have enough evidence to charge him”)

 

He laid out the evidence and left it to Congress to make a judgement on the strength of the evidence. And, even to a layman, the evidence is pretty strong. Certainly strong enough to take to court—something the report alluded to in saying “...while the OLC [Office of Legal Council] opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during a president’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.” —an obvious statement that need not have been made, but, tellingly, was made nonetheless.

 

Any Congress, Republican or Democrat, would be derelict in it’s duty, if, on the evidence of this damning report, they did not conduct followup proceedings as part of their oversight duties.

[utalkin2me]

Of course he does not want anyone to see his taxes because it could paint a clear picture of his policies promoting his own business profits. 

 

This guy is a real dirt bag. I don't care what anybody says, deep down I think every single person agrees... he is the first president we have ever had who you legitimately have to worry about. He is completely capable of making a political decision based on his own profits. I suppose it has been a pure luxury in the past when it seemed we simply did not have to worry about a president constantly presiding in his own best interest.

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, Berkshire said:

It's becoming abundantly clear that there's a truckload of indictments waiting for Trump the minute he leaves office.  There's at least 14 ongoing investigations that the Mueller team referred to other Justice Department elements, 12 of which are totally secret.  It's not a stretch to assume at least one is for Trump.  And then there's the SDNY and the NY AG.  Trump has been able to get away with financial shenanigans for so long he probably really does think he's outsmarted the system.  He probably would have gotten away with it had he not been elected POTUS.

It was incredibly stupid of Trump to run for public office and think he could keep his finances private.  However he is a man who does many stupid things and expects his lawyers to rescue him. 

 

Trump needs to be thoroughly investigated and, where evidence supports it, prosecuted.  Future con-men need to know that they can't hold office and keep their past shady dealings secret.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

so the liberal standard is now, prove you aren't guilty? do you think the gov't should be able to open up investigations to see IF there is a crime they can find?

 

is this the new liberal standard for "justice and fairness?"

For the President, yes.

 

Investigations of people who hold positions of great responsibility are standard.  Security clearances aren't give to people who haven't been proven to be traitors, they are investigated, and the investigation includes their finances.   The President should not be held to that standard, he should be held to a much higher one.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

well, the special counsel did not find anything, a 9 month FBI investigation did not find anything, but if you just let them keep looking they will....

there is the lefts insanity on full display

Mueller found a lot.  He didn't think the evidence was sufficient to support charges of criminal conspiracy to commit a crime, but it was clearly a close call.  In the case of Trump Jr's meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower, he decided against pressing charges because he wasn't sure that Jr knew what he was doing was illegal.  Apparently ignorance of the law is an excuse if you are rich.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, riclag said:

I agree with you on the should be a law!  There is no law ! They should pass a law that makes the POTUS  subject to Conflict of Interest also but the office is immune from that also. This is the MO of the left make up or change laws as they go along to fit there agenda

The House passed a bill that would require all Presidents to release their tax returns, but the Republicans (Mitch McConnell) are refusing to consider it in the Senate.  That leaves impeachment for the more subjective grounds of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the only way to get a crook out of office. 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

getting away with using their position to enrich themselves is ok though?

Trump certainly thinks so.

[riclag]

32 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

Of course he does not want anyone to see his taxes because it could paint a clear picture of his policies promoting his own business profits. 

 

This guy is a real dirt bag. I don't care what anybody says, deep down I think every single person agrees... he is the first president we have ever had who you legitimately have to worry about. He is completely capable of making a political decision based on his own profits. I suppose it has been a pure luxury in the past when it seemed we simply did not have to worry about a president constantly presiding in his own best interest.

Have you ever seen a  country so divided with hate driven towards somebody who wasn't suppose to win 

[riclag]

29 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The House passed a bill that would require all Presidents to release their tax returns, but the Republicans (Mitch McConnell) are refusing to consider it in the Senate.  That leaves impeachment for the more subjective grounds of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the only way to get a crook out of office. 

 but but Democracy . The dems in the house are hostile! They need the senate to pass law . they lost the senate ! Elections have consequences

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, riclag said:

 but but Democracy 

Is that all you've got?

[riclag]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Is that all you've got?

You think I'm gonna run up  a whole TV page of he said she said with you!

 

but but Democracy . The dems in the house are hostile! They need the senate to pass law . they lost the senate ! Elections have consequences

[billd766]

8 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

ok then.

 

then also every politician I mean EVERY politician needs to show all returns and PROVE they have not enriched themselves while in govt using their influence.

 

you know like Maxine waters and Pelosi who have enriched themselves greatly while in office

All you need is the proof of that. If you have the proof, then go for it.

 

Of course if you don't have the proof.........

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, riclag said:

You think I'm gonna run up  a whole TV page of he said she said with you!

 

but but Democracy . The dems in the house are hostile! They need the senate to pass law . they lost the senate ! Elections have consequences

" The For The People Act of 2019 (H.R. 1, 2019)^[1][2] is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives to expand voting rights, limit partisan gerrymandering, strengthen ethics rules, and limit the influence of private donor money in politics. "   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act_of_2019

 

I suppose expanding voting rights and strengthening ethics rules counts as a hostile act towards the party of voter suppression and unethical leaders.

[riclag]

26 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" The For The People Act of 2019 (H.R. 1, 2019)^[1][2] is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives to expand voting rights, limit partisan gerrymandering, strengthen ethics rules, and limit the influence of private donor money in politics. "   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act_of_2019

 

I suppose expanding voting rights and strengthening ethics rules counts as a hostile act towards the party of voter suppression and unethical leaders.

elections have consequences you need the senate and the house to make law! The fact is this isn't a law

 

but but Democracy . The dems in the house are hostile! They need the senate to pass law . they lost the senate ! Elections have consequences

[heybruce]

53 minutes ago, riclag said:

elections have consequences you need the senate and the house to make law! The fact is this isn't a law

 

but but Democracy . The dems in the house are hostile! They need the senate to pass law . they lost the senate ! Elections have consequences

Yes, elections have consequences.  The last election cost the Republicans the House, which is why Congress is finally doing its constitutional duty and investigating the President. 

 

The Republicans have been, and still are, attempting to minimize the consequences of elections through voter suppression.  That is why they oppose the "For the People Act".

[riclag]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Yes, elections have consequences.  The last election cost the Republicans the House, which is why Congress is finally doing its constitutional duty and investigating the President. 

 

The Republicans have been, and still are, attempting to minimize the consequences of elections through voter suppression.  That is why they oppose the "For the People Act".

"For the people Act" It never became a Act(law)  ! It's better define as HR1 2019 a bill, voted in the house by all dems and no gop. Subsequently it obviously past a majority (dem) in the house,than on to the Senate (GOP) and they sent it back to the house, as bill  HR1 2019.

[Redline]

22 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Good. Fight it until the bitter end and give the left nothing. Don't pander, don't apologize, don't compromise. Drag them. 

He works for the he people-Let’s see everything-what is there to hide?  He gave up privacy when he became a public servant .  All his business records are open as well, as he still owns them yay!

[toenail]

We all know this narcissistic “I’m Number One” or “I’m The Greatest” is not worth the millions of dollars he claims to be worth. Only the Trump cult followers believe his hot air. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

"For the people Act" It never became a Act(law)  ! It's better define as HR1 2019 a bill, voted in the house by all dems and no gop. Subsequently it obviously past a majority (dem) in the house,than on to the Senate (GOP) and they sent it back to the house, as bill  HR1 2019.

All very correct.

 

But that does not change the need for the changes in HR1 2019 or indeed why the Republicans opposed it.

 

As Mitch McConnell put it, expanding voter participation is ‘a power grab’.

 

Well h3ll yes!

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, riclag said:

"For the people Act" It never became a Act(law)  ! It's better define as HR1 2019 a bill, voted in the house by all dems and no gop. Subsequently it obviously past a majority (dem) in the house,than on to the Senate (GOP) and they sent it back to the house, as bill  HR1 2019.

Your point being?

 

The Democrats are trying to get more people to vote, to set higher ethical standards for those in office, and to reduce partisan gerrymandering.  The Republicans oppose them on this.

 

Mitch McConnell calls the attempt to make elections more democratic a "power grab".  It is, in the sense that it is an attempt to transfer power from the party of voter suppression to the voters.

[Thainesss]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The Democrats are trying to get more people to vote, to set higher ethical standards for those in office, and to reduce partisan gerrymandering.  The Republicans oppose them on this.

 

Mitch McConnell calls the attempt to make elections more democratic a "power grab".  It is, in the sense that it is an attempt to transfer power from the party of voter suppression to the voters.

 

Laughable. Bernie Sanders said he'd allow the Boston Marathon Bomber to vote from prison and Kamala Harris said shed 'like to have that conversation' when asked if she supported the same. Democrats dont give a flip about ethical standards or making anything 'more democratic' they want whatever, no matter how absurd and messed up, gives them more votes. 

[Cryingdick]

31 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Your point being?

 

The Democrats are trying to get more people to vote, to set higher ethical standards for those in office, and to reduce partisan gerrymandering.  The Republicans oppose them on this.

 

Mitch McConnell calls the attempt to make elections more democratic a "power grab".  It is, in the sense that it is an attempt to transfer power from the party of voter suppression to the voters.

 

If you mean giving people currently ineligible to vote the right to vote you are on to something. For me I prefer the people that vote in my country to be citizens and not in prison.

[Thakkar]

2 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Laughable. Bernie Sanders said he'd allow the Boston Marathon Bomber to vote from prison and Kamala Harris said shed 'like to have that conversation' when asked if she supported the same. Democrats dont give a flip about ethical standards or making anything 'more democratic' they want whatever, no matter how absurd and messed up, gives them more votes. 

 

Speaking of “ethical standards...”

 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Laughable. Bernie Sanders said he'd allow the Boston Marathon Bomber to vote from prison and Kamala Harris said shed 'like to have that conversation' when asked if she supported the same. Democrats dont give a flip about ethical standards or making anything 'more democratic' they want whatever, no matter how absurd and messed up, gives them more votes. 

I disagree with Bernie Sanders on allowing felons to vote.  I see nothing wrong with Kamala Harris being open minded about the subject.

 

Most of all, I disagree with Mitch McConnell refusing to allow debate on a bill to expand voting, limit gerrymandering, and strengthen ethics.  Funny that Trump supporters are so opposed to these things they don't want them discussed.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

If you mean giving people currently ineligible to vote the right to vote you are on to something. For me I prefer the people that vote in my country to be citizens and not in prison.

Nothing in the "For the People Act" would have allowed non-citizens to vote in federal elections.

[Thainesss]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Most of all, I disagree with Mitch McConnell refusing to allow debate on a bill to expand voting, limit gerrymandering, and strengthen ethics.  Funny that Trump supporters are so opposed to these things they don't want them discussed.

 

Deflection noted. 

 

All the right wants is voter ID, just like every other country in the world, to ensure the sanctity of the vote is upheld. Get back to me when the left wants actual ethical standards upheld.