Supreme Court rejects Trump claim of 'absolute immunity' from grand jury subpoena for tax returns

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,386]

8 hours ago, laylalex said:

Nature Boy, this is my topic and I want to stay ON TOPIC (even though I did talk briefly about pizza dough but it was a blatant attempt to gain VOR's favor I admit ).

Reported fragrant violation tos

[laylalex 7,300]

4 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Reported fragrant violation tos

Okay for that one you get a pass. 😘🥰

 

Do you want to talk pizza or juicing?

Edited July 10, 2020 by laylalex
Forgot emojis!

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

13 hours ago, laylalex said:

Whatever, dude. I can read, lol.  

 

Have a look at Trump v. Vance, I can see the phrase "absolute immunity"..... 33 times according to Adobe Acrobat. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

There's no question about the Vance case that they have the right to try. The issue I covered was the House, because it was the only meaningful ruling. This ruling didn't mean much of anything for Vance but was devastating to the House. There's no moving forward with them, especially now that the Trump team can raise other defenses too in the lower courts. The House arguments are nonsensical, have nothing to do with absolute immunity (the entire text doesn't even tackle this argument because it wasn't made), and go unequivocally outside the scope of things they can try to attack the president for. Even when they pretend to be justifying it say legislatively, the "private" part is something they can't evade. Presidents aren't a retroactive legislative testbed. Trump doesn't lose all his rights from being a private citizen once he becomes a public official, so while things he does are generally open to Congressional oversight during office, the stuff that happened beforehand from his life as a private citizen isn't. That's prosecutorial authority and it belongs to the executive. This very issue is, funny enough, playing out in another court because a judge wants to overstep into a prosecutorial role where he has no place being. Clearly two branches need reminder of their limitations of power, as they feel compelled to weaponize their power purely against Trump and those around him. 

 

Where I think, and hope, Vance might fail (I think it's a tossup whether or not they succeed in getting it) is the similarity of language between the House and Vance, noting that in Vance they can't pursue politically motivated prosecution in the way the House can. This gives Trump even more options in defending because there's more strict limitations in the prosecution of a private citizen. The aim isn't to arrest Trump asap, Schiff and Nadler were cheerleading Vance, knowing that's their only shot.. Vance+leak, before the election. The intent is clearly to use power to interfere in the election. And as usual for the idiots with a backup, even if they don't get them right away, once Trump becomes a private citizen again they'd certainly use things like this to immediately arrest him to send a message to anyone outside the swamp what they'll face if they're elected without the swamps approval. 

Edited July 10, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

14 hours ago, laylalex said:

Nature Boy, this is my topic and I want to stay ON TOPIC (even though I did talk briefly about pizza dough but it was a blatant attempt to gain VOR's favor I admit ).

If you're trying to curry my favor, then please note I favor curry.  But never on pizza.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

https://freebeacon.com/courts/house-blunders-to-blame-for-setback-in-trump-subpoena-case/

Quote

 

Just a few minutes into Supreme Court arguments over congressional subpoenas for President Donald Trump's financial records, it was clear that House Democrats were in trouble.

The House had argued that it has far-reaching subpoena powers and can compel disclosure of documents related to any legislation it's considering. Chief Justice John Roberts was not so sure. Congress can consider legislation on any number of subjects, and Roberts pressed House lawyer Doug Letter for just one example of information beyond the reach of a congressional subpoena under the House's proposed theory.

"Your test is really not much of a test," Roberts told Letter, adding that the House's approach would unduly weaken the presidency.

Justice Samuel Alito delivered the body blow a few minutes later, pointedly reminding Letter he could not give "even one example of a subpoena that would not be pertinent to some conceivable legislative purpose."

 

Quote

Letter's audacious legal strategy fell flat before the nation's highest judicial tribunal. When the decision in Trump v. Mazars came down Thursday, not a single justice voted in the House's favor. Instead, the Court awarded Trump a short-term tactical victory that gives future presidents a boost when congressional investigators come looking for their personal papers. It was an outcome that might have been avoided had the House tempered its claims.

 

Quote

The justices were more equivocal. The Court agreed such bills raise "sensitive constitutional issues," meaning Democrats can't bank on the Oversight Committee's rationale going forward.

Quote

Likewise, the House Financial Services Committee told lower courts it wished to comb through Trump's financial records "as a useful case study" in suspect lending practices that would guide possible changes to the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering regulations. On that point, the High Court rejected Democrats outright.

"The president's unique constitutional position means that Congress may not look to him as a ‘case study' for general legislation," the Court's decision reads.

 

All told, the House was given a "no", and if they want to ever subpoena anything from Trump, they had better have a valid reason (the same as always), and that's without the clear logic that the Democrats are using what should be legitimate and intrusive investigative purpose simply to attack Trump and serve as a PR mechanism.