ADVERTISEMENT

Tomorrow (Thursday) is going to be a circus

U

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 1, 2001
37,231
41,796
113
Doesn't matter what the ruling is, the fallout is going to be incredible.

US Supreme Court to rule in Trump finances cases

https://news.yahoo.com/us-supreme-court-rule-trump-finances-cases-154645611.html

Asserting presidential immunity, the New York real estate tycoon has refused to release his tax returns despite promising to do so during his 2016 campaign for the White House.

Trump's finances are the target of Democratic-led committees in the House of Representatives which are looking into the president, the Trump Organization and his family in what started as a probe into foreign influence in 2016.

New York prosecutor Cyrus Vance, a Democrat, is looking meanwhile into whether Trump broke campaign finance laws with "hush money" payments to a porn star and a former Playboy model.

The Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would issue its opinions in the remaining cases for this term at 10:00 am (1400 GMT) on Thursday.
​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ohio Guy, TheOriginalHappyGoat, TommyCracker and 3 others
I think Trump knows which way this is going to go and explains part of his recent behavior.
 
Bill4411 said:
I think Trump knows which way this is going to go and explains part of his recent behavior.
Click to expand...

I feel like the victory they gave him today is sort of a consolation prize, and they separated the 2 to give him some degree of solace. That could be a complete misread on my part, but it seems the most likely scenario given the tenor of the questions posed during the deliberations. The justices may have been dubious when it came to Congressional oversight, but they seemed firmly in line with the NY prosecutors in that case...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
cosmickid said:
I feel like the victory they gave him today is sort of a consolation prize, and they separated the 2 to give him some degree of solace. That could be a complete misread on my part, but it seems the most likely scenario given the tenor of the questions posed during the deliberations. The justices may have been dubious when it came to Congressional oversight, but they seemed firmly in line with the NY prosecutors in that case...
Click to expand...
I'm holding out hope but nothing will surprise me.

I've been harping on the question about the black letter statute that says the IRS has to hand over any returns asked for by the chairman of one of the House committees, but haven't seen that mentioned. Did that ever make it to the Court?
 
I would not be surprised if through his taxes it comes out that he's the general partner in a lot of limited partnerships with a lot of Middle Eastern and Eastern European high-profile investors who wield political influence in the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411 and sglowrider
TommyCracker said:
My guess is that he's not as rich as he says he is.
Click to expand...
mom-this-is-mr-obvious
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider, TommyCracker and mcmurtry66
UncleMark said:
Doesn't matter what the ruling is, the fallout is going to be incredible.

US Supreme Court to rule in Trump finances cases

https://news.yahoo.com/us-supreme-court-rule-trump-finances-cases-154645611.html

Asserting presidential immunity, the New York real estate tycoon has refused to release his tax returns despite promising to do so during his 2016 campaign for the White House.

Trump's finances are the target of Democratic-led committees in the House of Representatives which are looking into the president, the Trump Organization and his family in what started as a probe into foreign influence in 2016.

New York prosecutor Cyrus Vance, a Democrat, is looking meanwhile into whether Trump broke campaign finance laws with "hush money" payments to a porn star and a former Playboy model.

The Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would issue its opinions in the remaining cases for this term at 10:00 am (1400 GMT) on Thursday.
​
Click to expand...
Looking forward to this. Gut instinct: SCOTUS sides with Trump vs. Congress, but not vs. the Manhattan DA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmac76, Bill4411, Tacoll and 2 others
UncleMark said:
Doesn't matter what the ruling is, the fallout is going to be incredible.

US Supreme Court to rule in Trump finances cases

https://news.yahoo.com/us-supreme-court-rule-trump-finances-cases-154645611.html

Asserting presidential immunity, the New York real estate tycoon has refused to release his tax returns despite promising to do so during his 2016 campaign for the White House.

Trump's finances are the target of Democratic-led committees in the House of Representatives which are looking into the president, the Trump Organization and his family in what started as a probe into foreign influence in 2016.

New York prosecutor Cyrus Vance, a Democrat, is looking meanwhile into whether Trump broke campaign finance laws with "hush money" payments to a porn star and a former Playboy model.

The Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would issue its opinions in the remaining cases for this term at 10:00 am (1400 GMT) on Thursday.
​
Click to expand...

if the tax returns ever see the light of day, the Stormy payoffs will be the least of his problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker and cosmickid
First opinion is a pleasant surprise. Gorsuch sided with the liberals in that the Creek reservation remains "Indian Country" for purposes of federal law, because Congress has never explicitly revoked its promises, and as such, defendant McGirt, convicted of murder in a state court, is granted a new trial in federal court.

Correction: McGirt was not convicted of murder. That was the other case, Murphy, which was deadlocked because Gorsuch recused himself. Murphy was decided today per curiam, and he will get a new trial as well.
 
Last edited:
Get ready for the tweetstorm. Trump loses in Vance 7-2, with only Alito and Thomas siding with the POTUS. Court essentially says that Trump can challenge subpoenas on specific points relating to his official duties, but that issues touching only his personal affairs do not need to meet a heightened standard. Sent back down for the lower courts and legal teams to hash things out, so the grand jury isn't getting the records right away, but it seems inevitable they will get most of what they want.
 
Although Trump is ordered to comply he still won’t turn them over. Does anyone else have them?
 
Seems like Mazars is a punt back to the lower courts. So probably a win for Trump since he can probably stall that out through November.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
Bill4411 said:
Although Trump is ordered to comply he still won’t turn them over. Does anyone have them?
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, he wasn't ordered to comply. His legal reasoning was rejected, and it was sent back to give his legal team a chance to see if they can make any challenges consistent with today's ruling.
 
Bill4411 said:
Although Trump is ordered to comply he still won’t turn them over. Does anyone else have them?
Click to expand...
This may be a stupid question, but since the Supreme Court ruled that the NY prosecutors have the right to see Trump's tax returns, couldn't the IRS provide them if Trump doesn't comply?
 
outside shooter said:
We won't see any of the Trump tax crookedness in any detail until after November, so for him it is not devastating.
Click to expand...
Oh, I dunno . . . upon his leaving the Oval Office his claims of presidential immunity from prosecution for federal crimes will be toast. Disclosure at any time might be devastating for different reasons depending on the effect of the timing . . . so if Trump loses in November - even without the disclosure of the tax returns - his crookedness might not be devastating politically, but could be even more devastating personally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: i'vegotwinners
The public is not going to be able to see Trump Tax returns, unfortunately with this ruling. If Congress got them we sure would find out quickly how much of a hoax Trump is.
 
Sope Creek said:
Oh, I dunno . . . upon his leaving the Oval Office his claims of presidential immunity from prosecution for federal crimes will be toast. Disclosure at any time might be devastating for different reasons depending on the effect of the timing . . . so if Trump loses in November - even without the disclosure of the tax returns - his crookedness might not be devastating politically, but could be even more devastating personally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and unless something drastic changes (like COVID miraculously disappearing) he’s going to be in office for another 2.5 months or so.

That time period terrifies me. He’s already proven that when he feels threatened, his ONLY mission from that point forward is to tear everything down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdhoosier and Bill4411
wiede said:
Yeah, and unless something drastic changes (like COVID miraculously disappearing) he’s going to be in office for another 2.5 months or so.

That time period terrifies me. He’s already proven that when he feels threatened, his ONLY mission from that point forward is to tear everything down.
Click to expand...

so you don’t like people tearing things down?
 
Ohio Guy said:
This may be a stupid question, but since the Supreme Court ruled that the NY prosecutors have the right to see Trump's tax returns, couldn't the IRS provide them if Trump doesn't comply?
Click to expand...
That's not quite what the case was actually about. The Manhattan DA served a subpoena on Trump's accountants regarding various financial records. Trump sued to prevent the accountants from turning them over. SCOTUS today says that Trump's legal arguments don't fly, and is sending the case back down. Compliance isn't up to Trump. Once the courts definitively tell the accountants to turn over the documents, Trump will have no way of stopping them.

But it probably will be a while before that happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ohio Guy
StelioKantos said:
so you don’t like people tearing things down?
Click to expand...

That depends on what they tear down. Trump is trying to turn our government into an autocracy. A system in which his impulses are above reproach, and the rule of law doesn’t mean anything.

And his AG is doing everything in his power to make that happen.

I think by the end, after it’s clear that he has taken down several down ballot pub senators, they’ll wish they would’ve removed him during the impeachment proceedings. When you acquiesce to a bully, they just beat the chit out of you even more.

That’s my hot take for the day.

Now, if we’re talking the removal of confederate statues, or the complete reforming of our justice systems and police departments, Then yes, tear it down.

There’s been an awakening, and it’s not just among a small segment of the country. Trump apparently thinks going against this trend is the right thing to do. It baffles me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker
wiede said:
. . . his ONLY mission from that point forward is to tear everything down.
Click to expand...
Piggybacking on TMP's comment elsewhere, I think you're right; he now hates the United States because we don't fawn all over him.

Has he stopped his "make America great again" claims? I don't recall much of that theme recently . . . .
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Meh. Would have been better if I typed "SCOTUS goes against Trump vs. DA, but not vs. Congress."

Mazars was more about SCOTUS kicking the can than it was about them siding with Trump.

(Edit: That said, a cursory glance suggests there's a lot in there for Trump to hang his hat on.)
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing much on the Congressional case yet, just that they don't get the goods right away.
 
Last edited:
UncleMark said:
I'm not seeing much on the Congressional case yet, just that they don't get the good right away.
Click to expand...
An important observation about both cases is that neither one is over. Both opinions were of the kind that will lead to further arguments at the lower courts, further rulings, and further appeals. A lot of the political juice that people were hoping to get from these cases is going to dry up, unless Trump wins in November, or a lot of people hate Trump enough to enjoy his downfall even after he's left office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411, Cortez88 and mcmurtry66
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
An important observation about both cases is that neither one is over. Both opinions were of the kind that will lead to further arguments at the lower courts, further rulings, and further appeals. A lot of the political juice that people were hoping to get from these cases is going to dry up, unless Trump wins in November, or a lot of people hate Trump enough to enjoy his downfall even after he's left office.
Click to expand...
Marv was right. Roberts made sure these cases would have the least impact possible on the politics.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
An important observation about both cases is that neither one is over. Both opinions were of the kind that will lead to further arguments at the lower courts, further rulings, and further appeals. A lot of the political juice that people were hoping to get from these cases is going to dry up, unless Trump wins in November, or a lot of people hate Trump enough to enjoy his downfall even after he's left office.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s always about hate. It’s about precedent.

Pre-Trump, we had certain “gentleman’s agreements” on how disputes should be handled, and certain things were off limits from interference.

Trump threw those right out the window. And those were the things that largely held the foundations of our government together.

So, yes, these things still matter a great deal. Even if we get the answers after either it’s clear he lost, or even after he leaves office.

How do you think he feels about Kavannaugh & Gorsuch now? This is a guess, but I think he probably felt like they would side with him. Because they “owe” him. That’s how a purely transactional narcissist with no hint of a moral compass thinks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker
As an aside, McGirt is at least the second time Gorsuch has been the fifth vote in an important case involving interpreting laws defining the rights of Native tribes in terms favorable to the tribe. I don't recall any of the discussion during the Gorsuch nomination revolving around the possibility that he might represent a sea change on the court regarding these issues. Traditionally, states have had quite a bit of success warning the courts about the unintended consequences of promises made over a century ago. Twice now, Gorsuch has essentially argued, "Too bad, promises are promises."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M

Our Country Is At A Crossroads - Robert De Niro emailed me

Replies
44
Views
678
The Water Cooler
TomEric4756
T
C

Is "True the Vote" another Smirnov about to make MAGA look duped?

Replies
0
Views
106
The Water Cooler
cosmickid
C
C

Jan 9th and the COA oral arguments...

Replies
12
Views
573
The Water Cooler
Bowlmania
B
U

Judge puts Trump out of business in NY?

Replies
1K
Views
14K
The Water Cooler
cosmickid
C
C

I Now Declare This To Be a Full Epidemic

Replies
2
Views
887
IU Football Board
Jackskip23
J
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back