|
Post by jld54 on May 19, 2019 14:40:12 GMT -5
Irrespective of the motive alleged by Vox, is it not a good thing that Trump did? You can think justice was served, and believe the process by which we got to that point is wrong.. Trump shouldn't be pardoning someone because he thinks it will help him with black voters or because he likes Kim Kardashian. It's irresponsible and consistent with how he's treated pardon power up to this point. I can't view that as a "good thing" that Trump did. So you do acknowledge the the Orange Man did the right thing, albeit, you claim, for the wrong reason? That is some progress, then...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 19, 2019 14:07:43 GMT -5
In response to your question of where they need to provide a legislative purpose, please see the Supreme Court case cited in the Politico article. Specifically, the court has interpreted the statute that issue to require a legitimate legislative purpose, so that the statute is not unlimited. And it is a real stretch, if not an outright pretext, to state that one cannot write laws about conflicts of interest, etc.only if a single person’s returns are reviewed. Also, the stature cannot be used for law enforcement purposes. The fact that many leftists here are scrambling for reasons proves the point - the claim of a legislative purpose is a mere pretext for the real reason, which is political opposition research. Herein lies part of the problem. You asked for "legislative reasons" which sent people "scrambling" to give you several. In reality, there was no "scrambling" necessary. Everyone, including you, knows the reasons and they are legitimate. Because you don't like those reasons doesn't make them less legitimate. Scrambling would entail making things up and doing a bunch of research. None of that occurred. You asked a question and several people responded quickly and reasonably. You then mischaracterized the back and forth and made up an entirely irrelevant point based on that mischaracterization. The problem isn't a basis for seeing the returns. The problem is your unwillingness to accept reason. If you want to see a textbook example of scrambling, check out the President's reactions to the request to release his tax returns. Kindly refrain from telling me what you think I know, and my alleged "unwillingness to accept reason". These are personal attacks that may violate Board rules. I have cited a balanced article in Politico that states that two SCOTUS cases may pose a significant barrier to the House's requests, and provide a reasonable basis for the Treasury to decline to produce the tax returns. I will discuss the legal pros and cons of each side, but that is it.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 19, 2019 13:26:22 GMT -5
Fix is remove the pardon power, but I doubt any Republican support for that. Abusing it is too useful now and in the future. Amazing that the left was not calling for this when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. Only with the Bad Orange Man...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 19, 2019 13:24:49 GMT -5
Irrespective of the motive alleged by Vox, is it not a good thing that Trump did?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 19, 2019 9:43:11 GMT -5
I'm surprised that President Trump didn't recommend googling "Justin Amash business in China" The President’s comments are accurate. The vast majority of the Republicans oppose his agenda with the exception of tax cuts, trade and illegal immigration. Amash is but another one of them. The Republican establishment still fails to recognize that their brand was so toxic that an outsider could demolish their 18 candidates.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 19, 2019 8:48:00 GMT -5
Thanks, but I don't see anything disputing what he wrote... "If you don't like the message..." I do agree that the political leadership is toxically polarized. I do not know which Congress members have read the report. I do not agree with his other comments. Is that clear enough 4 you?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 19, 2019 8:34:32 GMT -5
Google “Justin Amash” and “family business factory in China”. You will see where he is coming from - he is the type of self-enriching politician that should be term limited. I appreciate you bringing attention to my post. You should read the report. Amash is showing a lot of courage by just just stating the obvious. Do you dispute anything he wrote? I do not believe the President should be impeached, and do not believe that Barr in any way misrepresented the Mueller report. Amash has been anti-Trump from day one. He is a libertarian and this ideology is 180 degrees opposite of Trump’s agenda, especially on trade and immigration. So his ideology and his personal financial interests provide good insight into his comments.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 19, 2019 8:24:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 18, 2019 16:52:25 GMT -5
Again, what is the factual and legal authority for the subpoena? It's easy to think of a dozen reasons to see Trump's returns. New laws against financial conflicts of interest, transparency laws, tax evasion laws etc.. but where does it say they need to provide one? The law is clear. 1924 provision of U.S. tax code clearly states that chairs of the Congressional tax-writing committees (now Democrats) may request the returns of any filer and the Treasury secretary “shall” provide them. not Mnuchin, not the IRS, not even Trump get to decide. the end. So hypothetically if a President is steep in corruption, and Congress decides to use it's oversight powers. Since you don't think it serve a "legislative purpose" they cannot? That doesn't sound too *conservative.. I'm guessing that when we have a Democratic President in office you will be back to believing in the value of congressional oversight and the separation of powers? In response to your question of where they need to provide a legislative purpose, please see the Supreme Court case cited in the Politico article. Specifically, the court has interpreted the statute that issue to require a legitimate legislative purpose, so that the statute is not unlimited. And it is a real stretch, if not an outright pretext, to state that one cannot write laws about conflicts of interest, etc.only if a single person’s returns are reviewed. Also, the stature cannot be used for law enforcement purposes. The fact that many leftists here are scrambling for reasons proves the point - the claim of a legislative purpose is a mere pretext for the real reason, which is political opposition research.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 18, 2019 9:06:13 GMT -5
Here is a good article regarding the applicable law. The USSC has ruled that there must be a “legitimate legislative purpose” for Congress to obtain a private person’s tax returns. The power of Congress here is not unlimited. The Court has also held that Congress is not a law enforcement agency and cannot use the statute to seek to uncover crimes. The Treasury has two USSC cases to rely upon which provide, in my opinion, a sound basis not to comply. I also think that Treasury has a good argument that the persistent rallying cry of the left to obtain Trump’s returns will undermine the House’s claim of a legitimate legislative purpose — rather, this is a political exercise designed to sate the left base. This will prove to be an interesting separation of powers case which will be resolved by the Courts. www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/04/why-congress-might-not-get-trumps-tax-returns-226571
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 18, 2019 8:55:02 GMT -5
Again, I never said a President is above the law for life. I asked who would prosecute once the President leaves office. You kind of are in a round a bout way tbh... Do you think the President has committed any crimes while in office? If he has, should he be prosecuted? Since you insist upon putting words in my mouth/claim I say things that I am not saying, I will end this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 19:59:17 GMT -5
Well, if Neal provides the same level of reasoning, he can just say, "It has a legislative purpose." Raise your hand if you think Mnuchin is acting impartially. It shouldn't take long to count them. Again, what is the factual and legal authority for the subpoena?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 19:58:03 GMT -5
Again, I never said a President is above the law for life. I asked who would prosecute once the President leaves office. Right now, isn't the more important issue that it's possible that the sitting president could be prosecuted once he's relieved of the protections of his office? I can think of about 100 issues that are more important than this highly speculative hypothetical.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 19:34:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 15:14:15 GMT -5
So after Mueller rules no collusion and declines to make a decision on obstruction, and the AG and Rosenstein rule that no crime was committed, who is going to prosecute after Trump leaves office? If the answer is that a Democrat will win and have his/her AG indict, is such suggestion really any different from the despised deplorables that chant “lock her up” in reference to Clinton? One should take a long look in the mirror before suggesting this... The difference is OLC guidelines protect a President from criminal liability. He isn't treated by the law the same way as a private citizen, and who said it would have to be at the Federal level? If we're discussing mirrors can we mention the fact that you are a *conservative essentially arguing that a President is above the law for life. Again, I never said a President is above the law for life. I asked who would prosecute once the President leaves office.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 13:02:02 GMT -5
Oh so now we like Fox News? 🤔
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 13:00:07 GMT -5
This is not saying anything other than stating the distinction between criminal liability and political consequences. The conduct that Mueller investigated lead to no criminal liability for Trump. Whether there are political consequences of such conduct is a different matter. *While he remains in office.... What does the OLC guideline cited in the Mueller report state? It says a sitting President can't be indicted. If he can't be indicted then The President never faced any sort of criminal liability. It seem relevant to note that, as he did in his report, when you discuss what he did and did not do. So after Mueller rules no collusion and declines to make a decision on obstruction, and the AG and Rosenstein rule that no crime was committed, who is going to prosecute after Trump leaves office? If the answer is that a Democrat will win and have his/her AG indict, is such suggestion really any different from the despised deplorables that chant “lock her up” in reference to Clinton? One should take a long look in the mirror before suggesting this...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 12:19:27 GMT -5
How is this not basically saying that any congressional oversight is purely political unless criminal charges are filed? I feel like we should strive for a higher standard of conduct in our elected officials... This is a really funny take considering that it was Congressional oversight that discovered Clinton was using a private server thus starting the whole thing... It also does not explain why the AG's investigations shouldn't be considered purely political as well, if that's your stance. This is not saying anything other than stating the distinction between criminal liability and political consequences. The conduct that Mueller investigated lead to no criminal liability for Trump. Whether there are political consequences of such conduct is a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 11:25:35 GMT -5
Democrats should proceed with their oversight and the White House should stop stonewalling... When Comey cleared Clinton in her email *scandal NOBODY on the right said "case closed, let's move on." Instead they asked for documents, underlying evidence, and interviewed witnesses.. The Obama administration complied. Nobody said "we're refusing all subpeonas. Case closed. This was a legal battle and Hillary won." Stop the nonsense. Trump supporters still chant, "Lock her up." Both of the above comments prove the point. The legal battle is over, and now it is purely political. If Democrats wish to pursue a political point, it is certainly the right to do so. As it is the right of those who complain to this day about the exoneration of Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 9:38:12 GMT -5
I don’t know why you continue to insist that Mueller did not find any evidence of obstruction. Seriously, he laid out 11 incidents of obstruction in his report. He also mentioned the OLC as a reason why he couldn't be prosecuted and clearly stated he could not be cleared of obstruction. The President ran around floating pardons and telling people not to cooperate with law enforcement. If you're ethics say that's kosher, man idk... This issue is a purely political one at this point. The legal battle is over and the President won. If the Democrats wish to impeach Trump, then they should proceed accordingly. The legal focus is now on the government officials behind the Russian matter.
|
|