That’s not really the interesting thing about the case, because that ruling will drag on through level after level of appeals.
No, the most interesting thing is a contention by Trump’s own attorneys. They did not stick to the basic defense that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. Instead, they also insisted that releasing his returns would cause him “irreparable harm”!
They know we can see that, right?
The point can’t be related to the fact that he’s the president, because every other recent president has released his returns, as have all major candidates, and it did them no harm at all. Therefore his own lawyers are admitting that he’s different, that his returns are filled with all kinds of shady shit that he doesn’t want people to see!
That’s some good lawyering right there! Is this a Giuliani strategy?
Imagine if everyone was allowed to use this as a legal defense. After all, any good evidence causes the defendant irreparable harm. No, your honor, I can’t allow the video tape of my client and his late wife at the moment of her death to be admitted into evidence. It might cause him “irreparable harm.” Especially the part with the knife.
Dum,
Nope, you haven’t come right out and said that you voted for Trump or would vote for him for reelection, however, it’s not hard to read between the lines.
1.You refer to the impeachment process as ‘trying to reverse an election.’ In addition to this being a Trump talking point (though a fairly obvious one) it ignores the multiple demonstrated impeachable offenses Trump has committed.
Of course, Trump is entitled to an impeachment hearing and a conviction process, but in terms of ‘he’s innocent until proven guilty’ this is the equivalent of a person standing in the middle of 5th avenue and shooting somebody with multiple witnesses looking on and believing that until they are convicted they should be considered innocent.
The Founding Fathers placed an impeachment and conviction process in the U.S Constitution because they did not believe that it would be healthy for the United States to have a lawless President remain in office until the next election. If the Founding Fathers believed that removing a President via impeachment and conviction was an unacceptable overturning of an election, they would not have placed this process in the Constitution.
2.In addition to the false Trump talking point of ‘he has no obligation of turning over his taxes’ (You conceded on this, but I suspect you were just mindlessly quoting this line and didn’t actually understand what was being called for) you have also thrown out the ‘Maddow’ reference and you referred to me as ‘somebody who must be a college student.’ Of course, that line isn’t used exclusively by the right, but that and ‘kid’ are two frequent terms right wingers frequently use to disparage those on the left.
So, it seems pretty clear to me you are one of Donald Trump’s poorly educated supporters. Remember though: he loves the poorly educated.
Irreparable harm is something that almost has to be alleged when seeking this kind of relief. If the client would not suffer harm by the release, why are you asking the court to quash the subpoena? Those kind of allegations are practically legal boiler plate. But that doesn’t mean Trump wont suffer politically as a result. The question is will this matter to anyone that wasn’t already upset by his failure to release his returns? Maybe it wont hurt him much politically after all. Trump’s base is super loyal, but that won’t be enough to reelect him. Unless, a serious 3rd party candidate runs to the left of the Dem nominee.
As for whether Trump would actually suffer harm if the returns were turned over to the Manhattan DA, in my opinion it is a near metaphysical certainty that those returns would leak at whatever time is believed would hurt the Trump campaign the most. Am I the only one that believes that was the real reason his returns were subpoenaed? The DA came up with an investigation to use as a reason (and that investigation may well reveal illegality) but that investigation almost certainly started with a question: “what would it take to justify a subpoena for Trump’s tax returns?” But I think in the end the DA will get the returns, but it might not be until after the election.
The returns haven’t leaked yet…put your tinfoil hat away.
I was predicting that the returns turned over to the Manhattan DA will leak. But since the returns haven’t been turned over yet, that hardly invalidates my prediction. Maybe you will turn out to be right and I am misjudging the DA’s office. But you are wrong in one regard, Trump’s 2005 tax return, or at least substantial parts of it, were leaked to the New York Times a little while back.
Statute of Limitations for those had expired. Additionally, Trump released them before they were “leaked.”
“Democrats pounced on Tuesday night’s report, arguing that the White House’s decision to release details of Mr. Trump’s 2005 taxes before Ms. Maddow’s show undercut his past refusal to release any such information.”
It seems people have already forgotten one of the reasons for Trump’s tax returns being subpoenaed: Trump was helped out multiple times from his father who gifted him tens of millions of $, and Trump never included that money in his tax returns.
Trump’s father died in 1999. When could he have given money to Trump that could be the subject of a Manhattan DA’s investigation? Regardless, as I recall from my tax law course, gifts are NOT taxed as income by the recipient of the gift. Therefore, I wouldn’t think Trump would have been required to list the gifts on his return. Taxes on gifts above a certain amount have to be payed by the gift giver. Is the DA investigating Fred Trump’s estate? My understanding, is that the DA is investigating something related to the playboy model and Stormy Daniels payments.
Just for the record, I didn’t say the DA didn’t have a legal right to the returns. What I was saying is that they were primarily (or at least originally) motivated to seek them because Trump has refused to release them.
Agree
Taxes on gifts above a certain amount are to be paid by the gift giver, but in the event the gift giver doesn’t pay, it’s to be paid by the gift receiver. This is not a case of “I thought you paid it.” “What? I thought you paid it.”
People like you are everything that’s wrong with the world. You are completely convinced that your view of the world is correct and everyone else is wrong. Compromise, moderation, and respect for others are what allow society to move forward. You hurt your own cause with your perspective because it’s pure fantasy. I have to assume you are a college student because I can’t imagine that you are a person with any real world experience or accomplishments.
Dum thoughts:
“Compromise, moderation and respect for others are what allow society to move forward…and that’s why I support Donald Trump!”
Also “You are completely convinced that your view of the world is correct and everyone else is wrong.”
That may be me, but it’s also you. You’re the one who has said here repeatedly that ‘if you want to defeat Donald Trump, do so at the ballot box.’
So, you are saying that anybody who believes that Donald Trump should be removed from office for his multiple impeachable offenses is wrong.
This could start a discussion as to whether if the Founding Fathers took your position why the Impeachment process is in the Constitution then. But, I’d rather just leave it off with, you are offering an opinion as to the ‘correct’ way to try to remove Donald Trump, but you are stating is as if it were a fact.
When did I ever say I support trump? If Biden wins the primaries, he has my vote. However if it’s a loon, I’ll vote against the dems.
You’re not impeaching trump. Run someone sane and you win.
Obviously, we all believe our views of the world are correct, otherwise we would presumably change our views. But while I think each thing I believe is true, since no one is infallible, I am sure that some of my beliefs are mistaken. I just don’t know which ones. As a result, I try to listen to opposing viewpoints so I can reevaluate my beliefs if I find an opposing argument persuasive. I find that harder to do these days when it comes to politics simply because political discussions often dispense with arguments in favor of ad hominem attacks. That is true on both the left and the right. It’s the kind of thing that makes me despair for the future of our country.
I love this guy. Totally with you
There are two things here, opinions and facts. As Daniel Patrick
Moynihan said “‘Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
When it comes to facts, the Republican Party and most of its supporters aren’t dealing with reality. The Democratic Party and its supporters obviously aren’t perfect either, but there is no equivalency between the two.
The Republican Party has a propaganda machine via Fox ‘News’ and right wing gas bag radio that has spewed ‘fake facts’ for 20+ years now and first right wing radio and shortly after Fox ‘News’ teamed up first with Newt Gingrich to combine the ‘fake facts’ in politics and in the media (and now Brietbart and whoever else.) There is simply no equivalent on the Democratic side.
So, I recall having this discussion with you previously. At some point when dealing with people whose opinions are based on falsehoods, it becomes obvious that it’s pointless to respond seriously and to just, as Terminator did despite having a list of every possible response, to just say “fuck you, asshole.”
So,
Again, he did not use a right to privacy defense. That has no legal basis. By law, the Congress has the right to see the tax returns of any American, including yours and mine.
Trump’s argument is that he is different because he is president, AND because releasing his returns would cause him irreparable harm. The two are separate arguments. Obviously, there can be no irreparable harm generated automatically when a president releases his returns, since they all have done so, and have never derived irreparable harm. Therefore, the irreparable harm contention is specific to Donald Trump.
In other words, the reason he doesn’t want to release his returns is because they are really filled with things he doesn’t want us to see.
I’m totally with you. He has absolutely no obligation to turn over his taxes. I’m kind of tired of the dems trying to reverse an election through any means necessary. And I agree that I don’t like naked women getting upstaged by politics. You have some real loons here like Adam whatshiskowski, and a couple of the others. Serious whack jobs who are being triggered. Vote trump out if you can. Otherwise control your insanity. And obviously he doesn’t want his returns released because he isn’t as wealthy as people think. Nobody is EVER as wealthy as others think. Stop counting his money.
You don’t understand the law, do you. You just make it up to suit your preconceived notions. The Manhattan DA isn’t asking that they be made public, just turned over to the proper Authorities.
Additionally, Trump promised to make them public if elected.
Tanner, glad that you get your legal “knowledge” from cnn. Not everyone can be as smart as someone who parrots precanned talking points.
Reading is not your strong suit, eh?
It’s hilarious. You are literally a liberal parrot. I can speak for you. Let me watch Maddow and then I’ll write what you are about to say. Think for yourself.
Dum, when the facts are on the side of liberals, parroting liberals is parroting the facts.
I don’t suppose the fact that Vladimir Putin strongly supports Trump and the Republican Party gives Don any pause. Does it?
Actually, he does have an obligation to turn over his taxes to Congress, for example. That is the law. (You’re correct in that he has no obligation to make them public, but that is not part of the legal process under discussion.) The tricky part of the law is that Congress and state courts have no independent enforcement mechanism. Both the IRS and the DoJ report to the President, so who’s going to get him to follow the law?
Come on Scoop. That’s not accurate. He has no obligation to make his tax returns public. I’m not a trump supporter but the liberals need to stop trying to reverse an election. Vote!
The ignorance here is appalling.
Say what? How could you think my statement is inaccurate if you repeated my point word for word. I specifically stated “he has no obligation to make them public.” But he does, by law, have to turn them over to Congress if they request them.
So vote, that is the bottom line. Vote him out in 2020. The rest is white noise.
I used to say the exact same thing, until I realized he was fucking around to rig those very elections.
I have no problem with that position – as long as he doesn’t use the power of the Presidency to get foreign countries to influence the election, and as long as he obeys the laws, including election laws. But lately he changed the game from “remove him at the ballot box” to “but first, make sure he doesn’t stuff the ballot box by his criminal actions.”
Dum, you see to be triggered by the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump.
I misread this. I agree.
Look, there is an alternative that has been ignored here. What if Trump’s income is from something which, if revealed, would become worthless? Like a process for turning lead into gold – if everyone knew it, gold would sell for the same price as lead, and income from transmutation vanish
I think Trump’s secret process is for turning worthless rubles into precious dollars! No one even dreams that is possible, so you can see why it would cause him irreparable harm to have it revealed.
Silliest thing I’ve read here in a while. How old are you?
I’ve always thought there were three reasons he doesn’t want them out. One is your point. After all this is someone who, with the assistance of ” John Baron”, managed to crash the Fortune 400 in the 80s by claiming his old man’s $400mm as his assets when his own personal worth was only about $5mm.
Two would be Russian money connections.
Three would be that he would be exposed as someone who, despite his claims to the contrary, doesn’t give beans to charity.
My hunch is that Trump doesn’t want his tax returns released because they will disclose that he isn’t as wealthy as he likes to appear. He doesn’t seem to really care about looking like he is not a criminal, but to come off as less wealthy would be a blow to his tiny handed ego. In that case the argument that it would cause him irreparable harm might just be legit.