Countdown To Donald's Tax Returns - Will They Or Won't They?

[Shabibilicious]

Politics

U.S. Supreme Court to rule on Trump bid to conceal his financial records

 

Lawrence Hurley and Jan Wolfe

,

Reuters•July 9, 2020

•  

U.S. Supreme Court to rule on Trump bid to conceal his financial records

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump holds his first re-election campaign rally in several months in Tulsa, Oklahoma

By Lawrence Hurley and Jan Wolfe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is due on Thursday to rule on whether Democratic-led congressional committees and a New York City prosecutor can get hold of President Donald Trump's financial records, including his tax returns, that he has tenaciously sought to keep secret.

The high court will issue the final rulings of its current term, which began last October. They include three cases focused on Trump lawsuits intended to block subpoenas issued to third parties - not the Republican president himself - to hand over his financial records. The rulings are expected shortly after 10 a.m. EDT (1400 GMT).

Unlike other recent presidents, Trump has refused to release his tax returns and other documents that could provide details on his wealth and the activities of his family real-estate company, the Trump Organization. The content of these records has remained a persistent mystery even as he seeks re-election on Nov. 3. The rulings represent another milestone in Trump's tumultuous presidency.

Two of the cases involve subpoenas issued by House of Representatives committees seeking Trump's financial records from his longtime accounting firm Mazars LLP and two banks, Deutsche Bank<DBKGn.DE> and Capital One<COF.N>.

The third involves subpoenas issued to Mazars for financial records including nearly a decade of Trump's tax returns to be turned over to a grand jury in New York City as part of a criminal investigation by the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat.

The investigation launched by Vance's office in 2018 into Trump and the Trump Organization was spurred by disclosures of hush payments to two women who said they had past sexual relationships with him, pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump and his aides have denied the relationships.

In the litigation over the House subpoenas, Trump argued that Congress lacked a valid purpose for seeking his records and that disclosure of the material would compromise his and his family's privacy and distract him from his duties.

In the New York case, Trump's lawyers argued that under the Constitution he is immune from any criminal proceeding while serving as president. They also cited Justice Department guidance that a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted.

In a lower court hearing, Trump's lawyers went so far as to argue that law enforcement officials would not have the power to investigate Trump even if he shot someone on New York's Fifth Avenue.

The House Oversight Committee in April 2019 issued a subpoena to Mazars seeking eight years of accounting and other financial information in response to the congressional testimony of Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer. Cohen said Trump had inflated and deflated certain assets on financial statements between 2011 and 2013 in part to reduce his real estate taxes.

The House Financial Services Committee has been examining possible money laundering in U.S. property deals involving Trump. In a separate investigation, the House Intelligence Committee is investigating whether Trump's dealings left him vulnerable to the influence of foreign individuals or governments.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-rule-trump-101008699.html

 

GO RV, then BV  

[huffy2005]

Maxwell arrest UNRAVELS [DS] connections. CRIMES against CHILDREN

What about this: 

 

[nstoolman1]

Congress would change its tune if the SC ruled that if Trump gets investigated so does Congress. 

[Shabibilicious]

5 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

Congress would change its tune if the SC ruled that if Trump gets investigated so does Congress. 

 

True that, nstoolman.....innocent men have nothing to hide.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[nstoolman1]

Since nothing is mentioned in the Constitution about checking taxes as a requirement for being a president, 

and there is no proof or reason to warrant this investigation, other that the removal of this legally elected president, 

I see it as another witch hunt to get Trump. Let the IRS do its job of investigating. They only have been looking for ten years. 

You see it as a way to get Trump. 

[coorslite21]

As a private citizen none of us is required to open our books for public scrutiny, unless there is some real evidence of wrong doing....I suspect it will be a 9-0 vote in Trumps favor... if they follow the laws and stay away from the politics.....JMO.   CL

[Shabibilicious]

12 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

Since nothing is mentioned in the Constitution about checking taxes as a requirement for being a president, 

and there is no proof or reason to warrant this investigation, other that the removal of this legally elected president, 

I see it as another witch hunt to get Trump. Let the IRS do its job of investigating. They only have been looking for ten years. 

You see it as a way to get Trump. 

 

Not really.....I see it as an issue the lower courts have ruled on and now the SCOTUS will rule as well.  It's should be every American's wish to know who ALL of their elected officials are beholden to, if anybody.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

The Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the fact that Trump has retained ownership of his company should be compelling enough to garner financial review.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

LA Times

Supreme Court deals Trump a defeat, upholds demand for his tax returns

David G. Savage

July 9, 2020, 10:14 AM

 

 

President Trump shakes hands in 2017 with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. (Jim Lo Scalzo / AFP/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court dealt President Trump a major defeat Thursday by rejecting his claims of presidential immunity and upholding subpoenas from New York prosecutors seeking his tax returns and financial records.

In one of the most anticipated rulings on presidential privilege in years, the justices by a 7-2 vote ruled the nation's chief executive is not above the law and must comply with legitimate demands from a grand jury in New York that was investigating Trump's alleged hush money payments to two women who claimed to have had sex with him.

Trump had sued to block the subpoenas and claimed that as president he had an "absolute immunity" from demands for personal or confidential information.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, rejected Trump's claim of immunity.

 

"We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the president is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need."

In a related case involving a similar subpoena from House investigators, the court also ruled the president did not have immunity. But justices vacated the House subpoenas, saying lower courts failed to properly balance the legal and constitutional questions raised by the request. They sent the matter back to lower courts for review.

Although the decisions were a defeat for Trump, there is a bright side for him. Chances are high that the details of his finances will still remain a secret from the public since grand juries operate confidentially and rarely leak. Had House investigators received Trump's records, it would have been far more likely that some or all of the information would have leaked before the November election.

The election-year dispute had an obvious political significance, but it was also the rare separation of powers case in which the powers of the president, Congress and the judicial system were all at issue.

In past rulings on similar high-profile cases, the court had unanimously ruled that the president is not above the law, forcing President Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes and President Clinton to be deposed in the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit.

Unlike other presidents since the Watergate era of the 1970s, Trump refused to disclose his tax returns and has kept secret the details of his business dealings. Investigators were particularly interested in whether Trump and his businesses were heavily indebted to foreign banks.

Trump said during the 2016 campaign he expected to release his tax returns, but then refused to do so.

After Democrats won control of the House in the 2018 midterm election, three separate committees — on oversight, intelligence and financial services — issued broad subpoenas to Trump's accountants demanding records going back to 2010 on Trump's personal and family finances. A subpoena to Deutsche Bank sought records on loans taken out by Trump and his organization.

Lawyers for the House said Congress has the power and duty to conduct oversight and investigations, including into the chief executive. They said it was especially important to look further since Trump appeared to have far-flung business dealings that were hidden from the public, and said his finances could reveal if the president had conflicts of interest, including business deals in Russia.

Separately, a New York grand jury was said to be looking into potential crimes involving Trump's personal and business dealings there. It, too, issued a subpoena seeking his financial records.

Trump's personal lawyers filed suits in New York and in Washington seeking to block the subpoenas. They argued that demands for records were extreme and unjustified, and that the president had an "absolute immunity" from investigators who sought personal and confidential information.

They lost in lower courts. Federal judges and the U.S. appeals courts in Washington and New York ruled the president, like other citizens, had no right to defy subpoenas for records issued by Congress or a grand jury .

In December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump's appeals and put the lower rulings on hold. The lead case involving the House committees was Trump vs Mazars USA, while the New York grand jury case was Trump vs. Vance.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/supreme-court-deals-trump-defeat-141438163.html

 

Now we know....7/2 decision.

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited July 9, 2020 by Shabibilicious

[caddieman]

1 minute ago, Shabibilicious said:

The Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the fact that Trump has retained ownership of his company should be compelling enough to garner financial review.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

And also he said he would release them...........or was it a lie?.........hummmm!🤥🤥

[coorslite21]

4 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

LA Times

Supreme Court deals Trump a defeat, upholds demand for his tax returns

David G. Savage

July 9, 2020, 10:14 AM

 

 

President Trump shakes hands in 2017 with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. (Jim Lo Scalzo / AFP/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court dealt President Trump a major defeat Thursday by rejecting his claims of presidential immunity and upholding subpoenas from New York prosecutors seeking his tax returns and financial records.

In one of the most anticipated rulings on presidential privilege in years, the justices by a 7-2 vote ruled the nation's chief executive is not above the law and must comply with legitimate demands from a grand jury in New York that was investigating Trump's alleged hush money payments to two women who claimed to have had sex with him.

Trump had sued to block the subpoenas and claimed that as president he had an "absolute immunity" from demands for personal or confidential information.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, rejected Trump's claim of immunity.

 

"We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the president is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need."

In a related case involving a similar subpoena from House investigators, the court also ruled the president did not have immunity. But justices vacated the House subpoenas, saying lower courts failed to properly balance the legal and constitutional questions raised by the request. They sent the matter back to lower courts for review.

Although the decisions were a defeat for Trump, there is a bright side for him. Chances are high that the details of his finances will still remain a secret from the public since grand juries operate confidentially and rarely leak. Had House investigators received Trump's records, it would have been far more likely that some or all of the information would have leaked before the November election.

The election-year dispute had an obvious political significance, but it was also the rare separation of powers case in which the powers of the president, Congress and the judicial system were all at issue.

In past rulings on similar high-profile cases, the court had unanimously ruled that the president is not above the law, forcing President Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes and President Clinton to be deposed in the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit.

Unlike other presidents since the Watergate era of the 1970s, Trump refused to disclose his tax returns and has kept secret the details of his business dealings. Investigators were particularly interested in whether Trump and his businesses were heavily indebted to foreign banks.

Trump said during the 2016 campaign he expected to release his tax returns, but then refused to do so.

After Democrats won control of the House in the 2018 midterm election, three separate committees — on oversight, intelligence and financial services — issued broad subpoenas to Trump's accountants demanding records going back to 2010 on Trump's personal and family finances. A subpoena to Deutsche Bank sought records on loans taken out by Trump and his organization.

Lawyers for the House said Congress has the power and duty to conduct oversight and investigations, including into the chief executive. They said it was especially important to look further since Trump appeared to have far-flung business dealings that were hidden from the public, and said his finances could reveal if the president had conflicts of interest, including business deals in Russia.

Separately, a New York grand jury was said to be looking into potential crimes involving Trump's personal and business dealings there. It, too, issued a subpoena seeking his financial records.

Trump's personal lawyers filed suits in New York and in Washington seeking to block the subpoenas. They argued that demands for records were extreme and unjustified, and that the president had an "absolute immunity" from investigators who sought personal and confidential information.

They lost in lower courts. Federal judges and the U.S. appeals courts in Washington and New York ruled the president, like other citizens, had no right to defy subpoenas for records issued by Congress or a grand jury .

In December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump's appeals and put the lower rulings on hold. The lead case involving the House committees was Trump vs Mazars USA, while the New York grand jury case was Trump vs. Vance.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/supreme-court-deals-trump-defeat-141438163.html

 

Now we know.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Can someone point out the line on the tax form where it says...."money paid to hookers"?     CL

 

 

[caddieman]

4 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Can someone point out the line on the tax form where it says...."money paid to hookers"?     CL

 

 

Can you write that off?........It is a business deal......In Nevada!💕💕💕😇

[Shabibilicious]

7 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Can someone point out the line on the tax form where it says...."money paid to hookers"?     CL

 

 

I don't think there is one, other than maybe under expenses.....But on the "hookers" tax returns it would be under income.  The officials should probably have a look at those tax returns also and follow the money trail.....seems pretty simple.

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited July 9, 2020 by Shabibilicious

[caddieman]

2 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I don't think there is one, other than maybe under expenses.....But on the "hookers" tax returns it would be under income.  The officials should probably have a look at those tax returns also and follow the money trail.....seems pretty simple.

 

GO RV, then BV

Maybe under entertainment!🍸🍸🍸

[coorslite21]

2 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I don't think there is one, other than maybe under expenses.....But on the "hookers" tax returns it would be under income.  The officials should probably have a look at those tax returns also and follow the money trail.....seems pretty simple.

 

GO RV, then BV

Sure.....open up the hookers tax returns as well.....has to be additional spaghetti in there that when thrown at the wall will stick.....   CL 

[Shabibilicious]

Just now, coorslite21 said:

Sure.....open up the hookers tax returns as well.....has to be additional spaghetti in there that when thrown at the wall will stick.....   CL 

 

You're not suggesting "hookers" have absolute immunity are you?  

 

GO RV, then BV

[gregp]

Just another ploy from satan’s left wing children to topple the USA. 

[coorslite21]

4 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

You're not suggesting "hookers" have absolute immunity are you?  

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Guess if it's good enough for 

Congress, it should be good enough for hookerville..... CL

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html

[Shabibilicious]

2 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Guess if it's good enough for 

Congress, it should be good enough for hookerville..... CL

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html

 

Yep, pinch them all, I say....Ooh wait, pinch probably isn't the appropriate word.    To keep it in perspective, 17 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what Fox News Corp has paid out for sexual harassment.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

2 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Yep, pinch them all, I say....Ooh wait, pinch probably isn't the appropriate word.    To keep it in perspective, 17 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what Fox News Corp has paid out for sexual harassment.  

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Yes....NBC and others too.....the big stuff is coming......locked and loaded........gonna be a real DC mess!     CL 

[coorslite21]

Seems the MSM may have jumped the gun......or just plain lied.....seems the buck has been passed back to the lower court.......time will tell...

 

I am still against big Gov over reach......whether it's you or I....the President... or hooker nation....JMO.    CL

[MyLadiesDaddy]

On 7/9/2020 at 10:10 AM, gregp said:

Just another ploy from satan’s left wing children to topple the USA.