Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Supreme Court Won't Halt Turnover Of Trump's Tax Records


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

 

WOWZERS!!!

 

THEE "noted" "poster" ACTUALY, yet AGAIN, Awarded ME A Red Ruby Citation As A Badge Of Honor For ME For "Display Of Intellectual Speed And Power" CONFIRMING THEE "noted" "poster" HAS "self" "inflicted" TDS WITH "associated" "practices" AS "illustrated" HERE!!!

 

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, "noted" "poster"!!!

 

:bravo:   :bravo:   :bravo:

 

WOWZERS!!!

 

WOWZERS!!!

 

THEE "noted" "poster" ACTUALY, yet AGAIN, Awarded ME A Red Ruby Citation As A Badge Of Honor For ME For "Display Of Intellectual Speed And Power" CONFIRMING THEE "noted" "poster" HAS "self" "inflicted" TDS WITH "associated" "practices" AS "illustrated" HERE!!!

 

head up ass - Imgflip

 

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, "noted" "poster"!!!

 

:bravo:   :bravo:   :bravo:

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
  • Pow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I seriously don't remember Trump ever being thought fondly of.....he has always been an oddity, a lifestyles of the rich and shameless type, an arrogant adulterer playboy, somebody you would read about standing in line at the supermarket.....the kind of guy who would fabricate his own Time Magazine cover....Everybody should read the book his niece wrote, as it only confirms exactly who he's always portrayed himself to be.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

There are many articles and instances from the past that shine a favorable  light on Trump that you probably wouldn't care for....

 

Here is a very short, thoughtful clip......perhaps where the whole Presidential story started....

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

There are many articles and instances from the past that shine a favorable  light on Trump that you probably wouldn't care for....

 

Here is a very short, thoughtful clip......perhaps where the whole Presidential story started....

 

 

 

 

 

That was a good video....luckily Ronnie Reagan was right around the corner to usher in the 80's and put the sad decade of the 70's behind us.

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

It's way passed time for the GOP to dump Trump or watch the party completely splinter.....There's simply not enough of Trump's loyal base for him to ascend to the WH again.....and in 4 years, more Gen Z's will be eligible to vote, as father time takes a toll on his older base.  He is the great divider, a title he willingly embraces....as he sees it, he has followers and everybody else is the enemy.  As always, just my opinion.  

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Totally disagree.....the 70 million + who voted for Trump weren't voting as an alliance to the Republican party....Trump wasn't elected in 16 because of the establishment Republican party.....he was elected because he was anti establishment.......

 

You have a fringe crazy right.....and a fringe crazy left.......

 

99% who support Trump are on the moderate right.....

 

The movement Trump started is what will be long lasting.....it a concept.....its not just Trump......

 

The left is in the same situation......most are fed up with the status quo....(how's Joe doing?)......there was a push against that status quo with the Sanders movement in 16 and 20.....but the DNC squashed that......basically by cheating many of their own party......

 

The Trump movement is the future for the Republicans.....There is no Biden movement.....and when/if Harris takes over......I predict an unmitigated disaster......

JMO.     CL

 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 4
  • Pow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Totally disagree.....the 70 million + who voted for Trump weren't voting as an alliance to the Republican party....Trump wasn't elected in 16 because of the establishment Republican party.....he was elected because he was anti establishment.......

 

You have a fringe crazy right.....and a fringe crazy left.......

 

99% who support system" rel="">support Trump are on the moderate right.....

 

The movement Trump started is what will be long lasting.....it a concept.....its not just Trump......

 

The left is in the same situation......most are fed up with the status quo....(how's Joe doing?)......there was a push against that status quo with the Sanders movement in 16 and 20.....but the DNC squashed that......basically by cheating many of their own party......

 

The Trump movement is the future for the Republicans.....There is no Biden movement.....and when/if Harris takes over......I predict an unmitigated disaster......

JMO.     CL

 

 

Trump lost because he lost independents that voted for him the first time. That ship has sailed! And he did zero to win them back after the election was over. And I would say he even lost some more that had voted for him in November. That attack on the capital pissed a lot of people off. The fact he did nothing for hours definitely didn’t help. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

 

WOWZERS!!!

 

WOWZERS!!!

 

THEE "noted" "poster" ACTUALY, yet AGAIN, Awarded ME A Red Ruby Citation As A Badge Of Honor For ME For "Display Of Intellectual Speed And Power" CONFIRMING THEE "noted" "poster" HAS "self" "inflicted" TDS WITH "associated" "practices" AS "illustrated" HERE!!!

 

head up ass - Imgflip

 

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, "noted" "poster"!!!

 

:bravo:   :bravo:   :bravo:

 

WOWZERS!!!

 

WOWZERS!!!

 

WOWZERS!!!

 

A PERSONAL MESSAGE From The True The United States Of America Patriot (now former) President Donald J Trump TO THEE "noted" "poster":

 

trump derangement syndrome Memes & GIFs - Imgflip

 

THEE "noted" "poster" ACTUALY, yet AGAIN, Awarded ME A Red Ruby Citation As A Badge Of Honor For ME For "Display Of Intellectual Speed And Power" CONFIRMING THEE "noted" "poster" HAS "self" "inflicted" TDS WITH "associated" "practices" AS "illustrated" HERE!!!

 

Hershey makes its Super Bowl debut with smaller brand Reese's Take 5 | Ad  Age

 

Well, "son", YOUR "head" IS FULLY "occupied" AND "self" "secured".

 

AND, "it" SHOWS!!!

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Totally disagree.....the 70 million + who voted for Trump weren't voting as an alliance to the Republican party....Trump wasn't elected in 16 because of the establishment Republican party.....he was elected because he was anti establishment.......

 

You have a fringe crazy right.....and a fringe crazy left.......

 

99% who support system" rel="">support Trump are on the moderate right.....

 

The movement Trump started is what will be long lasting.....it a concept.....its not just Trump......

 

The left is in the same situation......most are fed up with the status quo....(how's Joe doing?)......there was a push against that status quo with the Sanders movement in 16 and 20.....but the DNC squashed that......basically by cheating many of their own party......

 

The Trump movement is the future for the Republicans.....There is no Biden movement.....and when/if Harris takes over......I predict an unmitigated disaster......

JMO.     CL

 

 

 

Lest we forget.....the House, the Senate and the Presidency all turned blue under Trump's thoughtful tenure and tutelage.

 

GO RV, then BV 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 3
  • Pow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lest we forget....All of the states that allowed the judicial branches to change the voting laws(against the states constitution) to allow mail out ballots, connecting to the internet, no signature verification, unattended counting and machines with a bad history steal an election. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Pow! 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nstoolman1 said:

Lest we forget....All of the states that allowed the judicial branches to change the voting laws(against the states constitution) to allow mail out ballots, connecting to the internet, no signature verification, unattended counting and machines with a bad history steal an election. 

 

So far, the SCOTUS (the final say) says otherwise.....perhaps it's time for new sources.  :shrug:

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, adhoc10 said:

There is that old adage `If you live by the sword, you die by the sword' From purely an outside perspective, with no dog in this fight, Trumps world is filled with hate, lies, derision, disloyalty, and lack of a moral or an ethical compass. I cannot find any redeeming qualities that would negate the actions taken against him. He truly is master of his own destiny and it is easy to understand the shite hole he has choosen to live in and predict the animosity that keeps him in the court system. 

Well Adhoc, most of your post is your opinion not fact.  I have a high opinion of Trump and his presidency , also I hold his moral’s and transparency much higher than Biden’s ..... you’re allowed to have your opinion as I am allowed to have mine !!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
  • Pow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

So far, the SCOTUS (the final say) says otherwise.....perhaps it's time for new sources.  :shrug:

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Yes you do need new sources. 

The proof is out there. It is the form of print, video and affidavits.

Because a judge won't view it or allow it only means their crooked or blackmailed. 

What person doesn't want the truth shown? 

Not believing the proof or truth doesn't make it less true. 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Pow! 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

 

Yes you do need new sources. 

The proof is out there. It is the form of print, video and affidavits.

Because a judge won't view it or allow it only means their crooked or blackmailed. 

What person doesn't want the truth shown? 

Not believing the proof or truth doesn't make it less true. 

 

 

Your argument doesn't really pass the smell test when you consider 33% of the SCOTUS justices are conservative Trump appointees.....and it only takes 4 of 9 justices to vote yes to accept a case.

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited by Shabibilicious
  • Like 1
  • Pow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shelley said:

Well Adhoc, most of your post is your opinion not fact.  I have a high opinion of Trump and his presidency , also I hold his moral’s and transparency much higher than Biden’s ..... you’re allowe

 

Thanks Shelly, I agree my comment is  ALL opinion. Without firsthand experience, there are no facts, just rumors, opinions and consensus. I'm just watching Trumps trajectory based on what I have observed. Since I have never dealt with him personally, I know him only thru his recent actions and leadership results. I absolutely don't feel sorry for him. Feeling sorry for someone only counts if you are working on a merit badge for access to the kingdom of heaven. At the pearly gates, when confronted about the good things you brought to the world, reporting how many people you felt sorry for may go a long way in gaining admission.  And I am optimistic that there is really such a thing as karmic return. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Lest we forget.....the House, the Senate and the Presidency all turned blue under Trump's thoughtful tenure and tutelage.

 

GO RV, then BV 

 

History will clearly indicate/prove the total sham that the entire 2020 was.....

 

We've addressed much of it already......

 

The SC still has to weigh in on several Constitutional issues......we wait.....

CL

  • Thanks 3
  • Pow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Your argument doesn't really pass the smell test when you consider 33% of the SCOTUS justices are conservative Trump appointees.....and it only takes 4 of 9 justices to vote yes to accept a case.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

My argument is with the lower state supreme court's who have not stepped up and overturned the courts ruling on the voting laws. SCOTUS is off the rails. They are cowards for not taking a case that should have been addressed.  A state to state case is what they are for. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Pow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

 

My argument is with the lower state supreme court's who have not stepped up and overturned the courts ruling on the voting laws. SCOTUS is off the rails. They are cowards for not taking a case that should have been addressed.  A state to state case is what they are for. 

 

While I appreciate your passionate opinion on this issue.....I simply believe the SCOTUS has the final say, and if they choose to not take up a case, they obviously have their reasons....I for one, doubt they are cowardly, as they've obviously looked at the case to decide if it merits their valuable time.

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

While I appreciate your passionate opinion on this issue.....I simply believe the SCOTUS has the final say, and if they choose to not take up a case, they obviously have their reasons....I for one, doubt they are cowardly, as they've obviously looked at the case to decide if it merits their valuable time.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Valuable time??? What is more important than upholding the Constitution and election fraud?

6-3 to not look at it. 

They did not check out the merit of it. If they did, then they need to be replaced with judges that know the Constitution and follow it. 

3 liberal 

1 wishy wash 

5 conservative.

3 of the Conservative voted against not looking at it. 

That means 2 conservative judges turned their back on the people and the Constitution.  

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Pow! 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, nstoolman1 said:

 

Valuable time??? What is more important than upholding the Constitution and election fraud?

6-3 to not look at it. 

They did not check out the merit of it. If they did, then they need to be replaced with judges that know the Constitution and follow it. 

3 liberal 

1 wishy wash 

5 conservative.

3 of the Conservative voted against not looking at it. 

That means 2 conservative judges turned their back on the people and the Constitution.  

 

 

I would think the American citizenry would be relieved that the conservative heavy SCOTUS decided to uphold the rule of law, as opposed to legitimizing, and thus perpetuating, the "Big Lie" of one man.....The justices are required to know the law inside and out, far more than the Kracken, MyPillow guy, or you and me.

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 2
  • Pow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I would think the American citizenry would be relieved that the conservative heavy SCOTUS decided to uphold the rule of law, as opposed to legitimizing, and thus perpetuating, the "Big Lie" of one man.....The justices are required to know the law inside and out, far more than the Kracken, MyPillow guy, or you and me.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

 

They "upheld" nothing. They have to "look" at the evidence before ruling. They did none of that. 

Judges can`t legally change a states constitution. Only a states legislature can.That is against the US Constitution. Fact. 

When that happens IT is the job of SCOTUS to rule on it. 

Several of the Conservative judges have voiced their opinion on this matter but if Roberts doesn't want to look at it they don't.

  • Thanks 1
  • Pow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

 

 

They "upheld" nothing. They have to "look" at the evidence before ruling. They did none of that. 

Judges can`t legally change a states constitution. Only a states legislature can.That is against the US Constitution. Fact. 

When that happens IT is the job of SCOTUS to rule on it. 

Several of the Conservative judges have voiced their opinion on this matter but if Roberts doesn't want to look at it they don't.

 

Not true.  Justice Roberts does not have the final say.....it takes only 4 justices to vote yes (Writs of Certiorari) for the SCOTUS to take on a case.

 

Supreme Court Procedures

Background

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good behavior, typically, for life.

The Constitution states that the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case. The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. Appellate jurisdiction means that the Court has the authority to review the decisions of lower courts. Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts.

Writs of Certiorari

Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value. In fact, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue).

The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court. 

Law Clerks

Each Justice is permitted to have between three and four law clerks per Court term. These are individuals who, fairly recently, graduated from law school, typically, at the top of their class from the best schools. Often, they have served a year or more as a law clerk for a federal judge. Among other things, they do legal research that assists Justices in deciding what cases to accept; help to prepare questions that the Justice may ask during oral arguments; and assist with the drafting of opinions.

While it is the prerogative of every Justice to read each petition for certiorari himself/herself, many participate in what is informally known as the "cert pool." As petitions for certiorari come in on a weekly basis, they are divided among the participating Justices. The participating Justices divide their petitions among their law clerks. The law clerks, in turn, read the petitions assigned to them, write a brief memorandum about the case, and make a recommendation as to whether the case should be accepted or not. The Justice provides these memoranda and recommendations to the other Justices at a Justices' Conference.

Briefs

If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for certiorari), the case is placed on the docket. According to the Supreme Court's rules, the petitioner has a certain amount of time to write a brief, not to exceed 50 pages, putting forth his/her legal case concerning the issue on which the Court granted review. After the petitioner's brief has been filed, the other party, known as the respondent, is given a certain amount of time to file a respondent's brief. This brief is also not to exceed 50 pages.

After the initial petitions have been filed, the petitioner and respondent are permitted to file briefs of a shorter length that respond to the other party's respective position. If not directly involved in the case, the U.S. Government, represented by the Solicitor General, can file a brief on behalf of the government. With the permission of the Court, groups that do not have a direct stake in the outcome of the case, but are nevertheless interested in it, may file what is known as an amicus curiae (Latin for "friend of the court") brief providing their own arguments and recommendations for how the case should be decided. 

Oral Arguments

By law, the U.S. Supreme Court's term begins on the first Monday in October and goes through the Sunday before the first Monday in October of the following year. The Court is, typically, in recess from late June/early July until the first Monday in October.

The Court hears oral arguments in cases from October through April. From October through December, arguments are heard during the first two weeks of each month. From January through April, arguments are heard on the last two weeks of each month. During each two-week session, oral arguments are heard on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays only (unless the Court directs otherwise).

Oral arguments are open to the public. Typically, two cases are heard each day, beginning at 10 a.m. Each case is allotted an hour for arguments. During this time, lawyers for each party have a half hour to make their best legal case to the Justices. Most of this time, however, is spent answering the Justices' questions. The Justices tend to view oral arguments not as a forum for the lawyers to rehash the merits of the case as found in their briefs, but for answering any questions that the Justices may have developed while reading their briefs.

The Solicitor General usually argues cases in which the U.S. Government is a party. If the U.S. Government is not a party, the Solicitor still may be allotted time to express the government's interests in the case. 

During oral arguments, each side has approximately 30 minutes to present its case, however, attorneys are not required to use the entire time.  The petitioner argues first, then the respondent.  If the petitioner reserves time for rebuttal, the petitioner speaks last.  After the Court is seated, the Chief Justice acknowledges counsel for the petitioner, who already is standing at the podium.   The attorney then begins:  "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court . . . ."

Only the Chief Justice is addressed as Mr. Chief Justice.  Others are addressed as "Justice Scalia," "Justice Ginsburg," or "Your Honor." The title "Judge" is not used for Supreme Court Justices.

Courtroom/Classroom Simulations: Modifications of Procedure

Justices, typically, ask questions throughout each presentation.  However, in courtroom or classroom simulations, to put student attorneys at ease, student Justices do not ask questions for the first two minutes of each side's argument.  When the student Marshal holds up a five-minute warning card, the student attorney at the podium should conclude his/her argument and be ready to end when the Marshal holds up the STOP card.

Before leaving the podium after making the initial presentation, counsel for the petitioner may reserve some time for rebuttal after the respondent's counsel has presented.  The petitioner — not the Court — is responsible for keeping track of the time remaining for rebuttal.  In typical program simulations, more than one student attorney argues each side.  In that instance, they should inform the student Marshal before the court session begins how they wish to divide their time.  Usually, the first student attorney to speak also handles the rebuttal.

Conference

When oral arguments are concluded, the Justices have to decide the case. They do so at what is known as the Justices' Conference. When Court is in session, there are two conferences scheduled per week – one on Wednesday afternoon and one on Friday afternoon. At their Wednesday conference, the Justices talk about the cases heard on Monday. At their Friday conference, they discuss cases heard on Tuesday and Wednesday. When Court is not in session, no Wednesday conference is held.

Before going into the Conference, the Justices frequently discuss the relevant cases with their law clerks, seeking to get different perspectives on the case. At the end of these sessions, sometimes the Justices have a fairly good idea of how they will vote in the case; other times, they are still uncommitted.

According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc. The Chief Justice calls the session to order and, as a sign of the collegial nature of the institution, all the Justices shake hands. The first order of business, typically, is to discuss the week's petitions for certiorari, i.e., deciding which cases to accept or reject.

After the petitions for certiorari are dealt with, the Justices begin to discuss the cases that were heard since their last Conference. According to Supreme Court protocol, all Justices have an opportunity to state their views on the case and raise any questions or concerns they may have. Each Justice speaks without interruptions from the others. The Chief Justice makes the first statement, then each Justice speaks in descending order of seniority, ending with the most junior justice—the one who has served on the court for the fewest years.

When each Justice is finished speaking, the Chief Justice casts the first vote, and then each Justice in descending order of seniority does likewise until the most junior justice casts the last vote. After the votes have been tallied, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Justice in the majority if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, assigns a Justice in the majority to write the opinion of the Court. The most senior justice in the dissent can assign a dissenting Justice to write the dissenting opinion.

If a Justice agrees with the outcome of the case, but not the majority's rationale for it, that Justice may write a concurring opinion. Any Justice may write a separate dissenting opinion. When there is a tie vote, the decision of the lower Court stands. This can happen if, for some reason, any of the nine Justices is not participating in a case (e.g., a seat is vacant or a Justice has had to recuse).

Opinions

All opinions of the Court are, typically, handed down by the last day of the Court's term (the day in late June/early July when the Court recesses for the summer). With the exception of this deadline, there are no rules concerning when decisions must be released. Typically, decisions that are unanimous are released sooner than those that have concurring and dissenting opinions. While some unanimous decisions are handed down as early as December, some controversial opinions, even if heard in October, may not be handed down until the last day of the term.

A majority of Justices must agree to all of the contents of the Court's opinion before it is publicly delivered. Justices do this by "signing onto" the opinion. The Justice in charge of writing the opinion must be careful to take into consideration the comments and concerns of the others who voted in the majority. If this does not happen, there may not be enough Justices to maintain the majority. On rare occasions in close cases, a dissenting opinion later becomes the majority opinion because one or more Justices switch their votes after reading the drafts of the majority and dissenting opinions. No opinion is considered the official opinion of the Court until it is delivered in open Court (or at least made available to the public).

On days when the Court is hearing oral arguments, decisions may be handed down before the arguments are heard. During the months of May and June, the Court meets at 10 a.m. every Monday to release opinions. During the last week of the term, additional days may be designated as "opinion days."

 

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Business Insider

With New York clearing the way, the House reissued a subpoena for Trump's tax records

Sarah Al-Arshani
Tue, March 2, 2021, 10:59 PM
 
trump impeached
 
Getty
  • The House oversight committee reissued a subpoena for Donald Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA.

  • It is seeking eight years of the former president's financial records.

  • Last week, the Supreme Court paved the way for the Manhattan DA's office to access the records.

The House oversight committee reissued a subpoena for former President Donald Trump's accounting firm last week, the House counsel Doug Letter said in a filing Tuesday.

Congressional investigators are working to get eight years of Trump's tax records from Mazars USA.

The House's initial subpoena was rejected by the Supreme Court in July, Politico reported. Last week, however, the court, after stalling for nearly four months, rejected Trump's efforts to keep his tax returns hidden from the Manhattan district attorney.

 

For the past five years, Trump refused to release his tax records and has gone to great lengths to try to keep them secret.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. launched an investigation into Trump's financial records in 2017.

The Supreme Court ruling in Vance's favor has made it easier for the oversight committee to reissue its subpoena.

Democrats have said Trump's tax records are necessary so they might come up with financial-disclosure legislation for future administrations, Politico noted. They suspect that his tax filings would show potential conflicts of interest and inappropriate foreign ties.

"For more than 22 months, the Committee has been denied key information needed to inform legislative action to address the once-in-a-generation ethics crisis created by former President Trump's unprecedented conflicts of interest," Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the chair of the House oversight committee, said in a memo sent to the committee.

She added: "The Committee's need for this information - in order to verify key facts and tailor legislative reforms to be as effective and efficient as possible - remains just as compelling now as it was when the Committee first issued its subpoena, and the Committee's legislative efforts remain just as critical to the American people as they were before President Trump vacated the White House on January 20, 2021."

 

https://news.yahoo.com/york-clearing-way-house-reissued-035945239.html

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.