The Supreme Court Hands Trump An Election Boost

[jalan48]

A cowardly Supreme Court punted today on two investigations that could reveal Donald Trump and his Trump Organization as major league criminal tax cheats.

In its weaselly 7-2 Trump decisions, both written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court stood yet again for the idea that you can get as much justice as you can afford.

The high court also turned away three House committees seeking Trump tax and business records, again on narrow procedural issues that downplayed the substance of the matter. That ruling came despite a 1924 law that flatly states the Treasury “shall” turn over such records on the written request of one of the three committees’ chairs. That law also grants Trump the same power to look at anyone’s tax returns without requiring him to justify such requests.

The Trump case delays the court order, to allow further procedural hearings. The Supreme Court action is in sharp contrast to the 1974 unanimous Supreme Court decision that President Richard Nixon had to immediately turn over his secret Oval Office tapes to Watergate prosecutors. Nixon resigned days later knowing the tapes would provide irrefutable evidence of his criminal conduct.

Should Trump win a second term via a combination of the Electoral College, voter suppression and unlawful help from Russia and other foreign governments, the case will then become one can of procedural worms after another. That could have been avoided had the high court acted definitively today instead of with an eye to politics.

https://www.dcreport.org/2020/07/09/the-supreme-court-hands-trump-a-election-boost/

[Demsrule86]

1. That simply isn't true...the Trumper lawyers argued that Trump had

immunity as he is the president...the Courts said NO. He has only the right afforded to any other American. It is back in the court in order to let him use those rights.

The congressional one has to do with separation of power issues and was sent back for for more litigation. I don't disagree with either of these rulings.

[CaptainTruth]

2. I'm amazed David Cay Johnston is getting so much so wrong about those decisions.

I've always considered him to be a knowledgeable & intelligent person, but he gets almost everything wrong in the excerpt posted, it looks like he doesn't understand the cases at all.

I certainly would not share this article.

[jalan48]

5. We shall see.

[Nevilledog]

3. Johnston is wrong.

[Ms. Toad]

4. Serious mischaracterization of these decisions. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Nonsense. I usually think Johnston's comments are very good, but

he's way off the mark here. According to Neil Katyal, a real expert on constitutional law, this was an unequivocal loss for His Lardship. He says it's possible, and even likely wrt the New York case, for a decision to be made before the election. And keep in mind that no matter when the documents are actually produced, the public are not likely to see them right away since they are part of an ongoing grand jury investigation.

Link to tweet

[RhodeIslandOne]

7. The only ones who think this are the people who seem to believe...

....the court was going to issue Trump's bank records on the steps of the courthouse and now think they got hosed out of something.

That was never the case.

[honest.abe]

8. Nope.

Trump and his gang are going apeshit about these ruelings.

[chriscan64]

9. The congressional case is where we may have seen something pre-election.

The fact that the records will not be public before the election is not really a "boost". He just gets to avoid another scandal. sorta. The case dredges up Stormy Daniels, whose name you haven't heard in the news for a while, but you will today. He may do as much damage to himself on future scandals.

If you want to know if Trump won or lost, read his tweets. He would be gloating and threatening investigations instead of yelling and threatening investigations if he felt he won.