Create new account | My Profile | My Account | My Bookmarks | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Google search

Advanced search

HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Divided U.S. Supreme Cour...

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:15 PM

BaronChocula (253 posts)

Divided U.S. Supreme Court wraps up arguments on Trump financial records

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared divided over President Donald Trump’s bid to prevent Democratic-led congressional panels from obtaining his financial records but seemed more sympathetic toward a New York prosecutor’s attempt to access similar records.

The court’s conservative majority signaled concern about improper harassment of the Republican president by Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives seeking Trump’s records. But questions by the conservative justices indicated skepticism toward Trump’s position in the New York case.

The justices asked tough questions of an attorney for Trump and a Justice Department lawyer who both sought to justify the president’s quest to block subpoenas by three House for financial records held by third parties.

But several justices also pressed a lawyer for the House to explain why the subpoenas were not simply presidential harassment and whether Congress should be limited in issuing subpoenas so as to not distract a president or frustrate the carrying out of his official duties.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-finances/divided-u-s-supreme-court-wraps-up-arguments-on-trump-financial-records-idUSKBN22O1F0


Probing Trump's financial improprieties related to scandals underway during his Administration is not harassment.

39 replies, 5401 views

Thread infoBookmark this threadTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Divided U.S. Supreme Court wraps up arguments on Trump financial records (Original post)
 BaronChocula May 2020 OP
LineReply "distract a president or frustrate the carrying out of his official duties"? S.e.r.i.o.u.s.l.y.
 flibbitygiblets May 2020 #1
LineLineReply The House lawyers could have used your help today.....Excellent Reply
 KS Toronado May 2020 #18
LineLineReply Well stated!
 NoRoadUntravelled May 2020 #27
LineLineNew Reply Hope the Dems' atty replied that in Jones v Clinton
 DeminPennswoods May 2020 #30
LineReply "Supreme Court justices...appeared divided."
 Grins May 2020 #2
LineLineReply Please stop
 mahina May 2020 #8
LineReply Checks and balances?
 ArizonaLib May 2020 #3
LineReply THIS is why I'm critical of Joe Biden ads. When you play softball against people hurtling IED's,
 BComplex May 2020 #4
LineLineReply Biden open to a Repub VP
 PNW-Dem May 2020 #15
LineLineLineReply I'm also deeply concerned (Susan Collins) that he would consider a Rethug. They are not the answer.
 Evolve Dammit May 2020 #17
LineLineLineReply Seriously? I hadn't heard that. Does he WANT to lose?
 LastLiberal in PalmSprings May 2020 #26
LineLineLineReply That's a disturbing thought with the VP being just a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
 NoRoadUntravelled May 2020 #29
LineLineLineNew Reply What?! Link please.
 KPN May 2020 #32
LineLineLineLineNew Reply Biden says he's open to a Republican running mate
 PNW-Dem May 2020 #38
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply I hear Sarah Palin is available...
 Grins May 2020 #39
LineLineReply This message was self-deleted by its author
 mac56 May 2020 #22
LineReply What's the argument? To do or not do our jobs? n/t
 TheFourthMind May 2020 #5
LineReply Former US Solicitor General Neal Katyl and George Conway Argue it was a Bad Day for Trump
 Stallion May 2020 #6
LineReply A lawful subpoena is not harrassment, it's the only remedy when a president stonewalls and
 sop May 2020 #7
LineReply Various Twitter accounts
 mahatmakanejeeves May 2020 #9
LineLineNew Reply From the post: Trump's lawyers just made appalling arguments to the Supreme Court
 StClone May 2020 #34
LineLineLineNew Reply Agree. Trump is going to get off really easy on the house subpoena. Manhattan might be a little
 BComplex May 2020 #36
LineReply Doesn't sound too promising for Congressional oversight.
 Joinfortmill May 2020 #10
LineLineNew Reply Congressional oversight took a bad hit yesterday.
 BComplex May 2020 #37
LineReply "His presidential duties"??
 Scarsdale May 2020 #11
LineReply Trump has lost the next election.
 SkatmanRoth May 2020 #12
LineLineReply Both the NY IRS and federal IRS have had his tax records and financial records for decades.
 former9thward May 2020 #23
LineLineLineReply Because he followed IRS law, but he is not telling us about his Russian connections
 SkatmanRoth May 2020 #24
LineReply HEY... if the rule of law is out for an office holder, it is out for the rest of us too
 NotHardly May 2020 #13
LineReply We need Joe Biden to replace these justices with justices, not political appointees.
 ffr May 2020 #14
LineLineNew Reply And how would he do that?
 KPN May 2020 #33
LineLineNew Reply Sure, if they retire
 Polybius May 2020 #35
LineReply Any attempt to use claims of harassment regardless of their merits are immaterial as
 cstanleytech May 2020 #16
LineReply No tax records, no emoluments clause
 bucolic_frolic May 2020 #19
LineReply They're so concerned about "improper harassment" of a president....
 lastlib May 2020 #20
LineLineNew Reply Who determines if something is "improper harassment"? That's right -- Herr Trump!
 LastLiberal in PalmSprings May 2020 #31
LineReply It is really discouraging to see just how political the Supreme Court is
 Hulk May 2020 #21
LineReply Only Looking At Political Aspects Of Subpoena
 DallasNE May 2020 #25
LineReply Seems to me that fighting a subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court
 NYC Liberal May 2020 #28

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:20 PM

Star Member flibbitygiblets (6,479 posts)

1. "distract a president or frustrate the carrying out of his official duties"? S.e.r.i.o.u.s.l.y.

We're talking about the guy who spends his days retweeting celebrity gossip and thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories. Distraction is his normal operating mode.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to flibbitygiblets (Reply #1)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:25 PM

Star Member KS Toronado (2,370 posts)

18. The House lawyers could have used your help today.....Excellent Reply

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to flibbitygiblets (Reply #1)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:42 PM

Star Member NoRoadUntravelled (2,626 posts)

27. Well stated!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to flibbitygiblets (Reply #1)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:52 PM

DeminPennswoods (11,806 posts)

30. Hope the Dems' atty replied that in Jones v Clinton

the Justices ruled it was not a distraction for a president to be sued, deposed, etc for acts he committed before being elected president.
This is the DU member formerly known as DeminPennswoods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:21 PM

Grins (3,590 posts)

2. "Supreme Court justices...appeared divided."

Translation: we’re hosed.

There is no law in America. It’s over. Packing the courts with Reich-wing, radical, “activist” judges has worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Grins (Reply #2)

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:44 PM

Star Member mahina (12,792 posts)

8. Please stop

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:26 PM

ArizonaLib (1,000 posts)

3. Checks and balances?

Over site as explicitly described in the constitution can be interpreted as harassment? Why didn't Rehnquist freak out over this when the examination of the president's DNA in a dress was before congress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:27 PM

Star Member BComplex (5,300 posts)

4. THIS is why I'm critical of Joe Biden ads. When you play softball against people hurtling IED's,

you're going to get hosed.

The lawyer the house sent to argue the case did a terrible job. Way soft, way whimpy. That's how we got these supreme court justices; democrats are so willing to play nice with a group who is out for the jugular. If we don't start throwing down on them, this will only get worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BComplex (Reply #4)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:04 PM

PNW-Dem (243 posts)

15. Biden open to a Repub VP

Amen to that. It really fries me to think that Biden would consider a Republican VP. Didn’t they learn during the Obama years that it doesn’t pay to reach across the aisle unless you use a fist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PNW-Dem (Reply #15)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:09 PM

Evolve Dammit (4,786 posts)

17. I'm also deeply concerned (Susan Collins) that he would consider a Rethug. They are not the answer.

Obama reached across the aisle for years and they basically spit at him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PNW-Dem (Reply #15)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:34 PM

Star Member LastLiberal in PalmSprings (11,212 posts)

26. Seriously? I hadn't heard that. Does he WANT to lose?

Why doesn't he just say he'll name Pence as VP? Or Susan Collins, since he's committed to a woman VP.

Please tell me he didn't say that, even as a joke...

Now is the time the Democrats should go nuclear and wipe the Trump/Republican Party scourge from the face of the Earth, once and for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PNW-Dem (Reply #15)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:48 PM

Star Member NoRoadUntravelled (2,626 posts)

29. That's a disturbing thought with the VP being just a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PNW-Dem (Reply #15)

Tue May 12, 2020, 06:43 PM

Star Member KPN (11,822 posts)

32. What?! Link please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PNW-Dem (Reply #38)

Thu May 14, 2020, 05:13 PM

Grins (3,590 posts)

39. I hear Sarah Palin is available...

If Biden, who will be age 78 in January of 2021, does something as stupid as picking a Republican running mate we’re lost as a political party. Done. Kaput. Finished. I’m trying to imagine the furor at the DNC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BComplex (Reply #4)

mac56 This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:27 PM

TheFourthMind (343 posts)

5. What's the argument? To do or not do our jobs? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:31 PM

Stallion (5,994 posts)

6. Former US Solicitor General Neal Katyl and George Conway Argue it was a Bad Day for Trump

especially with regard to the New York's prosecutors case-but they predicted a majority in each case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:36 PM

sop (4,261 posts)

7. A lawful subpoena is not harrassment, it's the only remedy when a president stonewalls and

obstructs every attempt at oversight and investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:46 PM

mahatmakanejeeves (35,090 posts)

9. Various Twitter accounts

Supreme Court arguments on Trump's efforts to shield tax returns, personal financial records suggest a mixed outcome. And that might not be the end of it.



The Supreme Court's more than three-hour session over Trump’s tax returns, business records points to a mixed outcome.



George Conway, Noble Committee Chair Retweeted

Opinion: Trump’s lawyers just made appalling arguments to the Supreme Court



.
.
.
The oral argument was Clinton’s high-water mark, and I think the same is true of Trump’s cases today. The reason being that the Court takes hypothetical concerns about harms to the presidency seriously.



But in the end, the Court’s deciding the case that is *actually* before it, which means Trump’s going to lose big, worse than most people may think, just as happened with Clinton 23 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #9)

Tue May 12, 2020, 07:39 PM

StClone (10,326 posts)

34. From the post: Trump's lawyers just made appalling arguments to the Supreme Court

I beg to differ: Many of the Supremos are his lawyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to StClone (Reply #34)

Wed May 13, 2020, 11:24 AM

Star Member BComplex (5,300 posts)

36. Agree. Trump is going to get off really easy on the house subpoena. Manhattan might be a little

more harsh, but the majority of the supremes, including the Chief Justice, are his lawyers, and they take it really seriously. They are not patriots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 03:17 PM

Joinfortmill (2,271 posts)

10. Doesn't sound too promising for Congressional oversight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Joinfortmill (Reply #10)

Wed May 13, 2020, 11:25 AM

Star Member BComplex (5,300 posts)

37. Congressional oversight took a bad hit yesterday.

But since the supremes are in it for life, once the republicans go after a democratic president, the supremes will reverse themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 03:20 PM

Scarsdale (9,426 posts)

11. "His presidential duties"??

What a JOKE! He shirked those by ignoring the coming virus disaster. Instead, he went golfing, and held rallies. One of those duties is the daily report that all other presidents read first thing each morning. tRump does not waddle into the Oval Office until noon, after a rough morning of watching Faux, getting his hair and makeup done. This presidential "job" is the best gig he, and his family ever had. Wholesale stealing from the US Treasury. He is NOT the "president", he is just a pretender who does not even try to appear competent. What a LOSER. If he really cared about this country, he would resign, blow the whistle on his butt licker Little Mikey, and let someone with BRAINS take over. Of course, the Not-So-Supreme Court will rule in his favor, since the gop stocked it with pansy assed republicans. What have they got to lose, they have jobs for life. Surely THEY could do the honest thing for once?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 03:27 PM

SkatmanRoth (843 posts)

12. Trump has lost the next election.

If his financials are examined by Congress, he will be shown for the liar he is.
If the SC hides his financials the voters will know what he is hiding is so serious he should be in jail, not the White House.

Either way, Trump is hosed by this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SkatmanRoth (Reply #12)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:09 PM

former9thward (23,521 posts)

23. Both the NY IRS and federal IRS have had his tax records and financial records for decades.

If there are crimes there why has there never been any action?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #23)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:15 PM

SkatmanRoth (843 posts)

24. Because he followed IRS law, but he is not telling us about his Russian connections

He owes money to loans from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China. That is a risk to National Security - and he is hiding it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 03:38 PM

NotHardly (777 posts)

13. HEY... if the rule of law is out for an office holder, it is out for the rest of us too

Good for the goose, good for the gander. Equality under the law and we all get an "Olie Olie Oxen Free" if this supposed Supreme Court gives it away to #45... all bets are off thereafter and any criminal charges brought by any LEO agency gets a good dose of "...so, to whom do the laws apply if they don't apply to all?"... let them play with that fight for the next 25 years and see how it tastes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 03:50 PM

ffr (19,910 posts)

14. We need Joe Biden to replace these justices with justices, not political appointees.

Get everyone you know registered as a democrat.

and

GOTV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ffr (Reply #14)

Tue May 12, 2020, 06:46 PM

Star Member KPN (11,822 posts)

33. And how would he do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ffr (Reply #14)

Tue May 12, 2020, 09:57 PM

Polybius (6,062 posts)

35. Sure, if they retire

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:05 PM

Star Member cstanleytech (22,216 posts)

16. Any attempt to use claims of harassment regardless of their merits are immaterial as

the Constitution does not allow it as a defense by a President to refuse to obey a lawfully issued subpoena.
If it did then President Clinton could have told the Republicans to go fuck themselves over White Water and won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:27 PM

bucolic_frolic (23,220 posts)

19. No tax records, no emoluments clause

Duh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:36 PM

Star Member lastlib (17,276 posts)

20. They're so concerned about "improper harassment" of a president....

What they should be concerned with is *improper concealment of crime" BY a president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to lastlib (Reply #20)

Tue May 12, 2020, 06:00 PM

Star Member LastLiberal in PalmSprings (11,212 posts)

31. Who determines if something is "improper harassment"? That's right -- Herr Trump!

Speaking of which, when is harassment proper?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 04:47 PM

Star Member Hulk (6,250 posts)

21. It is really discouraging to see just how political the Supreme Court is

When you have such trash as Clarence Thomas and the two new idiots appointed by the orange nut sack, it's obvious it makes no difference on the legality of anything. They are simply political hacks and serve no purpose for justice whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:32 PM

DallasNE (6,453 posts)

25. Only Looking At Political Aspects Of Subpoena

There is a law passed at the end of Tea Pot Dome that grants access to tax returns as a means of oversight over a possibly corrupt government official. How Trump handled $280,000 in hush money payments on his tax returns would look to fit this circumstance perfectly. There are also court orders on subpoenas issued as part of Whitewater that were enforced so there is also precedence. It sounds like none of that will matter as the court looks to be leaning that oversight is presidential harassment. Indeed, tax returns are things every presidential candidate has made public over the last 40 years except for Trump so how can it be considered presidential harassment. It is anything but unprecedented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to BaronChocula (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 05:45 PM

Star Member NYC Liberal (19,212 posts)

28. Seems to me that fighting a subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court

takes considerably more time and is far more "distracting" or "frustrating" than complying with it.

What does Trump even have to do to comply with a subpoena? In this case, literally nothing except give the OK for the documents to be released. That would take less time than rewriting his tweet five times to fix all the typos. It's not like they're demanding he testify for 10 hours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread

Latest Breaking News (Forum)
DU Home | Latest Threads | Greatest Threads | Forums & Groups | My Subscriptions | My Posts

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

In Memoriam

© 2001 - 2021 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.