Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why not invoke executive privilege?? Trump tax return story

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The state of New York is going to allow Congress access to Trump's state tax forms, should they decide to request them.

    along with the actions this week by various courts upholding Congressional subpoenas it's beginning to look like the dam is starting to break on the cover up.
    __________________________________________________

    Is This Thing On?

    https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Crazyfoo View Post
      WGAF anyway? Trump could release his tax returns that showed he cheated and lied on his taxes and all his fans would turn a blind eye anyway and continue to make excuses for the pos-in-chief. He is a garbage human being.
      Why don’t you stop beating around the bush and tell us how you really feel Foo. Lol

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post



        And why do you think the Trump team is using their current line of defense rather than invoking executive privilege?
        Hey, back to the OP!

        I speculate that Donald has been told by more than one lawyer that his executive priv thing won't hold up in court in the long run. Executive priv is his final backstop. The nuclear option.

        Because Donald is now saying he can't work with Dems as long as he's under investigation, he's basically brought his presidency to a halt. The investigations are not going to stop, so this is pretty much it for the guy. Personally I don't care if he gets charged with a crime or impeached or whatever. Trump has been a non-stop disaster for the country and if he is now in a stalemate, that's fine with me. We're going to have to deal with the next year and a half and then we can get back to having sane adults in place in the government.

        Zip
        665 - Neighbor of the Beast

        Originally Posted by RobRoy: I believe that the only way Obama will remain in power is if he suspends elections. And at that point he is no longer president. He is dictator. But I don't believe he will even survive that long. It could be suicide, impeachment by BOTH parties, you name it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
          This is so much fun! I can't wait 'till November of 2020.
          You can tell a lot about a person by what they think is funny.

          Zip
          665 - Neighbor of the Beast

          Originally Posted by RobRoy: I believe that the only way Obama will remain in power is if he suspends elections. And at that point he is no longer president. He is dictator. But I don't believe he will even survive that long. It could be suicide, impeachment by BOTH parties, you name it.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

            I’ll give you a full response tomorrow. For right now, let me just ask: Do I recall correctly that you’ve said a few times that Mueller works for Barr and that what Barr says is the final word, superseding Mueller’s words??
            Yes. After he's done and reports, which is what happened.

            Mueller gives his report to the AG because that's who appointed him. After that, it's in the AG's hands to interpret, take action on, or disseminate as appropriate.

            Are you suggesting Mueller was influenced by Barr in his investigation?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Zipperhead View Post

              Hey, back to the OP!

              I speculate that Donald has been told by more than one lawyer that his executive priv thing won't hold up in court in the long run. Executive priv is his final backstop. The nuclear option.

              Because Donald is now saying he can't work with Dems as long as he's under investigation, he's basically brought his presidency to a halt. The investigations are not going to stop, so this is pretty much it for the guy. Personally I don't care if he gets charged with a crime or impeached or whatever. Trump has been a non-stop disaster for the country and if he is now in a stalemate, that's fine with me. We're going to have to deal with the next year and a half and then we can get back to having sane adults in place in the government.

              Zip
              Trump's whole schtick revolves around playing the victim. That he will grind the government to a halt and blame the Dems for it? Par for the course.

              And the 32% will be cheering him along the entire way. The Fox News bubble he lives in will validate everything he says and does.

              His gambit is he believes it will be enough to carry him to re-election.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

                Yes. After he's done and reports, which is what happened.

                Mueller gives his report to the AG because that's who appointed him. After that, it's in the AG's hands to interpret, take action on, or disseminate as appropriate.

                Are you suggesting Mueller was influenced by Barr in his investigation?
                I'm not saying that Mueller was influenced during his investigation. Instead, you and I both agree that the dissemination of Mueller's findings is controlled by Barr. Barr controlled what people first heard about the report, and most people haven't bothered to read the report. I wonder if you, like others, did not read a substantial portion of Mueller's report and instead just trusted trusted Barr's four-page statement. Barr controlled the redactions in the report (and two judges have now ordered that redactions regarding Stone and Manafort be removed). Barr has been allowed to speak publicly, whereas Mueller has not, and Trump was able to order a witness not to speak this week.

                Given the amount of control Trump and Barr have had, and given that they are both members of the executive branch, it is clear that the special counsel was NOT independent of the executive branch. Investigation by Congress IS independent of the executive branch; it is a separate power. Hence I made my comment about separation of powers. Mueller was not a separate power; Congress is.

                You agree that Mueller was not independent of presidential appointee Barr. Thus I don't understand how you would state that the special counsel is independent. While Mueller was independent of a political party, he was not independent of the executive branch. The separation of powers in the constitution provides the House the power to impeach (not to convict, but to do all of the work that could lead to conviction in the Senate). The founders did not say that impeachment must be done in a bipartisan or non-partisan manner. Investigation by the non-partisan special counsel and investigation by the House serve two different purposes.

                As for Obama's appointed judges: Barr too is a presidential appointment. These appointments by different presidents serve as checks on each other. The framers knew that different presidents would appoint different judges and that the lifetime judges would likely serve as checks on the power of presidents from a different party. If you are OK with Trump's judicial appointments serving as a check on Democrats in congress, then it would make sense to be OK with Obama's appointments serving as a check on Republicans.

                As for whether or not Mueller saw Trump's tax returns: We have no idea. Since Mueller is subject to the executive branch and did not have exactly the same subpoena power as the separate legislative branch, Mueller may have been denied access to Trump's financial records. Whereas the legislative branch, being separate from the executive, can appeal to the judicial branch, someone within the executive branch must follow orders (as you yourself have described) and thus doesn't have the same right to appeal to the judicial branch. OR it is possible that Mueller saw all of Trump's financial records and saw absolutely no problems, OR it is possible that he saw issues that were suspicious but were not related to whether Trump conspired with Russia in 2016, in which case those suspicions may have been sent to the SDNY. We simply don't know. (Though, today's news that the SDNY is indicting a Chicago banker for bribing Manafort in 2016 was one of the cases Mueller referred out to other prosecutors.)

                Anywho, it should be clear that Mueller was not independent from Trump. It should be really obvious that the investigative powers and independence of the special counsel are different from those of the legislative branch. Therefore, the new Democrat House is NOT conducting a straight-up re-do of Mueller's work.
                For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                My (old dead) band!:
                www.steelphantoms.com/
                PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

                  Yes. After he's done and reports, which is what happened.

                  Mueller gives his report to the AG because that's who appointed him. After that, it's in the AG's hands to interpret, take action on, or disseminate as appropriate.

                  Are you suggesting Mueller was influenced by Barr in his investigation?
                  Another reply:

                  The FBI opened an investigation into Benghazi shortly after the attack. Republicans in Congress investigated the attack and Clinton's response as well. These were two slightly different investigations (as are Mueller's and the House Dems' investigations) about the same overall topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invest...enghazi_attack

                  Similarly, the FBI investigated Clinton's email server issue, and Congress investigated it as well. Once again, these were two different investigations from two different branches of the government, each with different powers and overseers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillar...il_controversy

                  Did you complain about the series of investigations by different branches then?
                  For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                  https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                  My (old dead) band!:
                  www.steelphantoms.com/
                  PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

                    I'm not saying that Mueller was influenced during his investigation. Instead, you and I both agree that the dissemination of Mueller's findings is controlled by Barr. Barr controlled what people first heard about the report, and most people haven't bothered to read the report. I wonder if you, like others, did not read a substantial portion of Mueller's report and instead just trusted trusted Barr's four-page statement. Barr controlled the redactions in the report (and two judges have now ordered that redactions regarding Stone and Manafort be removed). Barr has been allowed to speak publicly, whereas Mueller has not, and Trump was able to order a witness not to speak this week.

                    Given the amount of control Trump and Barr have had, and given that they are both members of the executive branch, it is clear that the special counsel was NOT independent of the executive branch. Investigation by Congress IS independent of the executive branch; it is a separate power. Hence I made my comment about separation of powers. Mueller was not a separate power; Congress is.

                    You agree that Mueller was not independent of presidential appointee Barr. Thus I don't understand how you would state that the special counsel is independent. While Mueller was independent of a political party, he was not independent of the executive branch. The separation of powers in the constitution provides the House the power to impeach (not to convict, but to do all of the work that could lead to conviction in the Senate). The founders did not say that impeachment must be done in a bipartisan or non-partisan manner. Investigation by the non-partisan special counsel and investigation by the House serve two different purposes.

                    As for Obama's appointed judges: Barr too is a presidential appointment. These appointments by different presidents serve as checks on each other. The framers knew that different presidents would appoint different judges and that the lifetime judges would likely serve as checks on the power of presidents from a different party. If you are OK with Trump's judicial appointments serving as a check on Democrats in congress, then it would make sense to be OK with Obama's appointments serving as a check on Republicans.

                    As for whether or not Mueller saw Trump's tax returns: We have no idea. Since Mueller is subject to the executive branch and did not have exactly the same subpoena power as the separate legislative branch, Mueller may have been denied access to Trump's financial records. Whereas the legislative branch, being separate from the executive, can appeal to the judicial branch, someone within the executive branch must follow orders (as you yourself have described) and thus doesn't have the same right to appeal to the judicial branch. OR it is possible that Mueller saw all of Trump's financial records and saw absolutely no problems, OR it is possible that he saw issues that were suspicious but were not related to whether Trump conspired with Russia in 2016, in which case those suspicions may have been sent to the SDNY. We simply don't know. (Though, today's news that the SDNY is indicting a Chicago banker for bribing Manafort in 2016 was one of the cases Mueller referred out to other prosecutors.)

                    Anywho, it should be clear that Mueller was not independent from Trump. It should be really obvious that the investigative powers and independence of the special counsel are different from those of the legislative branch. Therefore, the new Democrat House is NOT conducting a straight-up re-do of Mueller's work.
                    Boy you live in another world...

                    Mueller was more than independent from Trump et al as is the charter of a special counsel. Otherwise, Rosenstien could've just directed the FBI to investigate who would've been under the influence of Trump.

                    For 2 1/2 years democrats salivated at the prospect of Mueller investigating the president. To suggest now that the Mueller's actual report didn't turn out the way the dems wanted because Mueller was a Trump shill is not just nutty...it's TDS in its purest form.

                    The whole meltdown over Barr's summary is especially entertaining since it was 100% accurate. AND the entire report was made available just 3 weeks after anyway. Like someone said...it's like complaining about the movie trailer 3 weeks after the whole movie is out.

                    Mueller indicted at least 2 people over their tax returns so it's obvious they had access to IRS files is it not?

                    Go ahead and pin your hopes on SDNY, although I caution you that you can only disappoint yourself so many times before depression sets in.






                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

                      Another reply:

                      The FBI opened an investigation into Benghazi shortly after the attack. Republicans in Congress investigated the attack and Clinton's response as well. These were two slightly different investigations (as are Mueller's and the House Dems' investigations) about the same overall topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invest...enghazi_attack

                      Similarly, the FBI investigated Clinton's email server issue, and Congress investigated it as well. Once again, these were two different investigations from two different branches of the government, each with different powers and overseers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillar...il_controversy

                      Did you complain about the series of investigations by different branches then?
                      And now we an independent attorney looking into how the Trump collusion fantasy began. Don't forget that.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Zipperhead View Post

                        Hey, back to the OP!

                        I speculate that Donald has been told by more than one lawyer that his executive priv thing won't hold up in court in the long run. Executive priv is his final backstop. The nuclear option.

                        Because Donald is now saying he can't work with Dems as long as he's under investigation, he's basically brought his presidency to a halt. The investigations are not going to stop, so this is pretty much it for the guy. Personally I don't care if he gets charged with a crime or impeached or whatever. Trump has been a non-stop disaster for the country and if he is now in a stalemate, that's fine with me. We're going to have to deal with the next year and a half and then we can get back to having sane adults in place in the government.

                        Zip
                        That makes sense. It was curious to see that the IRS draft opinion in the OP said executive privilege would be the only option, but you're right that Trump may have heard differently--or that he is saving it for later (a nuclear option).

                        As for him halting his own presidency, yep, it does seem idiotic. Though, I suspect that it will turn out like the government shutdown. He may "call his own bluff" and get back to signing bills. On the other hand though, with two different parties holding the two different chambers of Congress, the legislative branch may be at a stalemate itself.

                        I would really like to see Democrats campaign on the fact that they have passed bills in the House, that they have drafted legislative proposals for the president, and explain the specifics to the voters. Otherwise, voters will just hear non-stop that Democrats have done nothing but investigate; that is a lie, but it is a convincing lie to a lot of people.
                        For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                        https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                        My (old dead) band!:
                        www.steelphantoms.com/
                        PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

                          Boy you live in another world...

                          Mueller was more than independent from Trump et al as is the charter of a special counsel. Otherwise, Rosenstien could've just directed the FBI to investigate who would've been under the influence of Trump.

                          For 2 1/2 years democrats salivated at the prospect of Mueller investigating the president. To suggest now that the Mueller's actual report didn't turn out the way the dems wanted because Mueller was a Trump shill is not just nutty...it's TDS in its purest form.

                          The whole meltdown over Barr's summary is especially entertaining since it was 100% accurate. AND the entire report was made available just 3 weeks after anyway. Like someone said...it's like complaining about the movie trailer 3 weeks after the whole movie is out.

                          Mueller indicted at least 2 people over their tax returns so it's obvious they had access to IRS files is it not?

                          Go ahead and pin your hopes on SDNY, although I caution you that you can only disappoint yourself so many times before depression sets in.





                          I never said Mueller was a "Trump shill." I'm saying that he and his report are not independent of the executive branch. Don't jump to extremes. Instead, recall your middle school education about separation of powers.

                          Via Barr, Trump has been able to say "complete exoneration" and "no obstruction," and people believe it. Do you believe that Mueller's report found no evidence of obstruction and/or that Mueller's report exonerated Trump on that front?

                          ...How many pages of the report have you read?
                          Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-23-2019, 10:31 AM.
                          For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                          https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                          My (old dead) band!:
                          www.steelphantoms.com/
                          PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

                            And now we an independent attorney looking into how the Trump collusion fantasy began. Don't forget that.
                            That's fine. Do you recall how often I've said, "investigate 'em, and if wrongdoing is found, fustigate 'em"??
                            For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                            https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                            My (old dead) band!:
                            www.steelphantoms.com/
                            PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

                              I'm not saying that Mueller was influenced during his investigation. Instead, you and I both agree that the dissemination of Mueller's findings is controlled by Barr. Barr controlled what people first heard about the report, and most people haven't bothered to read the report. I wonder if you, like others, did not read a substantial portion of Mueller's report and instead just trusted trusted Barr's four-page statement. Barr controlled the redactions in the report (and two judges have now ordered that redactions regarding Stone and Manafort be removed). Barr has been allowed to speak publicly, whereas Mueller has not, and Trump was able to order a witness not to speak this week.

                              Given the amount of control Trump and Barr have had, and given that they are both members of the executive branch, it is clear that the special counsel was NOT independent of the executive branch. Investigation by Congress IS independent of the executive branch; it is a separate power. Hence I made my comment about separation of powers. Mueller was not a separate power; Congress is.

                              You agree that Mueller was not independent of presidential appointee Barr. Thus I don't understand how you would state that the special counsel is independent. While Mueller was independent of a political party, he was not independent of the executive branch. The separation of powers in the constitution provides the House the power to impeach (not to convict, but to do all of the work that could lead to conviction in the Senate). The founders did not say that impeachment must be done in a bipartisan or non-partisan manner. Investigation by the non-partisan special counsel and investigation by the House serve two different purposes.

                              As for Obama's appointed judges: Barr too is a presidential appointment. These appointments by different presidents serve as checks on each other. The framers knew that different presidents would appoint different judges and that the lifetime judges would likely serve as checks on the power of presidents from a different party. If you are OK with Trump's judicial appointments serving as a check on Democrats in congress, then it would make sense to be OK with Obama's appointments serving as a check on Republicans.

                              As for whether or not Mueller saw Trump's tax returns: We have no idea. Since Mueller is subject to the executive branch and did not have exactly the same subpoena power as the separate legislative branch, Mueller may have been denied access to Trump's financial records. Whereas the legislative branch, being separate from the executive, can appeal to the judicial branch, someone within the executive branch must follow orders (as you yourself have described) and thus doesn't have the same right to appeal to the judicial branch. OR it is possible that Mueller saw all of Trump's financial records and saw absolutely no problems, OR it is possible that he saw issues that were suspicious but were not related to whether Trump conspired with Russia in 2016, in which case those suspicions may have been sent to the SDNY. We simply don't know. (Though, today's news that the SDNY is indicting a Chicago banker for bribing Manafort in 2016 was one of the cases Mueller referred out to other prosecutors.)

                              Anywho, it should be clear that Mueller was not independent from Trump. It should be really obvious that the investigative powers and independence of the special counsel are different from those of the legislative branch. Therefore, the new Democrat House is NOT conducting a straight-up re-do of Mueller's work.
                              Good post.

                              But it will no doubt fall onto deaf ears. They have all been armed with the talking points of "it's over!" and "wanting a re-do!" from the conservative media and they'll just cover their ears and close their eyes are scream it as loudly as they can.

                              which is what it is. The world will turn and the congress will do what they feel is best regardless of the howling from the rightees.


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Why not invoke executive privilege?
                                Perhaps because tax returns don't fit the two areas that executive privilege is intended for:
                                https://www.propublica.org/article/t...ivilege-claim#

                                Legal challenges have established two general categories of executive privilege: presidential communications and deliberative process.

                                The presidential communications privilege applies to communications involving the president or his staff that immediately pertain to the president's decision-making process. The idea, according to Mark Rozell, a professor at George Mason University, and author of a book on executive privilege, is that "the president should have the right to candid advice without fear of public disclosure."

                                Deliberative process involves a broader scope of executive branch activity: discussions involving White House staff or within other agencies on legal or policy decisions that don't necessarily involve the president or his immediate advisers. Again, the argument is that government officials need to feel like they can talk honestly.

                                George Washington was the man who never told a lie. Richard Nixon was the man who never told the truth. Donald Trump is the man who doesn't know the difference.
                                Venezuela is what happens when you have Trump without the Madison.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X