The supreme court case on subpoena'a of bank records relating to the Presient

[NorrinRadd]

If Trump had nothing to hide, he'd have released this information like every other presidential candidate does.

As a general rule, congress can investigate what it feels like in its investigative committees. Something like this that would ordinarily be public knowledge before the President is elected, clearly is validly something congress can request to see if it feels like it.

It has only been "ordinary" since Tricky Dick started the stupid practice.

If SCOTUS decrees that congress can't subpoena such basic information about the President, it would be alarming as it would undo the whole concept of congress keeping the President accountable, and any repeat Nixons would walk away scot-free as they would just refuse requests for information from congress.

Congress has no business holding POTUS "accountable" for anything prior to becoming POTUS.

[NorrinRadd]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...9-715_6jfl.pdf

And I believe Kavanaugh kind of snarked that they had not been able to cite any situation in which a subpoena would NOT be legitimate for "legislative purposes," (meaning POTUS would have no protection, and "separation of powers" and "equal branches" would be myths).

[Watermelon]

And I believe Kavanaugh kind of snarked that they had not been able to cite any situation in which a subpoena would NOT be legitimate for "legislative purposes," (meaning POTUS would have no protection, and "separation of powers" and "equal branches" would be myths).

[JimL]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...-20/index.html

Source: above

Justice Sonia Sotomayor stressed that Cyrus Vance was not targeting official acts by the President.

© Copyright Original Source

They are trying to argue as well that the subpoenas will interfere with the Presidents ability to function. In other words they are arguing that it will interfere with his tweeting and watching FOX NEWS.

[JimL]

What crime are they investigating where the President's personal bank records would be relevant? Smells like another witch hunt.

If you have no idea what the subpoenas are for, then why call it a witch hunt. Programing?

[Mountain Man]

If Trump had nothing to hide, he'd have released this information...

Seriously, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, it's okay to simply not post instead of saying something really stupid.

[JimL]

Possible, and I wouldn't be surprised if true. But after four years of concerted 24/7 investigations by everyone and their brother, the very fact that they are still looking is strong evidence against it. And the odds decrease every single day that passes.

If it's one thing Trump is expert in, it's obstruction. He's been doing it his entire adult life.

[firstfloor]

As soon as King Trump is weakened; either the virus, his ineptitude or his innate lawlessness will see to it, the Republican vultures will rip him to shreds. Those he has offended have long memories.

[Starlight]

Seriously, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, it's okay to simply not post instead of saying something really stupid.

I guess your every post on this forum is evidence you don't take your own advice seriously.

[Mountain Man]

I guess your every post on this forum is evidence you don't take your own advice seriously.

Translation:"I know you are, but what am I?"

Great comeback.

[Mountain Man]

If you have no idea what the subpoenas are for, then why call it a witch hunt. Programing?

Then perhaps you can answer the question. What crime are they investigating in think Trump's private bank records are relevant?

[JimL]

Then perhaps you can answer the question. What crime are they investigating in think Trump's private bank records are relevant?

Sure, they are investigating money laundering scheme involving Trump, Deustche Bank and the Russians as revealed to the FBI by the son of Deutsche Bank executive.

[Mountain Man]

Sure, they are investigating money laundering scheme involving Trump, Deustche Bank and the Russians as revealed to the FBI by the son of Deutsche Bank executive.

Do you have a source for this? Because according to Watermelon, who is a lot more on of his game than you and who does provide a source, this is purely being done for "legislative" purposes.

[JimL]

Do you have a source for this? Because according to Watermelon, who is a lot more on of his game than you and who does provide a source, this is purely being done for "legislative" purposes.

If you knew what is meant by legislative purposes you wouldn't need to ask. What it means is that the investications into these matters are pertinent to llegislative purposes. The ethics in government act, conflict of interest laws etc. Unless the investigations are pertinent to possible legislation, which Congress argues it is, then the subpoenas wouldn't be valid. The lower courts agreed with Congress that they are pertinent, thus the appeal to the SCOTUS.

[oxmixmudd]

Do you have a source for this? Because according to Watermelon, who is a lot more on of his game than you and who does provide a source, this is purely being done for "legislative" purposes.

These are 4 random hits on a google search, I did not vet them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/b...p-kushner.html

https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/...ower-told-fbi/

https://markets.businessinsider.com/...-10-1028568906

https://www.businessinsider.com/son-...to-fbi-2019-10