Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oh and

* Trump lost his court case trying to fight a congressional subpoena of his Deutsche Bank records. 2nd in 3 days. Just like the other case, Trump's lawyers were arguing that Congress had no right to request those records and has no authority to investigate the President. Judge found that pretty laughable, just like on Monday, and rejected the claim and refused to implement a stay pending appeal. Told Trump's team outright that their case had little likelihood of success on appeal.

* New York State passed a law that will allow Congress to request Trump's state tax records if they want them.

* I don't have an explanation for Trump's sinking poll numbers but it should be clear now that the little bounce he had in early May (delayed Mueller reaction maybe?) has sunk back down to his historical norm

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

[Jeff Buchanan]

DSL, I think you make a great point with the Nixon example.......let me make sure I've got it right. The congressional investigation that revealed criminal behavior on the part of the President himself may not have become part of the public discussion about him if not for the public disclosure of this criminal behavior revealed in those congressional investigations. It follows then that continued investigation of Trump will reveal activity, criminal or not, that will move the public needle toward impeachment.

That's fine but continued public disclosure of untoward, not necessary criminal behavior, on Trump's part discovered by the various investigative committees of congress is not likely to move the impeachment needle among the congressional leadership, in particular Nancy Pelosi, that would lead to the formulation of articles of impeachment. IOW, I think there are significant differences between the circumstance that Nixon faced compared to what Trump faces. Public opinion, even if it becomes sufficiently informed to favor impeachment, is not likely to deliver the articles needed to move forward to a Senate trial to impeach. JMO.

I think all of us discussing this know that Trump is an unsavory character. I think the approach taken by Trump and his legal team is one that takes the position that the Mueller Report, the result of the same kind of investigation congress convened in Nixon's case, did not find sufficient evidence to support a finding that the president acted criminally. Obstruction, another charge taken up by the Mueller investigation, is a federal crime. If there was no criminal activity you can't very well be charged with obstruction or attempted obstruction of congressional efforts to determine if there was or wasn't when it turns out there wasn't. I find that, given that I have no legal training at all, a completely rational position to take. Case closed. I think talent has described this better than I in one or two sentences.

OTH, According to the Watergate Investigation Report, Nixon undertook criminal activity associated with directing the Watergate burglary and became in that undertaking an un-indicted co-conspirator. Then, he criminally obstructed efforts (the cover-up) to connect him to the actions of the Watergate buglers. Slam dunk impeachable criminal offenses. That is not the case with Trump. Cooler heads in the Democratic party know this.

That there is a nearly three year investigation that revealed there were no crimes committed by Trump and yet there are continued efforts to try to dig something up, IMO, gives suitable justification for him to give Congress the middle finger. I don't like it. I think there are other ways to make his case. But that is not what Trump is going to do. We're going to have to put up with his whining and childish behavior along with the incessant and unjustified drum beat suggesting Trump should be impeached by the press feeding it.

Another tid-bit ...... from Wiki: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998

This is another factoid that the D leadership is very much aware of. If Pelosi succumbs to public pressure and proceeds with the formulation of articles of impeachment, the likelihood of obtaining a senate convection at trial is exceedingly low. So, what is the purpose when that may very well, as you say, cost D's electoral votes.

DSL, I think you too are aware of an emerging argument that involves proceeding with impeachment proceedings in the House to strengthen the hand of congressional investigators to get the documents they've been seeking that Trump has steadfastly refused to provide. There are various arguments for and against doing this. The article below is both current and pertinent. Worth a read and I think it goes straight to your point: "....... I really don't care if there's impeachable material in what Dems get from Trump's banks and tax forms. I think it should be public knowledge. It's an unofficial precedent, for Presidents to release their financials, sure, but it's a good one and Congress have every right to use its subpoena power to get them."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/10/democrats-impeachment-trump-1315838

[iam416]

I really don't care if there's impeachable material in what Dems get from Trump's banks and tax forms. I think it should be public knowledge. It's an unofficial precedent, for Presidents to release their financials, sure, but it's a good one and Congress have every right to use its subpoena power to get them.

So, you literally see no limit on what Congress can subpoena from the President. I mean, if it's not moored to some sort of criminal or other type of investigation then there is, literally, no standard and it's all fair. The only potential backstop then, is the political will of the people. Which, I'm sure you know given your posts re public opinion.

That's a defensible position, I guess. But it's not the way things have been done.

[iam416]

Speaking of polls, in a Florida Atlantic poll, PDJT beats every significant potential D nominee except Biden, and that's 50-50.

[Jeff Buchanan]

You've already heard Munchin use this phrase the other day when he testified before Congress on why he was not releasing Trump's tax returns.

Which brings us back to the president's middle finger to Congress (Pelosi and Schummer in particular) yesterday. He is declaring that if the Ds want to continue to investigate him with such investigation not having a legitimate legislative purpose and more broadly a potential violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy because none of this shit is "moored to some sort of criminal or other type of investigation" he's not going to play ball with them on the various programs Congress would like to move forward.

Can he do this? Of course. Should he do this? Well, should have Pelosi said on a hastily convened presser on her way to the WH yesterday declared that Trump is involved in a cover-up. Man, IMO, that was a really dumb thing to say although the press is saying today that she is a master of political stage craft knowing these sorts of statements are going to get under Trump's skin. To me, that kind of thing simply highlights the political nature of the ongoing and IMO unnecessary investigations that are hobbling the executive.

[Ghengis Jon]

What I find distressing is Trump's naked attempt to grab dictatorial powers. There are currently (a minimum) of 29 state and federal investigations being conducted against the Criminal-In-Chief. Let's examine only the investigation requesting Trump's taxes by first looking directly at the law:


26 USC 6103(f)1

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.


There are no exceptions. There are no requirements for invoking a request. At all. If the requested documentation can be associated to a particular taxpayer (it does) it still MUST be released but to a closed committee session. Any competent lawyer (and probably most incompetent ones as well) see there is no legal basis for challenging the request. There are no restrictions on the request. Period.


What is disturbing is that Trump has ordered his minions to defy the law of the land. In Trump's mind, the word of law doesn't matter, it's only the word of Trump. This is the mind set of a dictator who believes he is above the law. It facilitates irrational and illegal behavior based upon a false premise. It's Trump's attitude of "Fuck America and fuck the law" that should be concerning to all Americans. And equally as abhorrent is the tribal defense of this lawlessness put forth by his slack jawed, anti-American supporters.

Trump followed the law when, after losing more than a billion dollars in his failed business enterprises, used the law to not pay any federal taxes for more than a decade. Basically, be so incompetent that you lose a 10 figure amount and then use that incompetence to not pay taxes for years to come. Doesn't seem fair that the uber wealthy can be rewarded for financial idiocy, but it is the law. Trump refuses to accept that all laws apply to him, only the ones he chooses to be guided by. This is the mindset of a dictator or a criminal grifter. Trump seems content to be both.

[Dr. Strangelove]

So, you literally see no limit on what Congress can subpoena from the President. I mean, if it's not moored to some sort of criminal or other type of investigation then there is, literally, no standard and it's all fair. The only potential backstop then, is the political will of the people. Which, I'm sure you know given your posts re public opinion.

That's a defensible position, I guess. But it's not the way things have been done.

[iam416]

Right, so you have no standards. Congress can ask for anything, any time concerning any topic. I get it.

There are no requirements for invoking a request. At all. If the requested documentation can be associated to a particular taxpayer (it does) it still MUST be released but to a closed committee session

Right. Of course, we all know that without public disclosure the value of releasing his taxes to Congress is absolutely fucking zero for the Ds. ZERO. And that same statute makes illegal for any government official to disclose confidential tax returns and, yet, somehow I still think they'd get leaked.

Now, if Congress has a legitimate interest in his tax returns he should disclose them -- CONFIDENTIALLY. But let's not pretend the sky is purple, grass is blue and M is good at football. We all know that the pissant Ds would scream bloody murder if he disclosed them confidentially. MAKE THEM PUBLIC!!!! they would cry in faux outrage, invariably citing it as yet another "constitutional crisis."

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Jeff Buchanan]

To be clear, Section 6103 has a shit ton of exceptions so, no, Jon, it is not a slam dunk ....... which brings us to what talent is hinting at (I think), the whistle blower exception ALLOWING disclosure:



Is Congress going to encourage or seek out such a leaker? I doubt it but apparently it has been discussed as "novel idea" or I wouldn't have found a law article on this subject in a Google search. But, if Trump did elect to disclose his tax returns CONFIDENTIALLY, which he has the right to do under 6103, what then? Impeachment on the grounds of tax fraud if that is found on examination of those returns? Go ahead. Run down that rabbit hole.

Anyway, let's not loose sight of the bigger picture here. There is absolutely no denying that the D's have been engaged since Trump's election to the presidency in a politically motivated fight to shame him and advance their political objectives. In the process and in a dangerous period, they have severely weakened the current executive under the guise of doing their jobs to preserve their constitutional obligation to serve as an agent of checks and balances to that component of government. China, NK and Iran are laughing their asses off. Good show.

[Jeff Buchanan]

DSL ....... sure, the DC and SDNY laughed at Trump's legal defense in the matters before them. Two things: One, trump's legal team is involved in delaying tactics. Two, let's say these extramural state's investigations determine Trump's business activities were illegal. Indict the president? Nope, we've already had that discussion. Congress to prepare articles of impeachment based on those court findings? Advance to Go and collect $200....... Congress, if the political will was there, and it isn't, can do all of that without any mention of the various DAs findings.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Dr. Strangelove]

[crashcourse]

trumps finances have been under a microscope for multiple years

He is audited every year

Mueller examined every aspect he could find in an attempt to bring down trump the same way he used his power to take out manafort through his finances

you think if something was there Mueller wouldn't have mentioned it in his report

or the irs wouldn't have dug up during the Obama years