Supreme Court Will Take Up Trump Financial Records and Tax Cases – Consolidated All Cases and Granted Writ…

Big Win For President Trump !

As we expected the Supreme Court has granted the petition for a writ of certiorari and will hear cases related to attempts to gain President Trump financial records and tax filings.

The Supreme Court has issued a stay upon all lower court action and consolidated the cases into one writ.  The court will hear arguments in March and release a ruling later in the summer of 2020.

President Trump went to the Supreme Court after the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One seeking President Trump’s tax records. In his request to the court [Read Here] Trump asked SCOTUS to block the subpoenas on the ground they go beyond the committees’ powers.

Justice Ginsburg stayed the lower court decision and ordered the House of Representatives to file a response by Wednesday, December 11.  The cases and issues were then discussed at their private SCOTUS conference.  Today’s writ is the outcome.

The underlying House case has several defects.

Attorney Ristvan previously provided a good encapsulation of the problems for the House that explains why President Trump could likely win the case:

House Oversight is one of three committees that 26USC§6103(f) requires the IRS to turn over individual returns “upon request”.

They requested (PDJT taxes for 6 years 2013-2018) long before Pelosi announced her impeachment inquiry, way before the House vote on same, to which Pelosi said Sunday, (paraphrased) “We haven’t decided to impeach. We are only inquiring about it.”

The ‘upon request’ is not as absolute as it seems. The request must still be predicated on a legitimate legislative purpose. SCOTUS has held (I skip the rulings, since previously commented on here many months ago) that there are only two valid purposes, both constrained to legislative powers expressly granted by A1§8.

1. An inquiry into making, repealing, or amending an A1§8 law.
2. Oversight of executive administration of an existing law.

With respect to (1), a legitimate legislative purpose would be reviewing real estate tax law for possible changes. BUT then, the request should have come from Ways and Means (Neal) where tax laws originate. AND, it should have included requests for tax returns from other big real estate developers also. Singling out only PDJT is a fatal defect to this purpose.

With respect to (2), after Nixon/Agnew the tax code was amended to require a special IRS audit of annual POTUS and VPOTUS returns, with the results held in the National Archive. Reviewing those special audits by IRS would be a proper Oversight and Reform legislative purpose, BUT ONLY for 2017-2018 after PDJT was inaugurated. The earlier 4 years demanded are a fatal defect to this purpose.

Both these valid points were raised by President Trump and were already on their way to SCOTUS. Now the committee is trying to ‘cure’ these fatal request defects by claiming the returns are necessary for impeachment. This raises four new issues where PDJT can also win.

1. Impeachment is not a legislative purpose within A1§8.
2. Articles of Impeachment have historically been the the province of Judiciary, NOT Oversight.
3. The demand was made BEFORE the impeachment inquiry unofficially started and cannot be retrospectively cured.
4. No tax ‘high crimes of misdemeanors’ have even been alleged. Impeachment fishing expeditions are unconstitutional.

IMO this case has the potential to set a major constitutional precedent about POTUS harassment via political impeachment. The constitutional convention minutes and Federalist #65 both make it clear why ‘maladministration’ (the original third test after treason and bribery, and which WOULD allow for political impeachment) was replaced by ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’. The phrase was borrowed from prior British law, has a specific set of meanings, and DOES NOT allow political impeachment. (link)

The quest for President Trump’s financial records is essentially a legislative fishing expedition in an attempt to gain opposition research for their Democrat candidate in the 2020 election.

This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, IRS, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, Notorious Liars, Occupy Type Moonbats, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

171 Responses to Supreme Court Will Take Up Trump Financial Records and Tax Cases – Consolidated All Cases and Granted Writ…

  1. fanbeav says:

    So Pelosi and Nadler knew this would happen and could not hold impeachment for these cases because they most likely lose. So onward with “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” was their choice.

    Liked by 24 people

    • FofBW says:

      Think about it….Since Reagan, PT is the first Republican President to till the Dems to shove it.

      They are so used to getting their way it is driving them crazy.

      Not to mention all the corruption they thought was like an annuity with H in the Presidency.

      Sorry for your loss……

      Liked by 25 people

      • mopar2016 says:

        And we sure dodged a bullet with Hillary the crooked witch.
        This will give the dems something new to cry about, while I laugh at em.


        Liked by 34 people

      • 4gypsybreeze says:

        yes! I would say that the absolute Majority of Americans have nothing but an extreme dislike of politicians.

        To have a President who actually stood up to them to the point that the politicians have to go to such lengths….well…can we say….winner-winner chicken dinner? Yup

        Liked by 9 people

      • JC says:

        Well-said, FofBW: “like an annuity with H in the Presidency.” Filthy, corrupt, entitled leftists stealing from us, our children and grandchildren.

        President Trump saw the corruption, rubbed shoulders with the perpetrators, plotted a course, fought like a gladiator to get elected, gave away his salary, turned the entire world on its axis and above all sought God. Woe unto those who would impeach this Champion of all that is good in this beautiful country. The Eagle has landed, and I am grateful beyond words.

        Liked by 11 people

    • tax2much says:

      We don’t need to be concerned with a millionaire’s taxes when he becomes a politician. We need to be concerned with politician’s taxes when they become millionaires on a government salary.

      Liked by 85 people

    • SHV says:

      “So Pelosi and Nadler knew this would happen and could not hold impeachment for these cases because they most likely lose.”
      ****
      Somewhat similar to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Stanton, et. al. played the system so that the un-Constitutional Tenure of Office Act didn’t receive judicial review and screw up the articles of impeachment.

      Like

    • TwoLaine says:

      They specifically said we can’t wait for the courts. As I said at the time, they don’t have time to obey the law.

      We don’t need no stinkin’ laws. Laws are for the Deplorables.

      Liked by 9 people

      • X XYZ says:

        “We don’t need no stinkin’…” (Fill in the blank)

        “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.” LEONA HELMSLEY, attributed, New York Times, Jul. 12, 1989.

        She had the unmitigated gall to say that before a NY jury in court. Read on…

        Harry was her husband.
        From the 1950s to the mid-1980s, Helmsley was a major player in real estate. His vast holdings included 27 hotels and 50,000 apartments and control of the Empire State Building. By the end of his life though, Helmsley was best known not as a powerful businessman, but as the senile husband of a woman who came to symbolize the greed of the 1980s. He avoided prosecution on similar tax evasion charges after a court found him incompetent to stand trial because of advanced age and declining health.
        If you are clever enough and wealthy enough you can die with your boots on and avoid jail. Harry did.
        June 10, 2011— — The richest lapdog in the world — a little white Maltese named Trouble — died at the age of 12 in her final days in luxury, every need tended to around the clock, in Sarasota, Fla. Trouble owed her coddled lifestyle to her former owner, New York Hotel heiress Leona Helmsley, who died in 2007 and turned her back on relatives to bequeath the bulk of her estate, $12 million, to her dog. Helmsley bought the beloved pet for comfort after the death of her husband, billionaire hotelier Harry Helmsley.
        A judge later knocked down the dog’s inheritance to $2 million. Though the pooch died in December, news of her demise was only reported this week. The pampered pooch had led a life of luxury after her owner purchased her at a New York City pet shop and chauffeured her around in a stretch limo. In death, Helmsley earned her nickname, the “Queen of Mean,” cutting off her grandchildren and leaving a trust fund to the cherished pet.
        Helmsley served 18 months in federal prison on tax evasion charges in the early 1990s.
        If you do go to a federal prison, it won’t be anything like Riker’s Island in NY.

        This gives capitalism a bad name. It is what creates socialists. Abuse of power and authority is what creates anarchists. Maybe it creates patriots too.

        Liked by 9 people

    • Rowdyone says:

      Per Dershowitz the Obstruction of Congress article is moot since the Supreme Court today granted review of the multiple cases against the President, including those brought by Congress, thereby affirming the Executive’s right to seek relief from Congressional overreach.

      Liked by 8 people

    • 4220ma says:

      So if the Supreme Court is taking these on then would that nullify the obuse of congress charge?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      THEY ABSOLUTELY KNEW……THEY ALL DID!

      This was specfically debated in the Rules Committee markup of HR 660
      (see discussion at 36:00)
      “expect this to go to the highest court in the land”

      Like

    • Linda K. says:

      In this article, it seems to say that the fact that the SC is holding the President’s case against Congress in review,proves Trump right, and they should drop the 2nd article of impeachment.
      https://thenationalsentinel.com/2019/12/14/dershowitz-says-supreme-court-just-scuttled-the-houses-second-impeachment-article-against-trump/

      Like

  2. Somebody's Gramma says:

    Maybe Justice Ginsburg can redeem her many decades of chipping away at our Constitutional and moral society by standing on the Law as her one last act before she retires. Her followers will be p’od because Orange Man Bad. God has a sense of humor.

    Liked by 7 people

  3. Publius2016 says:

    Supreme Court must hear this issue and rule for 45!

    If not, POtUS will be like Prime Minister which of course if unAmerican unConstitutional and INSANE!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. anoynomus says:

    excellent news!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. booger71 says:

    Next Up…….The Daft and Dubious Duo of Pencil Neck and the Penguin will draft Articles of Impeachment against the Supreme Court for Collusion with a Known Russian Agent.

    Liked by 10 people

    • Certainly, if this Bill of Attainder goes forward, thereby paving the way to remove both the popularly-elected POTUS and VPOTUS and replace them with the Congress-picked Speaker of the House, the Supreme Court will obviously be next. Any Justice who has ever made an unpopular decision will be removed, and the Speaker cum President will appoint a Party-picked replacement, which the Party-controlled Senate will immediately confirm. In this way, the “three-Branch system” and its associated “separation of powers” will be done away with: Congress will now have no obstacle to imposing what inevitably will follow – tyranny.

      Quite literally, seven ink-penned words are the only thing that stands against that:

      “No Bill of Attainder […] Shall Be Passed.” (§1.9.3)

      And, if the House passes “Articles of Impeachment” that are allowed to stand unchallenged, such that the Senate accepts them, then the precedent will be set … §1.9.3 is not in fact a part of the Constitution and the only thing remaining is to secure a majority in both Houses. (Very easily done in the age of “electronic voting machines.”) With Trump and Pence out of the way, the 2020 election will be very easy to “engineer” and the most powerful nation now on Earth could soon become a weapon of world domination. “Imagine World War III, with the United States of America as the unstoppable Aggressor.”

      Plenty of people in Germany wanted peace, too.

      Liked by 8 people

    • mopar2016 says:

      Wouldn’t surprise me a bit booger.

      Liked by 8 people

    • trapper says:

      Not funny. See my post below. Once they are done with the President, the Supreme Court and the Senate will be next.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. This final paragraph really is the key:

    IMO this case has the potential to set a major constitutional precedent about POTUS harassment via political impeachment. The constitutional convention minutes and Federalist #65 both make it clear why ‘maladministration’ (the original third test after treason and bribery, and which WOULD allow for political impeachment) was replaced by ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’. The phrase was borrowed from prior British law, has a specific set of meanings, and DOES NOT allow political impeachment.

    However, unless the SCOTUS otherwise acts much more quickly, it will by then be a moot point:

    “Look, even though the US Constitution does say that ‘no Bill of Attainder shall be passed,’ our Lawfare people got around that pesky point by the simple expedient of ‘not calling it by that name.’ So, we just went ahead and impeached the President and the Vice-President anyway, and Madame Presidente Pelosi doesn’t seem terribly concerned about ink-stains on a piece of paper in the National Archives … Long before you got around to deciding whether or not it was ‘constitutional,’ we went ahead and did it, and so now it’s ‘precedent.’ The Congress will be finalizing Articles of Impeachment against four Supreme Court Justices next week, and don’t bother to argue about it … you’re guilty. You have no rights.”

    Liked by 4 people

  7. This is good news, but I’m wary of Justice Ginsberg’s motives. Is she protecting the office of the Presidency, or is she attempting to permanently weaken it?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Perot Conservative says:

    Awesome! Don’t forget …

    http://www.recallnewsom.us

    Recall Gavin Newsom for California voters, likely a top Swamp candidate in 2024.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. fragemall says:

    2019 was great and 2020 is shaping up to be even better!

    Liked by 4 people

  10. vikingmom says:

    Fishing expedition indeed!! The massive overreach of the Left, in their all quest to overturn an election, will, hopefully, be their undoing.

    More and more people are waking up to the fact that our government is completely broken and the vast majority of our elected officials are not even slightly interested in fixing it! Every desperate attempt to “get Trump” just confirms how out of touch these people are and further increases his support among people who are not blinded by partisan hatred.

    Seeing the recent viewer numbers on CNN and MSNBC is further proof that almost no one is listening to “Fake News” anymore. What just happened in Great Britain should be a warning shot across the bow but I don’t expect the Left to back down one bit – they have to go all in on this charade because, for way too many of them, they and their families are up to their necks in the corruption and if Trump is not taken down, they may well be facing charges and they know it!

    Liked by 11 people

    • mikeyboo says:

      Which brings to mind Hilary Clinton’s reported warning:” if he is elected we will all swing from nooses.”

      Liked by 8 people

      • 1togetready says:

        Why can’t she be right, just this once?

        Liked by 6 people

        • X XYZ says:

          Read my comments above about Harry Helmsley. If Hillary is ever prosecuted she will be too old, too sick and too senile to go to prison. You can bet on that.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Jan says:

            Hey. Hey, Hey. TGP says tonight she’s had a face lift (see picture, ….she got uglier), a clear sign Hillary is running again. She can’t be too old, too sick or too senile–she got her bags below her eyes removed She thinks she’s the Dimm’s best hope.

            Like

          • cattastrophe says:

            Trump doesn’t recognize, to old, to senile or to sick to go to prison. He’s compassionate when it’s appropriate, not stupid.

            Like

            • X XYZ says:

              This is not about Trump. He’d like to see Hillary behind bars, just as much as we would. But he would not be the judge or the jury. I’m only saying that if ever she were convicted, her strategy would be one of exhibiting physical collapse and terminal decline. Then she might be nominated for an Academy Award, however.

              Like

          • X XYZ says:

            Yeah, but she does have health problems, despite her attempts during her campaign to downplay or hide them, If she were ever prosecuted she’d act like she is on death’s doorstep. Acting like you can’t remember anything also would be a prominent ruse to use.

            Like

            • sturmudgeon says:

              She has used that already.

              Like

              • sturmudgeon says:

                Congratulations to whomever posts my “replies” to comments… two in a row have appeared in correct position! (very unusual) Thanks.

                Like

              • X XYZ says:

                Unlike Slick Willy, who was a master of improvisation, Hillary has to review her LIST OF LIES every morning, before she speaks. It’s the gift that keeps on giving. It worked before, and it will work again. Tried and true.

                They are a team. Bill has his shtick, and she has hers.

                Like

  11. everywhereguyy says:

    The SC majority will follow the law and precedent, and basically leave it up to voters to decide on Orange Man Bad, which is as it should be. Roberts will not let the court get dragged into assisting this extralegal partisan political project.

    The Dems obviously decided long ago that if they ask for financial records and get them, they can find ways to get some people to think they look horrible, therefore Orange Man Bad. And if they don’t get the records, then they’ll just say obviously something horrible is being hidden, therefore Orange Man Bad. They calculated it as a win either way.

    Liked by 1 person

    • mikeyboo says:

      Republicans and Independents will see this move as just more fishing/ bullying-an attempt to distract Pres Trump from enacting his MAGA agenda. I think they confuse the cheering of their hyper partisan base with the angry rumbling thunder echoing through the rest of the country. You would think, by now, they would realize that error.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Roberts is compromised. He is being “blackmailed”. An honorable man would have resigned long ago. Can it be so bad he can not withstand that?

      Like

      • cplogics says:

        “Roberts is compromised. He is being blackmailed” – We see this all the time on this site but with zero evidence. Perhaps like Geo H.W. Bush who appointed Justice Souter to the Court, his son appointed Roberts who is in the likeness of Justice Souter – no blackmail, just a Justice with a more liberal view. If we cannot prove “blackmail”, perhaps that charge should disappear here without proper facts. Throwing crap against a wall to be quoted and misquoted on this and other sites is reckless. Let’s be factual.

        Like

        • X XYZ says:

          Agreed. Forget the “blackmail” nonsense. The Bush kings appointed Roberts to be “Mr. Conservative” Supreme Court Justice. Mr. white bread Wasp. He looks “conservative”, just like Mitt Romney does. Appearances matter. That’s history. Roberts is now Chief Justice. And he will be for a long time to come.

          So what did Justice Roberts give us? Obamacare. He could have decided otherwise and rationalized his decision, as all SC judges can, and do. But no. His whole incredibly convoluted argument was based upon “it’s only a TAX.”

          Ahh. It’s ONLY a TAX. As long as YOU, the little people have to pay it, and others in power don’t.

          Do you see where this has gone and where it will continue going?

          Welcome to what was Bush world, AKA Liberal Rebublicanism. This is what King George Bush The Elder famously pantomimed on the electoral debate stage, before he lost to Clinton – “Watch out for your wallet”. He did such a believable portrayal of miming a pickpocket, that it spooked voters away. Because they weren’t fooled by Bush The Elder. He revealed himself for who he was, and by comparison Clinton seemed more genuine than him. Sweeter, kinder, gentler… Clinton was slicker – slick as honey. Sweet as Elvis. Slick as owl shit. Slick Willie raised it to an art form.

          The Bushes are now gone (God willing). So is Marxist Obama (we hope).

          HAHAHAHA. We past presidents all escaped! You voted for us! This is YOUR problem now!

          Like

    • boogywstew says:

      When anyone mentions that Congress can’t get ahold of President Trump’s financial records I always quickly follow up with …”The IRS has them. If there was anything wrong with them, the IRS would know.” Every, single Libtard I have mentioned this to has absolutely looked stunned, like they never thought of that! It instantly quiets them!

      Liked by 4 people

      • Tl Howard says:

        I too tell them that. “The Obama IRS went after neighborhood Tea Party people, your neighbors. Think they didn’t scour Trump’s tax returns?”

        Liked by 4 people

      • cdquarles says:

        Indeed, and President Trump’s returns are *not* self prepared. He pays folk big bucks to do them *and* he gets audited every year, either by the IRS or NY state or both. Did I not see a prop made of a large stack of paper that would be comparable to the size of a single year’s return?

        Liked by 1 person

      • cattastrophe says:

        I tell libs who want Trump’s tax records this. Obama’s police state IRS looked into Trump’s tax records for eight years and found nothing untoward. That’s all I ever need to know about President Trump’s taxes.

        Liked by 1 person

        • boogywstew says:

          Even better than my line! Still … it’s been absolutely stunning that the mention of the IRS having President Trump’s tax records all along has caused these libtards to immediately clam up. I just don’t think they EVER considered that. I haven’t gotten even one “But ….” response.

          Like

  12. ALEX says:

    From my point as a layman, I could see the conservative judges making it as simple as telling Congress to pass a law that all Presidential candidates release their taxes and whatever else. If that goes to court, then so be it

    This would be a simple solution and one that would need a veto proof majority

    Like

    • ristvan says:

      Won’t work. The qualifications to be president are set forth by A2§1.5. Only a constitutional amendment can change them.
      California’s Newsom just tried that by signing Cali legislature ‘law’ requiring tax returns disclosure to appear on Cali presidential primary ballot. Was already very quickly shot down by Cali highest court on very sound grounds. Neither state nor Congressional laws can modify the Constitution. Only A5 can.

      Liked by 20 people

      • Harvey Lipschitz says:

        So California considered the The Federal Election Commission was inferior to their schemes.

        Like

      • I believe States set forth voting requirements within their jurisdiction, for their state elections. Question – “Can the U. S. Government require certain requirements be met for inclusion in an U.S. national election? Example – Hard copies of election ballots for individual districts shall be required and shall be retained for 4 years to facilitate recount activities and voter integrity concerns. Penalties – If such requirements are not met, such districts voter choices shall be included (held in “limbo” for lack of a better word”) until actual voter qualification for voting in a U.S. federal election are verified. Any States not meeting these requirements shall forfeit all say in federal/national elections, their representatives shall have no vote/no say in any U.S./Federal votes/activities until discrepancies have been resolved.

        Like

        • I have read so much today my mind is becoming overloaded. My biggest/overruling/supreme concern is election fraud in the 2020 election. That is/has been my concern since the 2018 elections. I truly believe, seats were stolen from voting citizens, and the states were complicit. All this “impeachment nonsense” is a distraction to make voters look the other way while the real motive is to “RIG” the 2020 election. The fact certain states so totally resisted any look at their voting records (Fought it all the way in the courts, tells me they are working on it). Can the U.S. set up separate polling stations for U.S. elections to meet certain requirements to vote in U.S./Federal elections?

          Liked by 3 people

          • sturmudgeon says:

            Presently, the Soros-backed-installed machines are my biggest concern. Somehow, these must be replaced before any 2020 votes are cast. Pretty sure they are what caused the fraud in 2018.

            Like

  13. Merle Marks says:

    the closer we get to the birthday of our Lord, the better the news gets…I’m actually beginning to get in the Christmas spirit despite all the other stress going on in my life…

    Liked by 5 people

  14. Landslide says:

    Turning out to be a pretty good Friday the 13th, huh?! 👍🏻🇺🇸👍🏻🇺🇸

    Liked by 11 people

  15. trapper says:

    It is now clear to me why impeachment was in Oversight, rather than Judiciary. That is consistent with what I believe this impeachment is really about. I will repeat a modified post I put up yesterday.

    In May Pelosi declared that Congress is not a coequal branch of government, but is the “superior” branch.

    “I think we’re a superior branch, quite frankly,” Pelosi said. “We have the power to make the law and the president enforces the law. So we have a big role. We’re closest to the people and we have a big role to play.”

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-claims-congress-is-a-superior-branch-of-government

    Pelosi has been setting this up for months. Impeachment is the power move to change the nature of our government, from our American congressional system with three coequal branches, to a parliamentary system with a figurehead president that reports to and is answerable to the House. Under her system Congress, and specifically the House, would be superior to the other two branches, which would be powerless to resist.

    Thus the impeachment “inquiry” was conducted in Oversight, since Pelosi and crew view the Presidency as subservient and answerable to the House. The “obstruction of congress” impeachment count seeks to remove President Trump for refusing to recognize this claimed Congressional superiority over the other two branches, by his refusing to comply with House summonses. Pelosi and crew are deliberately precipitating a constitutional crisis.

    The Supreme Court must slap this down and slap it HARD.

    Liked by 18 people

  16. Jorizabeth says:

    “Keep on believin'” Journey
    Bless you all!

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Super Elite Lt. Col. Covfefe999 says:

    I wonder if the Democrats hurt their own case. Here’s their lawsuit filed on July 2: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/As%20filed%20Complaint.pdf Emphasis is mine:

    2. Section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f), requires in mandatory terms that Treasury “shall furnish” the Committee with “any” requested tax return information. Enacted in 1924, in the wake of Congressional attempts to investigate agency wrongdoing in the Teapot Dome corruption scandal, Section 6103(f) was intended to provide the Committee with unfettered access to tax return information necessary to carry out its broad mandate to oversee Treasury, the IRS, and the Nation’s tax laws.
    […]
    4. Nothing in Section 6103(f) requires the Committee to explain to Treasury its reasons for seeking tax return information.

    Neal claims that he doesn’t need any reason at all, which is contrary to what Ristvan wrote and I have no doubt Ristvan got it right.

    Continuing in 4:

    But the Committee’s need for the materials requested here is evident. The Committee is investigating the IRS’s administration of various tax laws and policies relating to Presidential tax returns and tax law compliance by President Trump, including whether the IRS’s self-imposed policy of annually auditing the returns of sitting Presidents is working properly, even though it has not been updated in decades. Indeed, President Trump himself has repeatedly questioned the integrity of the process by which the IRS audits his tax returns, complaining that his returns are under “continuous audit” and that the IRS’s policy of annually auditing Presidential returns is “extremely unfair.” The President has also publicly theorized that the IRS audits him because of his assertedly strong Christian faith.

    5. These complaints by President Trump underscore the appropriateness of the Committee’s review of IRS audits of Presidential returns, including those of President Trump.

    Laughably weak. 🙂 They want to make sure audits are working properly? And they want to fact check Trump? Did Lawfare come up with this scheme too?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Super Elite Lt. Col. Covfefe999 says:

      Oh yah, and like impeachment let’s not forget that the Democrats have been wanting to expose Trump’s tax returns for years. And they’re on record doing it. It’s going to be hard for them to convince the Supreme Court, I think, that this isn’t personal. Didn’t someone publish one of the years of tax returns? Or got hold of it and published a summary?

      Liked by 2 people

      • 4gypsybreeze says:

        Just show the clip of Maddow salivating over the tax returns she got …and then her tears…! That really sums up the rabid attempts of the Democrat Politicians. .

        Liked by 1 person

        • Super Elite Lt. Col. Covfefe999 says:

          You’re right! It was Maddow. I just looked it up, someone got their hands on the first 2 pages of Trump’s 2005 tax return and gave her a copy. The guy who got the pages claims they turned up in his mailbox. So he’s like Julian Assange?

          Like

      • Super Elite Lt. Col. Covfefe999 says:

        February Vox article: Liberals have been wanting to get their hands on Donald Trump’s tax returns for years. Now, with Democrats holding a House majority with subpoena power, they have a real possibility of getting them.

        But they have to be careful about how they go about it.

        House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters this month that she’s aware of the “impatience” on the matter but wants to do it right. “It’s not a question of just sending a letter. You have to do it in a very careful way,” she said, according to NPR.

        Democrats are looking into an obscure 1924 law that would allow them to request Trump’s returns from the Treasury Department. Republicans and the White House are preparing for a fight, and even Democrats appear split on how aggressively to proceed. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/26/18223760/democrats-trump-tax-returns-richard-neal

        Obviously they just want their hands on the tax returns and they were trying to find some fake legitimate reason to get them. I hope whoever argues this case in front of the Supreme Court stresses this.

        Liked by 1 person

    • So what’s next? Police searches and seizures just ‘make sure things are okay’ at home?
      I swear these Lawfare types are missing a screw or two! And where do they get the chutzbah to make these arguments?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Putting On Its Shoes says:

      I wonder if Trump really even said that regarding presidential tax audits. Sounds like something he would say about him getting audited all the time prior to presidency.

      Does anyone know if this claim by congress is even accurate?

      Like

  18. Devil in the Blue Drapes says:

    “The quest for President Trump’s financial records is essentially a legislative fishing expedition in an attempt to gain opposition research for their Democrat candidate in the 2020 election”.

    So digging up dirt on a presidential nominee via legal channels is a.o.k. if you’re a dem/progressive, but asking a corrupt country to get to the bottom of the prior admins money laundering scheme of US taxpayers money is grounds for impeachment. Got it.

    Rep Karen Bass held no compunction when she stated without hesitation, should DJT win 2020, they will continue their campaign of harassment, and should the dems take control of the Senate (dream on Karen), impeachment is all but assured.

    President Trump needs to be prayerful and actively courting his successor for 2024, as these demagogic evil doers can NEVER be allowed positions of power ever again.

    Liked by 9 people

  19. Niagara Frontier says:

    It’s hard not to be suspicious of everything in and around the swamp. I’ve always believed that these returns have already been viewed and are stored on some former WH official’s flash drive.

    The tax returns now must be requested and released legally in the event the holder of the purloined materials ever get caught with them.

    Like

    • littleanniefannie says:

      You mean like in Lois Lerner’s home server? That crooked witch should have been prosecuted years ago. She is in a class with Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Holder, Hillary, Yates, et al.

      Liked by 1 person

      • littleanniefannie says:

        Might be in a bunker on Kalorama!

        Like

        • Niagara Frontier says:

          Actually that’s my guess too. TBH there are likely several copies (summaries) of these returns in circulation but at this moment are simply considered by the holders too hot to handle.

          Damn, I hate being so suspicious and distrusting, but these SOB’s have given us good reason to be that way.

          Like

  20. JImmy says:

    What is the chance that SC will allow dems to see trumps taxes (at least for few years of presidency)?

    Like

  21. JohnCasper says:

    There are many self-evident truths that have now become obvious to the American people. Read from the point of view of the People talking to the political swamp in Washington D.C.: We don’t believe you.

    You are all dishonest crooks and horrible people who should never be trusted again.
    The intelligence community is the enemy of the people and must be dismantled if any American is to ever be truly free.
    We are not going to voluntarily hand over our guns. You may come try to take them by force, but we will shoot you if you try.
    We are withdrawing our consent. You are now a rogue enemy government that we finally recognize as the ENEMY.
    We are never going to vote for establishment candidates ever again.
    We will not live as slaves, suffering under your tyranny. We would rather die as Americans, defending our liberty and our republic.
    If we ever get the chance, we will arrest all of you and throw you in prison for as long as you live.
    We will no longer cooperate with your sham court system, your corrupt FBI and your lawless federal regulators. They are all fraudulent, criminal cartels that have no legitimate authority. You have lost the consent of “the governed.”

    I’m sure you can think of dozens more, but that short list sums up the highlights.

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-12-13-truths-that-we-the-people-have-spontaneously-come-to-realize.html

    Like

  22. EggsX1 says:

    If the Supreme Court rules against POTUS, how soon until the Supreme Court justice’s tax records and their judiciary documents become subpoenaed? It could all be justified under Congress’ legislative oversight. I would insist on it because we all want to fight corruption, right? Would that argument at the case be construed as a threat?

    Congress is asking to have unilateral power to target the other two branches. I would insist the the judges address this issue. Can congress obtain a Supreme Court Justice’s tax documents via subpoena?

    Liked by 6 people

    • All Too Much says:

      If the Supreme Court rules against POTUS, how soon until the Supreme Court justice’s tax records and their judiciary documents become subpoenaed? ”

      That is why POTUS wins.
      The Court’s opinion will be a lot longer than your question, but you nailed it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • TarsTarkas says:

      Ginsberg knows this. Also forcing Trump (or any President) to automatically comply with subpoenas no matter how outrageous or irrelevant will destroy the country. She is on record opposing court-packing.
      RBG is all for supporting leftist causes, but not at the expense of destroying the rule of law.

      Liked by 3 people

  23. doofusdawg says:

    Since Roberts likes to write laws I can see him saying that congress has no rights to see his tax returns when he was not in office. Since he was out of office for twenty days in 2017 I suspect they will require all full tax years be public. So he should release his 2018 return. Not.

    Ha. Wouldn’t that be a hoot. Cause the court could also find that it applies to members of house and senate as well. Maybe they might want to reconsider their complaint.

    Liked by 3 people

  24. MNBV says:

    Once the iRS has accepted a tax return and finalised it, meaning it’s a perfectly legally and acceptable return according to the IRS, how can other bodies then get legal access to that tax return?
    It’s like Congress demanding access to someone’s medical records. Or the details of a police investigation that found there was no case to answer.

    Like

  25. Super Elite Lt. Col. Covfefe999 says:

    I’m looking at tweets about this news. The libtards are triggered. 🙂 One has threatened to riot. I guess rioting is the adult version of a temper tantrum, right?

    Liked by 3 people

  26. Putting On Its Shoes says:

    Maybe off topic for this thread, but on topic for the general coup efforts:

    So it turns out — doesn’t it? — that the Horowitz “FISA” review only ended up looking into a small fraction of the illegal and improperly predicated spying on the Trump campaign because the only FISA warrant was for Carter Page.

    But we know there was surveillance of Papadopoulos, Flynn and Manafort that was likely just as intrusive, that probably was done with “National Security Letters” and other methods, which were falsely predicated as well. It appears Horowitz didn’t get anywhere near this other surveillance, and the press/democrats (I repeat myself) are pretending this illegal spying on those people did not even occur. I am sure the FBI committed just as many or more improprieties in that spying.

    Lastly, no one has disclosed the full range of information that was obtained through the Page warrant, which would really illuminate the extent of illegal FBI activity. And no one has disclosed the full range of information scooped up in the Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulos spying,

    So the Horowitz review probably disclosed a fraction of the illegal spying done by the FBI/DOJ on the quad of Page, Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulos (and those people in the orbit of the quad). We still no nothing of the extent of this terrible abuse in the DOJ/FBI alone.

    And that still excludes everything outside of the DOJ/FBI, including the NSA, CIA, Britain, Italy, Australia, etc.

    Nor did Horowitz even review the illegal NSA database searches. Certainly Nellie and/or other Fusion people got access.

    There is still a gross covering of illegal government activity.

    Merry Christmas otherwise

    Like

    • dignity316 says:

      It’s been said that FBI agents wore wires when they were spying/ interviewing certain individuals. I’m wondering whether that included when the FBI ambushed Flynn. I have not seen it verified anywhere yet.

      Like

  27. ristvan says:

    Commented extensively earlier, but was eaten (cannot be posted) by WordPress.
    Short form. Sundance quoted my longish comment about only the House Oversight attempt at PDJT fed tax returns 2013-2018. Joining the three cases into one make things a bit more complicated legally. The NY state case asks whether a sitting president can be criminally investigated by a state—a big con law deal never before decided.

    But there are three very hopeful indicia in PDJT favor:
    1. SCOTUS did join them into one, which means they think there is an underlying unity.
    2. RBG issued one of the temporary stays. If she sees an issue, there is a big one.
    3. Oral argument is scheduled for March 2020. SC term ends in June. Very short time for a major constitutional opinion unless today’s certiorari meeting deemed it ‘simple’.

    Liked by 16 people

    • Sara c says:

      Ristvan, ‘simple’ love it…out of the weeds..decision easy. Your analytical skills are amazing

      Liked by 2 people

      • WES says:

        Sara:. Another thing combining the 3 cases into one does is shorten the timeline to reach a final decision.

        Especially for 2 of the cases which would normally have found their way to SCOTUS via appeals through the various layers of the federal court system. This process was effectively short circuited.

        Maybe SCOTUS will deal with all 3 cases with just one ruling? Maybe all 3 cases violate the same part(s) of US Constitution? Guess we will find out next summer.

        Like

    • livefreeordieguy says:

      Three great points, Ristvan… Thanks… A bit off topic, but doesn’t it seem like the RBG stay and the willingness of SCOTUS to take up this case vs. Congressional committee demands kind of kill the ‘Obstruction of Congress’ (less the Senate, I guess) Article that they voted on today? Same concept, different issue? Or am I confused?

      Like

    • BruceC says:

      Rud (and Sundance), you may be interested in what Alan Dershowitz had to say about this SC ruling;

      Alan Dershowitz: Look, the most important development happened TODAY! The Supreme Court of the United States absolutely pulled the rug out of part two of the impeachment referral by granting certiorari, by granting review in a case where Trump challenged a congressional subpoena! And the Supreme Court said we’re going to hear this case!… Think of what that message is – It’s Trump was right!

      Liked by 1 person

  28. OCBill says:

    I’m sure we can count on John Roberts this time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ristvan says:

      Only my opinion, but think Roberts is a great CJ. His four part Obamacare opinion was sheer legal brilliance in all four parts, even if one did not like the part 3 result. And part four will echo bigly into the future.
      CJ need to be in the ‘middle’ in order to rally max votes on all issues. CJ Roberts is there.

      Liked by 5 people

      • X XYZ says:

        Since you think Roberts is so great, here is something for others here to consider.

        Roberts was appointed, not elected, as all SC judges are. He can never be removed from office (unless he commits a heinous crime, perhaps. That’s not likely.)

        His decision on Obamacare was that it is only a tax, but one for which millions for Americans have had to pay dearly, and still continue to pay. Obamacare hinged entirely upon HIS sole decision, and that IS his record.

        If you like Roberts, you love taxes. The Bushes who appointed him did, too.

        Since you love taxes so much and admire Chief Justice Roberts so much, I wish you would put your money where your mouth is and pay the taxes he burdened upon us, the middle and working class taxpayers, AKA the “little people”.

        Don’t bother to argue with what I’ve stated. Just put your money where your mouth is, get out your checkbook, and write each of us “little people” a check. Your “great CJ” Roberts certainly won’t do it.

        Like

    • MDNA I says:

      This one looks a little easier. You got the resident Treehouse Counsel opinion & a lawyer friend of mine (he’s passed the bar, he says I’m a ‘natural’, but I can’t claim professional training or credentials) reviewed previous possts on these cases & he agreed. All 3 of the big cases – McGhan supboena, Mueller 6(e), & financial records – are stronger on POTUS side than the opposing

      Liked by 1 person

  29. TwoLaine says:

    CONGRATULATIONS Jay Sekulow & Team!!!!!

    Liked by 2 people

  30. luke says:

    Hey guys I’m gonna repeat this here and other places. We want justice right? Heads on a platter right? Yada yada right?…..the best way to get immediate gratification (NOW) is politic for the release of Michael Flynn. Let Durham and Barr take their time; no worries. But Flynn needs to be released NOW. The media cannot cover that acquittal up no matter how hard they try.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. ChampagneReady says:

    They had no choice. To leave this in limbo and not establish case law would have opened up a Pandora’s box of vigilante congressional abuse and baseless revenge-motivated reasons to get anybody’s tax returns.

    Trump is going to win again. Even more, he preserved future presidencies.

    Liked by 3 people

  32. 2Alpha says:

    Patiently waiting…

    Liked by 3 people

  33. Doug Amos says:

    Thinking somewhere in all of this President Trump is looking for a way to track the billions in foreign aid that ended up in the bank accounts of criminal politicians. When you have giants like Templeton Growth with dirty hands in the Ukraine it cannot all be hidden. Guaranteed that is what keeps Schiff and Pelosi up all night. They just cannot hide that much $.

    Liked by 3 people

  34. bessie2003 says:

    Isn’t there another lawsuit that was put into the system, the one where the House was demanding the Executive Branch honor their subpoenas, which seems the House is using as the reasoning in their “Obstruction of Congress” charge in the impeachment documents?

    If that case could be moved in front of the Supreme Court say, by Monday, and the Court put a time to hear the arguments on that – would that cause the impeachment vote in the House to be put on hold until the Court determines whether that is even a crime when the Executive Branch doesn’t cow-tow to a House request for documents and witnesses that normally would fall under Executive Privilege?

    Liked by 1 person

  35. TwoLaine says:

    Pastor Jeffress explains why we are WINNING, tonight on Lou Dobbs.

    Liked by 3 people

  36. ezgoer says:

    Sotomayor and Kagan are complete ideologues who will rule for political motives no matter what the law is. But I have hopes that Breyer and Ginsburg may actually uphold the Constitution separation of powers. Who knows where Roberts is on anything these days.

    Like

    • California Joe says:

      I don’t think that Robert’s is going to give authority to every country district attorney in the country to sign a one page subpoena to get a President’s financial and tax returns!

      Liked by 1 person

  37. AccountabilityPlease says:

    As Alan Dershowitz said on Hannity tonight, this SCOTUS ruling effectively throws the “obstruction of Congress” charge into the trash bin. Ginsburg stay demonstrates that the Executive Branch is under no obligation to immediately jump through hoops simply because Congress says so. On the contrary, it is the role of the judiciary to mediate disputes between the other two branches of government. If Nancy Pelosi and her miserable band of leftist lunatics can’t wait for the courts to render an opinion, that isn’t Donald J. Trump’s problem.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Jerry Joe says:

    In the event POTUS finds himself with a SCOTUS appointment between now and day of argument, Justice Kavanaugh will find he had a cake walk onto the bench.

    Clint Eastwood’s Ben Shockley from The Gauntlet keeps coming to mind…

    Like

    • Trump Train says:

      While there are no slam dunks this one should be an easy win. One thing to also consider is as said before this is a major Precedent setting ruling when it comes down.

      This has to play into it and legacy for the current justices. It’s far more consequential than the incorrect Failbama care ruling where Roberts made up a tax out of thin air.

      It also can come back and bite them in the ass. The second ia the dvomsare in record as hostile to any SC justice that rules in favor of the Constitution over their expectation

      Like

  39. Alan McIntire says:

    This looks like an open and shut case- a violation of the fourth amendment:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    So not only are the Democrats opposed to the first and second amendments, but also the fourth amendment. Is there ANYTHING in the Bill of Rights which Democrats actually support”

    Like

  40. demosthenes60 says:

    Can the executive branch file a motion with SCOTUS to dismiss an article of impeachment,obstruction of Congress as unconstitutional,There is substantial case law that demonstrates that the article is a straight up violation of separation of powers.

    Like

  41. demosthenes60 says:

    Can the executive branch file a motion with SCOTUS to dismiss an article of impeachment,obstruction of Congress as unconstitutional,There is substantial case law that demonstrates that the article is a straight up violation of separation of powers.

    Like

  42. demosthenes60 says:

    Can the executive branch file a motion with SCOTUS to dismiss an article of impeachment,obstruction of Congress as unconstitutional,There is substantial case law that demonstrates that the article is a straight up violation of separation of powers.

    Like

  43. demosthenes60 says:

    Can the executive branch file a motion with SCOTUS to dismiss an article of impeachment,obstruction of Congress as unconstitutional,There is substantial case law that demonstrates that the article is a straight up violation of separation of powers.

    Like

  44. demosthenes60 says:

    Can the executive branch file a motion with SCOTUS to dismiss an article of impeachment,obstruction of Congress as unconstitutional,There is substantial case law that demonstrates that the article is a straight up violation of separation of powers.

    Like

  45. Sherri Young says:

    Does anyone have any insight into the case that appears immediately above this one on the docket, USAID, et al v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, et al. That looks like “US State Dept Dark Money Piggybank v. George Soros, et al. If so, discovery could be a huge stinkin’ deal.

    Hoping, and just WOW!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s