So, ‘Treasury Department shall furnish to Congress on request…’, is what… a fucking suggestion?
The only reason the courts are even involved is because the Trump is refusing to obey established laws. Apparently he is not subject to established rules/laws.
Yeah, even President Keane had to walk that one back after a few weeks.
The courts are involved because acts of Congress can be, and with some regularity are, found to be unconstitutional. It remains to be seen if this one will or won’t be.
Whenever I see a conservative talk about “important issues of executive privilege,” I actually take it as a little reminder to myself that I have not been transported into an alternate universe in which someone other than a Republican is President. Such posts are to me like how those spinning tops were used in the movie Inception.
Okay, I’ll play: Upon what grounds do you think it might plausibly be found unconstitutional? Do please note that this has in fact gone to the Supreme Court before - the ruling was 9-0 against Nixon.
Oviously you’re not aware of the more important precedent, MAGA v. Libtards/Antifa/et al, decided by all the best judges.
Seems to be just another among the many, “…extraordinary arguments”, by this administration.
I believe the arguments made were:
I. The subpoena exceeds the Committee’s statutory jurisdiction.
II. The Committee’s subpoena exceeds Congress’s Article I authority.
III. The Committee’s subpoena does not further any non-legislative task of Congress.
IV. The district court’s conception of Congress’s subpoena power has no limiting principle.
If this were a criminal trial. It is not, and it does not speak well of anyone to buy into the obfuscatory Trump spin. This is a review by the HR office to decide if the paper trail needs to be started to support firing an employee for cause. Not a criminal trial, not even a grand jury proceeding, just an investigation to find the facts.
You *do *think finding the facts is important, don’t you?
I see a lot of arguments about whether Congress has a legislative purpose (which they actually don’t need according to the statute), and stating that they don’t because they haven’t opened impeachment hearings (oops!). But nothing related to executive privilege.
Here, I’ll help you out. The purpose of executive privilege* was to allow the executive branch to deliberate about policy freely without having to watch their back every time someone comes up with a crazy idea in a brainstorming session. So The question I’m asking is what is in what way does the debts and income of Donald J Trump have on the policy deliberations at the white house. Just so you know I am fully willing to accept that the two are related and I’m sure that many many people would be interested in knowing how.
*which by the way is a phrase first used in the supreme court verdict specifically saying that it didn’t apply to an impeachment proceeding (double oops!)
I’ve had enough of this type of epiplexis. If you wish to say you think finding facts is important, feel free to do so. Framing a statement of this nature in the form of a question doesn’t transform the substance from anything but a personal comment, and often times an insult. Enough.
This is fair notice to you. I’m bookmarking this post and sending it to you via PM. If you employ this rhetorical tactic going forward to insult other posters in any thread in GD or Elections, you will be warned.
[/moderating]
Somebody has been using their ‘word of the day’ calendar. 
Only by the same idiots who think Trump did nothing wrong. And these people are lost causes whose opinions and feelings should be disregarded henceforth.
People who break the law should pay for that.