The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

Politics & Elections
5021

I think Lance Turbo gave you a good explanation, but I’m going to disagree a little bit on who “owns” the rights to tax returns and why it is different for Trump:

One of the most common mistakes I see a lot of people make when looking at these many investigations into Trump and his alleged misdeeds is that he enjoys the same rights and protections as a private citizen. He does not. He is a public servant. As such, he forfeits many rights he may enjoy solely as a private citizen.

As a private citizen, you have a right to expect your tax returns will be kept private except in very limited, specific circumstances. For example, courts at the state level frequently order tax records disclosed in domestic cases so parties can examine income for purposes of determining spousal and/or child support.

But if you think about it, you will likely identify many situations where public servants must forfeit their individual privacy rights. Every time a public servant undergoes a background check, a lie detector test, a check of their credit – and yes, a check of their tax records, they have agreed to undergo such examination in exchange for the privilege of serving the public good. They have also agreed to carry out the laws of the land – irrespective of whether they privately agree with those laws.

When your oath requires you to defend and protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to faithfully uphold the laws of the land as they are written, you’re agreeing that The People have the right to check up on you to ensure you’re carrying out your oath if they believe they have cause.

I will add that the Fourth Amendment is generally construed to mean a protection against an illegal search or seizure. There’s nothing illegal about this search. It’s enshrined in law as an exception for the purposes of oversight.

If you think that the Founders intended for a public servant holding the most powerful office in the land is automatically exempt from oversight because he is claiming rights to which he is forfeit as a private citizen, I’d gently remind you that the Constitution as a whole was written to explicitly prevent this sort of authoritarianism.

Trump is not a private citizen. It’s a mistake to view his position otherwise.

5022

More:

5023

The is false. The SCOTUS does NOT have to agree to take any case, let alone this one.

5024

Rex Tillerson tells Judy Woodruff:

5025

Besides what Lance Turbo said, it should also be pointed out that the 4th Amendment doesn’t read, “There’s no way to look in anyone’s stuff! Never and no how!”

The 4th gives a basic guideline to what they’re looking for in terms of making sure that everything is fair and that people aren’t looking at stuff without due cause and safety procedures. If you’re following those guidelines, you’re completely safe.

So even if we assumed that the President’s tax information was protected by the 4th, Congress would simply issue a warrant based on an affirmed statement that it needed looking at. They already have that via Michael Cohen.

But, more importantly, the President is not a citizen (even if he was previously).

Soldiers, for example, go up under the military code of justice. They don’t implicitly have freedom of speech.

Officers of the government are not citizens. Or, alternately, they are citizens who - as able minded adults - entered into an agreement to live by a different set of rules. They relinquished their every day rights.

It is not secret that, if you become a President, then the head of the Finance Committee can simply ask to see your tax returns. It’s not secret that, if you are a member of the Federal government, you are not allowed to participate in political campaigns or endorse candidates unless you are the President or VP. And it’s not secret that Congress gets to decide what the rules are for officers of the government - including the President.

5026

Did you finish reading the post you replied to?

5027

To build on what steronz wrote,

My underline. If the court doesn’t take the case, the lower ruling stands.

~Max

5028

This probably goes without saying, but if you go to Foxnews.com, it is a whole different universe from reality. Ever single story is about Hunter Biden or righteous Republicans pushing back on Democrats. It’s crazy.

5029

I’m still amazed that GOP leaders aren’t turning against the Orange Criminal in droves. Yet prediction markets still think Trump will be the 2020 nominee. I’m delighted of course, hoping the GOP is crushed in the near future by the weight of its own corruption.

You under-estimate the venality of Kavanaugh, Alito and their ilk. If Scotus rules 8-1 or 9-0 in favor of upholding the law, it will only be because the scumsters knew they didn’t have 5 votes.

Of course there’s political calculation involved. Roberts may have cast the 5-4 vote to allow Obamacare to proceed simply for fear that the chaos after overriding Obamacare would have damaged GOP credibility. Perhaps the scumsters on the Court will vote against Trump not out of respect for law, but to lead the way for the GOP to recover from this nightmare.

5030

The FEC is out of commission and the Democratic candidates don’t seem to have noticed it.

Usually, the polls would give you a sense of who is going to win since that’s a pretty direct correlation to voting.

But if one side plans to cheat…

5031

The ruling can stand on its head for all the President cares. If you cannot physically force him to do it, all the paperwork in the world isn’t worth shit. Two years of listening to the calming noise of “Don’t worry-He won’t do that” and “Don’t worry-he can’t do that” and my favorite “Don’t worry-He is too incompetent to do that”, and knowing that he will, he can, and no one will get in his way in any significant way.

5032

They can. That is why people testifying before Congress sometimes assert their 5th Amendment right not to answer. If the answer could be incriminating, and the person does not have immunity (or some other way of being safe from prosecution) then the person cannot be compelled to answer.

Last I heard earlier today, Trump tweeted that he was seriously considering testifying.

The subpoenas are directed to his accountants, who possess the financial records being sought. Trump can intervene to make his arguments that they should not comply, but it won’t be up to Trump, if they are ordered released. It’s one thing for Trump to thumb his nose at Congressional subpoenas, but quite another for an accounting firm to ignore a court order. According to CNBC, the accounting firm, Mazars USA, has said they will comply if ordered to turn the records over.

5033

Strange that all those making damning accounts of Trump’s actions are willing to do so under oath, while all those making excuses are not.

5034

I, for one, recalled this Far Side cartoon. It is especially appropriate that the victim has been colorized to a big, orange, tomcat.

5035

I’m sure that I’ve said this before somewhere but what worries me the most is the thought that someone as crooked as Trump with some level, any level, of competence could be sitting in the WH. If its this hard to impeach/remove/vote out of office such a buffoon, what hope is there for the future of our country? Its depressing.

5036

They said the same thing about the previous court that took the case.

5037

FWIW I blame political parties. Nowhere in the creation of our government, constitution, etc., are political parties enshrined. However, once born, they have served to hold sway over law, policy, and certainly practice. This is one glaring example.

5038

Bolding mine.

There are two problems with your description of why congress can be allowed to request the tax records. First, I don’t see anywhere that any cause was given to review them. I totally agree that if Congress has cause, as sworn under oath, they have the right. Or at least the chairman of the committee does.

The previous answer, that the tax records aren’t Trump’s, is better because then no cause is needed. The tax records aren’t Trump’s and his rights aren’t being violated.

This is the second problem. The 4th amendment says no such thing. It says people are guarded against unreasonable search and seizure. Nothing about legality is mentioned. Legislatures can and have passed laws making certain searches and seizures legal. Then the Supreme Court steps in and says, “Nope. It runs afoul of the 4th amendment.” This law, as far as I know, has never been tested. The Supreme Court will determine if it is constitutional or not. Just because it was passed doesn’t mean much until it is tested. There are those who are saying the law, as written, has limits. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide that. It is not an argument without merit. However, if those records are not Trump’s, then all of this become moot and I really, really hope that is the way this goes.

That is a huge extrapolation from the question I asked. Do not assign motivations to my questions that you are making up in your head. Where in my question did I ask, or even imply, in any way, shape or form that this was a question of Congress having general oversight of the President? Of course they do. But that oversight is not unlimited.

I loathe Trump. I hope this succeeds because Congress needs to assert some control over a president out of control. But this also needs to succeed on its merits, not just because I don’t like Trump.

5039

Nunes has virtually no questions for the witnesses except who they told about their concerns, as he is trying to out the whistleblower, and whether they leaked to the press. Other than that, he’s just harping on the Bidens and on conspiracy theories.

Biden conspiracy theories, even if proven to be 100% true, would not in the least exonerate Trump from the wrongdoings in question.

5040

What they have from Micheal Cohen is the justification for creating an affirmed statement, yes? I don’t know of any statement that was made. Do you? Did anyone say, “We want to look at his tax records because Micheal Cohen testified <x> and that strongly indicates there are violations and/or concerns about undo foreign influence on the president?” If that statement was made, then you are 100% correct and the question is answered. If not, and the request was made without a statement of justification, I’m back to my original question.

While the President is not a normal citizen, I do not believe he is subject to total invasion of his private life just because he is President.

At some point the President will be an honest, hard working, upright person. It could be a Democrat or a Republican. But either way, I do not want that President hounded by a congress out of control with unchecked ability to harass the President just because they don’t like him.