8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

9 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

in the context of and referring to the stay they argued for and were granted was it not a win?

Because stays on cases like this are not routinely granted? Pretty close to saying every time you draw a breath it's a victory over death. Winning!

Edited 8 hours ago by bristolboy

 

dont know % stays granted 0n such cases. legal cases can be drawn out, take many turns. i did not say getting the stay means a win or loss of the case, just winning the stay petition.

 

really a very simple concept. some posters berate trumps intellect yet are unable to grasp simple concepts.

 

sometimes i feel like a kindergarten teacher here.

 

breathing as a victory over death is an imbecilic analogy.

43 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

dont know % stays granted 0n such cases. legal cases can be drawn out, take many turns. i did not say getting the stay means a win or loss of the case, just winning the stay petition.

 

really a very simple concept. some posters berate trumps intellect yet are unable to grasp simple concepts.

 

sometimes i feel like a kindergarten teacher here.

 

in the context of and referring to the stay they argued for and were granted was it not a win?.

 

breathing as a victory over death is an imbecilic analogy.

Maybe you should learn whether stays in this kind of case are routine or not before calling it a win. And calling a stay a win after a judge decides strongly against your position is akin to that old joke: "Apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln"

 

"breathing as a victory over death is an imbecilic analogy."

And calling something "imbecilic" or something similar is not the same as demonstrating it's so. This is a concept that even kindergarteners should be able to grasp; even more so kindergarten teachers.

Edited October 11, 20196 yr by bristolboy

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

 

The Court of Appeal has ruled against Trump.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/11/appeals-court-rejects-trump-appeal-of-subpoena-for-tax-returns.html

 

I guess the speed of the decision was a win for Trump on the grounds it reduced the cost of his legal fees.

43 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Court of Appeal has ruled against Trump.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/11/appeals-court-rejects-trump-appeal-of-subpoena-for-tax-returns.html

 

I guess the speed of the decision was a win for Trump on the grounds it reduced the cost of his legal fees.

Next stop SCOTUS?

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Maybe you should learn whether stays in this kind of case are routine or not before calling it a win. And calling a stay a win after a judge decides strongly against your position is akin to that old joke: "Apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln"

 

"breathing as a victory over death is an imbecilic analogy."

And calling something "imbecilic" or something similar is not the same as demonstrating it's so. This is a concept that even kindergarteners should be able to grasp; even more so kindergarten teachers.

 

your dilemma stems from "connecting dots"

53 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Next stop SCOTUS?

Maybe, but it goes like this:

 

Step 1, does the SCOTUS accept the case? - by no means certain.

 

Step 2, if SCOTUS does accept the case how does it rule? - I wouldn’t bet on the SCOTUS ruling against Congress having the means to conduct its Constitutional duties.

 

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

Just ask Cambridge Analytica

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Maybe, but it goes like this:

 

Step 1, does the SCOTUS accept the case? - by no means certain.

 

Step 2, if SCOTUS does accept the case how does it rule? - I wouldn’t bet on the SCOTUS ruling against Congress having the means to conduct its Constitutional duties.

 

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

 

 

Nothing to do with Congress, it is simply New York prosecutors doing their job and investigating.

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Nothing to do with Congress, it is simply New York prosecutors doing their job and investigating.

I stand corrected.

On 10/8/2019 at 11:12 AM, Bluespunk said:

One of many misleading statements made by him

'misleading statements'??? Give me a break. Call a spade a spade, ...one of many LIES told by him.

On 10/8/2019 at 10:47 AM, webfact said:

"The counterargument is that the Constitution would prohibit it because it would infringe on the president's ability to govern the country."

Off to the Supreme Court where the Constitution is admired!

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

Off to the Supreme Court where the Constitution is admired!

Tell us, which part of the Constitution says the President is above the law?

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Maybe, but it goes like this:

 

Step 1, does the SCOTUS accept the case? - by no means certain.

 

Step 2, if SCOTUS does accept the case how does it rule? - I wouldn’t bet on the SCOTUS ruling against Congress having the means to conduct its Constitutional duties.

 

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

 

 

 

Step 3. Five alarm fire at Mazars record storage facility in the Bronx.

 

 

On 10/8/2019 at 7:43 PM, chokrai said:

Why didn't the IRS take action against him then?  

The IRS only has jurisdiction over things that are against the tax code. Making hush money payments to women you had sex with to keep them quiet while you're in an election campaign is not a violation of tax rules, however it could be an offence under Federal Election Law.

 

There are various things that could be in Trump's tax returns that would not be tax code violations but could infringe different legal statutes - violations of the emoluments clause, for instance. There could also be information in his tax returns that show Trump lied about his assets to mislead investors or lenders - again that's not something that would concern the IRS but would still have legal implications.

In related news...

 

DEUTSCHE BANK MIGHT HAVE DESTROYED PHYSICAL COPIES OF TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS, CLEANSED SERVERS, CLAIMS FORMER EXECUTIVE: REPORT

 

A former Deutsche Bank executive who reviewed President Donald Trump's tax returns reportedly said it is "not normal" that the institution no longer holds copies of those records.

 

Trump for many years relied on Deutsche Bank for loans to sustain his real estate business when many other institutions would not lend to him because of his rocky financial history.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tax-returns-deutsche-bank-servers-copies-1464576

 

 

15 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

DEUTSCHE BANK MIGHT HAVE DESTROYED PHYSICAL COPIES OF TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS, CLEANSED SERVERS, CLAIMS FORMER EXECUTIVE: REPORT

 

damn, they pulled a "hillary" ?

24 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

DEUTSCHE BANK MIGHT HAVE DESTROYED PHYSICAL COPIES OF TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS, CLEANSED SERVERS, CLAIMS FORMER EXECUTIVE: REPORT

 

 

A former Deutsche Bank executive who reviewed President Donald Trump's tax returns reportedly said it is "not normal" that the institution no longer holds copies of those records.

Wow, one of the dirtiest, most unscrupulous banks on the planet. Makes me wonder what they're worried about in those records that they don't want seeing the light of day.

16 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

damn, they pulled a "hillary" ?

Do you want to know if the president has acted illegally?

 

or do you put trump ahead of country?

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Do you want to know if the president has acted illegally?

 

or do you put trump ahead of country?

God forbid anyone should let reality get in the way of what they want to believe. ????

Edited October 13, 20196 yr by GalaxyMan

On 10/10/2019 at 6:06 PM, observer90210 said:

Do not mean to spoil the party , but would this judge behaved the same say if it was an Obama or a Clinton being required to submit tax returns ?

Obama and Clinton released their tax returns voluntarily, so there would be no need for a judge to get involved - which is the whole point.

 

Trump is the only president or major party presidential nominee since 1976 not to voluntarily release any tax returns. Which as others have said, begs the question of why he has not released them - especially when he had promised over and over to do so (yet another example of him persistently lying). 

On 10/10/2019 at 6:06 PM, observer90210 said:

We all know that many former presidents have used their notoriety and charge tens of thousands of dollars for giving conferences, once they leave office. Not to mention the royalties on books published,  with facts and elements obtained only thanks to their previous top post in office. Is that legal ? Ethical ? nobody seems to challenge it ?

Of course it's legal. So long as they don't reveal anything classified. As for ethical, well that depends on the moral code of the person making that judgement. I do think that the organisations that pay vast sums of money to such people are stupid, and probably aren't getting their money's worth but that doesn't make it necessarily unethical.

Edited October 13, 20196 yr by GroveHillWanderer

2 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

damn, they pulled a "hillary" ?

But but Hillary...

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

3 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

damn, they pulled a "hillary" ?

Do you want to know if the president has acted illegally?

 

or do you put trump ahead of country?

 

my comment was comic relief.

 

i was hoping the russia  gate investigation would have found impeachable offences after x number of years and x million of taxpayers dollars(i am a taxpayer) but instead no criminal collusion and a mr mueller that learned the most about the report with his name on it during his testimony. not to mention looking like they dragged him out of the ICU for the day.

 

sure looks like they are stalking trump

2 hours ago, GalaxyMan said:

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Do you want to know if the president has acted illegally?

 

or do you put trump ahead of country?

God forbid anyone should let reality get in the way of what they want to believe. ????

 

agree with you words but good luck finding reality on this thread, this forum.

3 hours ago, GalaxyMan said:

4 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

DEUTSCHE BANK MIGHT HAVE DESTROYED PHYSICAL COPIES OF TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS, CLEANSED SERVERS, CLAIMS FORMER EXECUTIVE: REPORT

 

 

A former Deutsche Bank executive who reviewed President Donald Trump's tax returns reportedly said it is "not normal" that the institution no longer holds copies of those records.

Wow, one of the dirtiest, most unscrupulous banks on the planet. Makes me wonder what they're worried about in those records that they don't want seeing the light of day.

 

might you kindly post a list of ethical, clean, honest, moral banks.

31 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

might you kindly post a list of ethical, clean, honest, moral banks.

Might you kindly stop with the diversions?

45 minutes ago, Becker said:

1 hour ago, atyclb said:

 

might you kindly post a list of ethical, clean, honest, moral banks.

Might you kindly stop with the diversions?

 

i was making a point not a diversion

19 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

i was making a point not a diversion

So is your point that of all the banks in the world there is no difference between them wrt ethics, "cleanliness', honesty and morality?

Those Foreign Business Ties? The Trump Sons Have Plenty Too

 

"Last month, the Trump family business received approval from a local government in Scotland for a major expansion of its golf resort near Aberdeen, marking the largest real estate development financed by the Trump Organization since the 2016 election.

In August, President Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr., flew to Jakarta to help kick-start sales at a pair of Trump-branded luxury resorts planned for Indonesia. He appeared at a private event with wealthy prospective buyers and joined his politically connected billionaire Indonesian business partner at a news conference.

And last year, Donald Jr. visited India to sell condos at future Trump-branded towers, appearing at an event that also featured India’s prime minister."