Connect with us

Published

on

In two 7-2 opinions issued Thursday, the Supreme Court led again by Chief Justice John Roberts, determined that President Donald Trump is not immune from subpoenas requesting access to his tax returns from before he won the White House, but did not immediately hand over the financial documents to either New York City’s District Attorney or House Democrats, sending both requests back to lower courts for further litigation.

The Manhattan District Attorney had “subpoenaed Trump’s records as part of a criminal investigation into potential wrongdoing by the president and his organization. Multiple House committees had subpoenaed Trump’s records ostensibly as part of an effort at oversight and to inform potential legislation,” Fox News reported.

In both cases, though, the Supreme Court declined to simply force Trump to hand over the documents, instead remanding both cases to lower courts to review again in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump does not enjoy immunity from investigation for potential incidents that occurred before he was president.

Both of President Trump’s Supreme Court appointees, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with the decision but wrote their own concurring opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Fox News noted that “[t]he court limited its ruling and the arguments before it to whether Trump has ‘absolute immunity,” as well as to whether “state prosecutors are required to show a ‘heightened need’ in order to obtain documents as part of investigations into a president.”

“President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

In the second case, determining whether the House Democrats could seek Trump’s financial records, Roberts noted that the case touches on preserving the House’s subpoena power but balanced against the Constitutional separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches.

“Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could ‘exert an imperious control’ over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the Framers feared,” he wrote.

That said, though, Roberts added that when “Congress seeks information ‘needed for intelligent legislative action,’ it ‘unquestionably’ remains ‘the duty of all citizens to cooperate.’” Investigations into the president, though, “implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers,” he said, suggesting, per Fox, that lower courts had not adequately analyzed the Congressional investigation’s impact on the office of the president.

To that end, both cases — the Manhattan DA’s and the Congressional case — were referred back to lower courts where both parties will be able to make new and renewed arguments. Ultimately, the timeline benefits President Trump and the Trump re-election campaign, who were concerned that a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court would put Trump’s tax returns at the center of the 2020 presidential election.

Thursday’s ruling will likely keep the issue in the courts for at least several more months.

Advertisement
6 Comments
6 Comments
Intellectual Impaler July 10, 2020
| | |
I hope the Democrats realize that they opened up a Pandora's box. Like they usually do when they force an issue first. They love the term precedence. They have now set a precedent if the lower court rules allow this then any Democrat office holder will be screwed.
Fred July 9, 2020
| | |
If the members of multiple House committees need Trump’s records as part of an effort a to inform potential legislation, the members are clearly incompetent. The records from an single individual cannot possibly inform members of all potential issues with respect to conflict of interest. The members must be removed from office. If the claim for needing the records to inform potential legislation was merely a ruse, then the members must be removed from office due to ethical violations, and prosecuted for perjury during the course of making intentionally inaccurate statements during legal proceedings. The result is the same, immediate removal from office. That said, the public would like to review all tax and financial records of several members of congress, specifically concerning financial transactions made to benefit from the emergence of COVID0-19 prompted by receipt of information not available to the public. Prosecutions may be appropriate.
Mike July 9, 2020
| | |
We should look at the tax records of the Supreme Court members.
Fran July 9, 2020
| | |
Even the Supreme Court is corrupt.
CF

News

Nikki Haley Breaks with Trump: ‘We Shouldn’t Have Followed Him, and We Shouldn’t Have Listened to Him’

Published

on

Nikki Haley, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, believes that former President Donald Trump “let us down.”

Haley’s remarks come as the former president’s legal team prepares to present its defense of Trump during his second impeachment trial in the Senate.

In a Politico interview published Friday, Haley, former South Carolina governor, said that “we shouldn’t have followed” Trump.

“We need to acknowledge he let us down,” she said in an extensive profile. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

She also told the outlet that she has not spoken to Trump since the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, and takes issue with his remarks condemning former Vice President Mike Pence’s refusal to reject the Electoral College vote.

“When I tell you I’m angry, it’s an understatement,” she expressed. “I am so disappointed in the fact that [despite] the loyalty and friendship he had with Mike Pence, that he would do that to him. Like, I’m disgusted by it.”

The former ambassador, who many people are speculating may run for the White House in 2024, also added that Trump will never accept the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“There’s nothing that you’re ever going to do that’s going to make him feel like he legitimately lost the election,” she explained. “He’s got a big bully pulpit. He should be responsible with it.”

Haley also warned that many people still love the former president and will not stop supporting him just because he is out of office.

“I know how much people love Donald Trump,” she admitted. “I know it. I feel it. Whether it’s an RNC room or social media or talking to donors, I can tell you that the love they have for him is still very strong. That’s not going to just fall to the wayside. Nor do I think the Republican Party is going to go back to the way it was before Donald Trump. I don’t think it should.”

Haley added that people, instead, should “take the good that he built, leave the bad that he did, and get back to a place where we can be a good, valuable, effective party.”

“[I]t’s bigger than the party,” she insisted. “I hope our country can come together and figure out how we pull this back.”

Referring to Haley’s possible 2024 ambitions, Politico’s Tim Alberta wrote, “Since last fall, I’ve spent nearly six hours talking with Haley on-the-record. I’ve also spoken with nearly 70 people who know her: friends, associates, donors, staffers, former colleagues. From those conversations, two things are clear. First, Nikki Haley is going to run for president in 2024. Second, she doesn’t know which Nikki Haley will be on the ballot.”

Haley also said that she didn’t believe Trump had a chance of winning in a 2024 election scenario.

“I don’t think he can,” she admitted. “He’s fallen so far.”

“I think his business is suffering at this point,” she added. “I think he’s lost any sort of political viability he was going to have. I think he’s lost his social media, which meant the world to him. I mean, I think he’s lost the things that really could have kept him moving.”

Continue Reading

News

WATCH: Trump’s Defense Team Absolutely Ruins Democrats With 13 Minute Montage of “Fight” Word Like Trump Did

Published

on

The Democrats demonized President Trump for using the word ‘fight’. Trump’s attorneys responded today with a collage of clips from each of the Democrats in the room using the word ‘fight’.

This portion of today’s events on Capitol Hill was excellent. The Democrats claim that because President Trump used the word ‘fight’ in his speech on January 6th in Washington D.C. However, what every Democrat in that room forgot was that they too had used the word previously in political speech.

The montage went on for 13 minutes. (The video montage starts at 7:10 timeframe.)

Continue Reading

News

WATCH: Trump Attorneys Destroy House Managers on Lying to American Public and Using Manipulated Tweet as Evidence

Published

on

President Trump’s defense team took the floor of the US Senate on Friday in defense of President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial.

Trump Attorney David Schoen absolutely destroyed the House Managers when he took to the floor of the US Senate.

At one point Schoen played video of the Democrat lawmakers lying about a Trump tweet.

House Impeachment Manager Eric Swalwell gave a riveting performance on Wednesday reading off Trump’s tweets with emotional appeal.

During this theatrical performance, Swalwell read off a Trump retweet by Jennifer Lynn Lawrence.

But there was one problem with the tweet. It was photoshopped.

Jennifer Lynn Lawrence has never been verified by Twitter. Democrats faked that to make it look more important.

On Friday Trump Attorney David Schoen destroyed Democrats for lying about this to the American public.

WATCH:

Continue Reading

News

White House Suspends Deputy Press Secretary For Allegedly Sexually Harassing, Threatening Reporter

Published

on

The White House announced on Friday that it was suspending Deputy Press Secretary TJ Ducklo after a report surfaced alleging that he sexually harassed and threatened a female reporter who was getting ready to publish a report revealing that he was dating a reporter who had previously been tasked with covering Democrat Joe Biden.

“The confrontation began on Inauguration Day, January 20, after [Politico reporter Tara] Palmeri, a coauthor of Politico’s Playbook, contacted [Axios political reporter Alexi] McCammond for comment while one of her male colleagues left a message for Ducklo,” Vanity Fair reported. “Ducklo subsequently called a Playbook editor to object to the story, but was told to call the Playbook reporters with his concerns. But instead of calling the male reporter who initially contacted him, Ducklo tried to intimidate Palmeri by phone in an effort to kill the story. ‘I will destroy you,’ Ducklo told her, according to the sources, adding that he would ruin her reputation if she published it.”

“During the off-the-record call, Ducklo made derogatory and misogynistic comments, accusing Palmeri of only reporting on his relationship—which, due to the ethics questions that factor into the relationship between a journalist and White House official, falls under the purview of her reporting beat—because she was ‘jealous’ that an unidentified man in the past had ‘wanted to f***’ McCammond ‘and not you,’” the report added. “Ducklo also accused Palmeri of being ‘jealous’ of his relationship with McCammond.”

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said following the report that Ducklo has been suspended for a week over the incident.

“TJ Ducklo has apologized to the reporter, with whom he had a heated conversation about his personal life,” Psaki wrote on Twitter. “He is the first to acknowledge this is not the standard of behavior set out by the President.”

“In addition to his initial apology, he has sent the reporter a personal note expressing his profound regret,” she continued. “With the approval of the White House Chief of Staff, he has been placed on a one-week suspension without pay. In addition, when he returns, he will no longer be assigned to work with any reporters at Politico.”

Reporters called out the administration over the incident, highlighting how the Trump administration did not treat reporters that way as well as issues with the timeline of events with regard to the White House taking action to address the incident.

“The Vanity Fair piece indicates that Politico editors reached to the WH after the incident first occurred and the WH acknowledged it was inappropriate,” Spectator editor Amber Athey wrote on Twitter. “But they clearly didn’t have any interest in disciplining Ducklo until his behavior was made public.”

New York Magazine reporter Olivia Nuzzi wrote on Twitter: “I covered Donald Trump for 6 years. It is saying something that this behavior — from a Biden official — shocks me.”

Grabien founder Tom Elliott highlighted the following remarks that Biden made a few weeks ago: “If you’re ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot, on the spot. No if, ands, or buts. Everybody — everybody is entitled to be treated with decency & dignity.”

CNN anchor Jake Tapper responded to the quote, writing: “Standards that are not upheld are not standards. They’re lies.”

Continue Reading

Trending Today