Posted on 12/13/2019 1:46:21 PM PST by entropy12
The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up President Trump’s broad claims of protection from investigation, raising the prospect of a landmark election-year ruling on the limits of presidential power.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And the media purports if one is running for president, other candidates are never allowed to investigate evidence of wrong-doing. The evidence is on video by Joe Biden bragging about how he got the prosecutor fired in 6 hours by using the leverage of $1 Billion foreign aid to Ukraine.
Apparently brilliant minds think alike. I posted my response before I read down thread saw your response.
Sounds like the timing is perfect to release findings of the investigation of U1 and the Clinton Foundation. If charges were pending, use of executive privilege covering the time that she was in office might also be covered by this ruling.
“Brilliant”... maybe not so much on my part, but I’m willing to accept that observation until I make a bone-head response.
The big question on this is how far-reaching the Court is willing to go. This could reign in the Legislative branch quite severely. I think the abuse is so blatant and obvious even Chief Justice Roberts may be hard pressed to side with the minority (if there even is one).
That’s why they’re running the worst of it through Congress which has no such restriction.
They’re really pissed (Bezos) that Amazon didn’t get the cloud deal they were do to get from the Obozos people.
He should negotiate a contract with those that want to see his returns, that they must disclose both their income from all sources, as well as what they paid in taxes.
They’ll drop that quick.
Maybe I don’t understand the article, but I don’t see winning here — yet. Maybe later, depending on how SCOTUS rules ...?
Maybe I don’t understand the article, but I don’t see winning here — yet. Maybe later, depending on how SCOTUS rules ...?
I think the argument here though is about other concepts, like the one that the courts are the arbitrators of this stuff - which in-effect slams the Obstruction of Congress charge yet again.
Thanks entropy12.
I agree with your take on it.
Judges are pretty vindictive if they think you have lied to them.
It’s simply unfathomable that the FISA Court judge hasn’t hauled the FBI agents butts back into court to answer for their actions.
If you or I pulled this nonsense, we’d face year behind bars.
I agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Why you should never talk to the police. May God bless America.
Please Mr. President, take the 5th Amendment!
“This President has been HARASSED more than any in the last 50+ years. “
He’s not one of them. He’s not a pedophile or a pedophile supporter. That’s why they hate him so much.
They also want the financial records of Billy Bob Newberry, a 200 cattle spread in Wyoming, with one 1989 Ford pickup truck, one backhoe tractor, and his wife has a 12 year old SUV. Billy Bob’s crime is he and his family for the past 100 years has voted for America and freedom. They hate him for it and thus want to drag him down and ruin him financially for his voting record. (You, me and all here can change Billy Bob’s name and insert ours and our background in the blocks above. Because we are like Billy Bob. The left hates us. Tough knockers you leftists.)
“I don’t trust John Roberts.”
Great point. I only thing I trust about him is that he will make the wrong decision at the right time. Some of the twisted “logic” he uses is actually taught in law schools today.
They are so desperate to find something on him.
He should agree to release his records when every dem and liberal that’s demanding it releases theirs.
Bookmark.
I think the problem for President Trump is that presidential candidates for decades have submitted their tax returns for several years. When I ran for political office I had to list various things, including real estate I owned, which I would have preferred to not declare to the world for fear of vandalism, etc.
Candidates have voluntarily submitted returns, but there is no requirement the returns are disclosed.
IIRC, the only disclosure is a financial statement which shows assets within a range. If there was an underlying criminal probe, that would be a different matter, but just disclosure so Dems can look for political advantage is exactly the same conduct they are trying to impeach him for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.