Posted on 01/22/2021 10:00:01 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
House Financial Services Committee chair Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said Friday on MSNBC’s “Live” that she will continue her congressional investigations into former President Donald Trump’s finances.
Melvin asked, “Your committee notably also subpoenaed former President Trump’s financial documents. Will the committee’s investigation into his finances continue?”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Marxist Witch will continue witchhunting.
Why not just execute the former president, his family, his confidantes, and his advisors?
Actually, just to be safe, better execute anybody who attended his rallies as well.
Nah, on further reflection, better execute anybody who voted for him in ‘16 or ‘20.
Now we’re talking! Then we’ll really be unified.
This question comes across as staged, MSNBC giving Walters a cue to announce the continuing investigation.
The dead horse gets further beatings.
I wonder if they will have the guts to subpoena President Trump now that he is a citizen. He would savage them.
It would be television of the ages. I bet it would have over a billion watching. It would probably crash the internet.
If this woman can investigate Trump’s finances, one should wonder
how much Trump could have investigated their finances.
They’re going to make sure that no rich uppity outsider ever even thinks about running for POTUS again.
I wish that woman would wear a bag! How about investigating her finances?
Commies are always cleared despite their guilt
FEC: Maxine Waters Under Investigation For $750k Wire Fraud
The FEC has launched an official investigation into claims that Rep. Maxine Waters illegally funnelled $750,000 of public money into her daughter’s bank account.
Waters broke federal campaign finance law, and also names the California Democratic State Central Committee and Sen. Kamala Harris, a likely 2020 Democratic presidential contender
https://newspunch.com/fec-maxine-waters-750k-wire-fraud/
In their world, Trump is still President
Trump was an outsider surrounded by insiders and an amateur politician playing a professional league. The treatment he received from these outsiders was disgusting. It makes me love my country less.
If I win the Lotto, or if I was Wealthy??
Wouldn’t it be fun to Buy or Rent the Home on Either Side of Maxine Waters and Others like her, just to turn it into a Rehab and Homeless Shelter.
They do not want unity.
At what point does this move from being an investigation to government sponsored harassment?
When will the gop call for her censure and an investigation into her acfions for inciting violence awhile back?
Their burning hatred for the outsider who won has increased exponentially and they are going to continue targeting him, not only as revenge against him but for anyone else who might get the idea that “any American can be President”. Ha. Not any more, peasants.
The leftist Dems sure are good at hating Americans. They just keep proving it more and more openly.
Peach
They want the kind of unity where we lie down and let them walk all over us without a complaint.
Trump is more representative of this country than Maxine waters is.
Amateur politician. What is that? A politician is to work for the people
If you think Trump cannot beat these people you are incorrect
If the dems could get away with it they would....The scary thing is,in 3-5 years it may be legal......
Watch for this Wiki page to go away pretty soon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. Bills of attainder passed in Parliament by Henry VIII on 29 January 1542 resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures.
The use of these bills by Parliament eventually fell into disfavour due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly the right to due process, the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group, and the separation of powers.
###################
Supreme Court cases
The U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated laws under the Attainder Clause on five occasions.[37]
Two of the United States Supreme Court’s first decisions on the meaning of the bill of attainder clause came after the American Civil War. In Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), the court struck down a federal law requiring attorneys practising in federal court to swear that they had not supported the rebellion. In Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1867), the Missouri Constitution required anyone seeking a professional’s license from the state to swear they had not supported the rebellion. The Supreme Court overturned the law and the constitutional provision, arguing that the people already admitted to practice were subject to penalty without judicial trial.[38] The lack of judicial trial was the critical affront to the Constitution, the Court said.[39]
Two decades later, however, the Court upheld similar laws. In Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898), a state law barred convicted felons from practising medicine. In Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889), a West Virginia state law imposed a new requirement that practising physicians had to have graduated from a licensed medical school or they would be forced to surrender their license. The Court upheld both laws because, it said, the laws were narrowly tailored to focus on an individual’s qualifications to practice medicine.[40] That was not true in Garland or Cummings.[40][41]
The Court changed its “bill of attainder test” in 1946. In United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), the Court confronted a federal law that named three people as subversive and excluded them from federal employment. Previously, the Court had held that lack of judicial trial and the narrow way in which the law rationally achieved its goals were the only tests of a bill of attainder. But the Lovett Court said that a bill of attainder 1) specifically identified the people to be punished; 2) imposed punishment; and 3) did so without benefit of judicial trial.[42][43] As all three prongs of the bill of attainder test were met in Lovett, the court held that a congressional statute that bars particular individuals from government employment qualifies as punishment prohibited by the bill of attainder clause.
The Taft–Hartley Act (enacted in 1947) sought to ban political strikes by Communist-dominated labour unions by requiring all elected labour leaders to take an oath that they were not and had never been members of the Communist Party USA, and that they did not advocate violent overthrow of the U.S. government. It also made it a crime for members of the Communist Party to serve on executive boards of labour unions. In American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950), the Supreme Court had said that the requirement for the oath was not a bill of attainder because: 1) anyone could avoid punishment by disavowing the Communist Party, and 2) it focused on a future act (overthrow of the government) and not a past one.[44] Reflecting current fears, the Court commented in Douds on approving the specific focus on Communists by noting what a threat communism was.[45] The Court had added an “escape clause” test to determining whether a law was a bill of attainder.[44]
In United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965), the Court invalidated the section of the statute that criminalized a former communist serving on a union’s executive board. Clearly, the Act had focused on past behaviour and had specified a specific class of people to be punished.[46] Many legal scholars assumed that the Brown case effectively, if not explicitly, overruled Douds.[47] The Court did not apply the punishment prong of the Douds test, leaving legal scholars confused as to whether the Court still intended it to apply.[48]
The Supreme Court emphasized the narrowness and rationality of bills of attainder in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). During the Watergate scandal, in 1974 Congress passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, which required the General Services Administration to confiscate former President Richard Nixon’s presidential papers to prevent their destruction, screen out those which contained national security and other issues which might prevent their publication, and release the remainder of the papers to the public as fast as possible.[49] The Supreme Court upheld the law in Nixon, arguing that specificity alone did not invalidate the act because the President constituted a “class of one”.[50] Thus, specificity was constitutional if it was rationally related to the class identified.[50] The Court modified its punishment test, concluding that only those laws which historically offended the bill of attainder clause were invalid.[51] The Court also found it significant that Nixon was compensated for the loss of his papers, which alleviated the punishment.[52] The Court modified the punishment prong by holding that punishment could survive scrutiny if it was rationally related to other, nonpunitive goals.[52] Finally, the Court concluded that the legislation must not be intended to punish; legislation enacted for otherwise legitimate purposes could be saved so long as punishment was a side-effect rather than the main purpose of the law.[53]
Lower court cases
A number of cases which raised the bill of attainder issue did not reach or have not reached the Supreme Court, but were considered by lower courts.
In 1990, in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act to consolidate various oil spill and oil pollution statutes into a single unified law, and to provide for a statutory regime for handling oil spill cleanup. This law was challenged as a bill of attainder by the shipping division of ExxonMobil.[54][55]
In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the Elizabeth Morgan Act as a bill of attainder.[56]
After the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution in late 2009 barring the community organising group Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) from receiving federal funding, the group sued the U.S. government.[57] Another, broader bill, the Defund ACORN Act, was enacted by Congress later that year. In March 2010, a federal district court declared the funding ban an unconstitutional bill of attainder.[58] On 13 August 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded on the grounds that only 10 percent of ACORN’s funding was federal and that did not constitute “punishment”.[59][60]
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.