Trumpers were wrong Congress has Trumps financial records

[Riders]

2 of the banks Wells Fargo and TD handed Democrats the papers financial papers the the ones the judge voted against Trumps block last week, they are handed over now Congress has them.

What the deal is according to this video is that they can not share the findings with the public until Trump goes through the appeals but they are putting expedite on the court appeals.

This is what I said would happen and you Republicans have been shouting em down saying Trump will not have to hand over the financial records to Congress untill the appeals have gone through AHA! Your were proven wrong HAHAHA!WHEW we got the papers!

Wells Fargo, TD Bank have already given Trump-related financial documents to Congress

 

[Mindmaster]

But... he didn't hand them over...

So, whatever they got, we could argue they got illegally unless there is an active criminal investigation. There isn't... This is going to be a lot of fun in the supreme court, I can't wait.

 

[Twilight Hue]

2 of the banks Wells Fargo and TD handed Democrats the papers financial papers the the ones the judge voted against Trumps block last week, they are handed over now Congress has them.

What the deal is according to this video is that they can not share the findings with the public until Trump goes through the appeals but they are putting expedite on the court appeals.

This is what I said would happen and you Republicans have been shouting em down saying Trump will not have to hand over the financial records to Congress untill the appeals have gone through AHA! Your were proven wrong HAHAHA!WHEW we got the papers!

Wells Fargo, TD Bank have already given Trump-related financial documents to Congress

Well then. Maybe they can go back to doing something you know, like doing their jobs?

 

[Twilight Hue]

But... he didn't hand them over...

So, whatever they got, we could argue they got illegally unless there is an active criminal investigation. There isn't... This is going to be a lot of fun in the supreme court, I can't wait.

Got in a new supply of popcorn!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So, whatever they got, we could argue they got illegally unless there is an active criminal investigation. There isn't... This is going to be a lot of fun in the supreme court, I can't wait.

There doesn't have to be a criminal investigation in the Department of Justice in order for Congress to subpoena documents. The only requirement is that there be a congressional investigation. The Constitution gives Congress subpoena power.

 

[Mindmaster]

There doesn't have to be a criminal investigation in the Department of Justice in order for Congress to subpoena documents. The only requirement is that there be a congressional investigation. The Constitution gives Congress subpoena power.

Yes, in regard to what investigation?

No matter how you cook it up, it just looks like the Democrats are abusing their power.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, in regard to what investigation?

No matter how you cook it up, it just looks like the Democrats are abusing their power.

Just giving socialist Democrats power is abuse.

 

[fantome profane]

Well then. Maybe they can go back to doing something you know, like doing their jobs?

They are not the one who just had a hissy fit and said he would not do his job until they stopped being mean to him.

 

[sun rise]

Well then. Maybe they can go back to doing something you know, like doing their jobs?

Which is what they're doing, of course. But to some, their 'jobs' is kissing his butt.

The House has passed bill after bill which the Senate is ignoring. Why not tell McConnell to do his job instead of saying "no no no no no no" which is his stock in trade.

 

[Riders]

But... he didn't hand them over...

So, whatever they got, we could argue they got illegally unless there is an active criminal investigation. There isn't... This is going to be a lot of fun in the supreme court, I can't wait.

Uh then your saying the judge did it illegally, The judge ordered them to hand it over, they would have to break the law not to do it, this is an order from a judge.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yes, in regard to what investigation?

No matter how you cook it up, it just looks like the Democrats are abusing their power.

You should look back at the Clinton years to refresh your memory.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just giving socialist Democrats power is abuse.

Please look up the definition of "socialism."

And as I recall, the Democrats were given power in the House by the electors of the United States of America, in what we still presume was a democratic election. So, are you saying that the actual democracy that gave that result is "an abuse?"

 

[Twilight Hue]

Please look up the definition of "socialism."

And as I recall, the Democrats were given power in the House by the electors of the United States of America, in what we still presume was a democratic election. So, are you saying that the actual democracy that gave that result is "an abuse?"

Electing a party to restrict and regulate and control people's freedoms, entrenchment through consolidation of power, attack the Constitution, deny the Bill of Rights, and perform coup attempts sounds a lot like an abuse to me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You should look back at the Clinton years to refresh your memory.

Yes he did not have sex with that woman, and the cigar was not a Havana.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Electing a party to restrict and regulate and control people's freedoms, entrenchment through consolidation of power, attack the Constitution, deny the Bill of Rights, and perform coup attempts sounds a lot like an abuse to me.

Soooo.... you’re suggesting that we should arrest all Republican voters?
While that would halt their abuse of power, it just goes against your normal theme.

But wait! Maybe if more states allow felons to vote, then Republicans will be allowed to abuse power once again.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Electing a party to restrict and regulate and control people's freedoms, entrenchment through consolidation of power, attack the Constitution, deny the Bill of Rights, and perform coup attempts sounds a lot like an abuse to me.

Every party does all of those things, all of the time. Every law ever written either restricts or regulates freedoms...you can't do this, you must do that. The only differences are in what freedoms are targeted, too often built on unshared religious or ideological grounds not shared with those whose freedoms are being restricted or regulated.

No political party, anywhere, ever made deliberate attempts, once they had the power to do so, to deconsolidate their power. That has only ever been accomplished by revolution or independent judicial action.

Attack the Constitution is a favourite game for everyone, only they don't call it "attack," they call it "interpret." Why else do you think conservative states are passing restrictive abortion bills? It's all about getting it back in front of SCOTUS, where they want Roe v. Wade discarded. (Which, by the way, was adopted by a previous SCOTUS, also using the Constitution as its guiding principle.)

And if I recall, it was a Republican house that impeached Clinton, later acquitted by trial in the Senate. Was that not just as much a "coup attempt?"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes he did not have sex with that woman, and the cigar was not a Havana.

You want sexual purity in your Presidents? Have you got it in your current President?

 

[Wandering Monk]

So the Dems have gone from accusations of collusion (fail) to obstruction (yet to be litigated) to some kind of financial irregularities. Based on what information?

 

[icehorse]

Just giving socialist Democrats power is abuse.

Well done! A strawman and an ad hominem in one sentence!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So the Dems have gone from accusations of collusion (fail) to obstruction (yet to be litigated) to some kind of financial irregularities. Based on what information?

As I understand it, much is based on the information in the Mueller report itself. I think it really important to remember that Mueller, while dismissing the Russian collusion, made it quite clear that there was evidence of obstruction sufficient to indict...except that policy says indict anybody EXCEPT the sitting President. The report describes 10 episodes where Trump could potentially have obstructed justice while president, and one before he was elected, noting he privately tried to "control the investigation" in multiple ways, but mostly failed to influence it because his subordinates or associates refused to carry out his instructions. The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice, as Congress has the authority to take action against a president.

And there you have it...that's just what Congress is trying to do, using the authority granted it by the Constitution, and the evidence accumulated by the Mueller probe.

So why not let Congress do what Congress is supposed to do?