Accountants Must Turn Over Trump’s Financial Records, Lower-Court Judge Rules

[peek-a-boo]

@Vali

Go ■■■■ yourself, Fat Donald.

And in the in end isn’t that exactly what this has always been about. Nothing to do with oversight and everything to do with revenge politics.

[WuWei]

Ouch…

[WuWei]

You got poned.

[kermode]

He was born in India, which makes him an Indian.
Trump has filed previous lawsuits against Indian casinos.
He should have recused himself.

[WuWei]

@Vali

You have no ■■■■■■■ clue, do you?

I have a clue you got poned. Like corn.

How old are you?

[Vali]

Nope, that’s my commentary on a Fat ■■■■■■ that thinks he is above the law and is going to get his comeuppance.

Tombstone - You tell 'em I'm comin'...

[kingarthur65]

@peek-a-boo

From the article linked below:

Barack Obama-appointed judge Amit P. Mehta’s 41-page opinion began by comparing President Trump’s concerns about congressional overreach to those of President James Buchanan, asserting that Trump “has taken up the fight of his predecessor.”

And Mehta acknowledged a high likelihood that any documents obtained by House Democrats would quickly leak, and become partisan political fodder.

“[T]he court is not naïve to reality,” Mehta wrote, admitting there “is a chance that some records obtained from Mazars will become public soon after they are produced.”

The records have not yet been produced and likely will not be produced until after appeal.

[Vali]

Will be interesting to see how it goes. I believe the judge only granted a 7 day reprieve for Mazar’s to conform to the legal subpoena from the House.

[peek-a-boo]

My understanding was there was a 7-day stay. Mehta has essentially denied any extension. I see no way the records aren’t produced??

[kingarthur65]

@peek-a-boo

My understanding was there was a 7-day stay. Mehta has essentially denied any extension. I see no way the records aren’t produced??

Wouldn’t the 7 day stay be the time needed to file an appeal?

[BlueTex]

@altair1013

This will be appealed. Don’t expect anything soon. And. It’s not oversight. They are digging for issues. It’s out of desperation.

No appeals court or the supreme court has ruled against a congressional subpoena since 1880… good luck…

[peek-a-boo]

I hope you are right, but I fear the worst.

[bluedogdem]

Lololol imagine if Obama did this you all would be screaming treason

[peek-a-boo]

He did. He was about as obstructionist as they come.

[BlueTex]

@DougBH

A judge who wants his opinions upheld advises lawyers not to appeal his ruling against them? Good luck to him on that.

Judges who have reviewed precedence also do that… As this judge pointed out last week… The last time an appeals court or SCOTUS threw out a congressional subpoena was in 1880…

[Vali]

Snowflake Trumpists are in for a world of hurt.

[peek-a-boo]

You might be getting ahead of yourself.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

I’m not sure my own mother would fight as hard for me as Trump supporters fight for him to not disclose his financial records for oversight.

Trump supporters are spooked.

[BlueTex]

@peek-a-boo

An Obama appointed judge all but conceded the records would be immediately leaked for political purposes and ruled in their favor regardless. Go figure.

They don’t need to leak them, they can vote to make them public and be in full compliance with the law…

[peek-a-boo]

You are missing the point entirely. The point is that DEMs want access to the records for one reason and one reason only. They are looking for political revenge. They will pour over the records and cherry pick only information that will best humiliate Trump for release to the media.

The overall tone of the Trump haters in this thread who are salivating at that prospect, only serves to confirm my argument.