Federal judge blocks California law to force disclosure of Trump's tax returns

komobu · 2019-09-20T13:54:14.579Z

Nemesis:

I just expect people to follow through on what they promise. Its a matter of integrity for me.

Integrity is a foreign concept to Trump and apparently to his supporters as well.

I know. You are correct. Integrity is often lacking. It would be nice if he had the integrity of Obama, Clinton, Biden, Warren or even Kamala Harris.

thinkingman · 2019-09-20T15:15:34.734Z

merickson:

thinkingman:

…
No, but he refuses to be bullied or bend. That is the same as breaking the law
funny the deranged media and democrats never seem to have “integrity” issues.

only trump does when he doesnt give them ammo to be deranged about

So you are saying that the info in contained in the tax returns is of worse effect than the “what is he hiding” speculative information?

no i am not

Cratic3947 · 2019-09-20T15:33:16.935Z

American’s should not be required to tell the govt anything about their income… That’s real freedom!

Guvnah · 2019-09-20T15:46:57.014Z

calirepub:

Even if Donald Trump’s tax returns show that he’s indebted to Russian Oligarchs for millions of dollars

My tax return has no indication of who I owe money to. Nor does yours. Nor would Trump’s.

Wishful thinking won’t change that.

Guvnah · 2019-09-20T15:47:34.708Z

calirepub:

no matter what’s in his returns it won’t change anybody’s mind.

Even if they show NOTHING you are hoping for, it wouldn’t change your mind.

Guvnah · 2019-09-20T15:49:44.303Z

WuWei:

but he said he would do it and he didn’t.

Oh well …

( shrug )

Safiel · 2019-09-20T18:10:47.396Z

DMK:

calirepub:

Even if Donald Trump’s tax returns show that he’s indebted to Russian Oligarchs for millions of dollars, it wouldn’t change anybody’s mind as far as whether they support him or not. Donald Trump haters would still hate him because of TDS and Trump supporters would still support him. Donald Trump is the best president America has ever had, and nothing the Democrats cry about is going to change that.

Providing your tax returns is NOT a requirement to run for President.

If the law needs to be changed to reflect that then it should be done. But the judge shopping because the lawmakers hide from any political hot potato has GOT to stop.

Forum shopping & Judge shopping does happen, obviously.

This wasn’t such a case. The overall venue was the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, appropriate because it includes Sacramento, the capital of California, home of both the legislature that passed the statute and home of the executive branches who would have been tasked with enforcing it. And the case was specifically filed in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District. Even though the Judge in this case was appointed by G.W. Bush, he is not considered a doctrinaire conservative by any standard. Bush generally was more yielding in consulting with the home State Senators (then Boxer and Feinstein) in making District Judge choices.

The simple truth is that not even a liberal Judge could ignore the simple fact that this law failed Constitutionality on blatant and obvious grounds.

DougBH · 2019-09-20T18:40:28.475Z

BlueTex:

DMK:

Well, then I guess we wait until the audit is finished.

The house ways and means committee will have them well before Trump’s supposed “audits” are finished but remember, the GOP has now established a norm of support the president ignoring the law and doing has he/she pleases… The law on access to all returns is crystal clear…

Well, maybe milk glass clear.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/04/why-congress-might-not-get-trumps-tax-returns-226571

BlueTex · 2019-09-20T19:30:36.304Z

DougBH:

Well, maybe milk glass clear.

POLITICO Magazine

1160×773 166 KB

Why Congress Might Not Get Trump’s Tax Returns

Unless Democrats invoke impeachment, there’s a strong chance they’ll lose this legal fight.

Did you read the article?

So the legal question will be: Is Congress’ purpose in seeking the president’s tax returns legitimate? As an initial matter, Congress cannot plausibly argue that it is exercising its impeachment authority, since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have explicitly disclaimed that the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry.

Your article is from April…

DougBH · 2019-09-20T19:40:06.212Z

Yesss??? There has been some court case to make the discussion invalid?
Has the Constitution been amended since then?

BlueTex · 2019-09-20T19:43:53.882Z

DougBH:

Yesss??? There has been some court case to make the discussion invalid?
Has the Constitution been amended since then?

You might have missed it… The House Judiciary committee voted to start an impeachment inquiry…

CNN – 12 Sep 19

House panel approves impeachment inquiry parameters as Democrats try to...

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a resolution defining the rules of the panel’s impeachment investigation, the first vote the committee has taken related to the potential impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Now go back and read the article…

DougBH · 2019-09-20T19:46:15.537Z

They are back and forth on whether it is really an impeachment inquiry or, if it is, what that means.
Let them try to get ahold of those taxes by stating it is a part of an impeachment and we will see.
Though I suspect that calling it that may be an attempt to increase their subpoena powers.

“The party-line vote came as House Democrats have struggled to define the committee’s probe, with Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler saying the committee is conducting an impeachment inquiry, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are refraining from calling it that”

BlueTex · 2019-09-20T19:46:50.990Z

DougBH:

They are back and forth on whether it is really an impeachment inquiry or, if it is, what that means.
Let them try to get ahold of those taxes by stating it is a part of an impeachment and we will see.
Though I suspect that calling it that may be an attempt to increase their subpoena powers.

Ya, think?

Safiel · 2019-10-02T00:34:53.046Z

caed.uscourts.gov

19cv1501_%20doc%2033.pdf

298.91 KB

Link to the written Opinion of the Court, just released today.

WuWei · 2019-10-02T00:39:39.773Z

What’s your surmise?

mot1man · 2019-10-02T01:41:53.892Z

calirepub:

Even if Donald Trump’s tax returns show that he’s indebted to Russian Oligarchs for millions of dollars

Which line on the tax return would show that?

Safiel · 2019-10-02T01:58:04.732Z

WuWei:

What’s your surmise?

I concur with the Opinion of the Court in full, both as to the result and with the reasons given.

WuWei · 2019-10-02T13:18:43.260Z

Safiel:

WuWei:

What’s your surmise?

I concur with the Opinion of the Court in full, both as to the result and with the reasons given.

Well, there we have it.

Safiel · 2019-11-21T22:28:29.436Z

The California Supreme Court concurred with the federal court ruling mentioned in this thread.

California has two options AND/OR:

Appeal the District Court ruling to the Ninth Circuit, where they face poor odds.
Appeal the California Supreme Court ruling to the United States Supreme Court, where they face zero odds.

Safiel · 2019-11-22T17:16:58.312Z

Safiel:

The California Supreme Court concurred with the federal court ruling mentioned in this thread.

California has two options AND/OR:

Appeal the District Court ruling to the Ninth Circuit, where they face poor odds.

Appeal the California Supreme Court ruling to the United States Supreme Court, where they face zero odds.

Actually, California has ZERO options.

The California Supreme Court adjudicated the case on violations of the State Constitution. No federal issues were adjudicated. So there is no appeal possible to the United States Supreme Court. Thus any appeal of the United States District Court decision is a waste of time.