This is so true.
Too funny. 
The courts need to protect Congress’s Constitutional right to go on fishing expeditions to use for the 2020 election.
Don’t you want to know if the President of the United States is a money launderer?
When we elect a democrat who is also a tax fraud, you will be glad the courts upheld congressional oversight.
No, I’d rather take the blue pill and enjoy the steak.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
1 Like
Fishing expeditions aka congressional oversight.
You know like Benghazi and the endless hearings.
Fishing expedition or congressional oversight.
Can’t be both.
Allan
That is something to be found through the police power, not the legislative process.
The court stated that this was a subpoena of the documents of Trump as an individual, not as the Executive. Congress has no oversight over Trump as the individual. This decision appears to rely on a legislative purpose. Its as clear as the test currently in use, 2+2=4, that this is not about a legislative purpose, it is about digging up dirt…of an unknown kind…i.e. political fishing expedition.
Oh now it’s bad to use your office to dig up dirt again - as in dirt-for-arms.
I just wish some people would remain consistent. Using your office to dig-for-dirt ought to be abuse of power whether you do it form the oval office or the halls of congress.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
1 Like
Could you point to where in the ruling you disagree with the judge’s application of the law? Could you even point to the ruling?
Or, are you just making assumptions based on the fact the ruling went against Trump and with no knowledge of the law behind the case?
2 Likes
Its consistent. I am not calling for all the Democrats who wanted that subpoena to be removed from office, I just point out their purpose. Inconsistent is saying that Trump should be removed from office for trying to dig up dirt while saying its fine for Democrats to use their office for the same purpose.
He is little more than a walking talking point. Devoid of any substance on any issue. Who could have ever imagined having someone as President be THIS completely intellectually vacuous and incurious?
I haven’t been following the cases around his taxes.
What is the case that the house is investigating that concerns his taxes? I know New York was investigating some things, but didn’t know of anything the house was investigating that involved his taxes.
That would be the determining factor for me. If they are looking into something that has a legitimate reason to include seeing his taxes than so be it. But if they are just wanting to see them as a fishing expedition, and tying them to something that’s not financial related, then they should be told no.
If Trump has nothing to hide, why is he fighting this? It’s just taxes.
Anyone who watched any of the debates both primary and general and heard him speak…
1 Like
Apparently you have forgotten what Democrats did with Romney’s taxes in 2012.
Oh noes! He has money in a Swiss bank account! Everybody knows about Swiss bank accounts!
Very fair point!
Whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout
And how Romney’s tax rate was less than someone making 50K a year.
1 Like
