Is It UnConstitutional To Pass Laws Then Apply Them Retroactively?

[Pogo]

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid.

The Constitution explicitly forbids ex-post-facto law, both at the state and federal levels. So yes, it absolutely is unconstitutional to pass a law, and apply it retroactively. Article I, Section 9 states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” And just in case you're thinking that only this restriction applies only to the federal government, Article I, Section 10 states, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

Yeah that's a given. The OP asks a stupid question, he gets a dumbed-down answer.

 

[Nostra]

I see the OP has taken to heart my spelling of unConstitutional. He's in awe of me.

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid. But that's not what's happening here, is it OP. Read closely now, here comes another lesson.

It's not that the law didn't exist when the tax returns were filed ---- it's that the tax returns themselves did. The law is stating that those records -- from THEN -- can be examined NOW. It's not saying that they can be examined in the past.

Now then, if those tax returns from whatever year did not violate the laws that existed THEN ----- why would one be screaming and kicking to keep them under wraps NOW? Only one reason --- they contained something that was fraudulent THEN. And we could find out about it NOW.

You remember "fraudulent" right? As in 25 million bucks paid to settle a case for a "Mexican" judge?

Are you actually suggesting that one could file fraudulent returns on the basis that the law of the time would not allow the public to see them, therefore it's OK?

What a pant load.

This is a political fishing expedition. If Trump was violating tax laws the IRS and NY state agencies overseeing taxes would have taken action. You magically assume there has to be fraud simply because Trump doesn’t want his taxes made public.

Some kind of fraud, yes. Could be cheating that government out of its due (as his father did for decades, where do you think their money came from, DUH); it could be the revelation that his net worth, and/or his (alleged) philanthropy, is nowhere near what he claims it is when he makes shit up, could be that payoffs to Stormy Danielses and David Peckers and various businesses and various gangsters, Russian and elsewhere, would show up ---- most likely a combination of all of those.

Why is he so desperately hiding them, if not for fear the above will surface?

Again, you don't fuck up your tax returns just because you think you can get away with it. Rump has been shirking responsibility for literally everything all his damn life. Can you do that? Can I do that?

Ain't no "magic" to it, Hunior. It's simple logic. Anyone can work this out if they're not committed to partisan hackery. If you are so committed however, you figure that you can file a fraudulent return and nobody can ever examine it.

Post your returns for the last decade, or you are guilty of tax fraud. GO!

Number one numbnutz, I'm not running for an office, and number two numbnutz, it ain't my job to prove YOUR ass-sertion, is it. You claim I'm guilty of fraud, **YOU** have to prove it. I don't need to prove a negative just because some wanker on a message board makes shit up, Dumbass.

Like I said, if he was cheating the govt the IRS and state of NY would already be on it.

At least you admit this is a fishing expedition in which you are hoping to find out he isn't worth what he publicly claims. What law would that violate? Be specific.

The rest of your "could be this..........could be that..........." further confirms it is nothing but a fishing expedition.

There needs to be a crime alleged with credible evidence to be able to subpoena documents like this. There is none.

And I accept your admission you have defrauded the IRS the past 10 years.

 

[Pogo]

I see the OP has taken to heart my spelling of unConstitutional. He's in awe of me.

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid. But that's not what's happening here, is it OP. Read closely now, here comes another lesson.

It's not that the law didn't exist when the tax returns were filed ---- it's that the tax returns themselves did. The law is stating that those records -- from THEN -- can be examined NOW. It's not saying that they can be examined in the past.

Now then, if those tax returns from whatever year did not violate the laws that existed THEN ----- why would one be screaming and kicking to keep them under wraps NOW? Only one reason --- they contained something that was fraudulent THEN. And we could find out about it NOW.

You remember "fraudulent" right? As in 25 million bucks paid to settle a case for a "Mexican" judge?

Are you actually suggesting that one could file fraudulent returns on the basis that the law of the time would not allow the public to see them, therefore it's OK?

What a pant load.

This is a political fishing expedition. If Trump was violating tax laws the IRS and NY state agencies overseeing taxes would have taken action. You magically assume there has to be fraud simply because Trump doesn’t want his taxes made public.

Some kind of fraud, yes. Could be cheating that government out of its due (as his father did for decades, where do you think their money came from, DUH); it could be the revelation that his net worth, and/or his (alleged) philanthropy, is nowhere near what he claims it is when he makes shit up, could be that payoffs to Stormy Danielses and David Peckers and various businesses and various gangsters, Russian and elsewhere, would show up ---- most likely a combination of all of those.

Why is he so desperately hiding them, if not for fear the above will surface?

Again, you don't fuck up your tax returns just because you think you can get away with it. Rump has been shirking responsibility for literally everything all his damn life. Can you do that? Can I do that?

Ain't no "magic" to it, Hunior. It's simple logic. Anyone can work this out if they're not committed to partisan hackery. If you are so committed however, you figure that you can file a fraudulent return and nobody can ever examine it.

Post your returns for the last decade, or you are guilty of tax fraud. GO!

Number one numbnutz, I'm not running for an office, and number two numbnutz, it ain't my job to prove YOUR ass-sertion, is it. You claim I'm guilty of fraud, **YOU** have to prove it. I don't need to prove a negative just because some wanker on a message board makes shit up, Dumbass.

Like I said, if he was cheating the govt the IRS and state of NY would already be on it.

And apparently they are. NY here, and Rump claims his fed return is still under (apparently permanent) audit and therefore he can't release them (which is itself a bullshit non sequitur, of course he can).

And btw it's "as I said", not "like I said".

And speaking of fraud in general ---- guess which orange-faced POTUS candidate claimed he would never settle a fraud case, whined that the judge from Indiana was "Mexican" --- and then quietly ponied up 25 million bucks to settle that fraud case and make it go away just before the Electrical College would meet to submit their votes....

Who do you suppose that was? Jimmy Carter?

At least you admit this is a fishing expedition in which you are hoping to find out he isn't worth what he publicly claims. What law would that violate? Be specific.

I'm not a prosecutor, nor am I involved with the investigation. Again --- DUH. I made no such characterizaion; you just pulled that out of your ass and attributed it to me because you're a lying hack.

The scenario you just cherrypicked while ignoring the others, that his net worth isn't what he says, is not a law violation NOR DID I CLAIM IT WAS. It's an **EGO** violation, and as such a REASON he might want to HIDE it because he's that SNOWFLAKED.

The rest of your "could be this..........could be that..........." further confirms it is nothing but a fishing expedition.

No, Sprinkly Bits, it explains what kind of fraud might be involved, WHICH YOU DIRECTLY ASKED. Now you got three answers and you want to whine because waaaah, my hero and shit. Good GODS man put your pants on, you're embarrassing yourself.

There needs to be a crime alleged with credible evidence to be able to subpoena documents like this. There is none.

Once AGAIN --- are you a judge? Oh I see, you're a self-appointed internet judge who doesn't need a brief.
Take a hike, NostrilDumbass

And I accept your admission you have defrauded the IRS the past 10 years.

Once AGAIN wanker ---- you spelled "fabricated" wrong. Confirming, if it wasn't amply confirmed already, that you're a dishonest hack. So "accept" this >>

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

To apply this law retroactively to one person out of millions in that state is simply politics disguised as 'law' and a pretty thin disguise at that.

Trump has a right to his privacy and New York Dems are willing to throw everyone's right to privacy under the bus in their hysterical obsessive fit to find any dirt on Trump that they can.

So it's a tradition not a obligation that previous presidential candidates and elected officials release their tax returns?

I haven't been following what's going on with the attempt to compel Trump to release his tax returns but my understanding is that financial records can be subpoenaed during the course of an investigation or legal action. Is that what's happening here?

What is the alleged crime? Without stating what you are looking for, a subpoena is useless.

This is another libtard fishing expedition.

 

[Dick Foster]

Trumps tax records are from a periood before this ridiculous New York law that was written to specifically target him. I have a lot of problems with that kind of law, but it is applying to all his past records too.

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Trump will ask Supreme Court to take New York tax returns case after losing appeal

'retroactive stalinism'?

I don't remember Stalin ever having a problem refusing to show his voters his tax returns.

What was that bill?
a bill that would allow three congressional tax committees to request state income tax returns and reports from the New York State Commissioner of the Department of Taxation and Finance

The funny thing is you seem to think that Stalin had to pass bills to get information like this.
Anyway- I guess we can put you down as being against state's rights.

Wow, how could anyone possible misconstrue my post any more than that?

Well, sometimes it takes a Woketard.

Stalin was infamous for making rectroactive laws and having people executed for violating them or for redefining the laws by fiat so he could purge his rivals.

How can you be that stupid and still know how to connect to the internet. I guess it is all literally idiot proof today, as you demonstrate.

It helps to remember that you're dealing with dimwitted morons on this board many with the TDS complication so don't expect anything resembling an intelligent thoughtful reply.

 

[Nostra]

I see the OP has taken to heart my spelling of unConstitutional. He's in awe of me.

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid. But that's not what's happening here, is it OP. Read closely now, here comes another lesson.

It's not that the law didn't exist when the tax returns were filed ---- it's that the tax returns themselves did. The law is stating that those records -- from THEN -- can be examined NOW. It's not saying that they can be examined in the past.

Now then, if those tax returns from whatever year did not violate the laws that existed THEN ----- why would one be screaming and kicking to keep them under wraps NOW? Only one reason --- they contained something that was fraudulent THEN. And we could find out about it NOW.

You remember "fraudulent" right? As in 25 million bucks paid to settle a case for a "Mexican" judge?

Are you actually suggesting that one could file fraudulent returns on the basis that the law of the time would not allow the public to see them, therefore it's OK?

What a pant load.

This is a political fishing expedition. If Trump was violating tax laws the IRS and NY state agencies overseeing taxes would have taken action. You magically assume there has to be fraud simply because Trump doesn’t want his taxes made public.

Some kind of fraud, yes. Could be cheating that government out of its due (as his father did for decades, where do you think their money came from, DUH); it could be the revelation that his net worth, and/or his (alleged) philanthropy, is nowhere near what he claims it is when he makes shit up, could be that payoffs to Stormy Danielses and David Peckers and various businesses and various gangsters, Russian and elsewhere, would show up ---- most likely a combination of all of those.

Why is he so desperately hiding them, if not for fear the above will surface?

Again, you don't fuck up your tax returns just because you think you can get away with it. Rump has been shirking responsibility for literally everything all his damn life. Can you do that? Can I do that?

Ain't no "magic" to it, Hunior. It's simple logic. Anyone can work this out if they're not committed to partisan hackery. If you are so committed however, you figure that you can file a fraudulent return and nobody can ever examine it.

Post your returns for the last decade, or you are guilty of tax fraud. GO!

Number one numbnutz, I'm not running for an office, and number two numbnutz, it ain't my job to prove YOUR ass-sertion, is it. You claim I'm guilty of fraud, **YOU** have to prove it. I don't need to prove a negative just because some wanker on a message board makes shit up, Dumbass.

Like I said, if he was cheating the govt the IRS and state of NY would already be on it.

And apparently they are. NY here, and Rump claims his fed return is still under (apparently permanent) audit and therefore he can't release them (which is itself a bullshit non sequitur, of course he can).

And btw it's "as I said", not "like I said".

And speaking of fraud in general ---- guess which orange-faced POTUS candidate claimed he would never settle a fraud case, whined that the judge from Indiana was "Mexican" --- and then quietly ponied up 25 million bucks to settle that fraud case and make it go away just before the Electrical College would meet to submit their votes....

Who do you suppose that was? Jimmy Carter?

At least you admit this is a fishing expedition in which you are hoping to find out he isn't worth what he publicly claims. What law would that violate? Be specific.

I'm not a prosecutor, nor am I involved with the investigation. Again --- DUH. I made no such characterizaion; you just pulled that out of your ass and attributed it to me because you're a lying hack.

The scenario you just cherrypicked while ignoring the others, that his net worth isn't what he says, is not a law violation NOR DID I CLAIM IT WAS. It's an **EGO** violation, and as such a REASON he might want to HIDE it because he's that SNOWFLAKED.

The rest of your "could be this..........could be that..........." further confirms it is nothing but a fishing expedition.

No, Sprinkly Bits, it explains what kind of fraud might be involved, WHICH YOU DIRECTLY ASKED. Now you got three answers and you want to whine because waaaah, my hero and shit. Good GODS man put your pants on, you're embarrassing yourself.

There needs to be a crime alleged with credible evidence to be able to subpoena documents like this. There is none.

Once AGAIN --- are you a judge? Oh I see, you're a self-appointed internet judge who doesn't need a brief.
Take a hike, NostrilDumbass

And I accept your admission you have defrauded the IRS the past 10 years.

Once AGAIN wanker ---- you spelled "fabricated" wrong. Confirming, if it wasn't amply confirmed already, that you're a dishonest hack. So "accept" this >>

The truth really triggers you, huh? Typical Dimwinger.

 

[Pogo]

I see the OP has taken to heart my spelling of unConstitutional. He's in awe of me.

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid. But that's not what's happening here, is it OP. Read closely now, here comes another lesson.

It's not that the law didn't exist when the tax returns were filed ---- it's that the tax returns themselves did. The law is stating that those records -- from THEN -- can be examined NOW. It's not saying that they can be examined in the past.

Now then, if those tax returns from whatever year did not violate the laws that existed THEN ----- why would one be screaming and kicking to keep them under wraps NOW? Only one reason --- they contained something that was fraudulent THEN. And we could find out about it NOW.

You remember "fraudulent" right? As in 25 million bucks paid to settle a case for a "Mexican" judge?

Are you actually suggesting that one could file fraudulent returns on the basis that the law of the time would not allow the public to see them, therefore it's OK?

What a pant load.

This is a political fishing expedition. If Trump was violating tax laws the IRS and NY state agencies overseeing taxes would have taken action. You magically assume there has to be fraud simply because Trump doesn’t want his taxes made public.

Some kind of fraud, yes. Could be cheating that government out of its due (as his father did for decades, where do you think their money came from, DUH); it could be the revelation that his net worth, and/or his (alleged) philanthropy, is nowhere near what he claims it is when he makes shit up, could be that payoffs to Stormy Danielses and David Peckers and various businesses and various gangsters, Russian and elsewhere, would show up ---- most likely a combination of all of those.

Why is he so desperately hiding them, if not for fear the above will surface?

Again, you don't fuck up your tax returns just because you think you can get away with it. Rump has been shirking responsibility for literally everything all his damn life. Can you do that? Can I do that?

Ain't no "magic" to it, Hunior. It's simple logic. Anyone can work this out if they're not committed to partisan hackery. If you are so committed however, you figure that you can file a fraudulent return and nobody can ever examine it.

Post your returns for the last decade, or you are guilty of tax fraud. GO!

Number one numbnutz, I'm not running for an office, and number two numbnutz, it ain't my job to prove YOUR ass-sertion, is it. You claim I'm guilty of fraud, **YOU** have to prove it. I don't need to prove a negative just because some wanker on a message board makes shit up, Dumbass.

Like I said, if he was cheating the govt the IRS and state of NY would already be on it.

And apparently they are. NY here, and Rump claims his fed return is still under (apparently permanent) audit and therefore he can't release them (which is itself a bullshit non sequitur, of course he can).

And btw it's "as I said", not "like I said".

And speaking of fraud in general ---- guess which orange-faced POTUS candidate claimed he would never settle a fraud case, whined that the judge from Indiana was "Mexican" --- and then quietly ponied up 25 million bucks to settle that fraud case and make it go away just before the Electrical College would meet to submit their votes....

Who do you suppose that was? Jimmy Carter?

At least you admit this is a fishing expedition in which you are hoping to find out he isn't worth what he publicly claims. What law would that violate? Be specific.

I'm not a prosecutor, nor am I involved with the investigation. Again --- DUH. I made no such characterizaion; you just pulled that out of your ass and attributed it to me because you're a lying hack.

The scenario you just cherrypicked while ignoring the others, that his net worth isn't what he says, is not a law violation NOR DID I CLAIM IT WAS. It's an **EGO** violation, and as such a REASON he might want to HIDE it because he's that SNOWFLAKED.

The rest of your "could be this..........could be that..........." further confirms it is nothing but a fishing expedition.

No, Sprinkly Bits, it explains what kind of fraud might be involved, WHICH YOU DIRECTLY ASKED. Now you got three answers and you want to whine because waaaah, my hero and shit. Good GODS man put your pants on, you're embarrassing yourself.

There needs to be a crime alleged with credible evidence to be able to subpoena documents like this. There is none.

Once AGAIN --- are you a judge? Oh I see, you're a self-appointed internet judge who doesn't need a brief.
Take a hike, NostrilDumbass

And I accept your admission you have defrauded the IRS the past 10 years.

Once AGAIN wanker ---- you spelled "fabricated" wrong. Confirming, if it wasn't amply confirmed already, that you're a dishonest hack. So "accept" this >>

The truth really triggers you, huh? Typical Dimwinger.

 

[Syriusly]

Isnt that just retroactive Stalinism?

Stalin was an absolute ruler. It's pretty refreshing that a lot of people think Donald John Trump has kicked the bucket, as Stalin was only impeached post-mortem.

The OP is not suggesting Trump is like Stalin, genius, but that Piglosi' proceedings are like a Stalin show trial.

But dont worry that you cant grasp it, America will explain it to you and your butt buddies a year from now.

You were the one who compared Trump with Stalin.

 

[Syriusly]

To apply this law retroactively to one person out of millions in that state is simply politics disguised as 'law' and a pretty thin disguise at that.

Trump has a right to his privacy and New York Dems are willing to throw everyone's right to privacy under the bus in their hysterical obsessive fit to find any dirt on Trump that they can.

So it's a tradition not a obligation that previous presidential candidates and elected officials release their tax returns?

I haven't been following what's going on with the attempt to compel Trump to release his tax returns but my understanding is that financial records can be subpoenaed during the course of an investigation or legal action. Is that what's happening here?

What is the alleged crime? Without stating what you are looking for, a subpoena is useless.

This is another libtard fishing expedition.

Its amazing what you can find out by reading the news.

Or in your case- how you can remain ignorant even though that information is available in the news.

 

[satrebil]

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid.

Wow.

Are you retarded?

 

[Syriusly]

To apply this law retroactively to one person out of millions in that state is simply politics disguised as 'law' and a pretty thin disguise at that.

Trump has a right to his privacy and New York Dems are willing to throw everyone's right to privacy under the bus in their hysterical obsessive fit to find any dirt on Trump that they can.

So it's a tradition not a obligation that previous presidential candidates and elected officials release their tax returns?

I haven't been following what's going on with the attempt to compel Trump to release his tax returns but my understanding is that financial records can be subpoenaed during the course of an investigation or legal action. Is that what's happening here?

Not really because there is no crime that is being investigated, which is yet another objection to this law. At the time Trump's lawyer paid Daniels and another whore, there was no law against it, and the money came from Cohen's office slush fund, who was on retainer, in essence and a pot of money Cohen had for expenses none of which was illegal til later. Who else is being prosecuted fro this ridiculous crime of buying silence of whining little bitches?

Normally your right to privacy requires a warrant that itself requires a crime to investigate and evidence that suggests that violating the persons privacy will yeild more evidence.

Where is Trumps crime other than defeating She-Who-Has-Dibs-On-the-Presidency?

Wow- if only there were news articles which recounted the crimes that New York is pursuing.
Judge rejects Trump's bid to keep tax returns secret in New York

 

[Nostra]

To apply this law retroactively to one person out of millions in that state is simply politics disguised as 'law' and a pretty thin disguise at that.

Trump has a right to his privacy and New York Dems are willing to throw everyone's right to privacy under the bus in their hysterical obsessive fit to find any dirt on Trump that they can.

So it's a tradition not a obligation that previous presidential candidates and elected officials release their tax returns?

I haven't been following what's going on with the attempt to compel Trump to release his tax returns but my understanding is that financial records can be subpoenaed during the course of an investigation or legal action. Is that what's happening here?

Not really because there is no crime that is being investigated, which is yet another objection to this law. At the time Trump's lawyer paid Daniels and another whore, there was no law against it, and the money came from Cohen's office slush fund, who was on retainer, in essence and a pot of money Cohen had for expenses none of which was illegal til later. Who else is being prosecuted fro this ridiculous crime of buying silence of whining little bitches?

Normally your right to privacy requires a warrant that itself requires a crime to investigate and evidence that suggests that violating the persons privacy will yeild more evidence.

Where is Trumps crime other than defeating She-Who-Has-Dibs-On-the-Presidency?

Wow- if only there were news articles which recounted the crimes that New York is pursuing.
Judge rejects Trump's bid to keep tax returns secret in New York

Please explain in detail exactly how Trump's tax returns from 8 years ago will help an investigation into 2 Non Disclosure Agreements signed in 2016? After that, explain when NDAs were outlawed and cite the statute outlawing them.

It's a fishing expedition.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Not really because there is no crime that is being investigated, which is yet another objection to this law. At the time Trump's lawyer paid Daniels and another whore, there was no law against it, and the money came from Cohen's office slush fund, who was on retainer, in essence and a pot of money Cohen had for expenses none of which was illegal til later. Who else is being prosecuted fro this ridiculous crime of buying silence of whining little bitches?

Normally your right to privacy requires a warrant that itself requires a crime to investigate and evidence that suggests that violating the persons privacy will yeild more evidence.

Where is Trumps crime other than defeating She-Who-Has-Dibs-On-the-Presidency?

There are so many exceptions to the right to privacy that it's barely effective anymore. For one thing, there doesn't necessarily have to be a crime in order to subpoena financial records, subpoenas can be issued during the discovery phase of a lawsuit. I've had subpoenas issued before in non-criminal cases, as a private citizen and they, for the most part, were enforced.

As far as right to privacy the FBI can get a National Security Letter to obtain records not normally obtainable without a search warrant (like bank or cell phone records) and includes a gag order preventing anyone from disclosing to the subject of the investigation/subpoena that their information has been subpoenaed. Then in WA state there exists "a subpoena secretly issued by a judge - provides a window into the little-known use of "special inquiry judge proceedings" which is also used to obtain records not normally obtainable without a search warrant.

I also believe that subpoenas can be issued in connection with administrative hearings. I know the EEOC, just as an example has the ability to issue subpoenas and I'm pretty sure many other government agencies do as well.

The president of the United States may be exempt from some of these procedures, I'm not sure but under normal circumstances, people don't get to just decide that they're not going to comply. A bench warrant can be issued for failing to comply with a lawfully issued subpoenaed but again, this is a sitting president so anything is possible I guess.

 

[my2¢]

After reading OP and the accompanying articled linked within it my opinion is a toss up between:

1. If it is unconstitutional to pass laws and then apply them retroactively then Trump and his legal team are idiots for not going with that defense and instead arguing Trump is immune as president from criminal investigation while in the White House.
2. Or it could be that whichever law being referred to has been mischaracterized as being retroactive.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not really because there is no crime that is being investigated, which is yet another objection to this law. At the time Trump's lawyer paid Daniels and another whore, there was no law against it, and the money came from Cohen's office slush fund, who was on retainer, in essence and a pot of money Cohen had for expenses none of which was illegal til later. Who else is being prosecuted fro this ridiculous crime of buying silence of whining little bitches?

Normally your right to privacy requires a warrant that itself requires a crime to investigate and evidence that suggests that violating the persons privacy will yeild more evidence.

Where is Trumps crime other than defeating She-Who-Has-Dibs-On-the-Presidency?

There are so many exceptions to the right to privacy that it's barely effective anymore. For one thing, there doesn't necessarily have to be a crime in order to subpoena financial records, subpoenas can be issued during the discovery phase of a lawsuit. I've had subpoenas issued before in non-criminal cases, as a private citizen and they, for the most part, were enforced.

As far as right to privacy the FBI can get a National Security Letter to obtain records not normally obtainable without a search warrant (like bank or cell phone records) and includes a gag order preventing anyone from disclosing to the subject of the investigation/subpoena that their information has been subpoenaed. Then in WA state there exists "a subpoena secretly issued by a judge - provides a window into the little-known use of "special inquiry judge proceedings" which is also used to obtain records not normally obtainable without a search warrant.

I also believe that subpoenas can be issued in connection with administrative hearings. I know the EEOC, just as an example has the ability to issue subpoenas and I'm pretty sure many other government agencies do as well.

The president of the United States may be exempt from some of these procedures, I'm not sure but under normal circumstances, people don't get to just decide that they're not going to comply. A bench warrant can be issued for failing to comply with a lawfully issued subpoenaed but again, this is a sitting president so anything is possible I guess.

Great response.

But for how long were Jim Crow laws deemed to be Constitutional by case law?

 

[JimBowie1958]

After reading OP and the accompanying articled linked within it my opinion is a toss up between:

1. If it is unconstitutional to pass laws and then apply them retroactively then Trump and his legal team are idiots for not going with that defense and instead arguing Trump is immune as president from criminal investigation while in the White House.
2. Or it could be that whichever law being referred to has been mischaracterized as being retroactive.

The New York law against paying people to stay silent was passed after Trumps pay offs and is the basis for this investigation to see what he has done with his corporation's money, so-called false business tax filings.
I cannot find a link to it, my Google fu is failing me today. But Trump has been making regular payments to Cohen to 'fix' black mail issues and Cohen used that money as directed, Why Cohen pleaded guilty is anybodies guess, maybe it has something to do with his having a Democrat activist representing him in court?

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is also interesting that Trumps claim is based entirely on the President not being subject to violations of state law.

http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2019/10/07/Mazars.pdf

This claim has a long historical precedent, similar to Senators and House members being protected from minor violations and slander suits while speaking in the chambers.

You have to have the President impeached or wait til he leaves office before filing criminal procedures and the New York investigation is a criminal procedure.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, it's not unConstitutional to pass a law and apply it retroactively, it's just invalid.

Wow.
Are you retarded?

Dont answer that Pogo!

Plead the Fifth!

 

[my2¢]

Thanks JB1958 for a bit more clarity. Yesterday in my Google search I did find the recent law that allows the state to turn over state tax returns, but I hesitated to assume that is what you are referencing.

The new law requires state tax officials to release the president’s state returns for any “specified and legitimate legislative purpose” on the request of the chair of one of three congressional committees: the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Cuomo Signs a Bill to Allow Release of Trump’s State Tax Returns​

 

[JimBowie1958]

I haven't been following what's going on with the attempt to compel Trump to release his tax returns but my understanding is that financial records can be subpoenaed during the course of an investigation or legal action. Is that what's happening here?

Not really because there is no crime that is being investigated, which is yet another objection to this law. At the time Trump's lawyer paid Daniels and another whore, there was no law against it, and the money came from Cohen's office slush fund, who was on retainer, in essence and a pot of money Cohen had for expenses none of which was illegal til later. Who else is being prosecuted fro this ridiculous crime of buying silence of whining little bitches?

Normally your right to privacy requires a warrant that itself requires a crime to investigate and evidence that suggests that violating the persons privacy will yeild more evidence.

Where is Trumps crime other than defeating She-Who-Has-Dibs-On-the-Presidency?

To answer my own question, lol, the New York DA is charging the Presidents corporation with a violation of business tax filing statutes. They say they want to know if Trump Inc has misfiled the payoff money to Cohen as legal expenses, instead of what else, I dont know, but this is definitely a fishing expedition conducted by the Presidents political enemies and they are undermining the Presidency in their TDS obsession to destroy Trump.

In the long run even if New York wins this thing, it will not help them with their bigger picture problem. FDRs Tammany Hall political machine he erected at the federal level of government is doomed by new technology, a better informed public who do not need organized political parties any more and who no longer trust the government to do what is right or even what is best for the nation. This political machine is grinding to a halt, the only question remaining is how much damage will it cause until it finally does stop?