Judge rules against Trump in records dispute with Congress

[daveman]

It's your argument.

What? That's moronic. The judge spelled out his argument. But you wouldn't know, because you haven't read a single word about any of this. And, as usual, you are just vomiting the first stunted, uninformed thought that fizzles into your colon.

If that makes you feel better about your protest-sign mentality, sure.

Haha...you have no idea what the judge argued, do you? Just an ignorant little crybaby, soothing himself....

Rule of thumb: If you think it's a good idea, it's stupid as shit

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's your argument.

What? That's moronic. The judge spelled out his argument. But you wouldn't know, because you haven't read a single word about any of this. And, as usual, you are just vomiting the first stunted, uninformed thought that fizzles into your colon.

If that makes you feel better about your protest-sign mentality, sure.

Haha...you have no idea what the judge argued, do you? Just an ignorant little crybaby, soothing himself....

Rule of thumb: If you think it's a good idea, it's stupid as shit

Oh boy, its daveman's hissy time again...every time with you....waaaaaaaaaaahhhhh

 

[Dana7360]

1. It doesn’t HAVE to say it in the constitution. The law is clearly written

2. The job of Congress is oversight. Or do you think that an only be done to Democrats?

This is not "oversight". This is continuation of coup by other means.

The collusion scam didn't work so the left thinks they have the right to go rummaging through Donald Trump's financial dealings to see what dirt they can dredge up. That's bullshit! You can shove your "oversight" up fat Jerry Nadler's immense ass!

You are the ones who are plotting a coup. Taking away the powers of Congress that are enshrined in the Constitution and that includes Trump's financial records. The Benghazi hearings were nothing but a attempt to get Hillary Clinton.

If this is a coup then what the republicans did in the 90s with Clinton was a coup.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

1. It doesn’t HAVE to say it in the constitution. The law is clearly written

2. The job of Congress is oversight. Or do you think that an only be done to Democrats?

This is not "oversight". This is continuation of coup by other means.

The collusion scam didn't work so the left thinks they have the right to go rummaging through Donald Trump's financial dealings to see what dirt they can dredge up. That's bullshit! You can shove your "oversight" up fat Jerry Nadler's immense ass!

You are the ones who are plotting a coup. Taking away the powers of Congress that are enshrined in the Constitution and that includes Trump's financial records. The Benghazi hearings were nothing but a attempt to get Hillary Clinton.

If this is a coup then what the republicans did in the 90s with Clinton was a coup.

Clinton lied under oath, a crime with some weight.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its implied powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

So, Congress has powers not enumerated in the Constitution, that Congress granted itself...and you don't see anything wrong with it.

Amazing how you Trump Humpers want to limit the powers of the Congress now that they are asking for documents from Trump.

Not really. Conservatives have long supported lessening government interference in American's lives.

But it's amazing how you Obama bootlickers now believe the Executive Branch should have some oversight.

What a crock of shit, the size of Gov't has never gotten smaller when Republicans have been the majority. Republicans have been the main whiners of the Executive branch having oversight, now that Trump is in office and you all know he is crooked as hell you Trump Humpers want folks to turn a blind eye and deaf ear.

Pay attention, dumb-dumb: I said conservatives, not Republicans. The GOP is Dem Party Lite.

And dear Gaea, you're getting boring.

You pay attention shit for brains, conservatives vote and support Republicans.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say the President must turn over his financial records to Congress?? ....

Nowhere at all.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its implied powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

So, Congress has powers not enumerated in the Constitution, that Congress granted itself...and you don't see anything wrong with it.

How do you feel about Marbury v. Madison? [OMG you clowns who want others to believe you kind has a clue about the workings of government is not only naive, it is seditious].

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's your argument.

What? That's moronic. The judge spelled out his argument. But you wouldn't know, because you haven't read a single word about any of this. And, as usual, you are just vomiting the first stunted, uninformed thought that fizzles into your colon.

Absolutely spot on ^^^; notice how many trump supporters immediately attack everyone who questions anything trump says, tweets or does.

These toxic trump supporters are the antithesis of what a patriotic American would write. They lie, they are hypocrites, and they blame President Obama for everything including the Great Recession which commenced in Dec. 2007, a full thirteen months before he took the oath of office.

They have no credibility, no moral compass and echo each other, no matter how absurd or dishonest the propaganda, thread or tweet may be.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. It doesn’t HAVE to say it in the constitution. The law is clearly written

2. The job of Congress is oversight. Or do you think that an only be done to Democrats?

This is not "oversight". This is continuation of coup by other means.

The collusion scam didn't work so the left thinks they have the right to go rummaging through Donald Trump's financial dealings to see what dirt they can dredge up. That's bullshit! You can shove your "oversight" up fat Jerry Nadler's immense ass!

You are the ones who are plotting a coup. Taking away the powers of Congress that are enshrined in the Constitution and that includes Trump's financial records. The Benghazi hearings were nothing but a attempt to get Hillary Clinton.

If this is a coup then what the republicans did in the 90s with Clinton was a coup.

Clinton lied under oath, a crime with some weight.

Clinton's attempt to mislead was wrong, yet those inquisitors who were the most vile [(Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, and Dennis Hastert] engaged in other sexual activities making them iniquitously hypocrites.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say the President must turn over his financial records to Congress?? ....

Nowhere at all.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its implied powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

So, Congress has powers not enumerated in the Constitution, that Congress granted itself...and you don't see anything wrong with it.

How do you feel about Marbury v. Madison? [OMG you clowns who want others to believe you kind has a clue about the workings of government is not only naive, it is seditious].

The first major mistake of the young government. It rendered The Supreme Court a greater-than-equal branch of the government.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

1. It doesn’t HAVE to say it in the constitution. The law is clearly written

2. The job of Congress is oversight. Or do you think that an only be done to Democrats?

This is not "oversight". This is continuation of coup by other means.

The collusion scam didn't work so the left thinks they have the right to go rummaging through Donald Trump's financial dealings to see what dirt they can dredge up. That's bullshit! You can shove your "oversight" up fat Jerry Nadler's immense ass!

You are the ones who are plotting a coup. Taking away the powers of Congress that are enshrined in the Constitution and that includes Trump's financial records. The Benghazi hearings were nothing but a attempt to get Hillary Clinton.

If this is a coup then what the republicans did in the 90s with Clinton was a coup.

Clinton lied under oath, a crime with some weight.

Clinton's attempt to mislead was wrong, yet those inquisitors who were the most vile [(Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, and Dennis Hastert] engaged in other sexual activities making them iniquitously hypocrites.

And yet, they didn't lie under oath.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Clinton lied under oath, a crime with some weight.

And trump refuses to go under oath because he knows he will perjure himself. Furthermore, the only reason the lie under oath happened was because an investigation occured and clinton complied. So you are really undermining your own whining about the current investigations.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say the President must turn over his financial records to Congress?? ....

Nowhere at all.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its implied powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

So, Congress has powers not enumerated in the Constitution, that Congress granted itself...and you don't see anything wrong with it.

How do you feel about Marbury v. Madison? [OMG you clowns who want others to believe you kind has a clue about the workings of government is not only naive, it is seditious].

The first major mistake of the young government. It rendered The Supreme Court a greater-than-equal branch of the government.

Before running off with your opinion, have you done any research on Judicial Review?

Consider this link below, and then seek other points of view before going forth with a claim Marbury v. Madison is a major mistake:

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5220&context=uclrev

 

[Wry Catcher]

Postscript to #132

Consider how the United States would change, if Marbury v. Madison were to be annulled, Alabama and other states governed by racists and misogynists (and, apparently idiots) would immediately pass legislation to restrict voting to white, land owning males over the age of 21.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is not "oversight". This is continuation of coup by other means.

The collusion scam didn't work so the left thinks they have the right to go rummaging through Donald Trump's financial dealings to see what dirt they can dredge up. That's bullshit! You can shove your "oversight" up fat Jerry Nadler's immense ass!

You are the ones who are plotting a coup. Taking away the powers of Congress that are enshrined in the Constitution and that includes Trump's financial records. The Benghazi hearings were nothing but a attempt to get Hillary Clinton.

If this is a coup then what the republicans did in the 90s with Clinton was a coup.

Clinton lied under oath, a crime with some weight.

Clinton's attempt to mislead was wrong, yet those inquisitors who were the most vile [(Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, and Dennis Hastert] engaged in other sexual activities making them iniquitously hypocrites.

And yet, they didn't lie under oath.

How do you know? There are lies by commission, and lies by omission - all three of these Republicans had a moral obligation to do what was right, but that would have required a moral compass Republicans seems never to have.

Every trial has two sides, or two theories, of a crime or a civil suit. Hyperbole is rampant on both sides, and it was a fact that the jury (The Senate in the Clinton case you've brought up) found Clinton not guilty.

Only assholes keep bringing up a two decades old matter in which President Clinton was not found guilty by a bipartisan vote; something McConnell will not allow (a bipartisan vote) even if and when Trump is Impeached and the evidence proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[daveman]

It's your argument.

What? That's moronic. The judge spelled out his argument. But you wouldn't know, because you haven't read a single word about any of this. And, as usual, you are just vomiting the first stunted, uninformed thought that fizzles into your colon.

If that makes you feel better about your protest-sign mentality, sure.

Haha...you have no idea what the judge argued, do you? Just an ignorant little crybaby, soothing himself....

Rule of thumb: If you think it's a good idea, it's stupid as shit

Oh boy, its daveman's hissy time again...every time with you....waaaaaaaaaaahhhhh

Sheer projection.

 

[daveman]

So, Congress has powers not enumerated in the Constitution, that Congress granted itself...and you don't see anything wrong with it.

Amazing how you Trump Humpers want to limit the powers of the Congress now that they are asking for documents from Trump.

Not really. Conservatives have long supported lessening government interference in American's lives.

But it's amazing how you Obama bootlickers now believe the Executive Branch should have some oversight.

What a crock of shit, the size of Gov't has never gotten smaller when Republicans have been the majority. Republicans have been the main whiners of the Executive branch having oversight, now that Trump is in office and you all know he is crooked as hell you Trump Humpers want folks to turn a blind eye and deaf ear.

Pay attention, dumb-dumb: I said conservatives, not Republicans. The GOP is Dem Party Lite.

And dear Gaea, you're getting boring.

You pay attention shit for brains, conservatives vote and support Republicans.

Do you expect them to vote for Democrats, dumbass?

Until there's a real conservative party, we're stuck with the GOP. Dumbass.

 

[daveman]

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say the President must turn over his financial records to Congress?? ....

Nowhere at all.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its implied powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

So, Congress has powers not enumerated in the Constitution, that Congress granted itself...and you don't see anything wrong with it.

How do you feel about Marbury v. Madison? [OMG you clowns who want others to believe you kind has a clue about the workings of government is not only naive, it is seditious].

"Seditious".

You know words have meanings, right? You don't get to assign definitions based on your out-of-control emotions, right?

No. I don't think you do know that.

But, hey, you just keep pretending that a judge appointed by Obama and who donated money to Obama is unbiased. I wouldn't expect any different from you.

 

[daveman]

It's your argument.

What? That's moronic. The judge spelled out his argument. But you wouldn't know, because you haven't read a single word about any of this. And, as usual, you are just vomiting the first stunted, uninformed thought that fizzles into your colon.

Absolutely spot on ^^^; notice how many trump supporters immediately attack everyone who questions anything trump says, tweets or does.

These toxic trump supporters are the antithesis of what a patriotic American would write. They lie, they are hypocrites, and they blame President Obama for everything including the Great Recession which commenced in Dec. 2007, a full thirteen months before he took the oath of office.

They have no credibility, no moral compass and echo each other, no matter how absurd or dishonest the propaganda, thread or tweet may be.

...says the proto-Commie. The only thing distinguishing you from each other is your different avatars. You all might as well be the same person.

 

[candycorn]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge in Washington ruled Monday against President Donald Trump in a financial records dispute with Congress.


U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, said Trump cannot block a House subpoena of financial records. He said the Democratic-led House committee seeking the information has said it believes the documents would help lawmakers consider strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, among other things.

The committee's reasons were "valid legislative purposes," Mehta said, and it was not for him "to question whether the Committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations."
Judge rules against Trump in records dispute with Congress

Does a higher court overturn this ruling?

How much longer can the Trump Administration stonewall the Congress.

Trump's accounting firm is not a part of the Gov't, so he can't use executive powers.

Oh, look...yet another Obama appointee more loyal to Obama than to the law.

…...and you said that with a straight face. The AG is Trump's personal lawyer, but that is ok in the mind of a Trump Humper.

The judge is following the law. Good to see some in our government still do that.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Amazing how you Trump Humpers want to limit the powers of the Congress now that they are asking for documents from Trump.

Not really. Conservatives have long supported lessening government interference in American's lives.

But it's amazing how you Obama bootlickers now believe the Executive Branch should have some oversight.

What a crock of shit, the size of Gov't has never gotten smaller when Republicans have been the majority. Republicans have been the main whiners of the Executive branch having oversight, now that Trump is in office and you all know he is crooked as hell you Trump Humpers want folks to turn a blind eye and deaf ear.

Pay attention, dumb-dumb: I said conservatives, not Republicans. The GOP is Dem Party Lite.

And dear Gaea, you're getting boring.

You pay attention shit for brains, conservatives vote and support Republicans.

Do you expect them to vote for Democrats, dumbass?

Until there's a real conservative party, we're stuck with the GOP. Dumbass.

So in other words you stupid ass idiots will follow anyone.