Judge rules against Trump in records dispute with Congress

[Superbadbrutha]

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.

And because YOU said it, it must be truth.

Based on your consistent record of being wrong, the chances that judge is following the law are still bigger than chances that you're not leftist shill.

I'm glad you again removed all the doubts. Not that there were any...

Anything come from a Trump Humper can be dismissed as trash.

 

[Crixus]

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.

Think about that for a few. This means no one in congress can withhold those documents either. I would love to see mad Maxine have to turn over her financial records. Same With Elija Cummings.

Every president since Tricky Dick has shown their tax returns, so tell me Trump Humper what does Trump have to hide that other presidents didn't?

Did they have to show their tax returns?

And since you're insisting, tell us why do you think they did it?

It's called transparency, but I guess the most transparent president doesn't realize that.

There is no obligation to do so. I would like to know how Nancy Pelosi got so rich while she was in Congress. That’s transparent to.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

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.

Think about that for a few. This means no one in congress can withhold those documents either. I would love to see mad Maxine have to turn over her financial records. Same With Elija Cummings.

Every president since Tricky Dick has shown their tax returns, so tell me Trump Humper what does Trump have to hide that other presidents didn't?

Did they have to show their tax returns?

And since you're insisting, tell us why do you think they did it?

It's called transparency, but I guess the most transparent president doesn't realize that.

There is no obligation to do so. I would like to know how Nancy Pelosi got so rich while she was in Congress. That’s transparent to.

Funny how it doesn't matter to the Trump Humpers now, but if this was any other President you clowns would be crying for it.

 

[busybee01]

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.

This judge followed the Constitution. The only way this is overturned is if a judge decides to legislate from the bench. The Congress has broad oversight powers.

Separation of powers, checks and balances, three branches of government.

Broad yes, absolute no.

Absolute yes.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Conservatives have long supported lessening government interference in American's lives.

Cult45 'Conservatives' love to parrot this shit, except when they want the gov't to interfere on their behalf. Keep telling yourself these things though.

 

[daveman]

but that's really all there is to it

Which,of course, you could not possibly know, since you never read a word of it.

Of course I did. I dunno which one you read. Prolly the one that said what you wanted it to say.

You tend to do that.

 

[daveman]

Conservatives have long supported lessening government interference in American's lives.

Cult45 'Conservatives' love to parrot this shit, except when they want the gov't to interfere on their behalf. Keep telling yourself these things though.

Well, yeah. I try to always tell myself the truth. You can tell because I don't mindlessly repeat leftist horseshit.

I don't want the government to interfere in my life. I don't want it to interfere in yours, either, no matter how incompetent at life you are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but that's really all there is to it

Which,of course, you could not possibly know, since you never read a word of it.

Of course I did. I dunno which one you read. Prolly the one that said what you wanted it to say.

You tend to do that.

Hmm,no,you didn't read a single word of your own links. You never do.

 

[daveman]

but that's really all there is to it

Which,of course, you could not possibly know, since you never read a word of it.

Of course I did. I dunno which one you read. Prolly the one that said what you wanted it to say.

You tend to do that.

Hmm,no,you didn't read a single word of your own links. You never do.

Oh, looky there -- you're doing it again.

You're stupid, so you say stupid things. And you're gullible, so you immediately believe the lies you tell yourself.

Yup...you're a liberal, all right.

 

[Crixus]

Think about that for a few. This means no one in congress can withhold those documents either. I would love to see mad Maxine have to turn over her financial records. Same With Elija Cummings.

Every president since Tricky Dick has shown their tax returns, so tell me Trump Humper what does Trump have to hide that other presidents didn't?

Did they have to show their tax returns?

And since you're insisting, tell us why do you think they did it?

It's called transparency, but I guess the most transparent president doesn't realize that.

There is no obligation to do so. I would like to know how Nancy Pelosi got so rich while she was in Congress. That’s transparent to.

Funny how it doesn't matter to the Trump Humpers now, but if this was any other President you clowns would be crying for it.

Not really.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but that's really all there is to it

Which,of course, you could not possibly know, since you never read a word of it.

Of course I did. I dunno which one you read. Prolly the one that said what you wanted it to say.

You tend to do that.

Hmm,no,you didn't read a single word of your own links. You never do.

Oh, looky there -- you're doing it again.

You're stupid, so you say stupid things. And you're gullible, so you immediately believe the lies you tell yourself.

Yup...you're a liberal, all right.

Oh look, it's daveman hissy time again. One could set a watch by it...

 

[daveman]

but that's really all there is to it

Which,of course, you could not possibly know, since you never read a word of it.

Of course I did. I dunno which one you read. Prolly the one that said what you wanted it to say.

You tend to do that.

Hmm,no,you didn't read a single word of your own links. You never do.

Oh, looky there -- you're doing it again.

You're stupid, so you say stupid things. And you're gullible, so you immediately believe the lies you tell yourself.

Yup...you're a liberal, all right.

Oh look, it's daveman hissy time again. One could set a watch by it...

No hissy required. You stated as fact something you have no way of knowing.

Children do that. Children and liberals.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You stated as fact something you have no way of knowing.

Hmm, no, it was a safe bet based on all of your past behavior. A very safe bet. That's what evidence based thinkers do. That's why it seems so foreign to a goober like you.

"We cant really know anything, because....magic!!!"


Heh heh

 

[daveman]

You stated as fact something you have no way of knowing.

Hmm, no, it was a safe bet based on all of your past behavior. A very safe bet. That's what evidence based thinkers do. That's why it seems so foreign to a goober like you.

"We cant really know anything, because....magic!!!"


Heh heh

Prove your claim. Prove I didn't read the article in the OP, prove I don't read the articles I post.

Provide evidence, you evidence-based "thinker", you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Prove I didn't read the article in the OP, prove I don't read the articles I post.

Hmm, no, I know there is a chance you did. But I think it is a safe bet that you did not. Very safe.

 

[daveman]

Prove I didn't read the article in the OP, prove I don't read the articles I post.

Hmm, no, I know there is a chance you did. But I think it is a safe bet that you did not. Very safe.

So...it's true because you want it to be true.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what the left believes to be evidence-based thinking.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So...it's true because you want it to be true.

No, it's a safe bet based on your past behavior. Not sure i can dumb it down any further for ya. ..

 

[daveman]

So...it's true because you want it to be true.

No, it's a safe bet based on your past behavior. Not sure i can dumb it down any further for ya. ..

You have no business saying people are dumb when you claim things are true with no evidence beyond your wishful thinking.

Drop the condescension. You suck at it...and you certainly have no justification for it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have no business saying people are dumb when you claim things are true

Neato! But I think it's probably true. Gun to my head? 99% chance.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Think about that for a few. This means no one in congress can withhold those documents either. I would love to see mad Maxine have to turn over her financial records. Same With Elija Cummings.

Every president since Tricky Dick has shown their tax returns, so tell me Trump Humper what does Trump have to hide that other presidents didn't?

Did they have to show their tax returns?

And since you're insisting, tell us why do you think they did it?

It's called transparency, but I guess the most transparent president doesn't realize that.

Sure.

Why would anyone show something that nobody cares about?

Speaking of transparency, I'd rather see the college records.