Yellowstone - C/S TCTH SUN..his taxes - Yellowstone - InvestorVillage
This is a semi-private group. You are free to browse messages, but you must be a member of this group to post messages. Join This Group

Group: Yellowstone   /  Message Board  /  Read Message

 
 






Keyword
Subject
Between
and
Rec'd By
Authored By
Minimum Recs
  
Previous Message  Next Message   Post Message   Post a Reply return to message boardtop of board
Msg  20010 of 20599  at  11/17/2019 3:20:05 PM  by

easygoodpics


 In response to msg 20009 by  easygoodpics
view thread

Re: C/S TCTH SUN..his taxes

 

THREAD:

SIX BIG PROBLEMS with David Holmes' written statement.

First and foremost, it SIGNIFICANTLY contradicts Bill Taylor's public testimony in multiple ways. https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1196075072194265089 

 
and
lawrencepaul1 says:

Top NSC Official Told Secret Impeachment Panel Nothing Improper Transpired During Trump-Zelensky Call
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/top-nsc-official-told-secret-impeachment-panel-nothing-improper-transpired-during-trump

 
and

In closed-door testimony Saturday, White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official Mark Sandy blew another giant hole in the Democrats’ impeachment probe, according to two Republican lawmakers following the testimony. http://ow.ly/GkVE50xcWwp 

 

Excerpt:

Rep. Meadows said that he could tell reporters in general terms that the Democrats’ accusations regarding the hold on aid, were not supported by the Sandy during the deposition.

“We heard today behind closed doors that the assumptions that the Democrats have made and certainly the allegations that they have made have not been supported by the witness’s testimony here today,” Meadows said.

He later explained to reporters that at OMB, a hold on aid is not always known, but the reason was “ultimately shared in general terms behind closed doors and it was consistent with what we’ve heard from the president of the United States.”

 
and

Chuck de Caro: Well-coached former Ukraine envoy Marie Yovanovitch says she finds the president’s tweets “very intimidating.” Now imagine her in the face of a real crisis. http://ow.ly/JFQr50xcWvh 

 
and
wightmanfarm says:

Talk to Chris Stevens about real intimidation. Oh wait, you can’t… he dead.

Like

Beau Geste says:

he’s dead, with others, and obama fired the general (in 30 secnds) who had active defense up and ready to go. General Ham, wasn’t it?
But refusing to protecti our citizens and embassies is “diplomacy?”, not impeachable treason?

 
and
ristvan says:

Lurking Lawyer here.
There are three separate PDJT tax cases on their way two SCOTUS. in my opinion he will win both,

The first is the effort by NY state DA to get PDJT federal returns as part of a ‘criminal investigation’ into the Stormy Danials payment. Remember Cohen pled guilty to this non-crime. The issue raised is whether a sitting president can be criminally investigated at all except via A2§4 impeachment. Although the Constitution is silent on the question, the implicit answer is no for two separate reasons:
1. A1§6.1 immunizes Congressmen and Senators while sitting in the Capital in session, but not otherwise. POTUS is ‘in session’ continuously, so the purpose of A1§6.1 applies.
2. A2§4 expressly says POTUS can only be criminally charged and convicted AFTER removal from office after impeachment and conviction. NY state politically motivated over reach.

Second case is House Ways and means trying to use the new NY state law about handing over state tax returns upon request. PDJT lawsuit was rejected by federal DC court on grounds lacked jurisdiction. Will be refiled in New York. Reason PDJT will eventually prevail is the NY law is an expressly prohibited by A1§9.3 Bill of Attainder. These were, post civil war, broadened by SCOTUS to anything reasonably construable as ‘punitive’ including state laws.The §9.3 was extended to state legislation by 14A. In its most recent ruling, Nixon v Admin 433US425 (1977) SCUTUS held NOT punitive if ‘can reasonably be said to further some nonpunative legislative purpose’. There isn’t one.

Third case is ways and Means trying to get last 6 years of PDJT federal returns under 26USC§6103(f) ,IRS shall furnish upon [legitimate] request’. This language was added in 1977 in response to Nixon and Agnew, in addition to a requirement that all P and VP returns undergo a special annual audit. It also must be read in light of a long series of SCOTUS opinions that legislative demands (subpoenas) MUST be pursuant to some legitimate legislative purpose. PDJT has two lines of argument, each individually determinative:
1. If the legislative purpose is to oversee the IRS special POTUS audit, then they should not have asked for the 4 years prior to his inauguration.
2. If the legislative purpose was to examine real estate developer returns, then they should have asked for other big developers also.

Since neither of those are true, the request is illegitimate. SCOTUS Watkins v US (1957) “ Congress has no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification…it must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate legislative task.

 
 
 
 
 
 


     e-mail to a friend      printer-friendly     add to library      
| More
Recs: 0     Views: 10
Previous Message  Next Message   Post Message   Post a Reply return to message boardtop of board






About Us  •  Contact Us  •  Follow Us on Twitter  •  Members Directory  •  Help Center  •  Advertise
Not a member yet? What are you waiting for? Create Account
Want to contribute? Support InvestorVillage by donating
© 2003-2019 Investorvillage.com. All rights reserved. User Agreement
   
Financial Market Data provided by
.


Loading...