Split decision by SCOTUS on Bunkerboy's taxes.

[Brian37]

Two separate cases, two different decisions.

#1 was about NY prosecutor's ability to access his taxes and financials through third parties that Trump dealt with. SCOTUS sided with the prosecutors, BUT, my understanding is that it still has to go through a grand jury, and my other understanding is grand jury proceedings remain sealed until or unless passed down to a court trial. 

But the second case dealing with his financials was Congressional oversight, and the court declined to hear those cases and threw them back down to the lower courts. At least that is my laypersons understanding from cable news.

So what I am tangentially getting out of this, is that if he loses in November he is fucked, but if he wins, he can pass the statute of limitations and get away with what he has done. 

There needs to be a constitutional Amendment requiring any and all presidential candidates to disclose 10 years of their financials in order to apply to run or hold office.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Two separate cases, two different decisions.

#1 was about NY prosecutor's ability to access his taxes and financials through third parties that Trump dealt with. SCOTUS sided with the prosecutors, BUT, my understanding is that it still has to go through a grand jury, and my other understanding is grand jury proceedings remain sealed until or unless passed down to a court trial. 

But the second case dealing with his financials was Congressional oversight, and the court declined to hear those cases and threw them back down to the lower courts. At least that is my laypersons understanding from cable news.

So what I am tangentially getting out of this, is that if he loses in November he is fucked, but if he wins, he can pass the statute of limitations and get away with what he has done. 

There needs to be a constitutional Amendment requiring any and all presidential candidates to disclose 10 years of their financials in order to apply to run or hold office.

He’s not necessarily going to get away with anything. If a grand jury returns a sealed indictment, the clock stops until it is unsealed. If Trump is re-elected, he can still be prosecuted in 2025 when he’s out of office (and, presumably, still alive).

The idea of a constitutional amendment about this is a pretty stupid idea.

Boru

[Brian37]

Two separate cases, two different decisions.

#1 was about NY prosecutor's ability to access his taxes and financials through third parties that Trump dealt with. SCOTUS sided with the prosecutors, BUT, my understanding is that it still has to go through a grand jury, and my other understanding is grand jury proceedings remain sealed until or unless passed down to a court trial. 

But the second case dealing with his financials was Congressional oversight, and the court declined to hear those cases and threw them back down to the lower courts. At least that is my laypersons understanding from cable news.

So what I am tangentially getting out of this, is that if he loses in November he is fucked, but if he wins, he can pass the statute of limitations and get away with what he has done. 

There needs to be a constitutional Amendment requiring any and all presidential candidates to disclose 10 years of their financials in order to apply to run or hold office.

He’s not necessarily going to get away with anything. If a grand jury returns a sealed indictment, the clock stops until it is unsealed. If Trump is re-elected, he can still be prosecuted in 2025 when he’s out of office (and, presumably, still alive).

The idea of a constitutional amendment about this is a pretty stupid idea.

Boru

I know that, once it is passed to a regular jury the evidence can be presented to that jury. But the scary part is that if he wins, he can pass the statute of limitations. This to me makes congressional oversight that more important. My understanding is that with what he has been accused of while running could run past the limitations if he gets a second term. 

Why is requiring anyone running for president to disclose their financials "stupid"? There is a reason the emoluments clause exists too. It is to prevent foreign governments from having any criminal leverage over our President and to prevent the President from using the office for criminal gain. 

Trump's history is clear even if he had not run. He's gotten away with ripping people off all his life. That is bad enough in the private sector. I would want my President to be held to a higher standard.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

He’s not necessarily going to get away with anything. If a grand jury returns a sealed indictment, the clock stops until it is unsealed. If Trump is re-elected, he can still be prosecuted in 2025 when he’s out of office (and, presumably, still alive).

The idea of a constitutional amendment about this is a pretty stupid idea.

Boru

I know that, once it is passed to a regular jury the evidence can be presented to that jury. But the scary part is that if he wins, he can pass the statute of limitations. This to me makes congressional oversight that more important. My understanding is that with what he has been accused of while running could run past the limitations if he gets a second term. 

Why is requiring anyone running for president to disclose their financials "stupid"? There is a reason the emoluments clause exists too. It is to prevent foreign governments from having any criminal leverage over our President and to prevent the President from using the office for criminal gain. 

Trump's history is clear even if he had not run. He's gotten away with ripping people off all his life. That is bad enough in the private sector. I would want my President to be held to a higher standard.

Let’s say Trump is four years into the statute of limitations of seven years. If a grand jury returns a sealed indictment, the clock stops at four years. If Trump is re-elected and leaves office in 2025 and the indictment is unsealed, Trump is still, for legal purposes, at four years and can be prosecuted. Why? Because he was indicted before the statute of limitations had been reached. Just because the indictment is sealed doesn’t mean he wasn’t indicted.

I didn’t say that requiring financial disclosure was stupid. I said calling for a constitutional amendment to do so was stupid.  You might as well call for Tinkerbelle to wave her wand and make it happen.

Boru

[Brian37]

We should not only give out free birth control - we should PAY people to be sterilized.


One thing there is no shortage of - people.

I know that, once it is passed to a regular jury the evidence can be presented to that jury. But the scary part is that if he wins, he can pass the statute of limitations. This to me makes congressional oversight that more important. My understanding is that with what he has been accused of while running could run past the limitations if he gets a second term. 

Why is requiring anyone running for president to disclose their financials "stupid"? There is a reason the emoluments clause exists too. It is to prevent foreign governments from having any criminal leverage over our President and to prevent the President from using the office for criminal gain. 

Trump's history is clear even if he had not run. He's gotten away with ripping people off all his life. That is bad enough in the private sector. I would want my President to be held to a higher standard.

Let’s say Trump is four years into the statute of limitations of seven years. If a grand jury returns a sealed indictment, the clock stops at four years. If Trump is re-elected and leaves office in 2025 and the indictment is unsealed, Trump is still, for legal purposes, at four years and can be prosecuted. Why? Because he was indicted before the statute of limitations had been reached. Just because the indictment is sealed doesn’t mean he wasn’t indicted.

I didn’t say that requiring financial disclosure was stupid. I said calling for a constitutional amendment to do so was stupid.  You might as well call for Tinkerbelle to wave her wand and make it happen.

Boru

I get it, but even if the limitations are as long as you say, that is 4 more years of damage and propaganda.

I think we need to be real here. The best case scenario is that he loses in November. He certainly doesn't have the morals to do what Nixion did.

But if he wins, the "burden" argument stays in play, and that is still 4 more years of damage he can and will do, even if one wants to argue that he can still be held responsible after his second term.

Um no, I don't find requiring anyone running for that office requiring their financials for 10 years stupid. 

Even outside government, those applying to be bank loan officers or even mere tellers have their asses crawled up before getting that job.

If you want your bank to be honest, and you expect them to protect your money you intrust them when you deposit it, how the fuck should a President be held to less scrutiny?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Let’s say Trump is four years into the statute of limitations of seven years. If a grand jury returns a sealed indictment, the clock stops at four years. If Trump is re-elected and leaves office in 2025 and the indictment is unsealed, Trump is still, for legal purposes, at four years and can be prosecuted. Why? Because he was indicted before the statute of limitations had been reached. Just because the indictment is sealed doesn’t mean he wasn’t indicted.

I didn’t say that requiring financial disclosure was stupid. I said calling for a constitutional amendment to do so was stupid.  You might as well call for Tinkerbelle to wave her wand and make it happen.

Boru

I get it, but even if the limitations are as long as you say, that is 4 more years of damage and propaganda.

I think we need to be real here. The best case scenario is that he loses in November. He certainly doesn't have the morals to do what Nixion did.

But if he wins, the "burden" argument stays in play, and that is still 4 more years of damage he can and will do, even if one wants to argue that he can still be held responsible after his second term.

Um no, I don't find requiring anyone running for that office requiring their financials for 10 years stupid. 

Even outside government, those applying to be bank loan officers or even mere tellers have their asses crawled up before getting that job.

If you want your bank to be honest, and you expect them to protect your money you intrust them when you deposit it, how the fuck should a President be held to less scrutiny?

No, you don’t get it. Try thinking of it this way: In Trump’s case, a sealed indictment would extend the statute of limitations until he leaves office, either in 2021 or in 2024.

I agree that candidates should be required to disclose their financial history, but a constitutional amendment is a stupid way to go about it.

Boru

[Brian37]

I get it, but even if the limitations are as long as you say, that is 4 more years of damage and propaganda.

I think we need to be real here. The best case scenario is that he loses in November. He certainly doesn't have the morals to do what Nixion did.

But if he wins, the "burden" argument stays in play, and that is still 4 more years of damage he can and will do, even if one wants to argue that he can still be held responsible after his second term.

Um no, I don't find requiring anyone running for that office requiring their financials for 10 years stupid. 

Even outside government, those applying to be bank loan officers or even mere tellers have their asses crawled up before getting that job.

If you want your bank to be honest, and you expect them to protect your money you intrust them when you deposit it, how the fuck should a President be held to less scrutiny?

No, you don’t get it. Try thinking of it this way: In Trump’s case, a sealed indictment would extend the statute of limitations until he leaves office, either in 2021 or in 2024.

I agree that candidates should be required to disclose their financial history, but a constitutional amendment is a stupid way to go about it.

Boru

What?

Bank CEO, and employee meet to discuss employment,

Bank CEO, " Well Mam/sir, I would love to give you the job, but can I see your financials?"

Person applying for the job, "No, that is my private business".

Bank CEO, (metaphor for american voters) "Ok, I guess I went too far."

Putin, "EXCELLENT"

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, you don’t get it. Try thinking of it this way: In Trump’s case, a sealed indictment would extend the statute of limitations until he leaves office, either in 2021 or in 2024.

I agree that candidates should be required to disclose their financial history, but a constitutional amendment is a stupid way to go about it.

Boru

What?

Bank CEO, and employee meet to discuss employment,

Bank CEO, " Well Mam/sir, I would love to give you the job, but can I see your financials?"

Person applying for the job, "No, that is my private business".

Bank CEO, (metaphor for american voters) "Ok, I guess I went too far."

Putin, "EXCELLENT"

Do you understand the difference between a regular law and a constitutional amendment?

Boru

[Brian37]

What?

Bank CEO, and employee meet to discuss employment,

Bank CEO, " Well Mam/sir, I would love to give you the job, but can I see your financials?"

Person applying for the job, "No, that is my private business".

Bank CEO, (metaphor for american voters) "Ok, I guess I went too far."

Putin, "EXCELLENT"

Do you understand the difference between a regular law and a constitutional amendment?

Boru

Prohibition was constitutionally upheld then constitutionally struck down. 

Slavery was legal unfortunately and it took a war to end it.


If the founders intent was to limit power to the office of the President, and they put forth the concept of checks and balances, then the ability to add or remove an amendment, remains. And if you look at the Constitution there are previsons to add or remove an amendment.

And American history has shown that both have happened.

I am merely trying to suggest that the Emoluments Clause was brilliant in the idea of preventing corruption. I think having a Constitutional Amendment requiring anyone applying to run for President could go a long way in preventing an asshole like Trump.

---

And I don't know what you mean by trying to separate regular law from Constitutional law when all laws stem from the Constitution.

[Fake Messiah]

Hold your horses because in 2010, Ivanka and Don Jr were nearly indicted for felony fraud. The district attorney who dropped the case -- after a hefty donation from Trump's lawyer -- was Cy Vance.

SCOTUS ruled that Vance, not Congress, can access Trump's tax returns.