Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 18, 2019

President Donald Trump's financial documents won't be released Wednesday, after the Supreme Court on Monday put on hold a lower court opinion that allowed a House subpoena to go forward. The court did not set a timeline when it will rule or release the documents, but has asked for the House to respond on Thursday to Trump's request to block the subpoena. Earlier Monday, the House said that it would endorse a 10-day delay to give the justices more time to consider legal arguments.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is NOT South Carolina.

Should have read "SCOTUS."

#1 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-18 02:14 PM | Reply

King Trump is not accountable to anyone. Bow.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-18 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good lord, a banner headline for something expected and wholly unremarkable. H**l, the House agreed to it.

#3 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-18 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"the House agreed to it."

What do you expect will happen next? Frankly, I thought SCOTUS would simple decline to hear it, since the ruling was so narrow.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 03:02 PM | Reply

Good lord, a banner headline for something expected and wholly unremarkable. H**l, the House agreed to it.
#3 | POSTED BY ET_AL

What would a reasonable timeline be for them to sort this out? I've heard it could go well into June, potentially post-November 2020.

#5 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-18 03:04 PM | Reply

#3

What do you expect, the mouthbreathers on this site only read the headlines before circle flapping in a frenzy because the word "Trump" is in the headline.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-18 03:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Frankly, I thought SCOTUS would simple decline to hear it, since the ruling was so narrow.
#4 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Some circles have agreed that there's a chance they will take it on, only to rule in favor of releasing the documents to Congress much later than will have any political impact, as a sign of fairness to the POTUS. IOW, lots and lots of speculation without much precedent to stand on.

#7 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-18 03:06 PM | Reply

Good lord, a banner headline for something expected and wholly unremarkable. H**l, the House agreed to it.
#3 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Um no.

You're a victim of the American King. He makes normal and you accept it. Even better, you log in to tell everyone how normal the King is.

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-18 03:07 PM | Reply

When it comes to this Supreme Court, the predictable can easily and reasonably be interpreted as ominous.

#9 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 03:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Expected? Sure.

Wholly unremarkable? These aren't the droids you're looking for.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-18 03:11 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

It's good to be da King.

#11 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-18 03:12 PM | Reply

The POTUS refusing to show his tax returns should never ever ever be "normal and expected"

We give him unlimited power and he gives back to us..... nothing.

#12 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-18 03:14 PM | Reply

"We give him unlimited power and he gives back to us..... nothing."

He gives us back obfuscation, lies and his middle finger.

#13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-11-18 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Here's the order. www.supremecourt.gov

House response to cert. petition due Nov. 21.

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-18 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't care if Obama, Bush, Clinton, Trump, or Roosevelt released their tax returns. They don't have to. This is an attempt by the State of New York to go fishing...if there is a specific charge that warrants a subpoena, fine. Otherwise, he doesn't have to. No one does.

#15 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-18 03:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I don't care if Obama, Bush, Clinton, Trump, or Roosevelt released their tax returns. They don't have to.

Their releases are not the basis for this demand. There is a law on the books allowing a House committee to subpoena the returns in pursuit of legislation. Don't like it? Change the law. And educate yourself. You sound stupid.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Here's the cert. petition. www.scotusblog.com

Skip the formalities and go to pdf page 14 for the Introduction.

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-18 03:30 PM | Reply

#17. Thank you.

But do you see, in principle, why this should be a gentleman's agreement and not a legal matter?

#18 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-18 03:31 PM | Reply

They don't have to.

#15 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED AT 2019-11-18 03:26 PM | FLAG:

Trump doesn't have to. Everyone else is subject to American norms and laws.

It's good to be King.

#19 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-18 03:32 PM | Reply

But do you see, in principle, why this should be a gentleman's agreement and not a legal matter?

If we asked for Obama's school records, do you think we would get them in a "gentleman's" agreement?

#20 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-18 03:34 PM | Reply

It's good to be King.

#19 | Posted by BruceBanner

The rats belong to him.

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-18 03:35 PM | Reply

Delay and Obstruct.

Get over it. It's how we do it now.

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-18 03:36 PM | Reply

You can't use subpoenas as a fishing expedition. You have proof of a crime? Because if there was one you can bet your ass a dem would have found one and leaked it to the media. Three years of Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.

#23 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-18 03:37 PM | Reply

Even better, you log in to tell everyone how normal the King is.
#8 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

I commented on Supreme Court procedure not the Buffoon. If the mandate issues and the documents are produced, the case becomes moot and thus unreviewable. The stay was expected and is unremarkable.

#24 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-18 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You can't use subpoenas as a fishing expedition. You have proof of a crime?

That's not required, moron.

26 U.S.C. 6103(f): Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request

Go read something. God you're stupid.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 03:42 PM | Reply

#25 See #24. Who was your president when you woke this morning? Your three years of being wrong is showing, you may have to add a fourth Marsha.

#26 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-18 03:47 PM | Reply

#24 has nothing to do with #25. Go use some of the government pension money you stole from your husband to take a remedial reading course.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 03:49 PM | Reply

You can't use subpoenas as a fishing expedition.

All grand jury investigations are "fishing expeditions" by definition. The grand jury is looking for evidence of a crime. But that's not this case. This about the House not New York.

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-18 03:49 PM | Reply

If we asked for Obama's school records, do you think we would get them in a "gentleman's" agreement?

#20 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-11-18 03:34 PM | FLAG:

No Boaz. The President is a very busy man (well, every other one besides King Trump, who does no work at all). So wasting his time on political garbage is unacceptable. There has to be a good reason and a norm to be followed. In this case, people don't put up their grades to audition for the job. Nor does it matter after.

#29 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-18 03:50 PM | Reply

"You can't use subpoenas as a fishing expedition. You have proof of a crime? "

Damn. The stupid is strong in these Deplorables.

It is Congress job to do oversight of the executive branch. Do you deny this?

If Trump refuses to allow people to testify UNDER OATH so that Congress has the information it needs to do its job how will Congress DO it's job?

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-18 03:50 PM | Reply

"You can't use subpoenas as a fishing expedition. You have proof of a crime? "

Aren't subpoenas used to get the proof if it exists?

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-11-18 03:52 PM | Reply

God you're stupid.

#25 | POSTED BY JOE

I don't think it's wise to call God stupid.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-18 03:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

#25 | POSTED BY JOE

Conservatives only believe in following the law when it is convenient for them.

#33 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-18 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If anyone denies access to something as innocuous as tax-returns proves they have something to hide. When it's the President of the United States, it becomes a national obsession. This is what happens when an unpopular racketeer is elected. People that despise him suspect the worst.

#34 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-18 03:55 PM | Reply

If we asked for Obama's school records

Is there a law on the books that says when the House requests Obama's school records, the party in possession of those records "shall" produce them? Bwcause there is such a law on the books wirh respect to Trump's tax returns.

Remember when Republicans pretended to care about "law and order?" That was cute.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Law and order. Fiscal responsibility. Personal responsibility. It's all out the window.

#36 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-18 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

They don't have to. This is an attempt by the State of New York to go fishing...if there is a specific charge that warrants a subpoena, fine. Otherwise, he doesn't have to. No one does.
#15 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED AT 2019-11-18 03:26 PM | REPLY | NEWSWORTHY 1

Exactly! Which every other president in the modern era has been exposed to EXCEPT Trump!

There may be a VERY good reason for that and considering the stakes, significantly warranted. Your choice of ignorance speaks volumes.

#37 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-18 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Maybe it's irrelevant but is it "financial documents" or "tax returns"?

They aren't the same thing (but could reveal the same information).

Perhaps there is a legal distinction with regard to the difference.

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-18 04:03 PM | Reply

"This is an attempt by the State of New York to go fishing."

Absolute nonsense. There are some very clear reasons to believe major tax fraud has occurred, in addition to the $700 million he pocketed, tax-free, between 1995 and 2005.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 04:04 PM | Reply

"Maybe it's irrelevant but is it "financial documents" or "tax returns"?"

The former includes the latter.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 04:05 PM | Reply

"Law and order. Fiscal responsibility. Personal responsibility. It's all out the window."

The fastest-growing cemetery in the world is the place where Republican talking points go to die.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 04:06 PM | Reply

Maybe it's irrelevant but is it "financial documents" or "tax returns"?

The law says "return or return information," so i'm not even sure where your question comes from.

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 04:20 PM | Reply

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Your own SCOTUS said so. Now leave me alone...
--Dem president (insert name here) during his/her term.

#43 | Posted by catdog at 2019-11-18 04:22 PM | Reply

Joe, in commercial insurance, our insurance companies require financial statements from our customers all of the time as an underwriting requirement. Their financial stability is an issue for some types of coverage. It's also a way to gather up sales information so some exposures are captured accurately.....and by "financial statements" I mean income statements and balance sheets. Some of these financial statements are audited by a CPA firm and some aren't. Either way, we have to get those....and they never include tax returns....but the income statements will tell you what you want to know for the most part.

Again...maybe it's irrelevant....just asking for clarification.

#44 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-18 04:30 PM | Reply

"and they never include tax returns"

Yikes.

Asking for trouble, in my estimation. Just ask Deutsche Bank.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 04:32 PM | Reply

#44 All you have to do is read the law i posted upthread. I'm well aware that in your world "financial documents" might have a different meaning. The law requires "returns" and "return information" to be furnished by the IRS Secretary - not the vague term "financial docs" - so your question is misplaced.

#46 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 04:45 PM | Reply

Excuse me, I'm W from Kleenex. Can we talk?

#47 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-18 04:53 PM | Reply

King Trump is not accountable to anyone. Bow.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner

Who gets copies of your tax returns bru baby? Are they public documents?

#48 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-18 04:55 PM | Reply

"All you have to do is read the law i posted upthread."

thanks

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-18 04:57 PM | Reply

He gives us back obfuscation, lies and his middle finger.

#13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

See 48 or are yours public records?

#50 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-18 04:58 PM | Reply

All grand jury investigations are "fishing expeditions" by definition.

Ridiculous word salad ... Prosecutors believe there is a crime, or probable cause, they enumerate it beforehand, they just don't start diggin into someones past. ...

So what is the "crime"?

Aren't subpoenas used to get the proof if it exists?

No ... first you need to define "it".... you can't just subpoena your political rivals to look for ----.

"Given the temptation to dig up dirt on political rivals, intrusive subpoenas into personal lives of presidents will become our new normal in times of divided government " no matter which party is in power. If every committee chairman is going to have this unbounded authority, this court should be the one to say so,"

Perfectly reasonable..... response ....

They aren't the same thing (but could reveal the same information).
Perhaps there is a legal distinction with regard to the difference.
#38 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Yes ... "financial documents" and "tax documents", are two sets of documents with some intersection, hence the different phrases.

They aren't the same thing (but could reveal the same information).

Only if you are living pay check to pay check.

#51 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-18 04:59 PM | Reply

His 401k is in the toilet too!!! Trump should send Eb and Joe an iPhone 2. 3 year olds like shiny objects

#52 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-18 05:08 PM | Reply

"only to rule in favor of releasing the documents to Congress much later than will have any political impact, as a sign of fairness to the POTUS"

aka, unfair to the American people as they're trying to vote.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 05:13 PM | Reply

Moscow Mitch corrupted the SCOTUS for a generation. It's not a legit body anymore.

#54 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-18 05:16 PM | Reply

"as a sign of fairness to the POTUS"

He's been treated so unfairly!

He should get a third term since the Dumb-o-crats ruined his first two with their witch hunts!

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-18 05:18 PM | Reply

Moscow Mitch corrupted the SCOTUS for a generation. It's not a legit body anymore.

Um, no. It absolutely is.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-18 05:20 PM | Reply

Um, no. It absolutely is.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-18 05:20 PM | REPLY

Not after Merrick Garland issue. Of course your partisan hackery won't admit that.

#57 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-18 05:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"You can't use subpoenas as a fishing expedition. You have proof of a crime? "

Aren't subpoenas used to get the proof if it exists?
#31 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Gal, rule of thumb, if Gracie posts something, ignore it. She's a dumb fffking qunt.

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 05:27 PM | Reply

You idiots think America cares like you handful of menstruated women? Go buy sleeping pills for 2020.

#59 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-18 05:31 PM | Reply

Why shouldn't they? It was obvious political attack.

#60 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-11-18 05:32 PM | Reply

If we asked for Obama's school records, do you think we would get them in a "gentleman's" agreement?
#20 | POSTED BY BOAZ

It's adorable how much you hate Obama being our first black president.

Considering it's a fact his mom was born in Kansas. It really doesn't matter where he was born. (ie. Rafael "Ted" Cruz)

At most you discover he lied on a college entrance application.

Then what, Boaz. Than what?

Nothing. That's right, nothing.

So take a big swig of STFU.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

57 - Advice and consent. No consent was given.

#62 | Posted by homerj at 2019-11-18 05:35 PM | Reply

Why shouldn't they? It was obvious political attack.
#60 | Posted by HeliumRat

You would have to be a moron to think that there isnt ample evidence of Illegitimate President Bucket of ---- committing tax fraud.

#63 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-11-18 05:35 PM | Reply

You idiots think America cares like you handful of menstruated women?
#59 | POSTED BY WISGOD

You sure seem to care.

You know how I know Trump is fffked?

Because you're in here shooting blood out of your gash.

#64 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 05:35 PM | Reply

57 - Advice and consent. No consent was given.
#62 | Posted by homerj

corrupt intent

#65 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-11-18 05:36 PM | Reply

You would have to be a moron to think that there isnt ample evidence of Illegitimate President Bucket of ---- committing tax fraud.

#63 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Have you read any of HRat's posts?

Calling him a moron is a complement.

#66 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 05:37 PM | Reply

or at least redundant

#67 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-11-18 05:38 PM | Reply

No ... first you need to define "it".... you can't just subpoena your political rivals to look for ----.

So the subpoena is illegal and all the prosecutors and judges up until this point are ok with it because they don't like Trump?

#68 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-18 05:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You idiots think America cares like you handful of menstruated women? Go buy sleeping pills for 2020.

#59 | POSTED BY WISGOD

More deep "thoughts" from cheesedick.

#69 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-18 05:41 PM | Reply

No ... first you need to define "it".... you can't just subpoena your political rivals to look for ----.
#51 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

"It" defined at last paragraph of page 30 through page 31. assets.documentcloud.org

Basically "hush money" payments to the porn star and the Playboy Bunny.

#70 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-18 05:45 PM | Reply

Deeper than your response, Just Pure Woman

#71 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-18 05:48 PM | Reply

57 - Advice and consent. No consent was given.
#62 | Posted by homerj

Advise and consent NOT delay or postpone.

#72 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-18 06:11 PM | Reply

""It" defined at last paragraph of page 30 through page 31"

So...Mackris got proof of exactly what he was pretending didn't exist.

Expect the goalposts to be moved any moment now.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 06:12 PM | Reply

Laura,

You really shouldn't be calling anyone a hack.

It's that whole self-awareness thingy.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-18 06:20 PM | Reply

Why doesn't trump want everyone to see what an amazing non-criminal businessman he is?

He's just too modest?

#75 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-18 06:21 PM | Reply

So the subpoena is illegal and all the prosecutors and judges up until this point are ok with it because they don't like Trump?
#68 | POSTED BY JPW

"Never Trumper!" is currently the call of the Right. There's so many even Never Trumpers are calling each other Never Trumpers!

#76 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-18 06:21 PM | Reply

So many more are focused on Prince Andrew and his perspiration. You idiots never get it right unless you can tie the 2016 Election into it.

#77 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-18 06:31 PM | Reply

#75 Speaks

He's very modest. And humble too.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-18 06:32 PM | Reply

"So many more are focused on Prince Andrew and his perspiration."

TMI, bro.

#79 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 06:37 PM | Reply

Trump told everyone they could see his tax returns in 2016.... Isn't it at least peculiar that he's now taking the fight to the Supreme Court to keep them from everyone? Just another liar.

#80 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-11-18 06:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So many more are focused on Prince Andrew and his perspiration.

#77 | POSTED BY WISGOD AT 2019-11-18 06:31 PM | FLAG:

Welcome back cheesy, and thanks for the profound addition to the conversation.

#81 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-11-18 07:00 PM | Reply

"Trump told everyone they could see his tax returns in 2016...."

And those were 2015 taxes, which aren't currently under audit, if for no other reason than it's out of statute.

#82 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 07:07 PM | Reply

Pssst, Chief Justice Roberts there seems to be a sinkhole opening up near your feet.

#83 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2019-11-18 08:08 PM | Reply

#75 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-11-18 06:21 PM | FLAG: Do you not think that if there was anything 'criminal' one of the deep state libbies in the IRS would have leaked it by now. After all, libbies do leak like a sieve.

#84 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-11-19 03:55 PM | Reply

Not for nothing, but the subpoena was issued to Drumpf's accounting firm, not POTUS himself. The accounting firm has no basis to ignore or refuse to comply with a subpoena. Executive privilege, which doesn't exist, does not extend to them.

But please, let's hear more from the "conservatives" on the DR about this, and other completely unrelated things like the previous president's school records.

#85 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-19 08:43 PM | Reply

There are some very clear reasons to believe major tax fraud has occurred, in addition to the $700 million he pocketed, tax-free, between 1995 and 2005.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are also very very clear instances of his self dealings with his charity paying personal liabilities of his that would be taxable income to him on his tax returns outlined in the settlement of his charity fraud case.

#86 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-11-20 08:32 AM | Reply

Do you not think that if there was anything 'criminal' one of the deep state libbies in the IRS would have leaked it by now.

Fat Nixon's tax returns are locked in a specially constructed vault in the IRS. I am sure that the combination to the safe is not widely known as a specific check on the ability of them being "leaked". I know I wouldn't risk my job at the IRS to leak a document that Congress has a LEGAL right to view.

#87 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-11-20 08:35 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort