Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration The Impeachment of Donald trump

I knew it was just a matter of time before the SCOTUS heard the case about Trump's tax returns. This is an old article, but here is the catch.

"As the Supreme Court explained in Watkins v. United States, “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Rather, if Congress wants to collect information from the executive branch or other outsiders, it must do so in connection with its legislative power. That is, a Congressional attempt to investigate an official or request information from him is valid only to the extent it serves proper legislative purposes.*** Congress cannot simply engage in “a fruitless investigation into the personal affairs of individuals.” Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 195 (1880).."

https://yalejreg.com/nc/can-congress-get-president-trumps-tax-returns/

That is from the SCOTUS itself. there's a lot more which basically leaves the whole thing up in the air. Then what exactly is "proper legislative purposes?" Passing or drawing up legislation? So like everything else surrounding Trump, it's a "We'll see." Every time I predict any ruling by the SCOTUS, I get it wrong. I read the Constitution in plain English, the SCOTUS reads it in lawyerese.

I've always thought if congress subpoenas someone, they must appear. Now they can take the fifth, but they must show up. Perhaps we need a SCOTUS ruling on how far and what does executive privileged cover.

One thing is certain in my mind. The Congress needs to get back a lot of their Constitutional powers they voluntary ceded away to the administration and other government agencies and departments. The way I see it, congressional members of the party of the president have been more members of that president's administration than members of the institution of congress. It's been this way for 50 plus years or more. Probably ever since Sam Rayburn and Mike McCormick stepped down as Speaker. Both were very protective of the powers of congress and neither would cede any. Not even to a president of their own party.

That requirement that Congress can't go on a fishing expedition only applies when they are NOT considering impeachment. During an impeachment proceeding, all immunity to investigation of the Executive Branch goes away. According to the Constitution, impeachment is an enumerated power of The House. In order to impeach, they have to have the tools of investigation. So this case is pretty moot now.

Also, the President has no power to say when an impeachment is legitimate. That is up to The House, and again according to the Constitution they get to make their own procedural rules.

I agree as far as impeachment is concerned. Tax returns are another matter or are you saying that the house wants them as part of the impeachment process? The house, democrats have wanted them way before the election of 2016. Way before impeachment was even thought about, back when Trump was but a candidate. It might be difficult arguing that Democrats, the house wanting his tax returns solely for impeachment reason and not for purely political reasons trying to get a gotcha. Not when the democrats have been harping on them for 3 plus years now.

I don't know, not a lawyer. your guess is as good as mine. I certainly get everything wrong when the SCOTUS comes into play. I don't speak Lawyerese.

It doesn't matter if they wanted them in 2017. They are impeaching him NOW. They are entitled to them NOW. But even before the impeachment, the law that House committees can obtain the President's tax returns has no exceptions. It says "shall". It does not say "shall if the President allows it" or "shall if it's for a legislative purpose". And besides, they already listed several legitimate legislative purposes. Just claiming it's political is nonsense: Everything the Congress or President does is political. It's call Checks and Balances.

In 2016, the people voted and Trump won. That has to be honored. In 2018 the people voted and they made the House Democratic. That has to be honored, too.

Not to put too fine on a point on how Trump ascended to the White House, but...Trump was not "democratically elected" - he lost by 2.9 million votes. He was "constitutionally elected," by an 18th century constitutional design that includes a ban on foreign bribes to the president and that offers impeachment and removal as a remedy for bribe-seeking.

You may be right about the tax returns. We'll see. I'm just not sure. Trump, the polarization of America and the ultra high partisanship on both sides of the aisle has turned the political world upside down. For someone as old as me, who has seen better times among the major parties, this really sucks.

Major reasons why Hillary lost. 1 she was lazy and ceded the campaign trail to Trump. Trump made 116 campaign visits, stops, appearances, held rallies from 1 Sep through 8 Nov 2016 to Hillary's 71. That 71 looks larger than it was, it includes fund raisers in deep blue California and New York.

2 lack of enthusiasm in Hillary base. Her Ho Hum Campaign. The Democrats had a 6 point advantage in party affiliation back in Nov 2016. But only a 3 point advantage among those who actually turned out to vote. Trump's supporters were energetic and enthusiastic, willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Hillary's wouldn't even go to the polls.

3 A very inept campaign strategy on Hillary's part. That is if you call receiving more electoral vote than Obama did a strategy. She spent way too much time, energy and money trying to win Georgia, Arizona and Utah. While ignoring her backyard, the so called blue wall states.

4 The media, Hillary ceded the media to Trump also. Hillary basically hid from the media going over 200 days without a press conference, only going on shows that were 100% in support for her like the view. Every day Trump would be calling into every morning talk show, whether they were for him or against him. Trump kept his name in the limelight, always the lead story and headliner on the news. Sure Hillary raised and outspent Trump 1.191 billion to 646.8 million, but Trump was the master of the free media.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

5 The Sanders vote. Jury rigging of the Democratic primaries in Hillary's favor by the DNC and Democratic state party leaders made a lot of them angry. Who knows how many stayed home. But in those who voted, Hillary won them 75-12 over Trump with 13% voting third party. Compare those number to Hillary's base numbers, Democrats, she won them 89-8 over Trump with just 3% voting third party.

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

And of course many other reasons. But the above Hillary had direct control over. Had she not ceded the campaign trail to Trump, she'd be sitting in the white house today. Had she inspired her base, she'd be in the oval office. If democrats had turnout to vote in the same percentage as republicans did, she'd be president today. Had she adopted her husband Bill's campaign strategy instead of being so stubborn, she would have won. Had she not ignored the media, instead of hiding, and on and on.

As far as I'm concerned, Hillary caused her own defeat. You can blame it on the electoral college, the Russians, any number of things. But that doesn't explain Hillary's laziness, her inept campaign strategy, her ho hum campaign, among other reasons. Sure she won the popular vote in spite of all her shortcomings. Just think if she actually tried to win how much more that margin would have been.

The only reason I can come up with for all the above, is that Hillary thought her election was in the bag, guaranteed. All she had to do was show up, the election would be handed to her. fait accompli

And despite all that she won by nearly 3 million votes. Yet Donald Trump was installed to the office.

Yep, exactly. Makes one wonder, at least me, why Hillary didn't give it the old college try. Either there was something physically wrong with her or she absolutely believed whether she tried or not, the election was her's. She really didn't need to show up.

As an avid follower of elections ever since I watched the Democratic and Republican conventions way back in 1956 on an old black and white TV, I never saw a major party candidate give such a lackadaisical effort. The closest I can come was to G.H.W. Bush's 1992 performance where he appeared he didn't care if he won or lost until 2 weeks prior to the election when he went into overdrive. By then it was too late.

I'm sure if the democrats in 2020 look at how Hillary conducted her campaign, do the exact opposite, they'll win in a landslide. With Sanders energy he showed during 2016, I believe he would have beaten Trump by 10-15 million votes. Besides, Sanders was respected and liked by the swing, independent voter. Hillary wasn't. Sanders was one of three candidates to be viewed more positively than negatively by independent voters. The other two, Kasich and Rubio. But none of them went through the general election campaign, so who knows how the public would have viewed them on election day.

She read the same polls we did.