A federal judge ruled against President Donald Trump on Monday in a lawsuit to block a subpoena from House Democrats for information about his finances.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed accounting firm Mazars in April, requesting financial documents and related materials from Trump, his trust and a handful of his businesses.

 

Trump’s lawyers sued in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to block that subpoena, arguing in their legal complaint that Democrats had “declared all-out political war” against Trump. 

In a hearing in May, the president’s lawyers argued that the Democrats’ actions fell far afield of Congress’ legitimate oversight functions as a legislative body. But Judge Amit Mehta questioned that argument, suggesting in the hearing that many historic congressional investigations — including the Watergate probe — might be considered invalid by the standard Trump’s lawyers were asserting.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/2...dHn5z5nw5chxdDKtmD1A

Original Post
1130 posted:

yep,, a judge born in India, appointed by Obama,,, go figure.   how deep does the corruption go?  Why do we need someone who came here for education to stay and tell us what is right and wrong?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Mehta

 

It must be so hard going through life, with so many people in a conspiracy.

not really,,, what must be hard is going thru life with blinders on.   Or is it you don't want to admit we have a challenge of partisan behavior in the justice system?  I don't always agree with Trump. However at least he has our country in mind and unlike democrats just seeking power.  He is the first to try and keep his promises. While democrats criticized him, saying he is just "keeping campaign promises".   I  interpret that as they just say what ever to get elected and don't plan on doing what they promise when campaigning.  

1130 posted:

not really,,, what must be hard is going thru life with blinders on.   Or is it you don't want to admit we have a challenge of partisan behavior in the justice system?  I don't always agree with Trump. However at least he has our country in mind and unlike democrats just seeking power.  He is the first to try and keep his promises. While democrats criticized him, saying he is just "keeping campaign promises".   I  interpret that as they just say what ever to get elected and don't plan on doing what they promise when campaigning.  

So, it's not really hard to go through life believing such a huge conspiracy. I'd prefer to go through life with the facts instead. Thanks.

so your saying your for party over country?  Because the fact is the judge was appointed by Obama, came from another country.   

1130 posted:

so your saying your for party over country?  Because the fact is the judge was appointed by Obama, came from another country.   

Can you point me to where I made that statement? You sure do spin a lot of what other people say to fit your agenda. Why do Republicans believe every judge is out to ruin Republicans?

Some people miss the point how alt left judges make new laws from
the bench and are inconsistent of Constitutional rulings.
It's common place now.  
Jack Hammer posted:
Some people miss the point how alt left judges make new laws from
the bench and are inconsistent of Constitutional rulings.
It's common place now.  

Spoken like a true Fox News Republican.

It's funny that Republicans haven't seen the precedents set during W. Bush's administration. The only news that hasn't broadcast the prior rulings is Fox News Entertainment.

Last edited by L. Cranston

Sad that judges (and people rooting for then)  have forgotten they are supposed to check personal baggage at the door and be fair

1130 posted:

Sad that judges (and people rooting for then)  have forgotten they are supposed to check personal baggage at the door and be fair

How about you wait for the ruling before you start complaining about it?

I actually was commenting on you gloating who the next judge is.  Thus you are the one not waiting for ruling.    non-partial is not a part of democrat appointed judges.   

1130 posted:

I actually was commenting on you gloating who the next judge is.  Thus you are the one not waiting for ruling.    non-partial is not a part of democrat appointed judges.   

If that were true, you wouldn't have included the word 'judges'. You chose to name the judges as well as Democrats. I merely pointed out the irony in the situation. Sorry if that went over your head.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×