• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News Mnuchin Rejects Subpoena -- Will he face consequences?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
interchange said:
This ending up in court has nothing to do with whether or not they gave a valid legal argument. The court is the remedy for their refusal, period. That they have no valid legal argument makes it a certainly that they will lose. Unfortunately, the remedy for their abuse of power to force it to court on corrupt grounds rests with Congress in the form of impeachment and contempt citations. A partisan legislature cannot root out corruption, and this is a huge problem.

If you think they do have a valid legal argument, state it and we can discuss it. That they are going to court is no evidence of this.
Click to expand...

The fact that they do or do not have a legal argument is what the court is used for to make this determination.

Use your head. It is not your place, the House of Representatives or the administrations place to determine if they have a valid legal argument. That is what courts and judges are for to determine the validity of their argument. I am surprised that you don't see this.

This is all I am saying. I am not making any claim of it being a valid argument or not, as you are.
 
SMOGZINN said:
I think that the courts are going to pretty much dismiss their case out of hand as the Executive branch has no legal argument on why they should win, as has now been said by two separate courts. I doubt a 3rd court will want to hear the same non-legal argument.
Click to expand...


And that is fine, but the court will still have to determine and make a ruling one way or the other. Tossing it out as having no legal standing is still a ruling by the court.
 
pcgeek11 said:
The fact that they do or do not have a legal argument is what the court is used for to make this determination.

Use your head. It is not your place, the House of Representatives or the administrations place to determine if they have a valid legal argument. That is what courts and judges are for to determine the validity of their argument. I am surprised that you don't see this.

This is all I am saying. I am not making any claim of it being a valid argument or not, as you are.
Click to expand...
So shall no longer means what it means. Got it.
 
soundforbjt said:
I noticed that Mnuchin wouldn't answer the yes/no question as to whether he asked/directed the IRS Secretary to deny the House Trump's tax returns. Just like Barr's non yes/no answer in the House.
Click to expand...
That's because he doen't want to go to jail. It's illegal for him to do so. 5yrs. The implication stands. This is not optional.
 
pcgeek11 said:
The fact that they do or do not have a legal argument is what the court is used for to make this determination.

Use your head. It is not your place, the House of Representatives or the administrations place to determine if they have a valid legal argument. That is what courts and judges are for to determine the validity of their argument. I am surprised that you don't see this.

This is all I am saying. I am not making any claim of it being a valid argument or not, as you are.
Click to expand...

What the utter hell? The House has subpoena power and used it to request documents. It is not their duty to justify the request. It is the holder of the documents' duty to either comply, face charges for refusal, or contest the subpoena in court. The duty to prove the subpoena is inappropriate rests on Trump.

Taking the case to court for no reason aligning with a legal challenge is not a privilege. It is an abuse. It would be the same if I sued you in small claims court for keying my car. I know you didn't key my car. I know I couldn't present any argument whatsoever that you did to a judge. But I could still sue you if I wanted and force you to show up to make me fail.

True, there is a remedy. The judge can order me to pay your costs and maybe it's even a crime, I don't really know. In this case, Congress can hold him in contempt and can impeach. But my point is that in a partisan political environment we are demonstrating that such actions are on a spectrum from politically damaging to practically impossible despite the unambiguous abuse.
 
interchange said:
What the utter hell? The House has subpoena power and used it to request documents. It is not their duty to justify the request. It is the holder of the documents' duty to either comply, face charges for refusal, or contest the subpoena in court. The duty to prove the subpoena is inappropriate rests on Trump.

Taking the case to court for no reason aligning with a legal challenge is not a privilege. It is an abuse. It would be the same if I sued you in small claims court for keying my car. I know you didn't key my car. I know I couldn't present any argument whatsoever that you did to a judge. But I could still sue you if I wanted and force you to show up to make me fail.

True, there is a remedy. The judge can order me to pay your costs and maybe it's even a crime, I don't really know. In this case, Congress can hold him in contempt and can impeach. But my point is that in a partisan political environment we are demonstrating that such actions are on a spectrum from politically damaging to practically impossible despite the unambiguous abuse.
Click to expand...

Yes that is the way it works. And yes it is up to the Administration to justify their refusal to comply with the subpoena in court. Then the court will make a determination as it should be.

Just as in your car keying example. It is a right to protest a charge in a court of law, just as it is a right to persue a grievance in a court of law.

So to sum this up, You have made a determination and the hell with what anybody else thinks.

Sorry, It doesn't matter, but this is how the legal system is designed to work. You don't like the facts, but that is the way it is. I can see the court tossing the case and forcing the administration. In other words doing it's job as designed.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Yes that is the way it works. And yes it is up to the Administration to justify their refusal to comply with the subpoena in court. Then the court will make a determination as it should be.

Just as in your car keying example. It is a right to protest a charge in a court of law, just as it is a right to persue a grievance in a court of law.

So to sum this up, You have made a determination and the hell with what anybody else thinks.

Sorry, It doesn't matter, but this is how the legal system is designed to work. You don't like the facts, but that is the way it is. I can see the court tossing the case and forcing the administration. In other words doing it's job as designed.
Click to expand...

And you really think they will comply? They are in endgame scorched earth mode right now.

In for a penny, in for a pound!
 
pcgeek11 said:
Yes that is the way it works. And yes it is up to the Administration to justify their refusal to comply with the subpoena in court. Then the court will make a determination as it should be.

Just as in your car keying example. It is a right to protest a charge in a court of law, just as it is a right to persue a grievance in a court of law.

So to sum this up, You have made a determination and the hell with what anybody else thinks.

Sorry, It doesn't matter, but this is how the legal system is designed to work. You don't like the facts, but that is the way it is. I can see the court tossing the case and forcing the administration. In other words doing it's job as designed.
Click to expand...

It's not a right to protest in court on no grounds whatsoever. It is not designed to work this way. The system was designed to have Congress provide oversight and impeachment if necessary for the executive abusing their powers. It's a violation. The fact that someone can violate something and moreover get away with it doesn't make it a right. You don't have a right to rape a woman. Succeeding in committing the act doesn't make it a right. If the woman doesn't report the rape to the police, it doesn't it a right. You do have a right to a trial, however, but that is not analogous here because the burden of proof rests with the prosection.

Are you saying that you support Trump bringing this to court if they have no argument why alongside it?

If we remake the rape case analogy, what if the state didn't like you and charged you with rape with no evidence? Surely the case would be dismissed before arraignment. But because they could take you to court, would you say it's their right to do so? After all it's the judge's job to decide if you should face charges. Isn't that how our system is designed to work? Or might that be abuse of power?
 
Mnuchin is stalling, using every means at his disposal to do so. Even if he figures he can't win he'll drag it out as long as possible. It seems unlikely that he will defy the SCOTUS if it comes to that. They can order him jailed for contempt.
 
interchange said:
It's not a right to protest in court on no grounds whatsoever. It is not designed to work this way. The system was designed to have Congress provide oversight and impeachment if necessary for the executive abusing their powers. It's a violation. The fact that someone can violate something and moreover get away with it doesn't make it a right. You don't have a right to rape a woman. Succeeding in committing the act doesn't make it a right. If the woman doesn't report the rape to the police, it doesn't it a right. You do have a right to a trial, however, but that is not analogous here because the burden of proof rests with the prosection.

Are you saying that you support Trump bringing this to court if they have no argument why alongside it?

If we remake the rape case analogy, what if the state didn't like you and charged you with rape with no evidence? Surely the case would be dismissed before arraignment. But because they could take you to court, would you say it's their right to do so? After all it's the judge's job to decide if you should face charges. Isn't that how our system is designed to work? Or might that be abuse of power?
Click to expand...

You may not like it, but that is the way the system works.

The House has a vested partisan interest in getting what they want.
Trump has a vested partisan interest in getting what he wants.
The court as an impartial judge needs to decide where the law stands.
 
interchange said:
What the utter hell? The House has subpoena power and used it to request documents. It is not their duty to justify the request. It is the holder of the documents' duty to either comply, face charges for refusal, or contest the subpoena in court. The duty to prove the subpoena is inappropriate rests on Trump.

Taking the case to court for no reason aligning with a legal challenge is not a privilege. It is an abuse. It would be the same if I sued you in small claims court for keying my car. I know you didn't key my car. I know I couldn't present any argument whatsoever that you did to a judge. But I could still sue you if I wanted and force you to show up to make me fail.

True, there is a remedy. The judge can order me to pay your costs and maybe it's even a crime, I don't really know. In this case, Congress can hold him in contempt and can impeach. But my point is that in a partisan political environment we are demonstrating that such actions are on a spectrum from politically damaging to practically impossible despite the unambiguous abuse.
Click to expand...

Party before country. As always. And like the death row prisoner looking for any avenue to escape the final call, the call will be answered.
 
interchange said:
Do you like that the system is functioning in this fashion? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
I'll take a stab at that one, the system is functioning exactly as it should.
Congress is clearly searching for something to hang Trump with, and they think they will find that something in his tax returns. They aren't seeking information to aid them in creating law, they're fishing. The courts will determine if that action falls within their purview. That's how the system works, how it was designed to work.
The anti trump folks want congress to take out Trump and don't mind if they're overstepping their bounds to do it, but they forget that someday the republicans will control congress again and posses that same power.
 
Greenman said:
I'll take a stab at that one, the system is functioning exactly as it should.
Congress is clearly searching for something to hang Trump with, and they think they will find that something in his tax returns. They aren't seeking information to aid them in creating law, they're fishing. The courts will determine if that action falls within their purview. That's how the system works, how it was designed to work.
The anti trump folks want congress to take out Trump and don't mind if they're overstepping their bounds to do it, but they forget that someday the republicans will control congress again and posses that same power.
Click to expand...
Congress is well within its legal authority. Trump is illegally obstructing Congressional authority. Congress has plenty to hang Trump on. They are now trying to plumb the depths of his illegal conduct, searching for a bottom to Republican depravity and lawlessness. Once exposed, Congress can work to clean up the conservative corruption, yet again.
 
Greenman said:
I'll take a stab at that one, the system is functioning exactly as it should.
Congress is clearly searching for something to hang Trump with, and they think they will find that something in his tax returns. They aren't seeking information to aid them in creating law, they're fishing. The courts will determine if that action falls within their purview. That's how the system works, how it was designed to work.
The anti trump folks want congress to take out Trump and don't mind if they're overstepping their bounds to do it, but they forget that someday the republicans will control congress again and posses that same power.
Click to expand...
Republicans have possessed that same power already, they've not had to use it because recent Presidents have provided their tax returns freely. You don't believe in the Congress's power of oversight? You don't believe the American people have a right to know if the President is beholding to another country or entity which may not have the People's best interests in mind? Wow.
 
Greenman said:
I'll take a stab at that one, the system is functioning exactly as it should.
Congress is clearly searching for something to hang Trump with, and they think they will find that something in his tax returns. They aren't seeking information to aid them in creating law, they're fishing. The courts will determine if that action falls within their purview. That's how the system works, how it was designed to work.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep repeating these false statements? Congress is not fishing, they have large piles of evidence that indicate Trump has repeatedly engaged in criminal activity involving his finances. Like, very large piles. They would be derelict in their duties if they didn't investigate him. Surely you can at least admit that Congress has lots and lots of evidence of financial misconduct, no?

Furthermore, the legal argument you're advancing now has been adjudicated by the courts twice and they found the argument so lacking in merit that they said Trump's lawyers failed to even advance a 'substantial legal argument', which is basically one step up from having the court fine them for wasting everyone's time with frivolous lawsuits.

The anti trump folks want congress to take out Trump and don't mind if they're overstepping their bounds to do it, but they forget that someday the republicans will control congress again and posses that same power.
Click to expand...

You can't possibly be serious here as this is some bizarro-world logic. Congress has ALWAYS had this authority and Republicans have used it for vastly less important things than this as recently as two and a half years ago. Where are you getting this nonsense?

The actual problem here is that the executive is advancing radical, authoritarian legal theories that usurp the power of the legislative branch so that they can cover up Trump's criminal activity. Under Trump's theory Congress can impeach the president for being bribed but is prohibited from finding out if he's actually being bribed first. Clearly that's a nonsensical theory meant to protect a criminal executive branch and it's an egregious violation of our Constitution and the rule of law. You want a dictator? Saying he can't be investigated for crimes is how you get a dictator.

You may want to take your own advice and remember that someday Democrats will control the presidency. Do you want the next Democratic president to be able to commit crimes with impunity?
 
pcgeek11 said:
We Shall see when the court makes it's call... OK
Click to expand...

Well then it's time for Nancy to start arresting while this moves through the courts. I'm sure that if I broke the law I'd not be subject to any penalty just like Mnuchin and others until the SCOTUS or an appeals court decides on the meaning of "shall" means.
 
soundforbjt said:
Republicans have possessed that same power already, they've not had to use it because recent Presidents have provided their tax returns freely. You don't believe in the Congress's power of oversight? You don't believe the American people have a right to know if the President is beholding to another country or entity which may not have the People's best interests in mind? Wow.
Click to expand...

I honestly think focusing on the tax law is a misnomer because Congress has such wide investigative authority that they don't even need that law to access Trump's tax returns. As per the Constitution Congress has the ability to access any and all information it needs to contemplate legislation. Whether or not the president is engaging in criminal activity is a no-brainer for that as there's about 1,000 laws that could come out of it.

And no Greenman, it doesn't matter if they end up making a law based on it, it just has to be facially relevant to legislation they could possibly enact someday if they felt like it. The law is clear on this.
 
Greenman said:
I'll take a stab at that one, the system is functioning exactly as it should.
Congress is clearly searching for something to hang Trump with, and they think they will find that something in his tax returns. They aren't seeking information to aid them in creating law, they're fishing. The courts will determine if that action falls within their purview. That's how the system works, how it was designed to work.
The anti trump folks want congress to take out Trump and don't mind if they're overstepping their bounds to do it, but they forget that someday the republicans will control congress again and posses that same power.
Click to expand...

The law is clear and the oversight position of Congress and this law is established already. Their bounds have been long established but Trump doesn't care about himself being the President without bounds. BTW, Congress does not have to "create law" to do this as "legislative intent" is a red herring. As a result of any hearing or oversight function there is the potential that legislation may occur but that it does isn't required. No legislation needs to be on the table and again courts get it.

As Mnuchin doesn't understand what yes or no mean or understand "did you ask the IRS to not comply", there is demonstrated ill intent to comply with law that has been determined to be lawful and Constitutional in the past, so arrest him on contempt and the system will function exactly as it should, well better at least.
 
Greenman said:
I'll take a stab at that one, the system is functioning exactly as it should.
Congress is clearly searching for something to hang Trump with, and they think they will find that something in his tax returns. They aren't seeking information to aid them in creating law, they're fishing. The courts will determine if that action falls within their purview. That's how the system works, how it was designed to work.
The anti trump folks want congress to take out Trump and don't mind if they're overstepping their bounds to do it, but they forget that someday the republicans will control congress again and posses that same power.
Click to expand...

Please read about Congressional oversight of the executive and come back. You are arguing, at best, out of ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top