U.S. Treasury's Mnuchin refuses to release Trump's tax returns to Congress

[VinceBordenIII]

Please note I am not a fan of the Royal Presidency, in this or ANY OTHER administration. The struggle between the legislative and executive branches has been going on since the Republic was founded.

[FSchmertz]

Please not I am not a fan of the Royal Presidency, in this or ANY OTHER administration. The struggle between the legislative and executive branches has been going on since the Republic was founded.

And IMHO, that's a good thing.

It's when one side gives up the fight that I think we're in trouble.

[CaptQuint]

We should ask for Donald John Trumps birth certificate. I have compelling proof he was born in Germany to German parents that always paid for his vacations.

[Burn1dwn]

Can we get Biker's take on Trump Tax Return Release Episode I?

[praklatye]

I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.

Trump started campaigning 2 days into office, more like it's half over than just already begun.

[CaptQuint]

I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.

Trump started campaigning 2 days into office, more like it's half over than just already begun.

Trump registered his reelection committee on inauguration day so he could sop up money right away

[Wut]

I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.

I'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.

[VinceBordenIII]

I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.

I'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.

I would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.

[Wut]

I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.

I'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.

I would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.

I'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.

[VinceBordenIII]

I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.

I'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.

I would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.

I'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.

What rules are you talking about?

[CaptQuint]

I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.

I'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.

I would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.

I'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.

What rules are you talking about?

Let's start with Merrick Garland since you are chatty

[VinceBordenIII]

I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.

I'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.

I would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.

I'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.

What rules are you talking about?

Let's start with Merrick Garland since you are chatty

What about Merrill garland?

[CaptQuint]

I'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.

I would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.

I'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.

What rules are you talking about?

Let's start with Merrick Garland since you are chatty

What about Merrill garland?

Are you fucking serious?

[Stapes]

I'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.

I would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.

I'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.

What rules are you talking about?

Let's start with Merrick Garland since you are chatty

What about Merrill garland?

ob·tuse


ADJECTIVE
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
synonyms:
stupid · dull · slow-witted · slow · dull-witted · unintelligent · witless · [more]
difficult to understand.
"some of the lyrics are a bit obtuse"
(of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.
not sharp-pointed or sharp-edged; blunt.

[VinceBordenIII]

I would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.

I'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.

What rules are you talking about?

Let's start with Merrick Garland since you are chatty

What about Merrill garland?

Are you fucking serious?

Yes, I’m serious, how did they change the rules with Merrick garland?

[VinceBordenIII]

Sorry, wrong forum.

[CaptQuint]

I'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.

What rules are you talking about?

Let's start with Merrick Garland since you are chatty

What about Merrill garland?

Are you fucking serious?

Yes, I’m serious, how did they change the rules with Merrick garland?

He refused to fulfill congressional duties outlined in the constitution, there is no defense.

[VinceBordenIII]

What rules are you talking about?

Let's start with Merrick Garland since you are chatty

What about Merrill garland?

Are you fucking serious?

Yes, I’m serious, how did they change the rules with Merrick garland?

He refused to fulfill congressional duties outlined in the constitution, there is no defense.

The defense is politics. Would I be pissed had it been done to my side? You bet. But they didn’t really change rules, did they? They changed precedent. Didn’t obama say the same should be done to Bush II? Though they didn’t do it. Look it up, I’m on an iPad.

[FSchmertz]

Actually, the Washington Post says what happened can be blamed on Democratic precedent:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.

The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.

[CaptQuint]

Let's start with Merrick Garland since you are chatty

What about Merrill garland?

Are you fucking serious?

Yes, I’m serious, how did they change the rules with Merrick garland?

He refused to fulfill congressional duties outlined in the constitution, there is no defense.

The defense is politics. Would I be pissed had it been done to my side? You bet. But they didn’t really change rules, did they? They changed precedent. Didn’t obama say the same should be done to Bush II? Though they didn’t do it. Look it up, I’m on an iPad.

They ignored the rules, The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America it is not fucking precedent.

[CaptQuint]

Actually, the Washington Post says what happened can be blamed on Democratic precedent:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.

The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.

(eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees) and Mitch eliminated that. Mitch obstructed so many Obama nominees that Trump is now on track to place a record amount of Judges.

[FSchmertz]

Actually, the Washington Post says what happened can be blamed on Democratic precedent:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.

The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.

(eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees) and Mitch eliminated that. Mitch obstructed so many Obama nominees that Trump is now on track to place a record amount of Judges.

But the point is this is a slippery slope we've been going down since at least Obama, and congresscritters should've seen this coming and realized it would eventually bite their side on the ass too. They've been idiots.

[VinceBordenIII]

Actually, the Washington Post says what happened can be blamed on Democratic precedent:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.

The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.

(eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees) and Mitch eliminated that. Mitch obstructed so many Obama nominees that Trump is now on track to place a record amount of Judges.

But the point is this is a slippery slope we've been going down since at least Obama, and congresscritters should've seen this coming and realized it would eventually bite their side on the ass too. They've been idiots.

Didn’t they also pass Obamacare through reconciliation?

[CaptQuint]

Actually, the Washington Post says what happened can be blamed on Democratic precedent:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.

The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.

(eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees) and Mitch eliminated that. Mitch obstructed so many Obama nominees that Trump is now on track to place a record amount of Judges.

But the point is this is a slippery slope we've been going down since at least Obama, and congresscritters should've seen this coming and realized it would eventually bite their side on the ass too. They've been idiots.

Since Republicans got butthurt that America elected a black man and decided they will just stop following the rules. When the conservative ideas don't win through democratic means they will not change their ideas. They will reject democracy

[FSchmertz]

Actually, the Washington Post says what happened can be blamed on Democratic precedent:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.

The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.

(eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees) and Mitch eliminated that. Mitch obstructed so many Obama nominees that Trump is now on track to place a record amount of Judges.

But the point is this is a slippery slope we've been going down since at least Obama, and congresscritters should've seen this coming and realized it would eventually bite their side on the ass too. They've been idiots.

I committed a violation of precedent and quoted myself!

I just wanted to say, the beginning of this may have been Robert Bork's nomination. Though he was a REALLY bad nominee.