Thread: Mueller's Russian Interference investigation

Originally Posted by Cujo

They'll just ignore it as usual and everyone will stand around scratching their heads wondering what to do next as usual.

The accounting firm can hardly ignore bailiffs coming to the office. You may find that with this ruling and thus legal excuse, some in that firm may be all too willing to hand over the dirt.

Originally Posted by Cujo

They'll just ignore it as usual and everyone will stand around scratching their heads wondering what to do next as usual.

DC district ruling. They will not ignore it. They will appeal which will delay final ruling.

^

Originally Posted by misskit

Mehta took the extra step of denying the president’s request for a stay pending appeal.

Which I take it means the Committee can send the bailiffs around first thing in the morning before any appeal is filed.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

^ Which I take it means the Committee can send the bailiffs around first thing in the morning before any appeal is filed.

Don’t hold your breath.

Originally Posted by Norton

They will appeal which will delay final ruling.

You may have overlooked this key piece.

Mehta took the extra step of denying the president’s request for a stay pending appeal.

Originally Posted by bsnub

You may have overlooked this key piece.

That's a "stay pending appeal" meaning Trump can appeal but House Committe can act straight away before an appeal is launched.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

That's a "stay pending appeal" meaning Trump can appeal but House Committe can act straight away before an appeal is launched.

Why are you telling me that? I am fully aware of what it is. Why else would I have posted that?

Originally Posted by bsnub

Why are you telling me that? I am fully aware of what it is. Why else would I have posted that?

Because you quoted it along with the words "you may have overlooked this" in response to Norton asserting "they will apeal", suggesting you thought the denial of a stay means there can be no appeal.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Because you quoted it along with the words "you may have overlooked this" in response to Norton asserting "they will apeal", suggesting you thought the denial of a stay means there can be no appeal.

It doesn't suggest anything of the kind.

It says that they can act on the decision now, meaning that they don't have to wait for a final appeal decision.

Whereas Norton said they have to wait for the final decision.

You need to learn how to read properly.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It doesn't suggest anything of the kind.

It says that they can act on the decision now, meaning that they don't have to wait for a final appeal decision.

Whereas Norton said they have to wait for the final decision.

You need to learn how to read properly.

Irony, when you say

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You need to learn how to read properly.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

suggesting you thought the denial of a stay means there can be no appeal.

No that is you making false assumptions as to what I was saying.

Originally Posted by bsnub

No that is you making false assumptions as to what I was saying.

Otherwise known as "Manaam SOP".

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Irony, when you say

Correct. There is great irony in my explaining your inability to read when you can't read well enough to understand it.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Correct. There is great irony in my explaining your inability to read when you can't read well enough to understand it.

You've shown you can't follow a dialogue. Or maybe it's your reading comprehension at fault?

Originally Posted by bsnub

No that is you making false assumptions as to what I was saying.

Norton says they will appeal, you respond with an "ah but" referring to the judge's denial of a stay. What did you mean? There's no point in pointing out the judges denial as a response to Norton's assertion... unless you were suggesting something? What were you suggesting to Norton?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Norton says they will appeal, you respond with an "ah but" referring to the judge's denial of a stay. What did you mean? There's no point in pointing out the judges denial as a response to Norton's assertion... unless you were suggesting something? What were you suggesting to Norton?

Fuck me, the idiot is strong in you today.

Originally Posted by Norton

We shall see how this evolves but I am not holding my breath until Trump's financials are in the hands of the committee.

i think the chances are good that they're leaked to congress or the media before SCOTUS gets around to making a decision.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Fuck me, the idiot is strong in you today.

The lack of reading comprehension and inability to follow a dialogue more than two sentences is very evident in you today.

Originally Posted by raycarey

i think the chances are good that they're leaked to congress or the media before SCOTUS gets around to making a decision.

Agree, most likely way it will go.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

The lack of reading comprehension and inability to follow a dialogue more than two sentences is very evident in you today.

It's got to be fluke innit?

No-one can be that indignant and that fucking dumb all in one package.

I'm not indignant, Harry, just amused at your lack of comprehension and falsely based sense of superiority.

Go back and read all the relevant posts... slowly. Try to take in the words and understand how each string of words relates to the previous string of words.
Then bow your head in shame, and apologise for your coarse approach to things.

Originally Posted by Norton

I read it and still say it will be appealed.

It already is that is not the point I was making. The judge refused the stay that would have prevented the accounting firm from releasing the documents requested so they will have no choice but to release the tax information regardless of the appeal.

Originally Posted by Norton

All these subpoenas will end at SCOTUS where as it has in the past rule Congress has the right under the Constitution.

I disagree. The law is cut and dry in most of these cases and the arguments being made by the administrations attorneys are not sound I would doubt that they will even take on these cases. It will be settled in the lower courts for sure.

This attempt to block everything by the administration is a sign of desperation and has no basis in established law. It is about to be completely smacked down.

Remember Muellers investigation was very limited based on the powers he was granted. It focused only on collusion and obstruction. He did not have the power to investigate all of these financial crimes.

Originally Posted by bsnub

The judge refused the stay that would have prevented the accounting firm from releasing the documents requested so they will have no choice to release the tax information regardless of the appeal.

Correct, except if the documents are not released before the appeal is decided upon. Hence, those documents have to be quickly obtained incase the appeal favours Trump.

Originally Posted by bsnub

I disagree

You disagree SCOTUS has ruled in past Congress has right to issue subpoenas to Executive branch?

I think we are in agreement here.