Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

Big decision to be heard in few days on 12 May by US supreme court. About if President can block subpoena requesting release of his financial details help by accounting firms or banks.

The bigger simple question is really 'is the US president above the law' for the duration they are in office. Trumps lawyers argued in a lower court that 'should the President shoot and murder someone in cold blood on 5th avenue, then no authority should be allowed to investigate him or prosecute him for such murder whilst he held the office of President, only after he no longer held that position'. All precedent on this to date had been that , a serving president is NOT above the law, whilst he is serving. What Trump is seeking from the Supreme court is a ruling that a sitting president IS above the law for as long as he is President. I personally hope the Supreme Court follows all legal precedent and all moral imperative to explicitly state (once again) that NO ONE is above the law, the President included.

[Paphitis]

The boy that cried wolf.

In the end, the people have had enough of the biased left liberal media and all their shit and false accusations.

Get ready for another 4 years.

And no, the POTUS isn't above the law. He is answerable to the people, and the people wanted him in 2016 and will want him in 2020.

[erolz66]

And no, the POTUS isn't above the law.

His lawyers have been arguing otherwise and lost to date in every court so far. On 12 May they will try again at the Supreme court. So I guess like me you hope they fail again.

[Paphitis]

And no, the POTUS isn't above the law.

His lawyers have been arguing otherwise and lost to date in every court so far. On 12 May they will try again at the Supreme court. So I guess like me you hope they fail again.

His lawyers are wrong.

They can argue what they like, and maneuver in the shades of grey, but a POTUS isn't above the law.

law is a very funny business and lawyers always argue something when there is no precedence. I'm going through this right now on a matter that is a winning case for me. The defendants are arguing the "what if" to reduce their liability.

[erolz66]

And no, the POTUS isn't above the law.

His lawyers have been arguing otherwise and lost to date in every court so far. On 12 May they will try again at the Supreme court. So I guess like me you hope they fail again.

His lawyers are wrong.

They can argue what they like, and maneuver in the shades of grey, but a POTUS isn't above the law.

law is a very funny business and lawyers always argue something when there is no precedence. I'm going through this right now on a matter that is a winning case for me. The defendants are arguing the "what if" to reduce their liability.

I am glad we are in agreement on this. There is specific precedent btw. In prior supreme court rulings against both Nixon and Clinton.

[Paphitis]

And no, the POTUS isn't above the law.

His lawyers have been arguing otherwise and lost to date in every court so far. On 12 May they will try again at the Supreme court. So I guess like me you hope they fail again.

His lawyers are wrong.

They can argue what they like, and maneuver in the shades of grey, but a POTUS isn't above the law.

law is a very funny business and lawyers always argue something when there is no precedence. I'm going through this right now on a matter that is a winning case for me. The defendants are arguing the "what if" to reduce their liability.

I am glad we are in agreement on this. There is specific precedent btw. In prior supreme court rulings against both Nixon and Clinton.

Well these lawyers will know about the precedents that exist and use that in their arsenal.

You here many things in court rooms but not everything flies.

In Nixon's case, he was impeached for real and got done over. Trump's impeachment was snowflakey to say the least.

[Londonrake]

Does that mean they could move to impeach him................ again?

[Paphitis]

Does that mean they could move to impeach him................ again?

Over what exactly?

they haven't got anything to impeach him with.

they can do whatever they like, but you need ti have evidence to impeach a POTUS.

Having lawyers arguing whether or not he is above the law is nonsensical. of course he isn't above the law but they need something to impeach him with and that conversation with the Ukrainian Government, the transcript of which has been released, is not something that will lead to a successful impeachment.

[erolz66]

Having lawyers arguing whether or not he is above the law is nonsensical. of course he isn't above the law but they need something to impeach him with and that conversation with the Ukrainian Government, the transcript of which has been released, is not something that will lead to a successful impeachment.

By saying that legal authorities can not legitimately subpoena information about his finances, because 'he is the president', he IS saying that he is above the law for as long as he holds the office of President. That is why this is now going before the Supreme Court. It was trump taking legal action to STOP a subpoena issued by a legal competent authority (2 different one actually) from being executed that has led to this ending up at Supreme court. All lower courts to date have ruled that he can not block subpoenas just because he is POTUS and each time they ruled such he appealed to a higher court. Hence why in few days the Supreme court will decide, finally with no further appeal process possible if they decided that actually the POTUS is not above the law just because he is POTUS. They may also 'fudge it' but that seems less likely to me give the arguments the Trump legal team has made to date in lower courts (and lost with).

[Paphitis]

Having lawyers arguing whether or not he is above the law is nonsensical. of course he isn't above the law but they need something to impeach him with and that conversation with the Ukrainian Government, the transcript of which has been released, is not something that will lead to a successful impeachment.

By saying that legal authorities can not legitimately subpoena information about his finances, because 'he is the president', he IS saying that he is above the law for as long as he holds the office of President. That is why this is now going before the Supreme Court. It was trump taking legal action to STOP a subpoena issued by a legal competent authority (2 different one actually) from being executed that has led to this ending up at Supreme court. All lower courts to date have ruled that he can not block subpoenas just because he is POTUS and each time they ruled such he appealed to a higher court. Hence why in few days the Supreme court will decide, finally with no further appeal process possible if they decided that actually the POTUS is not above the law just because he is POTUS. They may also 'fudge it' but that seems less likely to me give the arguments the Trump legal team has made to date in lower courts (and lost with).

Sorry, but I don't believe law enforcement has any right to subpeona any private financials from the POTUS or his former Trump Corporation Group unless they have evidence to accuse him of breaking any laws.

This is the POTUS who doesn't even earn a salary as he donates it back to the public purse.

Trump has every right to stop such lunacy as anyone would. Anyone has the right to not provide private financials into personal affairs from any entities that don't have the authority to have access to them.