You can rest easy then. Mueller can't get his returns without probable cause. And Trump is such a straight shooter and upright guy that there couldn't possibly be probable cause. (sarcasm)
The Irrational, Unshakable Faith of the Collusion Conspiracists
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
Why would you not expect Mueller to not have his returns.
He is working as a US attorney. I would bet big dollars they could get a leftist judge to do cart wheels and sign off on whatever paperwork was needed to do anything.
next, isn't that why the fbi was paying for the dossier? that garbage was created in part to give them evidence to give cover to all these quasi legal things.
He is working as a US attorney. I would bet big dollars they could get a leftist judge to do cart wheels and sign off on whatever paperwork was needed to do anything.
next, isn't that why the fbi was paying for the dossier? that garbage was created in part to give them evidence to give cover to all these quasi legal things.
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think non-profit charitable agencies and organization are required under U.S. law to disclose their donors names; i've got no clue about New York Law, but why would it be different? My guess is that the rule is similar for charitable foundations. However I note that one of your headlines mentions a "promises". You might want to check out the accuracy of that headline, but let's just assume it is accurate. Promises should be kept, don't you think? I do. By the way it is not illegal for non-U.S.-citizens to donate to U.S. founded charitable Foundations. In fact it's both welcome and encouraged. And I would guess it is common when the Foundation in question supports mostly projects abroad, as the Clinton Foundation does. But shame on them if they "promised" and then didn't. That must have been a yuge disappointment for you bigly.
Correction: All of which turned out to be corrupt and politically influenced investigations.
That investigation needs to be re-opened.
I agree. And I do expect they have them! It's dingleberry who thought it would be illegal for Mueller to have them without cause, while it never even crossed dingleberry's mind that there might be cause. . But of course they would have to go to court to get them and show cause. And as you say they might shop for a fat, pimply, leftist, commie judge on food stamps. I mean, why not???
What is the matter with you folks? Instead of using your brains, why not just go with what makes logical sense?
well I wanted to know if you were correct about probable cause.
apparently the standard is much lower...
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...mueller-might-already-have-trumps-tax-returns
First, the prosecutor has to show "there is reasonable cause to believe" that a specific criminal act has been committed. That's where the recent news of the Manafort search warrant comes in. We know that Mueller had enough evidence to establish "reasonable cause" that a crime was committed because he got a search warrant.
Mueller would also have to establish that he could not "reasonably" obtain the tax return from another source, like the person's accountant. Generally speaking, that is an easy thing for a prosecutor to prove. If they can't prove that, it means they will just get the tax return elsewhere.
Finally, Mueller would have to establish that "there is reasonable cause to believe" the return "may be relevant" to his investigation. That is a very low bar, much lower than what Mueller had to establish to obtain a search warrant for Manafort's home. To obtain the search warrant, Mueller had to establish that there was probable cause to believe there was specific evidence of a crime at a specific location — Manafort's home.
All that he has to show is that the tax return might help him in his investigation. That means that even the tax return of someone other than Manafort would be helpful to Mueller as he conduct his investigation. At this point, we don't know what other evidence Mueller has and exactly whom he is focusing his investigation upon. But given that all he has to show is that the tax return "may be relevant" to his investigation, which has a very broad mandate, he could have tax return information for many individuals.
apparently the standard is much lower...
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...mueller-might-already-have-trumps-tax-returns
First, the prosecutor has to show "there is reasonable cause to believe" that a specific criminal act has been committed. That's where the recent news of the Manafort search warrant comes in. We know that Mueller had enough evidence to establish "reasonable cause" that a crime was committed because he got a search warrant.
Mueller would also have to establish that he could not "reasonably" obtain the tax return from another source, like the person's accountant. Generally speaking, that is an easy thing for a prosecutor to prove. If they can't prove that, it means they will just get the tax return elsewhere.
Finally, Mueller would have to establish that "there is reasonable cause to believe" the return "may be relevant" to his investigation. That is a very low bar, much lower than what Mueller had to establish to obtain a search warrant for Manafort's home. To obtain the search warrant, Mueller had to establish that there was probable cause to believe there was specific evidence of a crime at a specific location — Manafort's home.
All that he has to show is that the tax return might help him in his investigation. That means that even the tax return of someone other than Manafort would be helpful to Mueller as he conduct his investigation. At this point, we don't know what other evidence Mueller has and exactly whom he is focusing his investigation upon. But given that all he has to show is that the tax return "may be relevant" to his investigation, which has a very broad mandate, he could have tax return information for many individuals.