• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 09:54 AM
    If that's the case, and if fiduciary law when the Constitution was adopted was similar to what it is today, then the burden of proof may be on Trump to show that he didn't self-deal. But there's testimony that Trump really didn't want an investigation; he only wanted Zelensky to announce an investigation, which suggests that Trump was less interested in corruption than in painting Biden in a bad light in order to weaken his chances in the 2020 election. Of course, since no investigation or announcement of an investigation was made, Trump may have only attempted to self-deal; but that's still a very serious matter.
    7 replies | 107 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-27-2019, 02:44 PM
    I suspect that most of the praying in the Detroit and Dallas areas is for the Lions and Cowboys to win.
    33 replies | 931 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-27-2019, 10:53 AM
    Bartering is exchanging one item of property for another. Absent a specific exclusion, gain realized on an exchange of property is included in gross income inder IRC ß61(a)(3) and ß1001. If the item exchanged in the transaction is a capital asset, the gain is capital gain; if not, it's ordinary income. In other words, there's no tax difference between selling an asset for cash and trading it for property of equivalent value. If the value of what you receive exceeds your basis in the property you exchange, you realize income.
    24 replies | 486 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-27-2019, 07:57 AM
    Of course you do. The bill has no effect on federal tax law, which contains no exception for gains realized by bartering a collectible.
    24 replies | 486 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-26-2019, 02:32 PM
    I agree that's probably what Perry meant, but I don't get the impression that a majority of Christians think God would be so cruel as to establish Hitler and the Holocaust.
    37 replies | 740 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-26-2019, 11:36 AM
    I can't believe that any significant number of Christians believe that God ordained Hitler.
    37 replies | 740 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-25-2019, 11:04 AM
    Maybe it's because he was subpoenaed. Military personnel don't usually disobey congressional subpoenas, unlike those in the White House. And what "impression" was being represented? His uniform is authorized for year-round wear, and military personnel testifying before Congress often, if not usually, appear in uniform.
    86 replies | 2212 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-23-2019, 09:35 AM
    Riiight...babies and children are always doing that.
    90 replies | 3560 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-23-2019, 09:32 AM
    A narcissist who is also a chronic and habitual liar would.
    39 replies | 836 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12 replies | 440 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-20-2019, 02:26 PM
    An impeachment and removal of Trump wouldn't change the voting system in any way, shape, or form. It might be bad politics but it's explicitly provided for in the Constitution. As the article linked to says, "All that said, it is Pelosi’s constitutional prerogative to try to impeach Trump for any reasons she sees fit, even if her goal is only to weaken the political prospects of her opponent. No, it isn’t a “coup,” but it’s certainly not a constitutional imperative, either. It’s a political choice."
    2 replies | 143 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-19-2019, 04:17 PM
    The Supreme Court didn't issue a ruling. It simply chose not to hear Remington's appeal at this time. Edit: added "not"
    8 replies | 481 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-18-2019, 04:30 PM
    Not quite. The statute requires that the false statekment be made knowingly and willfully, so a specific intent is required. In addition, the false statement must be material. It's hard to imagine that the state of the weather during the interrogation would ever be material to the matter under investigation.
    19 replies | 460 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-14-2019, 03:51 PM
    I really miss him. I would have loved to hear his take on the stuff happening on college campuses ("social justice", "cultural appropriation", "hate speech", etc.).
    2 replies | 123 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-13-2019, 03:29 PM
    A lawyer, other than an in-house counsel, meets the ABC test; for such a person an exemption isn't needed.
    6 replies | 300 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-13-2019, 01:55 PM
    Swordsmith is taking a cue from Trump: repeat lies often enough and some people may start to believe them. The only difference is that he's not nearly as narcissistic.
    221 replies | 2780 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-12-2019, 04:33 PM
    I have, and it has been explained to you ad nauseam that you haven't the faintest clue what a bill of attainder is. Hasn't it sunk in yet that in an impeachment proceeding the House doesn't find anyone guilty of anything or impose any punishment?
    151 replies | 1896 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-12-2019, 04:06 PM
    I knew you couldn't back up your claims. All you've posted is "due process" and "rigged proceeding" without any specifics and without any constitutional or other legal requirements. You're pathetic.
    151 replies | 1896 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-12-2019, 03:30 PM
    Be specific. What does due process require of grand jury proceedings? Does the person under investigation have the right to appear in person and/or by counsel? NO. Does the person under investigation have the right to have counsel appointed for him if he is indigent? NO. Does the person under investigation have the right to have evidence in his behalf submitted? NO. Do witnesses have the right to have their counsel present? NO. Does the exclusionary rule apply to prevent illegally-seized or otherwise inadmissible evidence from being submitted submitted to the grand jurors? NO. Must the grand jury proceedings be made public? NO. See https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation01.html
    151 replies | 1896 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-12-2019, 02:35 PM
    Hopelessly wrong. Just because removal from office is based upon the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors doesn't make the process a criminal prosecution. An attorney can be disbarred and his license to practice revoked for embezzling from his clients, but that doesn't make the disbarment procedure a criminal one. If impeachment were really a criminal proceeding, one who is is acquitted in a criminal trial couldn't be later impeached and removed because of double jeopardy. Yet that's exactly what happened to Alcee Hastings, a federal judge acquitted of bribery and perjury but later impeached and removed for the same acts. He argued, among other things, that his acquittal barred his later impeachment, but the court rejected his double jeopardy claim: Although the Hastings court found that the Senate's use of an impeachment trial committee violated the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to "try" an accused, its judgment was later vacated after the Supreme Court ruled in the Nixon case that Senate proceedings were unreviewable by the courts. Hastings v. U.S. 837 Fed. Supp. 3 (D. D.C. 1993).
    151 replies | 1896 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-12-2019, 12:52 PM
    I never claimed it was a bill of attainder, because it isn't. That's Swordsmyth's delusion.
    151 replies | 1896 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-12-2019, 08:19 AM
    What you continue to ignore is the fact that even if the presidency were Trump's property (an utterly absurd idea), the House proceedings cannot result in his being removed; that's the job of the Senate. It's been pointed out to you that grand jury proceedings aren't subject to due process requirements, so why in the world should they apply to the House proceedings, which are functionally equivalent to a grand jury investigation? Indeed, the House proceedings will be even more Trump-friendly than a grand jury proceeding: they will be public, and the Trump toadies and enablers will get a chance to do their political-posturing act to try to divert attention away from Trump's actions. You keep blathering about the "rules of impeachment" not being followed, yet you fail to specify what they are or where they are to be found in the Constitution.
    151 replies | 1896 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-11-2019, 10:46 AM
    Bad analogy. If you really want to compare a presidential term to a lease, the lease would have to contain a provision allowing the landlord to evict the tenant if the landlord determines he has violated the lease. That is analogous to the power of Congress to impeach and remove a president. The landlord's determination doesn't have to comport with due process, but a court can determine whether the tenant did, in fact, violate the lease. In an impeachment context, that determination is made by the Senate. But the initial recommendation to remove (i.e., the impeachment) isn't subject to due process, and you have failed miserably to cite any legal support for the claim that it does. Whether the Senate proceedings must comply with the same procedural rules as a civil trial is an open question, but it's premature to adress that issue because Trump hasn't been impeached yet.
    151 replies | 1896 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-11-2019, 08:15 AM
    It's ironic that the Trump apologists are wailing about the impeachment proceedings being a threat to democracy. They're oblivious to the fact that Trump is President only because of the Electoral College, a profoundly undemocratic institution.
    86 replies | 2212 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-11-2019, 08:06 AM
    But you said it was similar to one: "Impeachment in the House is a judicial proceeding like a Grand Jury indictment" The only requirements specified by the Constitution are that the House has the sole power of impeachment, the Senate has the sole power to remove a person from office following an impeachment, and the Chief Justice presides during the Senate proceedings.
    151 replies | 1896 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-10-2019, 12:18 PM
    Grand jury proceedings aren't subject to the due process requirements that apply to trials. They are held in secret without the presence of the accused or his attorney, and the only evidence presented is from the prosecution, which isn't required to present evidence favorable to the accused. The evidence presented may even consist of hearsay that would be inadmissible at trial. So what is the House doing that's any different from what a prosecutor and a grand jury do? I know... they're having public hearings.
    151 replies | 1896 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-08-2019, 03:56 PM
    Do you honestly think the Democrats thought Trump had a chance to be elected?
    151 replies | 1896 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-08-2019, 09:26 AM
    I've dealt with the IRS on behalf of clients for over 45 years. I know how tax disputes are handled in real life. You don't.
    221 replies | 2780 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-08-2019, 08:16 AM
    You'd better read your linked material again. Even assuming an impeachment is the type of legal proceeding to which a claim of malicious prosecution can apply (an extremely dubious proposition), not all of the elements of an MP cause of action exist: No. 3 clearly doesn't exist, and even if it did it's doubtful that no. 4 does. No. 5 is iffy: yes, there are some in the House who hate Trump, but they would argue that their primary purpose in the proceeding was to remove him from office. Given the improbability of conviction in the Senate (absent the discovery of a smoking gun that even the GOP Senators couldn't stomach), a jury might not believe such a claim and conclude that the primary purpose was harassment.
    151 replies | 1896 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-07-2019, 02:43 PM
    For a more objective discussion of the first gag order (which neither Stone nor his attorneys objected to) and its modification after Stone had violated it, see the opinion of the Court of Appeals that rejected (on procedural grounds) Stone’s efforts to have it revoked. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6508717/10-22-19-DC-Circuit-Roger-Stone-Opinion.pdf
    7 replies | 265 view(s)
More Activity
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,708
Posts Per Day
0.61
General Information
Last Activity
Today 09:58 AM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-08-2018


08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 36 12311 ... LastLast

11-27-2019


11-26-2019


11-25-2019


11-20-2019


11-18-2019


11-13-2019


11-12-2019



Page 1 of 36 12311 ... LastLast