General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCNN reporting judge orders accounting firm to hand over Dotard taxes
spanone
(136,008 posts)gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)Sanity Claws
(21,869 posts)We will get an idea of where he got his money, etc.
However, I wonder whether these returns will also lead to bank fraud charges. My guess is that he falsified income information to banks to get loans.
lastlib
(23,429 posts)...you may see fire in the sky from all the sparks flyin'...! Won't that be pretty!
lunatica
(53,410 posts)The rockets red glare
Bombs bursting in air
Gave proof through the night
That our flag is still there!
Fireworks indeed!
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)BumRushDaShow
(130,368 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Thanks BumRush.
BumRushDaShow
(130,368 posts)So I know what you are talking about!!
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Keep fighting the good fight. One step, one issue, one decision, one stump speech, one subpoena, one Congressman, one Article of Impeachment, one conviction, one frogmarch at a time.
BumRushDaShow
(130,368 posts)Usually these things have come later in the week (in time for the Sunday news shows) but...
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)I don't speculate, I just investigate, ruminate and castigate.
BumRushDaShow
(130,368 posts)although this coming weekend is the Memorial Day weekend so one can image all sorts of things coming out with the intention of getting "lost" in the holiday.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)BumRushDaShow
(130,368 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)lastlib
(23,429 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)klook
(12,178 posts)Ok, too early to celebrate, unless you just want to celebrate another day of livin!
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)mcar
(42,489 posts)Thanks BRDS.
BumRushDaShow
(130,368 posts)so as soon as it came through I had to dig for the link on their website and got it posted in LBN.
Ramsey Barner
(350 posts)BumRushDaShow
(130,368 posts)H2O Man
(73,723 posts)BumRushDaShow
(130,368 posts)H2O Man
(73,723 posts)sent the link to my son. It's outstanding!
BumRushDaShow
(130,368 posts)in the ruling was pretty awesome! Pretty much provided a game, set, match with the past precedent.
H2O Man
(73,723 posts)of beauty!
Leghorn21
(13,527 posts)of a subpoena issued by the House Oversight Committee
for Trump's financial records from the accounting firm Mazars.
https://thehill.com
4:00 PM - May 20, 2019
Link to tweet
tymorial
(3,433 posts)misanthrope
(7,436 posts)Trump controls the DOJ and wants to funnel everything to SCOTUS, thinking they are in his pocket. Most of foundation for imperial POTUS is in place and we're trying to test the remaining tatters to see what holds.
Mister Ed
(5,961 posts)The president can pardon individuals for crimes they commit, but I'm not sure how he could pardon an accounting firm for refusing to comply with a judges's order.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Trump does what Trump wants Constitution be damned
onlyadream
(2,168 posts)He's breaking all the rules/norms, and everyone gets blindsided.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Ilsa
(61,721 posts)this is welcome news.
mcar
(42,489 posts)Says WH won't be able to delay.
malaise
(269,498 posts)Rec
Yonnie3
(17,539 posts)mcar
(42,489 posts)Quemado
(1,262 posts)If they can, they will appeal.
MyOwnPeace
(16,959 posts)EVERY POSSIBLE WAY to delay this taking place - appeals, ignoring, stalling, whatever.
If nothing else, just his "executive privilege" claim that he's using to cover EVERYTHING!
mcar
(42,489 posts)judges ruling puts lots of limits on appeals, etc. Says he can't slow walk this.
pnwmom
(109,031 posts)can't point to an appeal as a reason to delay.
If Mazars is really ready to comply, they can turn over the documents before Trump goes to the Supreme Court and asks for an emergency stay. That would be Trump's next step -- asking for an emergency stay, pending a full court decision.
Nevilledog
(51,384 posts)pnwmom
(109,031 posts)But remember, in Mueller's mystery Supreme Court case, Justice Roberts issued a temporary stay, just enough time to let the whole court consider the case. And then the whole court quickly ruled against the stay. So fines continue to accrue against the mystery company while it mounts a full appeal without benefit of a stay.
Nevilledog
(51,384 posts)The reason I think they'll get a stay is because the issue presented is going to be repeated by Trump over and over, so the appellate court might feel it's best to have a definitive ruling. Also, the impact of any ruling affects the presidency versus just a foreign corporation.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)Karma at work...
MGKrebs
(8,138 posts)I believe Garland will do what he thinks is right.
onenote
(42,911 posts)The fact that he is Chief Judge is irrelevant. The appeal will be heard by a panel of judges selected essentially at random from among the 11 active judges (and possibly the 7 senior status judges).
padah513
(2,520 posts)Get them right now. Go to Mazars and pick them up yourself if you have to.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)mcar
(42,489 posts)Seems like the ruling stops the slow walking appeals, per Toobin on CNN.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Hot damn!
at140
(6,110 posts)Who decides to refuse the appeal?
Can Trump escalate it to SCOTUS?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,106 posts)as of the return date of the subpoena.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)No one handles the House better than they do!!! The House does the best subpoenas!
(to steal Trump's style for a minute)
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)So much great you will be sick of great.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Nuggets
(525 posts)Anything?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,106 posts)but to a private accounting firm, which will not want to be fined or have its partners thrown in jail. They requested a "friendly" subpoena in the first place to be sure their butts were covered, but they'd never planned on not turning over the records.
Nuggets
(525 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)SayItLoud
(1,703 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,106 posts)and can't withhold them until an appeal is heard.
affairs of the President of the United States. But on the question of whether to grant a stay pending
appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail.
Plaintiffs have not raised a serious legal question[] going to the merits. Population Inst., 797
F.2d at 1078. And, the balance of equities and the public interest weigh heavily in favor of denying
relief. The risk of irreparable harm does not outweigh these other factors. The court, therefore,
will not stay the return date of the subpoena beyond the seven days agreed upon by the parties.
onenote
(42,911 posts)which I think is quite possible.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,106 posts)onenote
(42,911 posts)Likelihood of success on the merits; irreparable harm; balance of equities; public interest.
Judge Mehta found that three of those factors (likelihood of success on the merits; balance of equities and public interest) favored denying the stay, and one factor, irreparable harm favored granting the stay.
As Judge Mehta acknowledged, however, if one factor is particularly strong, it can outweigh the others. While he didn't conclude that was the case here, it wouldn't surprise me if a court concluded that the irreparable harm factor is so strong as to outweigh the other factors. I've won several stays based solely on the irreparable harm factor -- courts don't like to allow challenged actions to go forward knowing that they can't put the genie back in the bottle if the case comes out differently.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,106 posts)and the judge's obvious "you've got to be fucking kidding me" attitude toward the legal argument, I would expect the DC Circuit to give considerable deference to that judge's order.
H2O Man
(73,723 posts)My older son told me about this a minute ago. I immediately hobbled over to my computer, to learn more. No surprise that you are the one reporting this good and important news!!!
Recommended.
mcar
(42,489 posts)Ramsey Barner
(350 posts)There's also some helpful hints for future Congressional litigation, like this one at p. 21:
"While a clearly drafted resolution would have made this courts task easier or might have preempted the challenge now brought altogether, it is not a constitutional prerequisite to start an investigation."
H2O Man
(73,723 posts)Thank you!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!
pangaia
(24,324 posts)vlyons
(10,252 posts)Don't cheer too soon. Trump will appeal and appeal and appeal
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,106 posts)before an appeal can be heard.
onenote
(42,911 posts)I think it is 50/50 as to whether that will happen.
Its significant but not determinative that the district court didn't grant a stay. But the district court did say that one of the four factors used in deciding whether or not to grant a stay -- irreparable harm -- favored the plaintiffs. While the district court said the other three factors weigh against a stay, an appeals court may give them different weight.
BumRushDaShow
(130,368 posts)(from the document - http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/20/mehta.opinion.in.trump.subpoena.case.pdf)
which would either go to the D.C. Circuit (majority Democrats) or to the SCOTUS for some type of stay.
Evolve Dammit
(16,869 posts)PatrickforO
(14,614 posts)All of it is obstruction, plain as the nose on your face.
Sigh. Worst president we've ever had. Ever.
Horrible human being.
TomSlick
(11,177 posts)I found this sentence particularly interesting:
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conductpast or presenteven without formally opening an impeachment inquiry." (Page 35). (As I was writing this, Chris Hayes read the same sentence.)
Very interesting was the denial of a stay pending an appeal. The judge came within a hair's breadth of saying Trump's arguments were Rule 11 worthy.
This one is a win for the good guys.
mcar
(42,489 posts)as a guide for future cases.
TomSlick
(11,177 posts)The whole decision is amazingly well written. It should be very persuasive to other courts.
The only thing that might have been better is if the Judge had imposed Rule 11 sanctions.
mcar
(42,489 posts)Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)(No wonder republicans hate the truth, the law, and justice itself).
Legal Definition of Sanctions Rule 11: What You Need to Know
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose.5 min read
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support.
The whole enchilada: https://www.upcounsel.com/legal-def-sanctions-rule-11
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,106 posts)to sanction some of these lawyers for some of the crap they have been coming up with. Maybe this is a warning.
onenote
(42,911 posts)and it is unimaginable that they would be imposed in a case where the decision was 41 pages long and the judge nowhere describes the losing side's arguments as "frivolous."
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,106 posts)against our opposing counsel, an attorney from one of the big local hot-shot law firms, because he'd filed some kind of bullshit motion (I don't even remember exactly what it was anymore) that was obviously intended only to drag out the proceedings. He whacked them with a hefty penalty; it was gratifying to see because it was well-deserved. The judge was a no-nonsense sort who'd do that sort of thing without batting an eye. It's not all that rare, and probably should be used even more often than it is.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.