[Headline from DRJ]
Trump’s accountants MUST turn over his financial records, federal judge rules – prompting fury from president who bashes ‘crazy’ ruling and promises to appeal the decision
President Trump called it a “wrong decision by obviously an Obama-appointed judge.”
— DRJ
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Powered by WordPress.
“If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely. And I would love to do that.”
Dustin (6d7686) — 5/21/2019 @ 4:31 amJack Ryan and Blair hull say hello.
Narciso (e1656b) — 5/21/2019 @ 5:37 amThe court decision is here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6019029-Mehta-Opinion-in-Trump-Subpoena-Case.html#document/p1
It is based under a broad presumption that the subpoenas were in furtherance of a legitimate legislative purpose, and the idea that a judge, unlike Trump, can’t just presume that his opponents in Congress are just on a partisan fishing expedition. It also questions some Supreme Court precedent from the 1880s that purportedly placed limits on Congressional ability to rummage around in someone’s private affairs.
Appalled (d07ae6) — 5/21/2019 @ 7:12 amThank you for that link, Appalled.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/21/2019 @ 7:41 amIf Trump can get the Court of Appeals to issue a stay pending appeal, since the trial court apparently did not, the case will be reviewed de novo. No deference to the trial court, however limited to the trial court record. Which Trump’s lawyers are notoriously incapable of making, as we saw during the “Muslim ban” and DACA repeal litigations.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2019 @ 7:49 amDemocrats get to destroy evidence and they are not held legally accountable ever.
Narciso (e1656b) — 5/21/2019 @ 8:13 amThe judge seems to hold that once you have a legitimate legislative purpose, and there are not too many restrictions on that, Congress can engage in a fishing expedition because the standard to be used is not the standard of relevancy used in civil cases.
He seems most impressed by the argument that possibly amending the laws regarding financial disclosure by a president is a legitimate legislative purpose, and there are grounds for investigating that because Michael Cohen has testified that Donald Trump used diffeent evaklations of the worth of real estate depeding on his purpose – high if seeking a bank loan, and low when it appalied to property taxes. (by the way, although this is probably not in the recoord of the case, this is something that Trump himself acknowledged under oath, except that he didn’t key it to its purpose but just said something like he appraised things at what he felt they were worth at the time and sometimes feels one way and sometimes another.)
There’s another issue of inaccuracy they have in that Trump did not report his debt to Michael Cohen for the payment to Stormy Daniels as a debt in his 2017 financial disclosure, but I think that is a false issue, as that debt was probably not legally enforceable, and wouldn’t have been documented, which is what his accountants would have gone by. Still, that goes to the legislative purpose.
Trump’s lawyers challenged the whole idea of requiring financial disclosure by a president, saying this was adding aqualification for the job that is not in the constitution but the judge said there is a lot of precedent for that, and as for the possibility that Congess might be exceeding tits legislative purpose, this is not something that should be decided at a stage like this and thatis akin to an advosory opinion.
He admitted there is some irreparable harm here to Trump, in that what is disclosed will remain disclosed, but said the other factirs are more important, and the Supreme Court has held tem to be.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/21/2019 @ 8:45 amBad lawyers and bad women
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2019 @ 8:49 amBrung this po’ ol’ boy down.
Bad lawyers and bad women,
And that mean ol’ DC town.
Isn’t this unusual though?
I mean, this is going to set a precedent that no one may want in the future.
Imagine Lindsey Graham asking for the next Democrat’s President’s financial documents… (or even other Congressional critter’s financial documents!).
I can’t remember who tweeted this, but I saw a tweet that argued if Congress has wide authority that this judge as agreed…wouldn’t that create a de facto parliamentary system and allow future congresses to stop constitutional governance through sabotage?
whembly (fd57f6) — 5/21/2019 @ 10:47 amThe judge argued the precedent is already set,
Th restraint on Congress acting this way is political.
Of course they ask for all this kind of information with Senate confirmations since Senator William Proxmire (D-Wis.) started doing that in 1969.
And we have leaks too and requests by the press (often granted) for release of dovirce recrds and what not.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/21/2019 @ 11:25 amI’m imagining Joe Biden’s son being asked to report financial information to understand if a foreign government was using him as a cut out to buy influence. (fwiw i don’t think he was, i think this is just another example of cronyism)
I’m imagining Mconnells’ son being asked to explain why china is paying them so much money.
I’d love to see a political culture where hooking a friend or family member up with a sweetheart deal all but assured that they would have to testify and discuss why they were worth so much money. This might encourage people not to hire their 20 something daughter to run a charitable foundation at a 6 figure salary.
Maybe it goes too far at some point, but it bugs me that all of that is perfectly legal and OK.
Time123 (ae9d89) — 5/21/2019 @ 12:13 pmImagine Lindsey Graham asking for the next Democrat’s President’s financial documents… (or even other Congressional critter’s financial documents!).
I’m imagining Joe Biden’s son being asked to report financial information to understand if a foreign government was using him as a cut out to buy influence. (fwiw i don’t think he was, i think this is just another example of cronyism)
I’m imagining Mconnells’ son being asked to explain why china is paying them so much money.
I’d love to see a political culture where hooking a friend or family member up with a sweetheart deal all but assured that they would have to testify and discuss why they were worth so much money. This might encourage people not to hire their 20 something daughter to run a charitable foundation at a 6 figure salary.
Maybe it goes too far at some point, but it bugs me that all of that is perfectly legal and OK.
Time123 (ae9d89) — 5/21/2019 @ 12:19 pmUmm
Why is it bad if Graham asks for Biden financial documents?
Dustin (a657af) — 5/21/2019 @ 12:24 pmI don’t think it’s bad.
I’m just forecasting that if that’s going to be the norm, the politicians may wish that norm was never started.
whembly (51f28e) — 5/21/2019 @ 12:27 pmyeah, that’s why it hasn’t been happening more. Team R doesn’t want to Mess with team D too much because they’re doing the same stuff. So let’s get past that and put all the info out there. Maybe once they force Trump to share his the GOP will force them to show theirs and the new standard will be more transparency.
Time123 (ae9d89) — 5/21/2019 @ 1:01 pmI can’t remember who tweeted this, but I saw a tweet that argued if Congress has wide authority that this judge as agreed…wouldn’t that create a de facto parliamentary system and allow future congresses to stop constitutional governance through sabotage?
A better way of describing it would be to say it helps restore to Congress the power the Founders intended Congress. The three branches are co-equal, but the Founders made Congress more equal than the others. Nowadays, the Executive is more equal…and Trump acts as if he wants it to be even more out of balance.
Kishnevi (cd9bd1) — 5/21/2019 @ 1:20 pmOversight doesn’t mean carte blanch oversight. There’s only so much they can do.
Congress is *always* a little bit more than “equal” than the rest of the branch of government. But, they were not talking about oversight. They were talking about the Power of the Purse™, that for whatever reasons, Congress has been loathed to leverage during this power struggles between the branches.
whembly (fd57f6) — 5/21/2019 @ 1:29 pmI’m just forecasting that if that’s going to be the norm, the politicians may wish that norm was never started.
This. The Democrats keep setting the bar lower and lower.
* Nuclear option to eliminate filibuster on judges
– Are outraged when GOP uses the same tactic
* Executive Orders that nullify statutes
– Are outraged when Trump uses the same tactic
* Issuing subpoenas to rifle through Opposition President’s finances.
– Predicted to be outraged when the favor is returned
* Using inherent contempt to jail officials who will not violate law or privilege
– Certain to decry the end of the Republic when iut is done to them.
In most cases the GOP thought of it first but declined to break tradition. The Democrats did it for short term gain, then wondered what went wrong when what went around, came around.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 1:32 pmThe judge argued the precedent is already set,
Th restraint on Congress acting this way is political.
There is a difference between an Impeachment Committee asking for stuff based on probable cause and a standing committee asking for stuff because there might be dirt there.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 1:36 pmEvery partisan i interact with has an explanation for how their side is only doing what the other side did and if not for the ruthless opposition party none of this would have happened.
Time123 (ae9d89) — 5/21/2019 @ 1:54 pmThe judge argued the precedent is already set,
The restraint on Congress acting this way is political.
Either it is justiciable or it is not. If it is not, then the judge has no business ordering a damn thing. If it is, then the constraint IS legal, not political.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 2:07 pmEvery partisan i interact with has an explanation for how their side is only doing what the other side did
How do they explain Reid nuking the appointment filibuster?
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 2:08 pmAgain, if they can force Trump to expose his records, then the Senate can force Maxine Waters to show hers. Then the House can go after McConnell, then …
And pretty soon comity breaks down.
/sarc
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 2:10 pmImagine Lindsey Graham asking for the next Democrat’s President’s financial documents… (or even other Congressional critter’s financial documents!).
Heck, AOC’s campaign finances are a mess — go get those and toss her in the slammer.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 2:11 pm“If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely. And I would love to do that.”
If I decide to be a billionaire, I’ll give you a million dollars. Therefore give me your money!
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 2:13 pmSo, can an Executive, in preparing legislative proposals for financial reporting by US district court judges, compel selected jurists to turn over their financial records to fine tune the proposals?
If not, why not?
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 2:39 pmHe made the promise of tax returns and then did not keep the promise of tax returns or any financial disclosure. And he’s a career fraud with incredible potential to use his office for personal gain, so it’s insightful how hard the GOP fights against things like keeping your word.
Dustin (6d7686) — 5/21/2019 @ 2:41 pmYeah sounds pretty good to me.
A lot of politicians at the federal level become incredibly wealthy despite modest salaries. And they have incredible power to be corrupt. And indeed both political parties are rather obviously corrupt.
And only die hard partisans think the solution to this is to hide their financial documents.
I had to turn over all kinds of personal information for more than a couple of jobs I’ve had. They’ve interviewed my neighbors and subjected me to polygraphs, and definitely saw my taxes and credit report and all that.
Congressman, Department heads, maybe even a few levels below, and certainly anyone up, should be an open book financially.
Yes, this would dissuade people like Maxine Waters and Donald Trump from some of these positions. That is ok with me.
Dustin (6d7686) — 5/21/2019 @ 2:47 pmThanks to Trump, the bar is now resting at the earth’s center of mass.
Dave (8321df) — 5/21/2019 @ 2:52 pm21. Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 2:07 pm
If he doesn’t order anything, Trump loses.
Donald J. Trump is the plaintiff. He wants to quash the subpoena given to other people`
Specifically, in this case, Mazars USA LLP. Which is in possession of financial records of his.
The recipients of the subpoena are not suing.
Now when Google or Verizon or AT&T or Facebook is ordered to produce something sometimes they resist. But they don’t have to., except maybe they’d get sued themselves perhaps, and there are business reasons..
Trump is suing the Committee on Oversight and refrm of the U.S. House of representatives in Federal District Court of the District of Columbia.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/21/2019 @ 3:29 pmThe New York Times does not make clear, or in fact give you any idea at all, what the suspicious activity probably really was: (it’s all about whistleblowers or Deutsche Bank not acting mechanically.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html
Deutsche Bank has also been subpoened and it’s been sued by Trump:
The New York Times also thinks Deutsche Bank is in a compromised position:
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/21/2019 @ 3:40 pmDeutsche Bank is akey figure in the Steele dossier – although it’s rather implausible to suppose that Russia was using Deutsche Bank to bail out Donald Trump for years before he became president.
But some Democrats are trying..
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/schiff-said-he-wants-obtain-trump-s-deutsche-bank-records-n948541
Maybe that’s a claim that Trump was laundering money for Russia or Russians. I’m not sure where he’s going with this.
Of course, Trump was selling them things. Putin actually called off people close to him holding assets abroad after the Maiden Revolution, and the Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 because he didn’t want them interested in avoiding sanctions.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/21/2019 @ 3:56 pmHe made the promise of tax returns and then did not keep the promise of tax returns or any financial disclosure.
Yeah, he’s an assh0le, I cannot argue the point. But the place to defend rights is with the least sympathetic individual. You don’t defend Mother Teresa’s free speech, you defend Larry Flynt’s.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 4:09 pmIf he doesn’t order anything, Trump loses.
Not so. The House wants the papers. Trump says “you and what army?”
If the court says “Settle it yourselves” then it remains a stand-off, settled only by political means (election, impeachment, legislative embargoes, etc).
If the court picks a side though, it is now a legal fight, not a political one.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 4:13 pm“The sole question before the Court — Is the House Oversight Committees’s issuance of a subpoena to Mazars USA LLP …”
It’s the Oversight Committee’s subpoena. Not the court’s. The court simply refused to enjoin it. One might even say it refused to take a side. 😉
What it means:
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2019 @ 4:39 pm1. If Mazars does not obey the subpoena, it will be in contempt of Congress, not contempt of court.
2. Stay on appeal will be a very hard row to hoe because there is really no court order to stay. Trump will be the asking the Court of Appeals for the relief he was asking in the District Court.
3. Go tell it to the voters! Now get out of my courtroom!
34. Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/21/2019 @ 4:13 pm
Trump doesn’t have custody of these papers. An accounting firm does. The Congressional committee found a way to bypass Trump.
In another case, Trump went into court to try to get Deutsche Bank (and also Capital One) to refuse to honor a subpoena.
The following page has acopy of that lawsuit at the end:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-sue-quash-deutsche-bank-capital-one-subpoenas-n999941
That one’s filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. In that case, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and his daughter Ivanka are plaintiffs, too (as well as several Trump property corporations) —
Another committee asked the IRS, not Trump himself, for copies of his tax returns.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/21/2019 @ 6:41 pm