Theoretically possible that the banks/accountants could comply now, but I doubt it. I think the issues outlined today for remand will be litigated. As frankly they should be.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:49 amSounds like after the election, not before.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:34 am Good decisions if your are concerned about the President being able to stonewall for ever. Next bozo to try this gets cut off at the knees in a lower court as they should. Still gives Trump a little more room to run, but the end is in sight. He will be giving up the requested records.
Were any of the cases compelling records from others, eg Deutsche Bank, who otherwise could decide to simply produce?
Or is that too, (if applicable), bumped to a later date?
SCOTUS
Re: SCOTUS
Re: SCOTUS
I like this idea as I said yesterday. Saw Carville last night and he thinks it is a dumb idea. He claims Biden will clean Trumps clock, no way that would not be the result. No risk. I do think Biden does win a debate on points because he knows his sh!t even if he has trouble expressing it sometimes. But I don't think it is without risk. Trump wants a debate, he should pay a toll.Brooklyn wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:52 amMDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:30 am Are all these cases pushed to beyond the election?
If so, effectively a win for the Trump 2020 Campaign, while clearly a loss for Trump in the long haul.
DailyKos reported there is an online petition for folks to demand that Biden agree to a debate only if those tax records are disclosed. Possibly a good move.
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Re: SCOTUS
I think whatever the lower courts decide on the Congressional subpoenas will certainly be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.Kismet wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:50 amCan we assume whatever the Lower Court decides regarding the test is FINAL and NOT subject to appeal?ggait wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:40 amNJ Bill called it months ago.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:30 am Are all these cases pushed to beyond the election?
If so, effectively a win for the Trump 2020 Campaign, while clearly a loss for Trump in the long haul.
Trump loses, but wins. Because the cases go back to the lower courts for more litigation. Justice delayed is justice denied.
SCOTUS only decides the broad legal principle/rule/test. So then the lower court has to apply that general test to the specific detailed facts.
The lower court's decision in the grand jury case will almost certainly be appealed to the Second Circuit, but I think it is less certain that that case will end up back in the Supreme Court.
Re: SCOTUS
Did this decision touch on the point of the ability of a state government to investigate / indict a sitting president? Got the impression from Neil Katyal that there was now no impediment there.njbill wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:15 amI think whatever the lower courts decide on the Congressional subpoenas will certainly be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.Kismet wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:50 amCan we assume whatever the Lower Court decides regarding the test is FINAL and NOT subject to appeal?ggait wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:40 amNJ Bill called it months ago.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:30 am Are all these cases pushed to beyond the election?
If so, effectively a win for the Trump 2020 Campaign, while clearly a loss for Trump in the long haul.
Trump loses, but wins. Because the cases go back to the lower courts for more litigation. Justice delayed is justice denied.
SCOTUS only decides the broad legal principle/rule/test. So then the lower court has to apply that general test to the specific detailed facts.
The lower court's decision in the grand jury case will almost certainly be appealed to the Second Circuit, but I think it is less certain that that case will end up back in the Supreme Court.
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Re: SCOTUS
That seems highly likely.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:59 am However, if re-elected, no criminal charges against him personally until 2024. Maybe civil charges against his businesses, but can't prosecute him personally.
Certainly he wouldn't be indicted federally based on the standing DOJ opinion.
The NY state attorney said at oral argument that he wouldn't indict Trump as a sitting president, essentially agreeing with the DOJ opinion. I think that opinion is wrong, as I have contended previously, but unless or until someone challenges it, the opinion probably will stand. It is an issue that should be decided by the Supreme Court, not the DOJ.
I have long thought that the test case would come from the state courts/prosecutors since they aren't bound by the DOJ opinion. Looks like it won't be this NY DA, but maybe another state DA down the line.
And by 2025, there will be statute of limitations issues. There is an argument that the SOL should be tolled while the president is in office, but no court has ruled on the issue. I think the tolling argument is iffy at best.
Re: SCOTUS
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27097
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Interesting. Of course, I'd absolutely pound on Trump as a coward on this issue, a cheat and a fraud.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:12 amI like this idea as I said yesterday. Saw Carville last night and he thinks it is a dumb idea. He claims Biden will clean Trumps clock, no way that would not be the result. No risk. I do think Biden does win a debate on points because he knows his sh!t even if he has trouble expressing it sometimes. But I don't think it is without risk. Trump wants a debate, he should pay a toll.Brooklyn wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:52 amMDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:30 am Are all these cases pushed to beyond the election?
If so, effectively a win for the Trump 2020 Campaign, while clearly a loss for Trump in the long haul.
DailyKos reported there is an online petition for folks to demand that Biden agree to a debate only if those tax records are disclosed. Possibly a good move.
And I'd have that as one of my two themes, implicating all the other ways corruption is so endemic in this Administration.
The other theme being incompetence. Hammer it.
When dealing with foreign affairs, I'd pound on him as a traitor. I'd go all in.
Re: SCOTUS
I think Biden will debate. For one thing, he has already agreed publicly to do so. For another, debates have now become traditional. It is what the public expects. Biden is a traditionalist.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:12 am I like this idea as I said yesterday. Saw Carville last night and he thinks it is a dumb idea. He claims Biden will clean Trumps clock, no way that would not be the result. No risk. I do think Biden does win a debate on points because he knows his sh!t even if he has trouble expressing it sometimes. But I don't think it is without risk. Trump wants a debate, he should pay a toll.
The candidate who is leading in the polls never wants to debate. The candidate who is behind always does. This cycle isn't any different.
Sure there are risks to Biden since he could stumble. But he would get hammered by the public (and Trump), I think, if he were to duck the debates.
While Biden isn't a very good debater, Trump is terrible. Clinton (who of course is a much better debater than Biden) mopped the floor with Trump. Look what good that did her.
Biden also has recent debate experience while Trump hasn't debated in four years. Trump is rusty. Even Obama was rusty and didn't do well in his first debate against Romney.
This time around, Trump is defending, not attacking as he did in 2016. He will be hit with lots and lots of very tough questions that even a good debater would have trouble with. I doubt Trump will put in the serious prep time he would need to perform well. He could well bristle at critical questions. He likely won't answer questions directly if at all.
I'm not sure Biden would clean Trump's clock, but I think he would probably outperform Trump.
While debates are always highly anticipated, I don't think they generally move the needle all that much. I think the same will be true this year.
Re: SCOTUS
Good question. I'll have to look for that when I read the opinion.
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27097
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Trump blasts Supreme Court decision on financial records, saying it showed a lack of ‘deference’.
That clown must think he is "god" - takes that BS about being the "chosen one" too seriously. Says just as much about those who defend him.
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
-
- Posts: 2200
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:32 am
- Location: Niagara Frontier
The Right to Arm Bears
Bad news for Don Jr. Yellowstone bears to be protected against hunters.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... SApp_Other
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... SApp_Other
Re: SCOTUS
Trump had conceded in the litigation that a state has the authority to investigate a sitting president. Where Trump drew the line was that he contended a president is absolutely immune from grand jury subpoenas.
Given Trump’s concession, the court did not need to expressly rule that states have the constitutional authority to investigate a sitting president, although that logically follows from their conclusion that a president is not absolutely immune from state grand jury subpoenas.
The court did not address whether a state grand jury could indict a sitting president. New York had conceded this point at oral argument. To my mind, it remains an open issue.
-
- Posts: 6381
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:01 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Eastern half of OK back to Reservation rule. Crazy Gorsuch!
https://www.ajc.com/news/justices-rule- ... oaWIMbGUP/
https://www.ajc.com/news/justices-rule- ... oaWIMbGUP/
Re: SCOTUS
I’m in the mountains without much connectivity. Tough to post right now. Those interested might check out the post at EMPTYWHEEL about these decisions...a pretty good read...
..
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
-
- Posts: 12878
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am
Re: SCOTUS
You guys keep posting remarks by a person who falsely claimed that she had been 'hijacked by Russian agents', a Jussie Smollett but without the race card. She's ummmm somewhat batsh!t insane.
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Start the day Stupid with Peter Brown!!!!Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:21 am
You guys keep posting remarks by a person who falsely claimed that she had been 'hijacked by Russian agents', a Jussie Smollett but without the race card. She's ummmm somewhat batsh!t insane.
The post from Empty Wheel is mostly a collection of other people's thoughts on the Vance and Mazars cases, and some/many of them are very interesting. Marcy hardly posts a thing. Why not make today the day you contribute something other than the infant trolling that has chased away good posters and frustrated others?
-
- Posts: 12878
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am
Re: SCOTUS
seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:27 amStart the day Stupid with Peter Brown!!!!Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:21 am
You guys keep posting remarks by a person who falsely claimed that she had been 'hijacked by Russian agents', a Jussie Smollett but without the race card. She's ummmm somewhat batsh!t insane.
The post from Empty Wheel is mostly a collection of other people's thoughts on the Vance and Mazars cases, and some/many of them are very interesting. Marcy hardly posts a thing. Why not make today the day you contribute something other than the infant trolling that has chased away good posters and frustrated others?
If I linked to a blog written by a person who had falsely claimed to have been abducted/threatened by Russian agents so that person could garner sympathy from her admirers, and then called the FBI to turn in a source without even being asked (ummm, journo ethics much!), I'd hope you would point it out to me so I didn't continue to make a fool of myself, like ummmm well, you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZjMc5ehGd4
Re: SCOTUS
Disss's head is exploding... he was a disciple of Glenn G for the longest time until Glenn started to speak truths Diss couldn't handlePeter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:54 amseacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:27 amStart the day Stupid with Peter Brown!!!!Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:21 am
You guys keep posting remarks by a person who falsely claimed that she had been 'hijacked by Russian agents', a Jussie Smollett but without the race card. She's ummmm somewhat batsh!t insane.
The post from Empty Wheel is mostly a collection of other people's thoughts on the Vance and Mazars cases, and some/many of them are very interesting. Marcy hardly posts a thing. Why not make today the day you contribute something other than the infant trolling that has chased away good posters and frustrated others?
If I linked to a blog written by a person who had falsely claimed to have been abducted/threatened by Russian agents so that person could garner sympathy from her admirers, and then called the FBI to turn in a source without even being asked (ummm, journo ethics much!), I'd hope you would point it out to me so I didn't continue to make a fool of myself, like ummmm well, you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZjMc5ehGd4