LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:49 am

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.

Sounds like after the election, not before.

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?

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.

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:52 am

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.

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.

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.

Kismet wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:50 am

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:40 am

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.

NJ Bill called it months ago.

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.

Can we assume whatever the Lower Court decides regarding the test is FINAL and NOT subject to appeal?

I think whatever the lower courts decide on the Congressional subpoenas will certainly be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

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.

njbill wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:15 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:50 am

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:40 am

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.

NJ Bill called it months ago.

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.

Can we assume whatever the Lower Court decides regarding the test is FINAL and NOT subject to appeal?

I think whatever the lower courts decide on the Congressional subpoenas will certainly be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

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.

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.

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.

That seems highly likely.

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.

Another case decided under the radar. Good news for Native Americans. Treaty upheld.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:12 am

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:52 am

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.

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.

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.

Interesting. Of course, I'd absolutely pound on Trump as a coward on this issue, a cheat and a fraud.
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.

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.

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.

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.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:21 am 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.

Good question. I'll have to look for that when I read the opinion.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:49 pm https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 392428002/

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.

Bad news for Don Jr. Yellowstone bears to be protected against hunters.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... SApp_Other

njbill wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:37 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:21 am 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.

Good question. I'll have to look for that when I read the opinion.

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.

Eastern half of OK back to Reservation rule. Crazy Gorsuch!

https://www.ajc.com/news/justices-rule- ... oaWIMbGUP/

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...

..

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:11 am 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...

..

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/07/09/h ... sment-day/

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:34 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:11 am 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...

..

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/07/09/h ... sment-day/

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.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:21 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:34 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:11 am 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...

..

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/07/09/h ... sment-day/

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.

Start the day Stupid with Peter Brown!!!!

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?

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:27 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:21 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:34 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:11 am 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...

..

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/07/09/h ... sment-day/

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.

Start the day Stupid with Peter Brown!!!!

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

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:54 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:27 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:21 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:34 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:11 am 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...

..

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/07/09/h ... sment-day/

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.

Start the day Stupid with Peter Brown!!!!

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

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 handle