Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Jumbo

By Jumbo
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

twa

twa

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Ok let's handle this one first.  Is "limited legislative use" currently the litmus test for whether documents must be turned over?  If so, who gets to make the determination as to what the legislative usage of said documents could produce.    Can you give examples of documents being refused for this same reasoning in the past and it holding up in court?

 

 

 

there are numerous litmus tests, that being one

 

either the courts will decide or throw it back to the other two branches to negotiate.

 

can you give a example of a similar demand of a presidents financials??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGoodBits

TheGoodBits

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, twa said:

 

there are numerous litmus tests, that being one

 

either the courts will decide or throw it back to the other two branches to negotiate.

 

can you give a example of a similar demand of a presidents financials??

 

 

Congress has a Constitutional responsibility for oversight. The "legislative purpose" argument is nonsense pushed (weakly) by Trump's lawyers... which by the way was just called nonsense by a Federal judge. 

 

This is probably the first time Congress has had to subpoena tax returns and financial docs because it's the first time we've had a President that hasn't released his tax returns, first time a president has suspect ties to foreign govts, and potential conflicts of interest that would cause him to put his personal financial well-being ahead of the country's. So yeah, pretty unique situation in the history of our country.  

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
No Excuses

No Excuses

Posted
Posted

twa will defend whatever the GOP does and repeat their mindless talking points like the good little drone that he is (see: "Obama judges"). And when he can't, he will deflect to "But Obama" or "But Clinton".

 

Total waste of time engaging him on this.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Isifhan said:

Carter - I mean if you are talking recent history.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/10/17/inquiry-clears-carter-familys-peanut-business/ca5371c9-f0a7-4809-9b7d-7a57e78b76b0/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4d0a0e54c2df

 

That was a special counsel investigation, I could certainly see that sort being more justifiable....or even impeachment investigation.

 

Pretty sure they further restricted access to tax information after that event along with access to special counsel information after Clinton.

 

Simply for legislative or regulatory is a bit of a stretch imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Isifhan

Isifhan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, twa said:

 

That was a special counsel investigation, I could certainly see that sort being more justifiable....or even impeachment investigation.

 

Pretty sure they further restricted access to tax information after that event along with access to special counsel information after Clinton.

 

Simply for legislative or regulatory is a bit of a stretch imo.

You don't think congress saw Carters financial information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, twa said:

 

there are numerous litmus tests, that being one

 

either the courts will decide or throw it back to the other two branches to negotiate.

 

can you give a example of a similar demand of a presidents financials??

 

 

Pretty sure that if SCOTUS refuses to hear it, that won't mean "the other two branches negotiate". It will mean Trump lost and the subpoenaed material will have to be handed over. Losing in court doesn't mean everyone sits down for a tea party and figures out how to work together.

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Just now, Isifhan said:

You don't think congress saw Carters financial information?

 

I think the rules changed,as I just stated .

 

It will be interesting to see who and what leaks IF they do get what they request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Just now, mistertim said:

 

Pretty sure that if SCOTUS refuses to hear it, that won't mean "the other two branches negotiate". It will mean Trump lost and the subpoenaed material will have to be handed over. Losing in court doesn't mean everyone sits down for a tea party and figures out how to work it out.

 

long way to SCOTUS unless fast tracked, and they are already negotiating the appeal for the first ruling.....press release yesterday.

 

a lower court ruling is just a step up the hill.

 

SCOTUS or any court can simply direct the two other branches to negotiate a agreement instead of deciding the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, twa said:

 

long way to SCOTUS unless fast tracked, and they are already negotiating the appeal for the first ruling.....press release yesterday.

 

a lower court ruling is just a step up the hill.

 

SCOTUS or any court can simply direct the two other branches to negotiate a agreement instead of deciding the matter.

 

I don't think it's going to be as long as you (or Trump) believe/hope. These two recent decisions came very quickly and it will go to appeals quickly too. And they aren't negotiating an appeal....you don't negotiate that, you just file it.

 

The courts can weigh in on a somewhat ambiguous matter by only ruling on one narrow aspect of it and then saying that the rest needs to be decided elsewhere. But this isn't especially ambiguous...the House is saying they can subpoena materials for reasons of oversight over the executive branch, and the executive branch is essentially saying that Congress can't do oversight of POTUS if it hurts his feelings. In both cases so far the judges' rulings have essentially been the judicial equivalent of "WTF? Are you guys insane?" and slapped down the Trumpies with a quickness. 

 

I have a feeling that Trump's team knows perfectly well that their arguments are legally ludicrous and will get the hammer from any competent judge. They probably have 2 long shot hopes: 1) They can just drag it out for as long as possible in the courts to try and wait out through the 2020 election or 2) SCOTUS agrees to hear it and they just pray that Kav really feels super indebted to Trump and rules in his favor. (I thought you guys hated activist judges?). The first one is looking less and less likely. The second one may be a bit more likely but I have a feeling that SCOTUS may not even agree to hear it, especially if every judge on the way to them has slapped them down citing the same SCOTUS precedents. 

 

7 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

The ravings of a goddamn lunatic. 

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have a feeling SCOTUS punts.....OR......a guy like Roberts doesn't go for Trump's nonsense. Hell I think there is even a chance Gorsuch doesn't go along with it either.  

 

The question then becomes what happens when Trump essentially tells the Supreme Court to eff off and has Fox News/Right-wing radio backing him on it.  Do people then still try to justify his actions?

 

Oh and @twa I wasn't asking for you to repeat Trump Team's talking points on the matter.  I wanted you to state what your justification for this is. Their defense of ignoring subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents that what, 2 judges have now laughed out of court rather quickly on the grounds of abrsurdity.

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I don't think it's going to be as long as you (or Trump) believe/hope. These two recent decisions came very quickly and it will go to appeals quickly too. And they aren't negotiating an appeal....you don't negotiate that, you just file it.

 

 

Yes you do negotiate appeals processes

 

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-announces-request-to-expedite-appeal-for-subpoena-of-president-s

 

Washington, D.C. (May 22, 2019)—Today, the Committee on Oversight and Reform reached an agreement with the President’s attorneys to seek an expedited appeal in the Mazars case.  The request must be approved by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to take effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Quote

 

Ramos did suggest early on that the House subpoena might be too broad, but that is a big difference from saying they’re unlawful — which is what Trump lawyers were looking for. The judge asked Trump attorney Patrick Strawbridge if he had asked Democrats to narrow the scope of their demands, and Strawbridge said he would “be happy to do so.”

“If this was an ordinary civil case, I would send you guys into a room […]  until you came out with a reasonable subpoena,” Ramos said.

 

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/for-the-second-time-this-week-federal-judge-decides-not-to-block-congressional-subpoena/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I have a feeling SCOTUS punts.....OR......a guy like Roberts doesn't go for Trump's nonsense. Hell I think there is even a chance Gorsuch doesn't go along with it either.  

 

The question then becomes what happens when Trump essentially tells the Supreme Court to eff off and has Fox News/Right-wing radio backing him on it.  Do people then still try to justify his actions?

 

Oh and @twa I wasn't asking for you to repeat Trump Team's talking points on the matter.  I wanted you to state what your justification for this is. Their defense of ignoring subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents that what, 2 judges have now laughed out of court rather quickly on the grounds of abrsurdity.

 

I think SCOTUS will punt. But if they do hear it, I don't think Roberts or Gorsuch will side with Trump. Roberts has already broken with the other conservative justices quite a few times. Obviously we know that Thomas and Alito will side with Trump. Kav is a toss up because he hasn't ruled on many cases yet. 

 

28 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Yes you do negotiate appeals processes

 

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-announces-request-to-expedite-appeal-for-subpoena-of-president-s

 

Washington, D.C. (May 22, 2019)—Today, the Committee on Oversight and Reform reached an agreement with the President’s attorneys to seek an expedited appeal in the Mazars case.  The request must be approved by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to take effect.

 

I'm curious to have the lawyers on this site chime in here. I haven't been able to find much other information about negotiating appeals. AFAIK you file an appeal...the other side can't stop you from doing so if they don't agree. Maybe they have to agree on a fast track time frame?

 

21 minutes ago, twa said:

Ramos did suggest early on that the House subpoena might be too broad, but that is a big difference from saying they’re unlawful — which is what Trump lawyers were looking for. The judge asked Trump attorney Patrick Strawbridge if he had asked Democrats to narrow the scope of their demands, and Strawbridge said he would “be happy to do so.”

“If this was an ordinary civil case, I would send you guys into a room […]  until you came out with a reasonable subpoena,” Ramos said.

 

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/for-the-second-time-this-week-federal-judge-decides-not-to-block-congressional-subpoena/

 

This isn't an ordinary civil case though, so his statement is pretty much moot. This is a case about basic constitutional law and whether or not Congress has oversight authority over the executive branch. 

Edited by mistertim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, twa said:

Lawyers negotiate everything :pint:

 

Negotiating support from both parties increases the odds the court will hear it faster.

 

That's a fair point. I was mostly just saying that it isn't required or anything for an appeal. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...