Discussion: DOJ Explains To SCOTUS Why It Should Not Take Up Mueller Grand Jury Case

So in the (unlikely?) event that the company is forced to pay the total accrued of the $50000/day fines, where does the money go? Who gets control of it? What do these sorts of court-imposed fines finance?

1 Like

It’s worth noting that Francisco is part of that same federalist society legal fraternity as Kavanaugh, Alito and others. He is the solicitor general so arguing before the SCOTUS is part of his job, but there may be some significance or signaling that he appears to be taking a lead role here. One might interpret this as the conservative legal elite aligning with Mueller on this matter. DOJ is clearly not taking a Trumpian position in this filing.

17 Likes

There must be something in the subpoenaed documents that this foreign-government-owned commercial enterprise really, really, really, really, really, really, really doesn’t want anyone to know about.

16 Likes

The DOJ company picnic will be three weeks in Italy, if that tells you anything.

6 Likes

IANAL, but likely it just drops into the Indian-Jones-Warehouse called the US Treasury.

3 Likes

We should be on the lookout for Mrs. Mnuchin looking to wallpaper a new room with Benjamins.

7 Likes

You don’t get before the Supreme Court unless you can demonstrate a reason you should be there. Expect in some very special cases, appearing in front of the Supreme Court is not automatic. My guess is the foreign corporation hasn’t been able to demonstrate any justification for it’s appearance on the Court’s docket. That is demonstrated by the petitioner’s consistent failure to win in the district and appellate courts. Of course, there is no way for us to judge without knowing more about the case.

Marcy Wheeler seems to be leaning toward that interpretation.

I’m sure I understand only a fraction of the significance that just Francisco signed the brief. But two things I do understand: One, Francisco is giving this argument a great deal of weight with SCOTUS, signaling the import of winning this argument.

Additionally, however, it means he stands as a shield for Mueller’s work on this appeal. If Trump wants to retaliate against DOJ for exposing the payoff to a quid pro quo, the President is going to have to fire another Senate-confirmed officer to do it, and fire one against whom he hasn’t laid a claim of partisanship. As I’ve already noted, by dint of this company being a foreign company, Mueller likely already knows what he’s getting via SIGINT. This subpoena is likely significantly an attempt to parallel construct evidence for use at trial. And the brief seems to make it clear that Mueller suspects some US citizen used this foreign-owned corporation to shield his own criminal behavior.

The whole long post is fascinating, but I especially like the parts that indicate Jared will be modeling orange jumpsuits.

12 Likes

off topic, but look at the ad that pulled up at the top of my TPM page. If you can’t read the fine print, it says is paid for by Trump make America great again committee and the RNC"

ROSNEFT. Somebody got a nice little fee for a stock sale. Someone who has give us all the DTs?

Though it’s by no means a guarantee. [President] Al Gore won at every level of the district and appellate courts, just to be summarily overruled by the SCOTUS.

3 Likes

Point taken. But in that case the Supreme Court said its decision wasn’t precedent in any future case, it was an extra ordinary political decision. Unless you are one of those who believe that the Supreme Court is completely political, you shouldn’t expect such political decisions in every case.

You need Prime As Fuck.

Stat!

6 Likes

Wasted as money on TPM, who the he’ll are they trying to reach. TPM ought to take him for all he has.

Anybody else get a lengthy survey from TPM? I don’t mind a few questions but when it gets up to 15-20 it’s a bit too much.

1 Like

IDKW this popped into my head

Oh RICO you’re so fined,
You’re so fined you blew my mind
Oh RICO

8 Likes

On a straight political ideology line vote, then decreed that it’s decision could not be cited as precedent. It’s a good thing the Court is a neutral, apolitical body. Otherwise a corrupt administration might try to short circuit both the legislative and judicial processes, act by Executive fiat and then mainline everything to the Court for its blessing.

3 Likes

@ronbyers Which has since been cited as precedent anyway.

Thank you for the clarification. I was wondering if this was the “good” DOJ (Mueller aligned) or the “bad” DOJ (POtuS aligned).

3 Likes