Discussion: House Passes Measure To Expedite Trump Oversight Legal Fights

TPM Article Topics
#41

In theory. In practice, we’re in uncharted waters, here - we’re dealing with an administration that is fundamentally lawless. Barr is ordered to turn over something. He doesn’t refuse - he simply doesn’t turn it over. The court cites him for contempt. How does the court enforce that? Do they send the bailiff over to DoJ to take Barr into custody?

I keep thinking about Stalin’s comment about the Pope - “How many divisions does he have?” Or Andrew Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

3 Likes
#42

[quote=“maximus, post:25, topic:88818”]
OT, but just one more thing to twist Donnie’s bigly shorts…
[/quote]If Trump can do anything to stop or impede - or obstruct - the Obama Presidential Library, you know he’ll be all over it, non-stop … I was going to say, until he gets distracted by something else - but, he has shown the ability to focus, or at least repeatedly com back to, anything that can undo or erase anything about Obama or his presidency.

1 Like
#43

that isn’t how its happening in the Mazars case, or the Deutsche Bank case.

Trump will appeal the ruling. Then, perhaps he’ll appeal the ruling to the appeals court en banc. Or he can appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

and the Supreme Court will find some technical flaw in the subpoena, making Nadler issue an entirely new subpoena…

the REAL problem is that, except for stuff that happened after McGahn left the White House, Trump’s executive privilege claims may well be valid in an oversight setting…

#44

This is GREAT news! More, more, much more.

2 Likes
#45

perhaps because Scalia could write from Hell what he wrote in Heller?

3 Likes
#46

Good vote. Symbolically, it lets the GOP/WH know that the Dem caucus is committed to subpoena compliance. Substantively, Nadler has to go sue and will have to address the executive privilege vs. standard oversight issue which a conservative court might use as a pretext to rule in the WH’s favor. If the commitment is there to get witnesses in front of the committee, one would think that Dems should be able to get it done.

We’re a week shy of 3 months since Mueller turned in his report. No hearings with witnesses and no subpoenaed docs turned over. (I guess we’re getting some in camera stuff that the WH gets to cherry pick). That’s not a good result thus far. Things have to step up over the next 6 weeks.

7 Likes
#47

One essential difference is that Mazars and Deutsche Bank aren’t really Trumpists. These are companies that need to be able to keep doing business. They may be hesitant to act in ways that harm their client, but at the end of the day, they’re not going to defy a court order. There’s just no percentage in doing so.

7 Likes
#48

I want the giant “Tweeting Toilet Trump” robot on the mall.

1906040630-Robot-Of-Trump-Tweeting-On-The-Toilet_hires.jpg1080×608 69.6 KB

5 Likes
#49

actually, the plaintiffs in the case are Trump and his family and businesses. They are the ones suing to have the subpoenas quashed.

In other words, its Trumpist who filed the case, and filed the recent brief submitted in the appeal…

#50

Well yes, it is. But if the court rules against Trump, Mazars/Deutsche Bank aren’t going to defy the court order. In other words, it isn’t Trump and his criminal enterprise that have to obey the subpoena - it’s still M/DB who will turn over the documents.

My point here is that the Trumpists will defy a court order. The enforcement mechanism is then not at all clear.

2 Likes
#51

They will defy it if newly confirmed Judge Rao and the other cohorts on the court look favorably at Trump’s expansive argument on both executive privilege and the limits of congressional authority in ‘legislative inquiry’ mode vs. ‘impeachment/criminal investigation’ mode.

That we’re deferring to the courts instead of simply declaring the obvious: A special prosecutor handed us the results of a criminal investigation made an impeachment referral and therefore everything we do with Trump is with an eye to exposing and seeing accountability for criminal activity and high crimes and misdemeanors would be more honest and give us a stronger hand in court. This hiding behind legislative intent gives the GOP judges an opening to scream ‘witch hunt!’ and establish a new standard that weakens congressional power.

7 Likes
#52

Yes.

#53

That’s getting to be like the OLC “guidance” about not indicting a sitting president. There are probably people out there who think that both of these principles are enshrined in the Constitution somewhere. “Let’s see, now, executive privilege is in Article MDCXII, and presidential immunity is part of the 87th Amendment, right?”

5 Likes
#54

It might be more than guidance when handed to a conservative court.

1 Like
#55

I don’t think we’ll ever find out – Trump’s strategy is delay, delay, delay, and the courts prefer delay to decision in executive privilege cases like this. There is really no reason to think that the Supreme Court is going to achieve finality in favor of the House before the election — perhaps BECAUSE it would not want to “interfere in the election”

Moreover, as I’ve noted elsewhere, the House’s case against executive privilege is rather weak. The court could follow existing precedent, and find for Trump.

And IMHO, were Trump to defy a Supreme Court decision, I think the Court would react swiftly and decisively, and order US Marshalls to seize any documents to be turned over, and jail any person who refused to testify.

5 Likes
#56

“I’ll give you my balloon when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!”

That would be quite a sight of them trying to confiscate them from the masses.

And it would be a great sight to see thousands of them released at once when Diaper Don makes his appearance.

2 Likes
#57

A couple days ago sniffit is in the sandbox whining “You swung first11!!111two!” Now, today…

Wonder what will come next?

Working on my bingo card.

Unicorn!
Purity!
Butthurt!
Swipe Left!
Pony!
Glitter!
Horseshoe!
Hair on fire! (my personal vote for Unintended Irony Award)
Pubes on fire!
Grow up! (runner-up in the Unintended Irony Award)
Fucking retarded (hi, Rahm!)

A work in progress…

#58

“Clearly, the president can’t fulfill his Constitutional responsibilities if he’s prevented from gunning down the occasional Senator, or from using his trade authority to manipulate stock prices.”

6 Likes
#59

Thanks! Just bought some. hee hee

2 Likes
#60

Wow they must be quaking at White House

IMPEACH

Stop diddling

2 Likes
Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available