It’ll give us a pretty good read of exactly how willing the newbies are to sell their souls to Spankee.
4 Likes
I LIKE BEER, THEY LIKE BEER! will be part and parcel of final ruling
4 Likes
When your “authorities” include an almost entirely unrelated Wall Street Journal article, your argument may not be of the highest quality.
I wonder whether the opinion siding with the perps will be redacted too.
1 Like
PLEASE let it be Deutsche Bank!
4 Likes
The move will allow the unnamed firm – reportedly a financial institution – a chance at winning an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Today’s redacted filing confirms that the company is “wholly owned” by a foreign state, meaning that it would have no other shareholders.
“Few things would offend sovereign dignity more than subjecting the sovereign to another country’s criminal process, which is why the international community (including the United States) has long immunized foreign states and their leaders from domestic criminal jurisdiction,” the company adds.
Hmmm… Connecting those dots makes the prospect of affirmation by the SCOTUS in their favor quite the endorsement of socialism. Last i checked, most Republicans in this country are completely against that economic system here in the US. Unless you need hernia surgery, in which case you go to Canada, post haste.
4 Likes
The company contends that the appellate-level ruling “would wreak havoc on American foreign policy—possibly alienating U.S. allies, undermining diplomatic efforts, . . ."
If that’s a winning argument we could cite it as controlling precedent to remove Trump and company from office.
3 Likes
DB is not wholly owned by a government, so that would seem to be a non-starter.
2 Likes
Should fall right within the commercial activity exception. Nations are not immune from suit for their commercial activities and banking is a commercial activity.
6 Likes
“Since America’s founding, foreign states have been immune from American criminal jurisdiction, and yet the United States is not overrun with criminal syndicates backed by foreign states.”
That’s an argument I wouldn’t have expected in a Mueller/Trump context.
2 Likes
Today’s redacted filing confirms that the company is “wholly owned” by a foreign state
If that’s true, then it can’t be Sberbank and VTE then becomes more likely. But does the redacted filing say this? It appears to be fully redacted, so where did TPM see this?
2 Likes
Not owned by a government, so sadly no.
If there is any merit in Company A’s argument, it’s because the conspiracy in question is not just criminal, but properly considered an act of war.
Russia started a new Cold War in 2015, and our courts have backed into the conflict while prosecuting the American conspirators.
This would no doubt play out very differently if the conspiracy had been unsuccessful in its coup d’etat.
3 Likes
and/or to what extent Roberts sees Dolt45 as illegitimate and not meriting protection
1 Like
So touching that a foreign company working hand in hand with a foreign government -to commit crimes in our country -is so concerned about American foreign policy and ensuring we’re living up to the high ideals of our Constitution. So touching.
2 Likes
“How dare you ask us to follow U.S. laws when we do business in the U.S.!”
3 Likes
I thought it might be DB but it sounds like it is probably Vnesheconombank (VEB). According to Wikipedia it is 100% state owned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_Russia#Companies
And the Financial Times has a story on Trump Toronto funding that mentions VEB https://www.ft.com/trumptoronto
1 Like
Deutsche Bank has always been a private enterprise, right from its founding. It therefore could never have been the institution in question which has been described as “owned by a foreign government .”
If it’s not VEB, it might be a Saudi bank…
1 Like
The company contends that the appellate-level ruling “would wreak havoc on American foreign policy—possibly alienating U.S. allies, undermining diplomatic efforts, and inviting reciprocal treatment abroad for American agencies and instrumentalities.
(snip)
The unknown firm goes on to envision a “foreign-policy nightmare” that would occur if U.S. courts “started enmeshing foreign states in domestic criminal proceedings.”
(snip)
“Few things would offend sovereign dignity more than subjecting the sovereign to another country’s criminal process, which is why the international community (including the United States) has long immunized foreign states and their leaders from domestic criminal jurisdiction,” the company adds.
(snip)
Should that absolute immunity be broken, the company adds, it could “expose American agencies and instrumentalities to criminal proceedings abroad.”
And then… wait for it…
“The D.C. circuit’s parade of horribles…
Oh, the irony…
1 Like
Well, not overrun prior to 2016.
Shorter Putin: How dare you demand that a mob bank I run be required to follow your laws?