Cruise missile coordinates are being entered into the database as we speak.
This is no regular client. It’s not a stretch to see that (probably) over half of their entire client base, the GOP, will judge how they respond and it only makes sense that they do it by Monday but no sooner.
Once again Trumpf stains whoever he comes in contact with.
5 Likes
Here … I have some … take as much as you’d like —
1 Like
Indeed. And apropos our discussion last week,
Finally, a congressional investigation into “illegal conduct before and during [the President’s] tenure in office,” Cummings’ April 12th Mem. at 4, fits comfortably within the broad scope of Congress’s investigative powers. At a minimum, such an investigation is justified based on Congress’s “informing function,” that is, its power “to inquire into and publicize corruption,” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 200 n.33.24 It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry. On this score, history provides a useful guide. Cf. Tobin v. United States, 306 F.2d 270, 275–76 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (relying on historical practice to determine the scope of a congressional investigation). Twice in the last 50 years Congress has investigated a sitting President for alleged law violations, before initiating impeachment proceedings. It did so in 1973 by establishing the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, better known as the Watergate Committee, and then did so again in 1995 by establishing the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters. See S. Res. 60 (93rd Cong., 1st Session) (Feb. 7, 1973) [hereinafter Watergate Res.]; see also S. Res. 120 (104th Cong., 1st Session) (May 17, 1995). The former investigation included within its scope potential corruption by President Nixon while in office, while the latter concerned alleged illegal misconduct by President Clinton before his time in office. Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a President, before and after taking office. This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.
Memorandum opinion at 23-24. Bold and underline added; italics in original.
Pretty much puts the kibosh on any suggestion that Congress must be sitting in a formal impeachment inquiry for subpoenas like this to be valid, n’est-ce pas?
Doesn’t appear the judge bought that argument.
1 Like
In that case, make sure you are driving an older car. 1996 or earlier preferred. And for the love of everything good and wholesome, if you’re driving anything newer, ditch your fucking OnStar™.
People pretending to be journos probably shouldn’t be typing out their articles on their phones, with autocorrupt set to “on”.
2 Likes
No. He made that abundantly clear in the passage I quoted to you upthread.
1 Like
I’ll go with Rikers myself. Already staffed, no rehab necessary.
1 Like
Nes Gadol Haya Po!
I don’t think that I would bother rehabbing Alcatraz either, but perhaps I am being a bit mean.
1 Like
It can very much be appealed. Even though this started out as a motion for a preliminary injunction, Judge Mehta consolidated the proceedings under FRCP 65 and explicitly stated in the memorandum/order that he was treating the briefs as cross motions for summary judgment. At the end of the memo he states that he is entering final judgment in favor of the defendants. That makes it a final judgment subject to appeal.
2 Likes
Well, we’d at least need guards and so on. Having been on that island, regardless of comfort issues, the security sucks. (Except for the cold water and the sharks, of course.)
2 Likes
There is a 7-day period stipulated by the parties before Mazars has to produce the docs. That period is mentioned a few times in the order. So even though there’s no stay “beyond” that period, docs won’t be produced right away. There’s a chance the crime family could get the DC Circuit to issue a stay, but I wouldn’t want to state odds.
1 Like
It’s a well-written order (with one glaringly weird turn of phrase). But due credit to the law clerks, who IME do most of the writing.
2 Likes
Other than highly obliquely, if you count references to the House Rules early in the memorandum, this was not part of the court’s reasoning.
1 Like
I’m not at all sure this is the right standard. Most issues regarding subpoenas are discovery issues, and those are indeed reviewed for abuse of discretion. This case is different. It’s not the conduct of discovery within a larger case; this entire case is about the subpoena. Judge Mehta makes it quite clear in his order that he’s consolidated the proceedings under FRCP 65; he treated the briefing as cross-motions for summary judgment, and he entered final judgment in favor of the defendants (the committee et al.) That means it’s a final judgment subject to de novo review (on legal issues) in the court of appeal.
2 Likes
Was hoping that shoe would drop. Good! 
1 Like