Mazars has thousands of clients in dozens of countries and an annual turnover in the vicinity of USD 2 billion.
It’s true that they want to get out from under Trump as painlessly as possible – who doesn’t? – but it’s not true that Trump alone can turn the firm into “the face of corruption and shadiness.”
Some don’t even make it to the bench, mostly because Democrats (in the White House and Senate) don’t want (or can’t win, or think they can’t win) the fight to put them there.
Merit is in the eyes of the beholder. If only we could all agree on the merit.
That’s easy. Amit, born in India, appointed by Barack, born in Kenya.
Nadler could be a wee bit bolder. He can hold McGahn in contempt and levee big fines.
Indian according to Wikipedia. Not that it matters to Don the Con. The racist POS thinks all People of Color look a like.
I heard Daniels on MSNBC radio while driving this afternoon. Really loved the way he presented his points through the lens of To Kill A Mockingbird. Never been a big fan of his, but I think I’m beginning to be.
Perhaps McGahn not showing up tomorrow will tip the scales. They’ve followed plenty of procedure, have won some battles in the courts, and seem to have most of the ducks in a row. Could be something more they’re waiting on but we are close.
Must be because the judge isnt a real american… or something. Yah know, judging by his name and all.
It would be interesting if he did it. The DOJ won’t indict a sitting President, but a Judge can still find one in contempt.
Donnie Dorko is going to stop McGahn from testifying? Maybe for a week or two, maybe a month, not much longer if the courts treat all these cases as a waste of time and throw them out.
This happened tonight.
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.
Here … I have some … take as much as you’d 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.