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
GWB is probably doing a happy dance too. It’s not every president whose adventurism and war of aggression destabilizes an entire region of the world and costs his country $3T and counting (not to mention loss of life and limb, military and civilian). With that kind of a record, by all rights GWB should be on the Extremely Short List for Worst President Ever.
1 Like
As @moderately noted, the beauty of this case is that it’s not within his power to comply or not. He doesn’t have the docs. Mazar’s does.
2 Likes
[quote=“gharlane, post:356, topic:88112”]
With that kind of a record, by all rights GWB should be on the Extremely Short List for Worst President Ever.
[/quote]Of Course. Can you believe I actually blocked that fucker from my mind?
4 Likes
MAGAts getting desperate…
Okay, just so I have this straight. The testimony of a corrupt lawyer that just went to prison for lying to Congress is supposed to convince who, of exactly what? BullSchiff
— Rebarbill (@rebarbill) May 20, 2019
HE'S SUCH A CREDIBLE GUY THAT COHEN, EVERYBODY BELIEVES EVERY WORD HE SAYS😂😂😂😂 LAW SUITS TO FOLLOW - can we keep track of how many times Cohen has changed his story or renewed his memory since being DISBARRED?
— Ford_Feinstein (@FeinsteinFord) May 21, 2019
I can smell the flop sweat from here. On second thought, that might not be flop sweat I’m smelling.
I love the galaxy brain thinking that if Trump hires nothing but criminals, then he can just call them criminals when they do crimes for him and that's somehow a win for Trump
— munche (@munche) May 20, 2019
OT, but this was also in Kyle’s feed:
Kris Kobach gave the Trump W.H. a list of 10 conditions to become immigration czar, NYT reports, including:
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 20, 2019
* Access to a government jet 24 hours a day
* Office in the West Wing
* Guaranteed weekends off
* Assurance of being made DHS secretary by Novemberhttps://t.co/RnOOKGcTJI
Only. The. Best. People.
2 Likes
Let’s hope you are right
1 Like
I certainly don’t disagree about that. In fact, I’ve said all along that this case would be easily decided in favor of the House – that Trump didn’t have a leg to stand on, because all that was needed was a legislative pretext.
The next case (Deutsche bank) is essentially the same as Mazars with two exceptions
- There is a question about the whether Congress is subject to the Federal Bank Privacy Act – it won’t make a difference in the ultimate disposition of the case, but it could mean there is a preliminary injunction
- The entire family’s financial records for 10(?) years are involved. IMHO, this raises arguments of congressional over-reach, and i’m not sure that Mehta’s eliding of “privacy” and “pertinency” issues will be sufficient.
That being said, the ultimate outcome of Deutchse Bank will be another loss for team Trump. But they know that — Trump’s strategy is delay, public confusion, and obfuscation, not winning them on the merits
I think impeachment is necessary for two reasons…
-
expedited review – if impeachment is involved, its likelier (but not certain) that the courts will hear these cases promptly. The judge in the Mazars case looked at the arguments, and said “there is no reason to delay this case”. But other courts might feel differently*
-
fighting executive privilege arguments – there is irony in the two most important executive privilege cases – while ruling against the administration in both US v Nixon and Oversight v Holder, in each case the courts actually expanded the theoretical limits of executive privilege. The biggest vulnerability that EP now has is when evidence of criminal conduct is being sought – and the precedent in that case was for a “judicial proceeding”. Again, there are no guarantees, but a formal impeachment inquiry has the best chance of cutting through Executive privilege arguments.
The judge threw the kitchen sink at Trump’s arguments. which might be a problem going forward. and that’s why I put the asterisk above on point 1
*while Mehta made his case practically bulletproof by piling argument on top of argument why Congress has a right to the Mazars documents, by doing so he may have slowed down the case. If no appeals are heard, ALL of Mehta’s rationales become precedent. But if judges have questions/reservations about some of those arguments, they may decide to grant cert and hear the appeals.