I wonder what the redacted copy will look like. A blank form?
Here is a link listing the exceptions to the Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605
It’s a bit hard to decipher but foreign commericial activity inside the US might be the most likely situation causing the exception.
What could they gain by submitting a redacted version?
This is another effort from the deep state to get the President off his game in his historic message to the Nation tonight. Most important message since Pearl Harbor.
This is about the Cypriot financial entity that was ground zero for Russian money laundering. This is where the dirty money that was cleaned up and sent to the Trump campaign and the NRA came from.
This is a big deal. And it’s been in Mueller’s crosshairs for a while.
Just ask Wilbur Ross
He can fill in the details
TL,DR: they should be able to redact the facts and leave the legal arguments, but their legal arguments are probably pretty weak so they’re likely going to focus on politics and it could get ugly.
Applications for cert are weird animals as pleadings go. If done appropriately, the application will focus on questions of law and the alleged error of the lower court in applying the law. So they, theoretically at least, could fairly easily redact the facts and leave the legal arguments. But it’s hard to see how this application could stick to the law rather than the facts and peripheral policy/political issues.
The point is to convince at least four members of the Court that a compelling basis exists for Supreme Court review. Basically, that’s (1) either a Constitutional issue or an issue of statutory interpretation with respect to which there is a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeals that the Court needs to resolve, (2) a state’s highest court has decided a federal question that the Court should weigh in on, or (3) the case presents an important issue of federal law that the Court hasn’t decided but should or with respect to which the lower court’s decision conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. It’s hard to see how any of those could apply in this case.
The federal question appears to be whether the commercial exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protection applies. The FSIA has been around a long time and interpretation of the exceptions provisions is pretty well-settled. There’s no Circuit split and the Court of Appeal’s decision looked pretty anodyne and consistent with the large body of precedent on the subject. So the applicant’s only hope is to convince the “conservative” justices that they should step in because they don’t like what Mueller’s doing. That would be a very bad path for even the Trump-appointed justices to follow.
Yeah, all those unemployed people staying in instead of manning barricades will certainly will be watching.
Some of them even agree 100% with the president.
Man do I want that POS perp walked. Like NOW. Yesterday, actually.
And now comes the gusher of Ruskie Modded up $$$ from some Cyprus Bank to Manafort / Trump / NRA / RNC / ETC.
And it’s game OVAH!
I realize for national security and other reasons, certain facts and names need to be kept from me. But the thought of the highest court ruling in secret strikes me as highly un-American. Too many secrets.
Lots of black bars . . . lots of them.
???
If you knew how this individual felt about Federal government works affected by the shutdown you’d understand cluelessness is a default setting.
There’s only so much supposition and so many guesses that a possibly newsworthy potential narrative about an analogous needle in a hypothetical haystack can bear before the entire exercise of posting something as close to factual as one can get (all things considered) becomes indistinguishable from an insensibly overgeneralized dumbed-down take on one of the virtually unlimited versions of what might be called string theory, assuming it’s at all useful or even coherent to regard the the practically unlimited bundle of possible sorts of string theory as somehow consistent in any way that draws meaning from any of the many and widely disparate definitions of the word “theory”.
I remember when, as a child, the scales first fell from my eyes about how nothing more than the fact that some commercially motivated entity was assuming that treating No News as News was somehow justified by the assumed intensity of public interest in a given topic: When TIME magazine (which, in pre-internet daze, kiddies, used to be a thing), first published an edition with a cover that featured the title “Is God Dead?”
And in the intervening half century, things have only got worse.