Discussion: Trump Appeals First Loss In Congressional Oversight Case

More like fatalists. Folks are also forgetting about the N.Y. state AG. It’s possible that NY can makes “the first strike.” against Trump and trumpism.

2 Likes

That’s right in that they knew they couldn’t make a true legal case and instead just threw crap at the wall with the sole intent to delay.

Jones is happy for sure. But I disagree and hope Consovoy gets burned really bad by Trump for non-payment. Schadenfreude to the extreme!

Trump is the poster child for Chaos Monkey.

1 Like

At this point I assume any new Trump attorneys are requiring signed undated pardons.

3 Likes

Not a millennial myself, although I’m only a few years to the left of that line. Young adults not voting in large numbers is not something unique to their generation. It looks like mine (X) was quite a bit worse irt % of us who voted. Looks like the steep decline started in the early 70s (Boomers)… so we were all slackers (across the entire generation, not individually).

https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf

1 Like

Whether due process applies was a central question in Nixon. The answer is no. It is entirely a “political question” and not a criminal trial/matter.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3263&context=dlj

Over on Marcie Wheeler’s site someone just reported that the appeal judge is going to be (drum roll please) a certain Merrick Garland.

3 Likes

we’ll have to agree to disagree, because my reading of the case was not a fifth amendment “due process” claim as such.

Nixon argued that the wording of the impeachment trial clause (“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments”) required that the entire senate be convened to hear all the evidence presented – i.e that “The Senate” was not “a Senate Committee” and that committee transcripts were insufficient.

It should be noted that the majority opinion makes no mention of “due process” (although it does appear in Justice White’s concurring opinion*) or the “Fifth Amendment.” I find it difficult to believe that if the Supreme Court had considered the applicability of the due process clause of the fifth amendment to this case, it would have failed to mention either.

*an opinion that argues against the proposition that the courts have no role, to wit “Were the Senate, for example, to adopt the practice of automatically entering a judgment of conviction whenever articles of impeachment were delivered from the House, it is quite clear that the Senate will have failed to “try” impeachments.”

To Merrick Garland’s Court, no less!! Go get, Merrick!

This is why it’s very frustrating to talk to laypeople who think they’ve got the same understanding as a lawyer. Judge Nixon claimed in part that he was denied due process by the Senate holding a special committee to do its fact finding and by other aspects of the impeachment process. In any event, the CLEAR implication of the case is that no judicial review means 5th Amendment due process is not implicated. There’s literally no way, without judicial review, to find that it is. Due process would mean that there is an available route for redress if it is denied WHEN DUE. There is no available route for redress. Ergo, it cannot be due.

ETA: Checking on myself, it was HASTINGS, not Nixon, I was remembering who argued on 5th Amendment grounds, i.e., that an impeachment before a committee denied his due process rights to an impeachment before the full Senate. In any event, the cases are peas in a pod. The article I linked provides a good discussion of the issue and, I think, shows why the question both still exists, but for all practical purposes is already answered…if not answers itself. Even if a Judge, for example, has an entitlement or right to his lifetime tenure that could be argued to fall under the 5th Amendment because it is based on federal law, that right is further DEFINED AND BOUNDED by the impeachment proceedings laid out in the Constitution, meaning that if impeachment proceedings are invoked and followed, they determine those rights. Impeachment not being subject to judicial review, means that it is entirely up to Congress, i.e., a “political question”, how that process plays out, what standards it applies, etc. It is entirely within their discretion and nothing in the enactment of the 5th Amendment after the Impeachment Trial Clause suggests there was any intent to limit or control that discretion.

1 Like

except that there is zero evidence in the opinion (or the concurrences) that Nixon ever actually made a 5th amendment “due process” claim. As I’ve already noted, the words “due process” are not found in the majority opinion. Do you have a link to any of Nixon’s filings in which he refers to his “due process” rights under the 5th amendment, as opposed to his claim that his impeachment should be overturned because a Senate Rule violated the Impeachment clause itself?

ETA – the above was written before I saw your edit. I guess I’ll now go look at the Hastings opinion… :smiley:

Aside from Trump’s dubious lawsuit against the accounting firm and all appeals, would it not be better for Mazar to simply comply with the subpoena? No matter how it all turns out, it would seem that they will either lose Trump as a client or voluntarily resign from serving him because of all the trouble. Do they really have to wait for the Trump lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court (or not)?

3 Likes

I do agree about youngsters not voting in general. I wasn’t very active at 18, 19, 20, etc. But the millennials have a reputation for being active and progressive, which i have yet to see beyond Twitter.

1 Like

That is a very fair point. At least us Gen Xers were advertised as being slackers from the get go.

But you know that some people are just smarter because of the internets. They know more than the Dr. concerning vaccinations, they know more than Congress people because… And the list goes on. I’m all for asking questions and learning, but when you start arguing with a lawyer as a non-lawyer, me thinks they think entirely too much of themselves.

3 Likes

Probably more frustrating to talk to non-lawyer wingers…who think they know it all!

They could be sued for damages if they did give up the information.

IANAL so I may need something explained to me. I thought that Mehta’s ruling was that this already IS precedent, which he is citing and following. The only “new law” was the fantasy crap presented by Trump’s lawyers which Mehta mercilessly shot down with existing precedent.

Mehta relied on precedent when it came to the “legislative purpose” aspect of his opinion.

But as far as I know, this is the first federal court opinion that suggest that the mere possibility of impeachment is sufficient to compel document production.

Nope that great brewery in Oregon…

Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available