Discussion: Trump Appeals First Loss In Congressional Oversight Case

[emiliano4]

Yeah…Trump had a “loss”

But the framing of this article and our reaction to it signals fear, pessimism, hesitation and, most importantly, the kind of “hedging” that beat-down people do so as to “Not-Appear-Wrong” (a cardinal sin).

What I saw yesterday from a number of analysts was that yesterday’s decision, and its accompanying arguments were strong and possibly influential on subsequent decisions of this sort down the road. Yes, Trump’s appeal was mentioned (of course, why wouldn’t he do this).

But what I see here is about 100% of what Trump will do to us, not what we have done to HIM.

Going forward, we are going to have to recognize our strengths a little better and goad the slackers to do better.

One area which I had mentioned TWICE in the past few days was that the Dems are going to have to be more like Republicans: Messengers and fighters

And here is an example:

[Bo Erickson (BoKnowsNews)
Wow: @justinamash is NOT backing down. He is now talking to a school group on steps of the Capitol about why Trump impeachment proceedings should begin. “Really dangerous for our country when ppl don’t tell the truth”]

If Dems have a strategy, they had better have (a) one group of talks with party-wonks they need for their 11 dimensional chess game and (b) another for the people like the ones Amash is talking to.

[civarum]

The beauty about life time appointments though is that once you have one you are can’t be removed by the person that appointed you. Spankee is betting the house that these people wanted the appointment to protect him and not to - ah I don’t know- over turn abortion and gay marriage and give corporations more rights that human beings. Every Judge has to know that eventually there will be a Democratic President and every thing they allow for trumpo will have to be allowed for all presidents.

[hardyweinberg]

like the guys who cleared out his Manhattan doc’s medical records

[occamscoin]

Either the Appeals Court or the Supremes will grant a stay. That’s not really in doubt here.

Why?

[dr_coyote]

Yeppers.

[paul_lukasiak]

The part that got um was that the judge denied a motion to by trumps lawyers to give them an extension to appeal the his running…not to mention that if this case fails its likely that the case to release trumps descuetes bank stuff will also fail b/c its being defended on the same grounds…that congress has no oversight of a sitting president…

the filings in the Deutsche Bank case are actually different than in Mazars for some odd reason. There is a lot more about privacy of Trump (and his family) as private citizens. Its even possible that Trump will win the first round in the DB case, and get his preliminary injunction, because (IMHO) he makes a colorable case that the Federal Bank Privacy Act provisions have not been followed. The ARGUMENT may be sufficient to justify a hearing, and thus an injunction.

BTAIM, the rationale behind the ultimate disposition of the cases will be identical.

[sniffit]

Nice find. Thanks. So, basically, they all sort of pretend to have evidentiary rulings and they’re ultimately based on what the majority decides, which means the GOP can pretty much control what’s considered to be “relevant” or “material” and thereby empty the “record” of evidence, then pretend that there’s “insufficient evidence” to support the allegations or conviction.

But again, at that point, these things are public knowledge. It’s largely form over substance in this context because the whole process is almost entirely driven by politics and where the public lies on the issue. A litany of evidentiary “rulings” that exclude things the public is already well aware of and considers to be very important…well, that might just piss the public off even more (if we could trust the Zombie Fourth Estate to get it right reporting about it all).

[castor_troy]

But the framing of this article and our reaction to it signals fear, pessimism, hesitation and, most importantly, the kind of “hedging” that beat-down people do

Which is an entirely rational thing when everything leads to SCOTUS and one dude in particular, and the question of how he feels when it comes across his desk.

Bit too many parallels with Caligula here for Democracy’s tastes.

[emiliano4]

Ultimately the People will rule. As clever and corrupt that Trump’s legal gymnastics have been, he will fall quickly if 60+% of the country believe he is a crooked tyrant (the truth).

If that is not the case, if Trump (as is) is more acceptable to the American people, with his corruption and bestiality in plain view, THAT would be the real tragedy of the country we have become. And it would have far more to do with the kind of people we really are than Trump.

[rollinnolan]

His “presidency” was tenuous at best. Now it is a dictatorship attempting to game the U.S. legal system into accepting that.

So true. And the legal system knows it.

[brody33]

Man he really doesnt want this shit to surface…i mean you gotta ask yourself how bad can it be…that he has gone to this effort to keep this from becoming public knowledge…

My expectations are in check. The most disappointing case scenario is that his financials indicate that the thing about his being a great businessman is not actually true. But, when he says he was being clever or something, his approval ratings won’t move and Fox News viewers that night will just catch a rerun of that Fox News expose on whether pandas have more sex than other zoo animals. The most interesting scenario also is less silver bullet and probably more like more and better focused questions ideally with indication of what next to subpoena (e.g., to determine who owned external bank accounts) to lead towards those answers.

For everything else, this guy also is paranoid and disorganized. He probably has not shared incriminating information with his lawyers, who just have to worry that there is a lot out there. It could be the case that the blanket resistance is largely because no one in his camp actually knows what might be incriminating and what might not be. Recall that time that they worried that he or someone close to him might have met the legal standard for conspiracy to defraud the US with a hostile foreign state and then were super relieved to learn in the Mueller report that the antiquated cybertheft laws don’t assign value to stolen emails? Just hilarious times, all around. There’s also the motivation to resist everything because of the combination that it’s the most childish thing to do and the slightly more strategic viewpoint that resisting everyone doesn’t reveal what Trump thinks might be damaging coupled with that this effort to run the clock out on November 2020 requires as many hurdles as possible.

I liked your comment, though, I just am personally more interested to see the impact of Mueller testify if we’re picking one hopefully nearish item.

[paul_lukasiak]

yes, ultimately he will lose. But that’s fine with Trump, because his strategy is delay, obfuscation, and public confusion.

Which is why I think Mehta made a mistake in the way he “bulletproofed” his opinion. For instance, Mehta makes it sound like Congress has carte blanche to compel testimony and document production in “fishing expeditions” for impeachable offenses. Team Trump now has to address that claim in its appeal, and if an appeal is not granted, Mehta’s opinion becomes precedent. The appeals court may not want this to become new precedent without further consideration/clarification, and grant review of the case on that basis.

[castor_troy]

As clever and corrupt that Trump’s legal gymnastics have been, he will fall quickly if 60+% of the country

The other problem… That we can win solid majorities, yet still lose in our system.

It’s been a problem over two hundred years in the making, coming home to roost right now.

[paul_lukasiak]

Either the Appeals Court or the Supremes will grant a stay. That’s not really in doubt here.

I agree, but I’m curious to know what you think the basis of an appeal would be…

[tedstein01]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_4

[emiliano4]

It’s been a problem over two hundred years in the making, coming home to roost right now.

The sleepyheads…what they don’t know and never thought about with their extended adolescence could fill oceans.

They should have elected Clinton in '16.

[castor_troy]

I agree, but I’m curious to know what you think the basis of an appeal would be…

That Kavanaugh and Gorusch owe Trump. And it’s to protect a Republican.

Don’t need more than that to get the 5 Guys to rule in your favor.

ETA: in all seriousness, this ruling seems pretty darned straight-forward and easy, but in the current environment, I certainly wouldn’t place a dime in Vegas on the Supremes doing the right thing and not pulling a Bush v. Gore.

[haddockbranzini]

And yet he never faced from his own government the menace Trump now projects and promises to unsuspecting Millennials who are not yet aware of anything we have been writing about all morning.

Given that only 49% of millennials cast a vote in 2016 I am reluctant to shed a tear for them any time soon.

[chelsea530]

WaPo has done a nice little story about Leonard Leo, the man reshaping our courts.

A conservative activist’s behind-the-scenes campaign to remake the nation’s...

[paul_lukasiak]

It interesting, because there is a precedent (Nixon v US…the judge impeachment case, not Watergate which is US v Nixon) that says that the courts have no say in impeachment trials — which implies that the Senate decides what is, and is not admissable regardless of any due process concerns.

That being said, I have my doubts about Nixon v US – that case was heard after the judge had been convicted, and I think that the “precedent”, if challenged, would be limited to court intervention after the Senate has ruled. I don’t think that if the Senate passed rules that completely violated due process rights that the courts would stay silent

(I mean, while the constitution does give the Senate exclusive authority over impeachment trials, the Bill of Rights and other amendments were passed subsequent to that provision – and IMHO the Senate would be required to comply with those amendments.)