Court fast-tracks Trump appeal over Democrat subpoenas for bank records

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill



BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 05/31/19 09:40 AM EDT

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday agreed to expedite President Trump’s appeal of an order allowing a pair of banks to hand over financial records to House Democrats.

The court ruled in favor of Trump and House Democrats’ joint request to fast-track the case, setting deadlines for briefings in the case that stretch through the middle of July.

And the court requested that an argument in the case be scheduled “for the earliest possible sitting week” after all the court filings are made. The final filing is due by July 18.

Trump is appealing New York federal Judge Edgardo Ramos’s ruling last week to not grant a preliminary injunction over the congressional subpoenas for the president’s financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One.

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/446307-court-fast-tracks-trump-appeal-over-dem-subpoenas-for-bank-records

[hlthe2b]

1. this is the Manhattan case (SDNY) Deutsche Bank and Cap One

GOOD

[hlthe2b]

2. Looks like the DC Appeals (accounting records) is on a similar schedule...

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445292-appeals-court-sets-july-argument-in-mazars-subpoena-case

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday agreed to an accelerated schedule for the next round of legal battles between the House Oversight and Reform Committee and President Trump over obtaining the president's financial records.

A three-judge panel on the appeals court will hear oral arguments on July 12 to determine whether the accounting firm Mazars can hand over Trump's financial records to House Democrats.

The court also set a series of deadlines spanning June and July for parties to submit filings arguing their positions in the case.

The order comes one day after lawyers for Trump and House Democrats jointly asked the appeals court to set the expedited schedule for the case.

District Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee, ruled in a D.C. court earlier this week to uphold the subpoena to Mazars for the president's financial records.

But the joint motion filed on Wednesday indicated that Mazars has agreed to not supply the documents until the appeals court makes its ruling.

[SunSeeker]

3. Good. nt

[mitch96]

4. So this would mess up the tRump slow down of the info? nt

[hlthe2b]

5. Well, it seems to be thus far... On this schedule they would likely rule by late summer

and any appeals to SCOTUS would be rejected (my prediction) or heard on at least a partially expedited basis weeks or a few months thereafter. So stringing this out to deny DEMS access to these records before the election does not seem likely. I do not in any context believe SCOTUS will drag out a case bearing on Congress' Article I basic functions and powers. I may not have much confidence in SCOTUS but I don't think Roberts wants it to literally be relegated to a political body that ignores the constitution. On that basis, their actions should be predictable.

[onenote]

6. The idea that Trump was trying to slow things down was always mere speculation

And the fact that Trump supported the expedited appeal suggests it was misplaced speculation at that.

[hlthe2b]

7. I disagree. The compromise over expedited appeals was going to be a given. The courts would look

very unkindly on Trump's attorneys attempts to delay and delay and not to compromise on basic procedure.

The fact they are going through the process at ALL is the delay, Trump sought. They probably sold him a bill of goods that there was at least some chance they'd prevail (and probably believe it themselves given the kind of brainwashing these Federalist lawyers seem to have acquired re: unitary executive theory and all that BS). At worst, they were always going to throw the dice and hope for delays as far out as possible and at best maybe get a favorable judge (who will ignore more than 200 years of precedence and the very founding document, the constitution, itself). I'm sure they told Trump that courts would take their time, oblivious to the fact Federal courts DO give Article 1 issues and Congress some deference/priority.

[onenote]

8. There was plenty of speculation that these cases wouldn't be resolved until after 2020

I always felt that was misplaced. Trump's team didn't have to support expedited treatment, they could have simply not opposed it. It would have been granted nonetheless, of course.

[hlthe2b]

9. Both appeals are being fast-tracked. I have no doubt his attorneys believed their own bullshit.

and yes, it does make a difference when facing a court and especially an appeals court that lawyers not offend them by coming off as overly inflexible, deceptive, or both.

So, I DO think they thought they could stretch this out a very long time and that, of course, is what Trump is accustomed to in his decades-long legal dealings. Those that aren't dismissed when the other party becomes financially tapped out often become basically moot years later when finally settled. He probably thinks the R's will retake the House and getting this delayed until the election would similarly make it "moot". Trump likewise is undoubtedly convinced SCOTUS will bail him out and overturn the decision(s). Hearing him talk about courts aiding him in avoiding impeachment (eyeroll to the nth degree) and lecturing the press about how expansive are his Article II powers makes it pretty clear to me that BARR and others of his ilck have been pushing that Unitary Executive BS with Trump too and clearly he latches onto it as a drowning man thrown the last life vest.

[angrychair]

10. This timeline does what its intended to do

Sap the will from House Democrats to act.

This ruling won't come in until late summer at best. If it goes to SCOTUS than that does to spring of 2020, at best, election season is starting and every house member is out campaigning to defend or win new seats.

Game over

No impeachment.

No removal of trump.

He is here his whole term.

This is NOT the outcome ppl want.

[scarytomcat]

11. then again if it lands just before the election

if dump loses and his records are as we suspect... tax evasion, money laundering, stealing, lying to prospective buyers in his proposed buildings and all the rest of his dirty tricks it will be fresh in voters minds.

[angrychair]

12. We will never know

Because no one is going to have time for hearings when they are campaigning to get reelected.

You can't be in Washington at a Committee hearing and be in your home district campaigning.

6 or 7 months out from the election is not the time to start impeachment hearings.

We could start now and obtain them faster as part of a formal impeachment.

Trump's lawyers could literally drag this out for years in appeals if we let it progress like this.