Federal judge temporarily halts congressional Democrats' subpoenas of Trump financial records

[sinkingfeeling]

Source: Washington Post

A federal judge temporarily blocked subpoenas from congressional Democrats for President Trump’s financial records after an appeals court weighed in on the issue. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sent the case back to the U.S. District Court judge handling the lawsuit proceedings for another look at how the untested separation-of-powers issues at stake affect whether the case should move ahead and, if so, at what pace. 

The lower-court judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, promptly issued an order putting the subpoenas on hold. He previously had said the congressional requests could proceed. 

In late June, Sullivan allowed the case to move forward and said lawmakers could begin pursuing financial information, interviews and other records from Trump’s businesses.




Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/federal-judge-temporarily-halts-congressional-democrats-subpoenas-of-trump-financial-records/2019/07/19/baf383cc-991d-11e9-916d-9c61607d8190_story.html?utm_term=.63a25dc486e0

[bluestarone]

1. Seems like ALWAYS a slow down in process!

Fucking aggravating!

[padah513]

2. Yeah

Sometimes it feels like ice-skating uphill.

[FBaggins]

3. It's not unexpected... that's why he did it

Most people don’t realize that these kinds of things can take years to resolve.

That’s why party leadership keeps trying to make deals for testimony... because they know that even if they were to have a good case when taking it to the courts... it could take years to win (by which time the election is over).

And they might not win. Those who say “the president isn’t above the law” are of course correct... but too often forget that Congress isn’t all-powerful either.

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Congress could get these documents within a week if they had the courage to use their full powers nt

[KPN]

12. Oh? How? Do you think formal impeachment proceedings would change any of these delay tactics?

I favor starting the formal impeachment process, but I'm not sure it's going to actually mean things take a dramatically different turn on a much faster pace.

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. An impeachment Inquiry eliminates Executive Privilege

And forces the release of the redacted Grand Jury evidence and testimony. It also expedites the legal process for the obstruction measures, rather than dragging out over numerous appeals.

[FBaggins]

22. Sorry... that's entirely theoretical

It certainly doesn't "force" the release of grand jury materials. Nor does it change the normal judicial process (reviews etc.) unless the Supreme Court chooses to allow it.

As for the earlier comment, this was intended to support... there's no chance that this would get them what they wanted within a week.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. It's not theoretical

https://time.com/5567027/barr-mueller-report-redactions-grand-jury/

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-report-redactions-will-congress-ever-see-all-mueller-grand-jury-material

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/LSB10201.pdf

Nadler is on record stating an inquiry would give him more power to eliminate obstruction and obtain evidence and testimony.

[FBaggins]

33. You say that and then link to three theory articles?

Nadler is on record stating an inquiry would give him more power to eliminate obstruction and obtain evidence and testimony.

So? It almost certainly would give him more power... but that's a looong way from "they could get what they want by next week".

An alternate theory from one of the same sources:

Beyond the substance, it’s unclear whether courts would consider and decide such cases more quickly in the context of impeachment proceedings than similar cases pursued under the Congress’s investigative authority. One district court judge expedited consideration of one of the current investigative impasses—the House oversight and reform committee’s quest for Trump’s financial and accounting records from Mazars—and ruled in favor of the committee. Trump has already appealed the case, and it is unclear how long this appeal and similar appeals will take. Moreover, the case does not involve any claims of executive privilege. Sorting out the scope of executive privilege is the most thorny and time-consuming issue in cases involving congressional requests for information from the executive branch.

We think it is entirely possible—probable even—that judges would recognize the primacy of impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States and expedite consideration of such cases. The case of U.S. v. Nixon—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutor—was decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt, but we think it reasonable to assume courts would take a similarly expeditious view in the context of a subpoena issued pursuant to impeachment proceedings. Of course, it is worth remembering that the Supreme Court has never decided a case concerning a congressional subpoena for information issued to an executive branch official where the president has asserted executive privilege. In theory, the Supreme Court could decide the issue is a political question and leave it to the other two branches to sort out in some other way.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

Note that "deciding that it's a political question" (as they did in the recent redistricting ruling) is essentially a total win for Trump. Congress doesn't get what they want (worse, the precedent is set that they can't). All Congress can do is add it to the list of impeachment charges.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. Thank goodness I moved to Canada, where it takes a simple majority vote of no confidence

To throw out the prime minister.

And we have 5 parties that hold seats in parliament.

Ain't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the "you and what army?" Oversight process in the US.

[DeminPennswoods]

36. Nadler said that impeachment hearings would give

him/Dems more power last week on with Maddow, iirc.

[FBaggins]

39. That doesn't mean that he's correct

More importantly... while "more" is almost certainly true... the powers claimed by the earlier post (that they could have the documents in a week if they wanted to) are not even close to reality.

[DeminPennswoods]

40. Nadler's more of an expert than you or I

Impeachment is specifically called out in the Constitution, four different times. That's why it carries more clout.

[FBaggins]

41. He also has a role to play

Just like an attorney representing a position in court... he has to pitch his side whether he thinks he's likely to win or not.

The judge who was just overruled (and any justices in the minority of the DC circuit court ruling) are also greater experts than either one of us... but they were wrong. Or, to be more charitable, their side lost.

That's why "appeal to authority" is a fallacy.

Impeachment is specifically called out in the Constitution, four different times. That's why it carries more clout.

It's actually mentioned six times (though I'm unaware of a "# of times mentioned" standard in constitutional analysis)... and certainly it has "more clout"... but that wasn't what was claimed.

[scarytomcat]

31. I have heard both sides staking out grounds

most don't know exactly but with most courts being turned rightward you will probably end up correct.

[LiberalFighter]

15. Use their full powers? They are.

Just because someone is told to turn over documents doesn't mean they will. Or can be forced just like that. It requires the right parties to enforce it. You think the Justice Department will do it when they consider their boss to be the President?

[FBaggins]

18. Double secret powers we haven't heard of?

Of what do you speak?

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. See my reply above regarding Executive privilege and Rule 6e GJ evidence nt

[AncientGeezer]

44. Both are inaccurate

[Kid Berwyn]

4. Funny how fast Newt could impeach Clinton.

Lightning fast.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

5. Not surprising really. We've never had a president this dirty so the courts never had to visit...

... this subject like this.

I think they're kind of confused.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. If only there were a way to break through this legal logjam...

Surely Congress must have another option to get this evidence...what could it be?

[AncientGeezer]

43. A court that agrees with it....period

[lsewpershad]

8. I have a feeling

the republicons would have found a way to get what they want
. The dems seem so helpless. Very frustrating.

[Hestia]

9. And everyday that they "dither" is how many more millions Drumpf et al are making per week?

Is this not aiding and abetting, making it look like they are doing something, stating we have to wait for the courts to rule, knowing good and damn well, how they will rule. Everyone is navel gazing while Drumpf takes down the federal agencies, literally, brick by brick. Another agency is moving in the next week or so to Colorado because the Sec of Interior lives there and needs to make a couple of billion dollars due to the fact that he supposedly is not getting oil lobbying dollars.

This is two sides of the same coin and proves with out a doubt that we aren't given one thought at all - nothing. No sides care, only keeping their scrapes of power so we do not get even a smidge to live a somewhat healthy life.

This is just another episode of bread and circus'.

[KPN]

13. The Repugnants would use the airwaves and 24/7 news media, Tea Party/grassroots faux protests

to pound whatever slick message they'd come up with to pressure Ds into compromise, i.e., capitulation. Part of their effort would be clear threats to blue dog Ds and the safety of their seats in the next election no doubt.

[FakeNoose]

10. Some judges hate having their rulings reversed in higher court

I don't know if that's the case here, but it doesn't necessarily mean Judge Sullivan is trying to make things easier for Bill Barr. He might be treading lightly on this because so much is at stake. Maybe?

[FBaggins]

19. No need to guess at motivations

He didn’t have a choice in this case

[onetexan]

11. New York has the state returns. Dems should ask for and start with those.

Seems they haven't yet asked for them. My question is why the heck not??

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-new-york-state-tax-returns_n_5d237706e4b01b83473aca3b

Congressional Democrats could get some of President Donald Trump’s personal tax information thanks to a new law signed Monday by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) ― but they don’t seem terribly interested.

House Democrats have sued the Trump administration over its refusal to hand over copies of the president’s federal returns. But they have expressed little enthusiasm for getting his New York returns, even though they could obtain some of the same information they’re looking for.

New York’s new law directs the state tax commissioner to provide congressional committees any private tax information they request, so long as they have already asked for federal returns like Neal did for Trump’s taxes in April.
...
The president’s state returns would include some of the same information as on his federal returns, said Lawrence Zelenak, a tax professor at the Duke University School of Law. New York’s state income tax form, for instance, requires a number of entries from federal tax forms. And Zelenak said state law requires taxpayers to file an amended state return if the IRS has made changes to their federal return as a result of an audit.

“If they got the state returns, they’d get a great deal of information from the federal returns,” Zelenak said.

[KPN]

14. Great question!

[LiberalFighter]

16. It needs to play out.

[SunSeeker]

17. Start an impeachmenti inquiry NOW. It will put us in MUCH better legal position.

And it's the only way we can get Mueller's grand jury info, in light of the ruling in McKeever v. Barr.

[LuvNewcastle]

32. Yes, it's time to ante up.

We won't get anywhere like this.

[Nevermypresident]

35. +1

[bucolic_frolic]

23. It should tell you something

that HRC's emails, all the DNC stuff, all the Wikileaks hacked information, all that was released

but no one hacked to grab Trump's emails

They have good hackers, we don't.

We play by rule of law, they don't.

[Jake Stern]

25. They have deeper pockets.

Hackers aren't doing this out of some sense of patriotism.

Also how do you embarrass people who have no sense of shame?

[kentuck]

24. Hmmmm...

Something smells...

[ripcord]

26. I don't know why everyone is surprised

This is a separation of powers issue, it is going to be decided by the Supreme Court.

[W T F]

27. Isn't this the same judge that's handling the Michael Flynn sentencing?

[tymorial]

29. It is not uncommon for organized crime to use the courts to deny and delay justice

This is administration is a criminal enterprise. It has been since day one.

[redstatebluegirl]

30. He has been packing the courts with people who agree with him on everything, not surprised.

[former9thward]

37. Really?

There are four judges who have made rulings in this case. At the District court level Judge Sullivan was appointed by Clinton. At the DC Court of Appeals level Judges Pillard, Millett and Wilkins were all appointed by Obama.

[machI]

38. We should have impeached Trump in the first six months before he had time to gain power.

Trump has used his time in office to make political appointments in the Government which are now protecting him. We lost our first best chance right after he was sworn in. It is now up to Congress to impeach him and correct this error in our history.

[FBaggins]

42. Republicans controlled the House for the first two years

How would we have managed it?