Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

The Trump Card...

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
With all eyes on the impeachment inquiry in the House, it's easy to let the courts fade from view. How is Trump doing in the courts? Here's a review of three cases:

1. Blumenthal v. Trump, an emoluments case. Judge denied Trump's motion to dismiss and ruled the plaintiffs have standing to continue the case.

2. Maryland and DC v. Trump, an emoluments case. After a three-judge Appeals Court panel ruled in favor of Trump and ordered the case thrown out, that court's full bench decided to take up the case which will be heard on 12/12/19.

3. CREW v. Trump, an emoluments case. U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels dismissed the case on December 21, 2017, holding that plaintiffs lacked standing. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal, reinstated the suit, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Thus, all three emoluments cases remain live and are proceeding. In all three cases, the most-recent rulings have gone against Trump.

Also of interest (to me at least) are four other cases:

1. The case in which Trump is suing to quash a New York State subpoena that would provide the Manhattan D.A. with Trump's tax records. At the appellate level, both sides have agreed to certain conditions that are likely to speed this case to the Supreme Court, which both sides appear to want..

2. The case in which Trump is suing to quash the subpoena that would provide the House Oversight Committee access to the Trump financial data specified in the subpoena.

3. The case in which Trump is suing to quash the subpoena that would provide the House Ways and Means Committee access to the Trump financial data specified in the subpoena.

4. The case in which the Justice Department was recently ordered by the Court to release certain grand jury materials from former special counsel Mueller’s investigation to the House Judiciary Committee amid its impeachment inquiry.

It is tedious to track these cases. I'll try to provide a better summary as time permits.
Regarding the New York state case, on 11/4/19, "A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court Appeals unanimously ruled that the president is not immune from investigative steps taken by state prosecutors, such as a grand jury subpoena. Trump plans to go to the Supreme Court to try to block the disclosure, said Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the president said." (Source)

In other words, Trump lost this appeal. The next step is to see if the Supreme Court accepts the case.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
With the House impeachment inquiry transcripts now being released to the public, it is an item of public record that Republican representatives were in the room and were able to directly question the witnesses. Suggestions previously made that they were shut out of the process seem inaccurate in light of the public record.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grizzly

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
With the House impeachment inquiry transcripts now being released to the public, it is an item of public record that Republican representatives were in the room and were able to directly question the witnesses. Suggestions previously made that they were shut out of the process seem inaccurate in light of the public record.
No one ever suggested that Republican members of the Intel Committee were shut out of the process and weren't allowed to question the witnesses. Well, the first couple of witnesses, Republican members of the committee weren't allowed to ask questions, and Schiff finally relented on subsequent witnesses, but those transcripts don't favor the Democrats and as such will not be released until they can be lost amongst the background noise of the more favorable transcripts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle and RoadTime

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid: "When I Tweeted in January of 2015 a coup has begun, I didn't mean, uhm, er, what I meant was, uhm, I was just really good at predicting the future. I was talking about the legal processes. Yeah, a legal coup. I was talking about a legal coup! Yeah, that's the ticket! By the way, have you met my wife Morgan Fairchild? "
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoadTime and muttly

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Trump called for open hearings, but that was before he found out that the "whistleblower" and his attorney are uber-active Democrat partisan activists who's mission is to impeach Trump. Once he found out that it was Hoax 2.0 - The Coup Bugaloo, he changed his views on the hearings. You can SMH, but you're probably SingMH at the wrong thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
If Trump held a rally in a 100,000 seat stadium, Democrats would lose their minds. They're still mad at that night, a day or two before the election, when Trump had a rally with 35,000 people and at the same time in Cleveland Beyonce and Jay Z still wasn't enough to get 5000 people in for a Hillary rally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoadTime and muttly

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Baby Trump.jpg

Tragedy strikes outside the LSU-Alabama game on Saturday in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, when Baby Trump was viciously attacked and killed by an armed man, a Millennial, wielding a knife.

Baby Trump lived a brief, buy noteworthy life. We remember Baby Trump with fondness. He was part of our life. But sadly crime, violent crime, is just getting worse, and it just proves that the only way to stop a bad man with a knife is a good citizen with a knife. But there were no armed citizens to protect Baby Trump on that day. Those in charge of keeping Baby Trump safe were alas unarmed. Hopefully, someone with the skill and the powers can patch up Baby Trump and get him back in action once again. Take a moment of silence for Baby Trump. Say a prayer for Baby Trump, in the hopes that he will fly once again.

I do apologize for the graphic image, but I felt it as necessary to show the brutality of this heinous crime in the hopes that it will never happen again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoadTime and muttly

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
The book A Warning, written by an anonymous author, will soon be released. Excerpts have already been released.

While this may be good news for the author and publisher who will make money on book sales, it's sickening to me. Tell-all books about presidents and administrations are nothing new, but this book from an author who refuses to identify himself or herself is. With a named author, readers can judge the veracity of his or her content. This author provides no way for people to know he or she is in a position to know anything factual about Trump or the administration. We can't even verify if this person has even set foot in the White House.

I dislike it when the media reports things citing unnamed sources. There too, readers have no way to verify what is being reported. We are expected to trust the reporter and news organization's word that the "source" is reliable and is telling the truth. While it has always been part of the game in Washington for "sources" of all kinds to leak information of questionable reliability in an attempt to influence outcomes, the news cycle and the ongoing narrative, A Warning by an anonymous author carries this to an extreme.

The author, the publisher and the news organizations that give this book play are not enhancing our public debate. They are doing the country a grave disservice. The book should be ignored if not outright condemned.
 
Top