This is Big! Fed judge fast-tracking case over Congress' subpoena of Trump's accounting (read taxes)

[hlthe2b]

Significant news—if courts treat all of the litigation coming out of Trump’s attempts to delay on an expedited basis, that could seriously undercut his strategy.

Hearing is Tuesday before Judge Amit Mehta--DC District Court, Obama nominee

Link to tweet

Judge fast-tracks fight over congressional subpoena of Trump financial records
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/politics/trump-financial-subpoena/index.html


More: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/443015-judge-sets-trump-lawsuit-over-congressional-subpoenas-on-track-for

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in the order that he has received full briefs on whether the House Oversight and Reform Committee has the authority to issue the subpoena to the accounting firm Mazars, “and the court can discern no benefit from an additional round of legal arguments.”

“Nor is there an obvious need to delay ruling on the merits to allow for development of the factual record,” Mehta, an Obama nominee, wrote.

The judge gave both parties until May 13 to submit filings stating support or opposition to his decision. A hearing is schedule for May 14.

[GemDigger]

1. Damn, next Tuesday!! I choked on my corn chip on that one.

I was expecting a couple of weeks but a couple of days!!??!!

[hlthe2b]

2. This is what we ALL have needed to see... movement and much faster than expected

[Honeycombe8]

17. I think that's the argument for/against fast-tracking. Not about the subpoena itself.

It seems like that's what that's saying? Not sure.

[mia]

3. Looking forward to May 14th.

Judge Amit Mehta plans next week to weigh the major legal issues raised in President Donald Trump's challenge of a congressional subpoena for his accounting firm's records, according to an order issued Thursday -- putting the case on an even faster track than it previously looked to be.

Congress has subpoenaed Trump and his business' accounting records from the firm Mazars USA, and Trump's personal legal team sued to stop the records from being turned over.

A hearing is now scheduled for May 14.

Previously, the case was set up so that Mehta would consider it in multiple stages, beginning next week -- which could have lengthened out the legal fight and held off Congress from getting the records.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/politics/trump-financial-subpoena/index.html

[hlthe2b]

4. yup... I will be, too.

[hlthe2b]

5. The Hill: Judge sets Trump lawsuit over congressional subpoenas on track for quick decision

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/443015-judge-sets-trump-lawsuit-over-congressional-subpoenas-on-track-for

?itok=22ZVvttO

--snip--

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in the order that he has received full briefs on whether the House Oversight and Reform Committee has the authority to issue the subpoena to the accounting firm Mazars, “and the court can discern no benefit from an additional round of legal arguments.”

“Nor is there an obvious need to delay ruling on the merits to allow for development of the factual record,” Mehta, an Obama nominee, wrote.

The judge gave both parties until May 13 to submit filings stating support or opposition to his decision. A hearing is schedule for May 14.

Mehta's ruling means there could be an expedited decision on whether the accounting firm can hand over the financial documents on Trump and his private businesses.

[wryter2000]

14. Wow

So much for holding things up in the courts.

[politicaljunkie41910]

27. Damn!!!! I can't wait until that Black Judge wipes that stupid smirk off Trump's face.

This is a hearing/trial I'd stand in line to get in to see.

[maxsolomon]

34. Black Judge?

Amit Mehta is likely of South Asian descent.

Trump attacks him as an "Obama Judge" in 3, 2, 1...

[itcfish]

52. He is From

India

[lunatica]

53. Why the incorrect racial reference?

[shanti]

61. Are you talking about the black woman judge? n/t

[pat_k]

6. And when DT's claim of executive privilege to withhold Mueller materials hits the courts...

...things will move fast.

Courts don't dilly dally with really BIG questions of privilege. I think Trump is betting that his claims (once he actually invokes executive privilege -- not just "protective" privilege) things will move as slowly as they did with the narrow claim of privilege invoked by Obama.

As dysfunctional as our judicial system has become, I think the coming battle between Congress and Exec will quickly become a battle between Congress + Judiciary v. Trump -- and then things will move very fast. It was 13 weeks from Judge Sira's subpoena of the Nixon tapes to SCOTUS decision in U.S. v. Nixon -- which is lightening speed for the courts.

[DeminPennswoods]

7. Judges aren't cloistered, they know how

critical it is to resolve these lawsuits quickly.

[Frustratedlady]

8. Obama appointee...n/t

[Honeycombe8]

18. Obama is still with us.

I guess Trump couldn't fire the DC judge. But seriously, judges really do try to be impartial and are required to rule according to the law. Still, there is judgment involved. Mueller's Report ended in a fizzle because of his judgment.

[StarfishSaver]

9. This is great news!

And an excellent example of why impeachment proceedings are not the only way to move forward at this point.

[spanone]

10. K&R...

[malaise]

11. This is huge

The vile MAGAscoundrel is going down

[Firestorm49]

12. It's time to put the pedal to the metal. Here we go.

[doc03]

13. This will go to the SCOTUS and Trump owns

them am I right or wrong?

[hlthe2b]

15. Constitutional scholars (that deride the conservatives on SCOTUS) have nearly all predicted losses

for POTUS on all or nearly all of these issues, nonetheless. Including Tribe, Kaytal, Eisen, and others.

I fully expect SCOTUS will NOT hear all of what gets appealed up the chain by Trump, Inc.

[crazytown]

19. I suspect Chief Justice Roberts

doesn’t wan’t to hide nor hair of it.

And when it comes to the Mueller Report, United States v Nixon was 9-0. Why would any justice want to go near that?

[beachbum bob]

20. we can only hope they stay out of it

[Bettie]

30. 8-0 not 9-0....

Rhenquist recused as he had worked in the Nixon admin as an assistant AG, I think.

[crazytown]

31. Right.

Thank’s for explaination.

[NewJeffCT]

46. Imagine that

Rehnquist recusal - integrity is hard to find these days in the Trump GOP

[Bettie]

47. Impossible to find

I don't think I've seen true integrity or even basic honesty in a Republican in several years.

[NewJeffCT]

48. Sadly

I think John McCain may have been the last national Republican with any.

There are a few abandoning the GOP at the state level - that guy from Iowa and a few in Kansas.

[doc03]

39. But this is not the 1970's, Republicans

had some loyalty to their country and the constitution back then.

[crazytown]

41. I agree. There have been some shockers

Citizen’s United for example.

However these instances are what is called Black letter law, that is cases so black and white, that SCOTUS would be reluctant to review them except for a case of true emergency (eg a war)

In black letter cases judges are reluctant to get their hands dirty ... it would require doing so much violence to the plain meaning of words, their judgments would likely be studied in law schools. GOP patsys are still mindful of their place in history. They have no desire to be ridiculed in perpetuity.

I believe SCOTUS won’t want to go near this stuff. Trump et al, looking for a stay of execution will feel the noose tightening around their necks.

[uponit7771]

38. Unnnn, Nixon nominated 4 USSC judges and got mud stomped

[treestar]

49. Not that fast

Besides Kavanaugh, they may be conservative, but may have limits. They are on for life, and the plus there is that they can afford to do the right thing. Roberts has. Unless there are 5 John Yoos on the court, this amount of executive power is not likely to be held to be correct. And if I remember right, even John Yoo disagrees ( I remember him because Lawrence O'Donnell or someone mentioned a recent opinion from him).

[Stinky The Clown]

68. It was Nicole Wallace who talked about Yoo's opinion

She said if HE sees Trump over reaching, almost any court is likely to see it as an overreach.

I have zero faith in Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. I think Roberts, and dare I say it, Alito will be looking at the law and their legacies.

[Mr.Bill]

16. I read recently (I think on this forum)

that Trumps success rate with the SCOTUS was 6%.

[Ligyron]

63. I think that's his record with all courts in the Judicial.

But not sure...

[Mr.Bill]

64. Either way it shows

they are just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

[Ligyron]

67. Exactly.

They are not doing very well in that regard. In fact they suck at writing and implementing executive over reach.

Another term for these type people and their attempts at dictatorial Authoritarianism are:

LOSERs aka: Lame-ass, Fucking LOSERS

I wonder if they have to pay court costs and attorney fees when they inevitably LOSE these cases?

Anyway, I want Trump to die poor and ridiculed all the way to the grave. When he dares, or more likely is forced by absolute necessity to show his ugly face in public after his dethroning, I want epic torrents of ridicule smothering the LOSER followed closely by waves of rotten eggs, tomatoes and the like pummeling him from head to toe as he slinks back into the gutter. All this would occur of course after he completes his sentence provided he doesn't die in prison first.

[SunSeeker]

21. Thank you for your service to your country, Judge Mehta.

[mcar]

22. Oh yeah!

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread hlthe2b.

[bluestarone]

24. GREAT NEWS and GREAT THREAD!!

TY very much! We all needed this shot in the arm!!

[watoos]

25. Great news

But whatever this judge decides it’s going to be appealed to the next court, right on up to the SC.

[triron]

26. Best news in awhile.

[SallyHemmings]

28. This is wonderful turn of events.

[NoMoreRepugs]

29. Patriots stand for the Rule of Law - Repugs, not so much.

[certainot]

32. mehta and any other judge will be getting hammered by limbaugh and the usual

talk radio chickenhawks working for trump, and will be getting threats from every state in the country

democrats need offense - like protests and boycotts to destroy that talk radio monopoly

[Pepsidog]

33. Exactly. As a lawyer we often seek expedited hearing on all sorts of matters. Orders to Show Cause,

Declaratory Actions, Summary Judgement. This isn’t unusual. Cases get drawn out when there are significant issues of FACT or LAW. This is an easy case as there are no issues of fact or law. No discovery needed, no depositions needed, the facts are not contested and the law is clear. Judgement in favor of Congress. Appeal will be no different.

[PunksMom]

35. I'm so tired...

of feeling hopeful, & then comes the big let down. Please, please, please, can anyone make something happen to get this guy out of office, or at least have no chance in 2020?

[enid602]

36. Oh well

I was hoping for another judge of Mexican ancestry.

[kentuck]

37. Trump will appeal....

...to a friendlier judge.

[hlthe2b]

42. Even he can't judge-shop. The circuit assigns. Appeals go up the chain...

And case law is such that even "friendly conservative" judges will find it difficult to not follow precedence.
Nothing is a sure thing, of course, but this is not one to assume the worst on...

Follow some of the constitutional experts like Laurence Tribe, Neal Katyal, Norm Eisen, and others twitter feeds. Even if you aren't on twitter (I'm not), you can bookmark the internet link and follow that way. Their discussions are often reassuring.

[bluestarone]

71. AGREE! and also WHY would they want this NOT fast tracked? (we know the real reason of-course)

But what actual argument could they come up with?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

40. Get ready for the racist jokes from the dotard.

[zentrum]

43. Wow! Feeling a little hope again.

[TomSlick]

44. The federal courts will hold us together.

Unlike the Repugnants in the Senate, federal judges don't have to fear the next election.

I know, Trump has appointed a lot of judges but I must believe the system will hold.

[Perseus]

45. That would be quite a story..."Lawyers Save Democracy in USA"

Can you imagine that?

[StarfishSaver]

66. Yes, I can because it won't be the first time

Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall saved this nation from a second civil war.

[33taw]

50. This will go to Trump's Supreme Court. All court battles should be considered lost.

We may get a few wins, but the 2016 election was about the courts.

[hlthe2b]

54. The nation's most preeminent constitutional lawyers disagree, but keep on with the defeatism...

Is there a point to that?

[33taw]

55. I believe it to be the truth. The real point is that it is important to vote Democratic.

Until we have a majority of liberal leaning justices on the Supreme Court, we are not likely to see wins in the courts. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are hard line conservatives. Roberts is the swing vote. I am not counting on Roberts to side with liberals very often, no matter how much he dislikes Trump.

Look at the rulings on the travel ban. It started looking great for liberals, then the door shut at the Supreme Court. We need to be honest with ourselves, 2016 was a major step backwards across the board and until we mobilize and take over the Senate where Judges and Justices are appointed all court battles will likely lean conservative at the Supreme Court. Yes, there was collusion, interference, cyber crime, but the DOJ won’t enforce those crimes. Unless, it is handled at the state level we can be upset, but that won’t resolve it. Trump will not be tried or convicted by this Senate.

Everyone who is a Democrat or liberal leaning needs to vote for the Democratic nominee, that should be everyone’s focus.

[hlthe2b]

56. Wow! EVERYONE! "IT IS IMPORTANT TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC"! WHy didn't we think of that?

I again wonder, what the point is of your defeatism? You surely must know that if you are doing this in your everyday life, you stand a very high chance of depressing the vote. Surely that is not an intended consequence?

[33taw]

57. I am not sure why I offended you.

I am not defeated, you asked my point. Here it is, wasting time getting all giddy about a lower court ruling is just that - a waste of time. When the SC rules in our favor, I’ll get all jazzed. We would be better of spending our time promoting our values and democratic candidates in 2020.

You certainly can put me on block if I offend you. Also, no need to scream at me with the bold writing.

[hlthe2b]

58. We have some posters who repeatedly and continually post defeatists posts and little else.

Some may just be "cup- empty" type personalities. Others have, on occasion been found to be intentionally disrupting--particularly when they discount even those with far more experience than any of us in related matters. That you are neither, is good to know. I'm glad that you clarified and I thank you for that.

The post was meant to uplift some DUers who have been reacting with some degree of despondency at some of the RW tactics, spin, and intentional efforts to delay any accountability. I do believe there is hope there. We all have to strike a balance between being unrealistic and giving up. There is a wide middle ground there and that's what I hope to reinforce.

[33taw]

59. One last point, local activism in my precinct caused this precinct to increase the percentage of

Democratic voters during the special and general elections in 2018. A previous vote percentage of 35 % Democratic vs. 65% Republican dropped to 50% both with republicans winning by a single vote locally. Thankfully, both elections resulted in Democratic victories at the Supreme Court and State Government levels. While we had one defeat, the main issue was messaging by the candidates. Hopefully, that lesson has been learned and won’t happen again.

[hlthe2b]

60. That is an important point. I'm glad your community has had such measurable success.

[33taw]

62. Honestly, I think we are in a game of 'Moneyball".

We need to focus on gleaning a small percentage of votes from rural counties (in WI) and increasing voter turnout in metro communities. This will help us win. I think turning around the rural communities will be difficult, but we can get small victories to help us out. It is basically what Cambridge Analytics did for Trump - they found places where they could focus on getting small numbers to add up to big wins and then depressed the metro voters through messaging.

[treestar]

69. That is oversimplistic

They do have to grapple with the legal issues and write an opinion. It's not just pulling a lever.

[33taw]

70. Of course they grapple with it, but the outcome is not likely to be in our favor.

We lost the Supreme Court in 2016. Trump did not appoint centrists who might lean liberal. He appointed hard line conservatives. We may have some victories, but the courts won’t save us from Trump. There is a reason McConnell is ramming through so many Judgeships that have been open for years.

[itcfish]

51. A Pres. Obama Appointee?

This should be interesting!

[WyattKansas]

65. According Dumpy Pants Trump... Obama's judges don't count.

Seriously, that is Trump's expert legal opinion.