Judge set to rule on Trump's subpoena challenge - very very important

[malaise]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/14/trump-subpoena-congress-legal-1318867
<snip>
The decision could provide a blueprint for other judges deciding on the president's attempts to stop congressional investigations.

President Donald Trump’s strategy of outright resistance to House subpoenas will face its first test in federal court on Tuesday, setting up a ruling that could boost Democrats’ efforts to investigate the president’s business dealings.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta is set to rule on the Democrat-led House Oversight and Reform Committee’s subpoena to accounting firm Mazars USA for eight years of Trump’s financial records. The committee’s demand is part of its investigation into alleged financial crimes committed by Trump.
------------------------

Let's go Judge Mehta!

[watoos]

1. Can Trump's lawyers appeal Mehta's decision?

It sounds like Republicans got Fusion GPS's financial statements with one judge's decision.

[NewJeffCT]

2. They'll do their best to appeal

to push it farther down the road.

[marble falls]

4. Of couse. All the way to the SCOTUS if they can.

[StarfishSaver]

13. Yes

But, fortunately, so far, the judiciary's been holding. Even Republican-appointed judges have been pretty good on these cases.

[TruckFump]

5. Judge Mehta is...

...47 years old, born in India, and an Obama appointee.

He ruled against the Dems when they were the minority party and trying to get Trump Hotel records from the Gen Admin Services because in his opinion since the Dems were the minority party, they did not have standing. If that was the only reason on the prior denial, then hopefully he will not quash the subpoenas from the now majority Dems in the House. IMO, tRump will of course appeal his ruling if Mehta allows the subpoena.

[malaise]

6. That means he should rule for the majority party this time around

[TruckFump]

7. I am hoping both of us are correct.

If that was the only reason he denied the Dems the prior time -- no standing as the minority party -- then he should rule in favor of them on this one. The Dems have the right to get the records and the reason is exactly within their congressional powers of oversight.

IMO, tRump will squeal if Mehta OKs the subpoena.

[pazzyanne]

8. That's a given!

[malaise]

9. He will say what he said about Judge Curiel - you know

the Mexican judge who correctly ruled against him

[FBaggins]

10. One point of caution

If a judge rejects a claim for lack of standing, it's likely that he hasn't considered "on the merits" issues. Which means that we can't assume that "standing was the only issue".

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

15. I clerked for a circuit judge in South Carolina.

Whether the party bringing the action had standing to do so was the first thing that was determined in every civil case.

The next step was trying to figure out the word salad that plaintiff's attorneys threw on the paper. As a journalist before becoming a lawyer, I was often amused at how poorly these highly educated individuals expressed themselves.

When I went on to practice and a client got served with one of these "throw the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks" complaints, I didn't file a response (which is usually a general denial) but rather I filed a motion called a "demurrer," which essentially is telling the other party, "even if the facts you've set out are true, you haven't stated a cause of action." I got a lot of shocked responses from that--demurrers were seldom used at that time.

What was fun was when we got to go in front of a judge to argue the motion. After I pointed out in detail how I couldn't answer the complaint because it didn't say anything, the judge would query the plaintiff's lawyer, who invariably was unable to explain his pleading. (BTW, I didn't do this frivolously. If a complaint made sense I'd draw up a fairly detailed answer.) While the ideal result would have been to have the case dismissed entirely, I was satisfied when the judge helped the lawyer figure out what he was trying to say, and then told him to go home and write a complaint that made sense.

Then I'd file a one sentence answer denying everything in the complaint ("a general denial" ). To me, the benefit of doing this was I ended up with a clear idea of what the case was about, and didn't have to waste time and energy trying to figure out what the plaintiff's attorney was asking for.

I left the law after awhile -- I got tired of arguing for a living (my wife said I would stand on the bed and argue cases in my sleep), and hanging around with lawyers was quite frankly boring -- but as the great philosopher Mary Poppins said, "In any work that must be done, there is a element of fun. You find the fun and snap! the job's a game." I found fun in driving the lazy attorneys crazy with demurrers and cross-complaints* and using other tools to keep them off balance. On the other hand, attorneys who knew their shit -- which were the majority of them -- were a joy to try cases against and out of respect for their time and abilities I always tried to make the case move smoothly from my end. In either case the goal was always the same: to insure the best possible outcome for my client.

*NOTE: A "cross-complaint" is a complaint filed against the original plaintiff, which is then incorporated into the same case. It doesn't even have to be related to the action they're bringing against your client. Amazing how much more willing someone is to negotiate with when they've got something at stake.

[watoos]

11. Did Trump threaten his father-in-law?

Just asking.

[pandr32]

12. Let's hope Judge Mehta wasn't visited by the ghosts of Russian mobsters overnight

I might start biting my nails again!

[Vinca]

14. Please . . . let sanity prevail!

Judging from how this has gone so far, the judge obviously isn't a fan of BS legal ploys.