CNN reporting judge orders accounting firm to hand over Dotard taxes

[mcar]

[spanone]

1. K&R...👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍

[gldstwmn]

2. Tweet storm to follow...

[Sanity Claws]

3. Great

We will get an idea of where he got his money, etc.

However, I wonder whether these returns will also lead to bank fraud charges. My guess is that he falsified income information to banks to get loans.

[lastlib]

83. If they can cross-check his loan apps to his financial/tax records......

...you may see fire in the sky from all the sparks flyin'...! Won't that be pretty!

[lunatica]

86. We'll see the Star Spangled Banner

The rockets red glare
Bombs bursting in air
Gave proof through the night
That our flag is still there!

Fireworks indeed!

[FreepFryer]

4. Could find nothing visible re this on CNN Web site - any links ?

[BumRushDaShow]

14. Here is the ruling

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/20/mehta.opinion.in.trump.subpoena.case.pdf (PDF file)

Article - https://us.cnn.com/2019/05/20/politics/mazars-trump-records/index.html

[FreepFryer]

15. So awesome - the links were flying moments after your post, but I really appreciate ur attentiveness

Thanks BumRush.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Hell - I had 3 breaking news things that came through to post at the same time including this

So I know what you are talking about!!

[FreepFryer]

18. It never rains, but it pours! :)

Keep fighting the good fight. One step, one issue, one decision, one stump speech, one subpoena, one Congressman, one Article of Impeachment, one conviction, one frogmarch at a time.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. 5:00 ET dump

Usually these things have come later in the week (in time for the Sunday news shows) but...

[FreepFryer]

21. Yeah - it makes you wonder what will be in this week's Friday Night News Dump.

I don't speculate, I just investigate, ruminate and castigate.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. I'm afraid to even speculate

although this coming weekend is the Memorial Day weekend so one can image all sorts of things coming out with the intention of getting "lost" in the holiday.

[FreepFryer]

26. Hopefully (but no inkling) it'll involve Mnuchin being fitted for pair of striped Armani pj's (n/t)

[BumRushDaShow]

30. ....

[FreepFryer]

37. ...

[lastlib]

82. (I'd prefer that they be knockoffs, but I'll take 'em as long as he gets 'em!)

[FreepFryer]

85. LOL! Let him wear his Armani all he wants, Leavenworth and Terre Haute get COOOOOOOOOLD (n/t)

[klook]

65. And celebrate!

Ok, too early to celebrate, unless you just want to celebrate another day of livin’!

[FreepFryer]

73. Looooooooooooooo-uhuhuv!

[mcar]

23. I was watching and could only watch what they reported

Thanks BRDS.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. I have an iPad nearby that gets CNN Breaking News banners

so as soon as it came through I had to dig for the link on their website and got it posted in LBN.

[Ramsey Barner]

34. Thanks for the links!

[BumRushDaShow]

35. You are welcome!

[H2O Man]

41. Thank you!

[BumRushDaShow]

43. You are welcome!

[H2O Man]

45. I immediately

sent the link to my son. It's outstanding!

[BumRushDaShow]

49. The Judge's opening statement's background summary

in the ruling was pretty awesome! Pretty much provided a game, set, match with the past precedent.

[H2O Man]

51. It is a thing

of beauty!

[Leghorn21]

5. MSNBC producer confirms via the hill

New: District Judge Amit Mehtahas just ruled in favor
of a subpoena issued by the House Oversight Committee
for Trump's financial records from the accounting firm Mazars.
https://thehill.com


4:00 PM - May 20, 2019

Link to tweet

[tymorial]

6. They will refuse and Trump will pardon them.

[misanthrope]

58. Yep, that seems to be the mindset.

Trump controls the DOJ and wants to funnel everything to SCOTUS, thinking they are in his pocket. Most of foundation for imperial POTUS is in place and we're trying to test the remaining tatters to see what holds.

[Mister Ed]

74. I wonder if that's possible.

The president can pardon individuals for crimes they commit, but I'm not sure how he could pardon an accounting firm for refusing to comply with a judges's order.

[tymorial]

77. He'll just do it and then it'll go to the courts

Trump does what Trump wants Constitution be damned

[onlyadream]

81. Yep, exactly.

He's breaking all the rules/norms, and everyone gets blindsided.

[Andy823]

7. This will really piss trump off!

[Ilsa]

8. After hearing that McGahn doesn't have to testify,

this is welcome news.

[mcar]

9. Jeffrey Toobin is saying this is a BFD

Says WH won't be able to delay.

[malaise]

10. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!!

Rec

[Yonnie3]

11. Link to the CNN story

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/20/politics/mazars-trump-records/index.html

[mcar]

13. Thanks Yonnie3

[Quemado]

12. Can this be appealed?

If they can, they will appeal.

[MyOwnPeace]

17. I would expect............

EVERY POSSIBLE WAY to delay this taking place - appeals, ignoring, stalling, whatever.

If nothing else, just his "executive privilege" claim that he's using to cover EVERYTHING!

[mcar]

25. From what Toobin said,

judges ruling puts lots of limits on appeals, etc. Says he can't slow walk this.

[pnwmom]

32. The judge has refused to issue a stay pending appeal, which means that Mazars

can't point to an appeal as a reason to delay.

If Mazars is really ready to comply, they can turn over the documents before Trump goes to the Supreme Court and asks for an emergency stay. That would be Trump's next step -- asking for an emergency stay, pending a full court decision.

[Nevilledog]

53. They'll ask the appellate court for a stay and I bet it will be granted.

[pnwmom]

66. Trump will -- unless Mazars dumps the stuff first. I agree that a temporary stay might be granted.

But remember, in Mueller's mystery Supreme Court case, Justice Roberts issued a temporary stay, just enough time to let the whole court consider the case. And then the whole court quickly ruled against the stay. So fines continue to accrue against the mystery company while it mounts a full appeal without benefit of a stay.

[Nevilledog]

71. I meant that Trump would appeal. I think Mazar wants to dump this stuff ASAP.

The reason I think they'll get a stay is because the issue presented is going to be repeated by Trump over and over, so the appellate court might feel it's best to have a definitive ruling. Also, the impact of any ruling affects the presidency versus just a foreign corporation.

[rdking647]

54. Merrick garlands heads the appeal court

Karma at work...

[MGKrebs]

87. But unlike these people trump is digging up from under rocks,

I believe Garland will do what he thinks is right.

[onenote]

89. There's a better than 50-50 chance Garland won't be on the panel hearing the appeal

The fact that he is Chief Judge is irrelevant. The appeal will be heard by a panel of judges selected essentially at random from among the 11 active judges (and possibly the 7 senior status judges).

[padah513]

20. Don't delay

Get them right now. Go to Mazars and pick them up yourself if you have to.

[Sherman A1]

22. K&R

[Honeycombe8]

27. I guess Trump will appeal. In the meantime...YOU GOTTA BE KIDDIN' ME! HAPPY DAYS!!!!!

[mcar]

31. Good news, isn't it?

Seems like the ruling stops the slow walking appeals, per Toobin on CNN.

[Honeycombe8]

33. You gotta be kiddin' me even MORE!!!! Stop it! Stop it! I can't take the good news!

Hot damn!

[mcar]

52. ...

[at140]

36. If Trump appeals,

Who decides to refuse the appeal?
Can Trump escalate it to SCOTUS?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. He can, but because the judge didn't grant a stay the records have to be turned over

as of the return date of the subpoena.

[Honeycombe8]

48. It is SO great. The House is GREAT! They're the best House ever! Everyone says so!

No one handles the House better than they do!!! The House does the best subpoenas!

(to steal Trump's style for a minute)

[Achilleaze]

75. Everyone agrees. Great. Really Great. The Greatest.

So much great you will be sick of great.

[Honeycombe8]

78. lol. nt

[Nuggets]

55. What will happen if they simply refuse?

Anything?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

56. They won't. Don't forget, this subpoena is not directed to Trump or the WH

but to a private accounting firm, which will not want to be fined or have its partners thrown in jail. They requested a "friendly" subpoena in the first place to be sure their butts were covered, but they'd never planned on not turning over the records.

[Nuggets]

57. Thanks nt

[Honeycombe8]

79. Yep. The acctg firm wants to hand over docs, go home, and not get involved further. nt

[Kurt V.]

29. Kicked and recommended!

[SayItLoud]

38. Denied stay while they appeal...means what? NT

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

44. Means they have to turn over the records as of the return date of the subpoena

and can't withhold them until an appeal is heard.

The court is well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business
affairs of the President of the United States. But on the question of whether to grant a stay pending
appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail.
Plaintiffs have not raised a “serious legal question[] going to the merits.” Population Inst., 797
F.2d at 1078. And, the balance of equities and the public interest weigh heavily in favor of denying
relief. The risk of irreparable harm does not outweigh these other factors. The court, therefore,
will not stay the return date of the subpoena beyond the seven days agreed upon by the parties.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6019022/20-19-Opinion-House-v-Trump.pdf

[onenote]

90. Unless the appeals court grant a stay

which I think is quite possible.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

91. I'd be really surprised if they did, given the trial judge's rather blistering order.

[onenote]

93. There are four factors weighed in deciding whether to stay an order

Likelihood of success on the merits; irreparable harm; balance of equities; public interest.

Judge Mehta found that three of those factors (likelihood of success on the merits; balance of equities and public interest) favored denying the stay, and one factor, irreparable harm favored granting the stay.

As Judge Mehta acknowledged, however, if one factor is particularly strong, it can outweigh the others. While he didn't conclude that was the case here, it wouldn't surprise me if a court concluded that the irreparable harm factor is so strong as to outweigh the other factors. I've won several stays based solely on the irreparable harm factor -- courts don't like to allow challenged actions to go forward knowing that they can't put the genie back in the bottle if the case comes out differently.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

95. Yes, I read it when it was issued. Considering the strength of the other three factors,

and the judge's obvious "you've got to be fucking kidding me" attitude toward the legal argument, I would expect the DC Circuit to give considerable deference to that judge's order.

[H2O Man]

39. Thank you for this.

My older son told me about this a minute ago. I immediately hobbled over to my computer, to learn more. No surprise that you are the one reporting this good and important news!!!

Recommended.

[mcar]

67. Aww, thanks H2O Man!

[Ramsey Barner]

42. There's a lot of great analysis in the opinion.

There's also some helpful hints for future Congressional litigation, like this one at p. 21:

"While a clearly drafted resolution would have made this court’s task easier or might have preempted the challenge now brought altogether, it is not a constitutional prerequisite to start an investigation."

[H2O Man]

46. +1

Thank you!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

47. YESSSSS!!!!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[pangaia]

50. Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran.. any minute now..

[vlyons]

59. Which court?

Don't cheer too soon. Trump will appeal and appeal and appeal

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

60. The judge denied the stay, so the committee will have the records

before an appeal can be heard.

[onenote]

88. Not if the appeals court grants the stay

I think it is 50/50 as to whether that will happen.

Its significant but not determinative that the district court didn't grant a stay. But the district court did say that one of the four factors used in deciding whether or not to grant a stay -- irreparable harm -- favored the plaintiffs. While the district court said the other three factors weigh against a stay, an appeals court may give them different weight.

[BumRushDaShow]

63. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(from the document - http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/20/mehta.opinion.in.trump.subpoena.case.pdf)

which would either go to the D.C. Circuit (majority Democrats) or to the SCOTUS for some type of stay.

[Evolve Dammit]

61. It seems a crescendo in the making; but beware the cornered rat.

[PatrickforO]

62. You know, EVERYTHING Trump is doing - going to court, lying, etc.

All of it is obstruction, plain as the nose on your face.

Sigh. Worst president we've ever had. Ever.

Horrible human being.

[TomSlick]

64. Really broad decision.

I found this sentence particularly interesting:

"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry." (Page 35). (As I was writing this, Chris Hayes read the same sentence.)

Very interesting was the denial of a stay pending an appeal. The judge came within a hair's breadth of saying Trump's arguments were Rule 11 worthy.

This one is a win for the good guys.

[mcar]

68. Gloria Borger on CNN pointed that out

as a guide for future cases.

[TomSlick]

69. That sentence will jump out at lawyers.

The whole decision is amazingly well written. It should be very persuasive to other courts.

The only thing that might have been better is if the Judge had imposed Rule 11 sanctions.

[mcar]

70. I'll take it!

[Achilleaze]

76. Rule 11

(No wonder republicans hate the truth, the law, and justice itself).

Legal Definition of Sanctions Rule 11: What You Need to Know
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose.5 min read

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support.

The whole enchilada: https://www.upcounsel.com/legal-def-sanctions-rule-11

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

80. I have been wondering why Rule 11 hasn't been used yet

to sanction some of these lawyers for some of the crap they have been coming up with. Maybe this is a warning.

[onenote]

92. Rule 11 sanctions are very rarely imposed

and it is unimaginable that they would be imposed in a case where the decision was 41 pages long and the judge nowhere describes the losing side's arguments as "frivolous."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

94. I was at a hearing in federal court some years ago where the judge imposed Rule 11 sanctions

against our opposing counsel, an attorney from one of the big local hot-shot law firms, because he'd filed some kind of bullshit motion (I don't even remember exactly what it was anymore) that was obviously intended only to drag out the proceedings. He whacked them with a hefty penalty; it was gratifying to see because it was well-deserved. The judge was a no-nonsense sort who'd do that sort of thing without batting an eye. It's not all that rare, and probably should be used even more often than it is.

[triron]

72. knr

[BlueJac]

84. K&R