Justice Department Asks Judges to Block Subpoena

[babylonsister]

https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/11/justice-department-asks-judges-to-block-subpoena/

Justice Department Asks Judges to Block Subpoena
October 11, 2019 at 5:45 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard

“The Justice Department asked a federal appeals court on Friday to stop the release of President Trump’s tax returns to the Manhattan district attorney’s office, arguing that local prosecutors should have to meet a very high legal bar before investigating a sitting president,” the New York Times reports.

“The filing meant Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department was lending support to his attempt to block a subpoena issued to his accounting firm for eight years of his personal and corporate tax returns.”

[Mme. Defarge]

1. Why did it not just continue

through the appeals process?

[jberryhill]

2. It is - this report is about the brief they filed in the appeal

In other words, this IS the appeals process.

[onecaliberal]

3. The appellate court ruled against dump.

[jberryhill]

6. No, that's not this case

You are thinking of the case in DC, not this one in NY.

[onecaliberal]

13. Thank you for telling me.

It’s all so difficult to keep up.

[jberryhill]

15. I started an update thread with brief links

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212573080

[Orrex]

4. Fuck. That.

Fuck that.
Fuck that.
Fuck that.

The accused rapist Trump and his cult of idiot racist fuckheads has all along been claiming that Trump can't be held accountable for his past behaviors because he wasn't planning to be president.

And now that that stupid, corrupt motherfucker is befouling the Oval Office, they claim that we can't see his past because he's now president.

Fuck that.
Fuck that.

Fuck that.

And fuck every last one of those stupid shitheaded motherfuckers.

[MontanaMama]

9. +1

Righteous rant.

[Newest Reality]

14. Well,

Some fucks were given today! In fact, many.

[pecosbob]

28. Righteous...deserves to be echoed.

[Mc Mike]

7. Barr belongs in prison, too.

I remember when Rump could hardly wait to release his tax returns. Too bad he can't say something to get the IRS to speed up those pesky audits, but he's powerless to interfere in the executive branch offices that are overseeing him. It would look unseemly.

[ripcord]

18. The truth is nothing will happen to Barr

Attorneys General can pretty much defy Congressional subpoena's at will.

[japple]

24. Well, you forgot about John Mitchell, Nixon's AG

"Due to multiple crimes he committed in the Watergate affair, Mitchell was sentenced to prison in 1977 and served 19 months." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell

If you were alive and remember John and Martha Mitchell, here's a little blast from the past: "Mitchell's second wife, Martha Beall Mitchell, became a controversial figure in her own right, gaining notoriety for her late-night phone calls to reporters in which she accused President Nixon of participating in the Watergate cover-up and alleged that Nixon and several of his aides were trying to make her husband the scapegoat for the whole affair."

[ripcord]

26. You forget Eric Holder

What exactly happened to him after he was charged with contempt of Congress?

[Mc Mike]

27. Bobby Kennedy, quoting George Bernard Shaw --

'There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?'

Seems like a modest ambition, to toss that fat felonious troll into the clink. He's obviously guilty as hell, a real crook repuglinazi, openly and unabashedly.

I figured you were anticipating an Ed Meese Alberto Gonzales situation, while I was thinking about Mitchell. The defiance of Holder is something I'm not familiar with, though I do note his efforts to protect the vote currently.

[Midnightwalk]

8. At least it is consistent

With his claim he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it

Murder is a state charge too.

[Goodheart]

10. Why is the Justice Department involved in this??????

They're not supposed to be trump's lawyers.

[jberryhill]

11. They aren't

I've downloaded them and will do a write up later on, but the DoJ filed an Amicus Brief which, by the way, is entirely appropriate in a case involving direct issues of executive power or privilege. But they are not acting as Trump's lawyers. Trump's lawyers also filed a brief.


10/11/2019 80
62 pg, 464.1 KB BRIEF, on behalf of Appellant Donald J. Trump, FILED. Service date 10/11/2019 by CM/ECF.[2678780] [19-3204] [Entered: 10/11/2019 04:28 PM]

10/11/2019 83
36 pg, 214.58 KB AMICUS BRIEF, on behalf of Amicus Curiae United States Department of Justice, FILED. Service date 10/11/2019 by CM/ECF.[2678811] [19-3204] [Entered: 10/11/2019 04:49 PM]

[Atticus]

12. Serious question---if the DOJ has the people of the US as its client, how does it have "standing"

to stick its nose into a STATE'S investigation of Trump's taxes and financial dealings in that state?

Has "Attorney General of the United States" become synonymous with "consigliere" to the White House squatter?

[jberryhill]

17. Serious answer

First off, it's not a question of "standing". The DoJ is not a party to the suit. They filed an amicus brief.

Why did they file an amicus brief? Because this is a case which tangentially involves a question (albeit a simple one) of the scope of the powers and immunities of federal official relative to a state prosecutor. One would certainly expect the DoJ to have something to say about that, regardless of whom the president may have been.

If it is as simple as "a county prosecutor can subject the President of the United States to any form of criminal process", then I'd like to hear you say, right here and right now, that you want the next President of the US to be subject to arrest and imprisonment by any prosecutor in any county in this country.

Now, on the facts at hand, the district judge pretty much nailed shut any rational way of overturning that decision. However, unlike many, I don't believe that county officials in Bumblefuck had the authority to, say, arrest President Obama, and I don't think they should be given the authority to lock up President Warren or President Biden without a good look into it by the federal court system.

This is the process by which the limits and circumstances of power are defined in our system.

[Atticus]

20. I put ""standing" in quotes because I knew that technical standing was not applicable. As that

apparently was misinterpreted as ignorance, perhaps I should have just asked "How does this concern Bill Barr and justify using federal resources to shield his boss from the possible consequences of his private business activity?"

Your third paragraph is---weird. I did not say or imply anything like the ridiculous situation you challenge me to endorse. You apparently presume you are dealing with someone who will either not recognize condescension or who will accept it without objection. You are mistaken.

Your premise is apparently that ANY AG would file an amicus curiae brief for ANY POTUS in ALL such cases. I think that is overbroad and that the real issue is "What relevant factors which may assist the Court are raised by the amicus brief which are not raised or likely to be raised by competent counsels for the parties?"

It is my understanding that Trump has retained attorneys in this matter. Are they incompetent? Why can they not make the same arguments the DOJ is making?

[jberryhill]

21. Principles don't care who is involved.

The court is not required to consider the DoJ’s brief any more so than one you might move to file, should you so choose.

“ Your premise is apparently that ANY AG would file an amicus curiae brief for ANY POTUS in ALL such cases.”

Yeah, pretty much. But when you say “all such cases”, you can pretty much count on one finger any case coming within shouting distance of the circumstances of this one.

The closest to “all such cases” you get is Jones v Clinton and, whaddya know:

Jones v. Clinton...

https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-clinton-3

In addition to the briefs of the parties, amicus briefs have been filed in support of Mr. Clinton by the United States...

A federal court engaged on an issue of the scope of state powers relative to the principal of the executive branch of the federal government is certainly an issue of interest to the DoJ - just as in Jones v. Clinton - and the DoJ is going to argue against the assertion of state power. That’s not some personal service to the particular occupant of the office.

The brief spends several pages discussing that, and I’ve linked to the thread where the briefs may be found. Have a great weekend.

[Atticus]

23. Believe it or not, I do understand your argument and concede that there are some aspects of it

with which I concur. However, jurisprudence still involves, I hope, more than blind adherence to "principles" of law. You did not merely compare Jones v. Clinton to the case against Trump; you also compared Bill Clinton to Donald Trump. The cases have some facial similarities. The men could hardly be more different.

You conclude with "the DOJ is going to argue against the assertion of state power" in, as I understand your statement, any case where a state seeks to impose criminal responsibility on a POTUS. So, if Trump actually did "shoot someone on Fifth Avenue" and was charged with murder in a New York court, you're ok with the USAG filing an amicus brief telling New York they can't touch him?

Sincerely, you have a great weekend, too.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

16. K&R

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

19. So Barr works for Trump not us.

[Evolve Dammit]

22. As in Iran Contra, he is the fixer. Trumps new Roy Cohn. Let's hope he sits next to Michael Cohen,

the last fixer. At what point might people see how many of his team are being convicted and sentenced that it might really be a problem? And not a democrats trying to destroy America gaslighting job??

[bucolic_frolic]

25. Man oh man, those tax returns must be DYN-O-MITE!

They will do ANYTHING to stop their release.

[live love laugh]

29. Any judge intervening should be impeached nt