Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
November 26, 2019
Heads, Trump Wins. Tails, We All Lose.
Either the president will be elevated above all ordinary law, or future presidents will be hemmed in.
11:14 AM ET
David Frum
President Donald Trump’s claim of “absolute immunity” from congressional oversight went crashing to its latest defeat last night. A federal judge rejected the White House’s assertion of an executive privilege to prevent former aides from testifying before Congress. Another federal judge approved a Freedom of Information Act request for internal White House emails about Trump’s action to block military aid to Ukraine. These latest rebukes extend a lengthening losing streak for the president in court.
Trump has been losing two fights to protect his accounting records. Those records are sought both by Congress and by New York State criminal prosecutors. Trump has argued absolute immunity in both cases, and in both cases he has been rebuffed by federal appeals courts. Those two cases now seem headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
snip//
To date, presidents have resolved the question “Can a president be investigated and potentially indicted for state crimes?” by the excellent expedient of not committing state crimes. Trump has apparently found that too high a bar. And so the question will head to the Supreme Court to be addressed at last. It’s hard to imagine a favorable outcome for him in this case—or in any of the cases Trump is now fighting. If he loses, future and better presidents will be hemmed in, in undesirable ways. If he wins, the president will be elevated above all ordinary law.
Courts can sense as well as anyone when a legal argument is advanced in bad faith—not to protect the institution of the presidency, but to protect the personal wrongdoing of the person who happens to be president. Lady Justice is often depicted blindfolded, but the statues never suggest that her nose has been taped, too. She can smell the odor of criminality beneath the abstract claims of executive function and presidential privilege. Rightful disgust with that smell may influence her to limit today an obviously corrupt president in ways that honest presidents may rue tomorrow.
John Adams’s famous prayer, “May none but wise and honest men ever rule under this roof,” expressed more than a pious hope. It expressed a shrewd, precocious awareness of the harm awaiting the whole American system of government, state as well as federal, from a president who is both dishonest and foolish. The system just cannot work around a president whose main concern is committing and concealing wrongful acts. And that unfortunately describes the president the United States now has.
David Frum: Heads, Trump Wins. Tails, We All Lose.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/trump-absolute-immunity-and-supreme-court/602665/Heads, Trump Wins. Tails, We All Lose.
Either the president will be elevated above all ordinary law, or future presidents will be hemmed in.
11:14 AM ET
David Frum
President Donald Trump’s claim of “absolute immunity” from congressional oversight went crashing to its latest defeat last night. A federal judge rejected the White House’s assertion of an executive privilege to prevent former aides from testifying before Congress. Another federal judge approved a Freedom of Information Act request for internal White House emails about Trump’s action to block military aid to Ukraine. These latest rebukes extend a lengthening losing streak for the president in court.
Trump has been losing two fights to protect his accounting records. Those records are sought both by Congress and by New York State criminal prosecutors. Trump has argued absolute immunity in both cases, and in both cases he has been rebuffed by federal appeals courts. Those two cases now seem headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
snip//
To date, presidents have resolved the question “Can a president be investigated and potentially indicted for state crimes?” by the excellent expedient of not committing state crimes. Trump has apparently found that too high a bar. And so the question will head to the Supreme Court to be addressed at last. It’s hard to imagine a favorable outcome for him in this case—or in any of the cases Trump is now fighting. If he loses, future and better presidents will be hemmed in, in undesirable ways. If he wins, the president will be elevated above all ordinary law.
Courts can sense as well as anyone when a legal argument is advanced in bad faith—not to protect the institution of the presidency, but to protect the personal wrongdoing of the person who happens to be president. Lady Justice is often depicted blindfolded, but the statues never suggest that her nose has been taped, too. She can smell the odor of criminality beneath the abstract claims of executive function and presidential privilege. Rightful disgust with that smell may influence her to limit today an obviously corrupt president in ways that honest presidents may rue tomorrow.
John Adams’s famous prayer, “May none but wise and honest men ever rule under this roof,” expressed more than a pious hope. It expressed a shrewd, precocious awareness of the harm awaiting the whole American system of government, state as well as federal, from a president who is both dishonest and foolish. The system just cannot work around a president whose main concern is committing and concealing wrongful acts. And that unfortunately describes the president the United States now has.
November 26, 2019
'Democratic' candidate Mike Bloomberg has spent millions keeping the Senate in Republican control
Joan McCarter
Daily Kos Staff
Tuesday November 26, 2019 · 12:16 PM EST
It's becoming increasingly clear that the fact that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are viable contenders for the Democratic nomination for president is the primary motivation for billionaire Michael Bloomberg to get in the race. Bloomberg doesn't want any part of his billions going to paying a fair tax rate, to fully funding government and all the programs that will help people and rebuild federal institutions. He doesn't want to pay taxes. He wants to direct the millions he spends on fighting gun violence or climate change very publicly and to have his name plastered on every penny.
Because he's fundamentally a Republican. He got into the mayor's office in New York City with the endorsement of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani. And he has spent millions—millions—on Republican congressional campaigns, including hosting a fundraiser for Rep. Peter King in 2018 and donating to Rep. Dan Donovan, who was defeated. He also helped Republicans hold control of the New York state Senate. "The path to win the House ran through New York,” said Monica Klein, the Democratic challenger to King. "There were seven flippable seats in the state, and he supported Republicans in two of them. […] To come down and say he wants to be the head of the Democratic Party—the hubris is unbelievable.”
He endorsed and raised funds for former Sen. Scott Brown in his reelection bid against Elizabeth Warren in 2012. He gave $2,700 to Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey and spent nearly $10 million on dark-money issue ads to keep him in office. In 2014, he gave $5,200 to Sen. Susan Collins in Maine. Protecting the status quo—and his low taxes—has been his priority, even at the same time that he's donated to Democrats. His bottom line seems to have been keeping the Senate, where his tax cuts are guaranteed, in Republican hands. Mike Mikus, former campaign manager for Toomey's 2016 Democratic opponent, Kathleen McGinty, pretty much nails it: "I'm certain his hand in giving Mitch McConnell a majority in the Senate will be remembered by a lot of Democratic voters."
When George W. Bush was president, Bloomberg gave donations to Bush, and only to other Republicans. He has never donated to Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren. It's hard to resist the notion that Bloomberg's political interests lie entirely in Michael Bloomberg, whether in preserving his wealth or in stroking his ego.
'Democratic' candidate Mike Bloomberg has spent millions keeping the Senate in Republican control
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/11/26/1902046/--Democratic-candidate-Mike-Bloomberg-has-spent-millions-keeping-the-Senate-in-Republican-control'Democratic' candidate Mike Bloomberg has spent millions keeping the Senate in Republican control
Joan McCarter
Daily Kos Staff
Tuesday November 26, 2019 · 12:16 PM EST
It's becoming increasingly clear that the fact that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are viable contenders for the Democratic nomination for president is the primary motivation for billionaire Michael Bloomberg to get in the race. Bloomberg doesn't want any part of his billions going to paying a fair tax rate, to fully funding government and all the programs that will help people and rebuild federal institutions. He doesn't want to pay taxes. He wants to direct the millions he spends on fighting gun violence or climate change very publicly and to have his name plastered on every penny.
Because he's fundamentally a Republican. He got into the mayor's office in New York City with the endorsement of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani. And he has spent millions—millions—on Republican congressional campaigns, including hosting a fundraiser for Rep. Peter King in 2018 and donating to Rep. Dan Donovan, who was defeated. He also helped Republicans hold control of the New York state Senate. "The path to win the House ran through New York,” said Monica Klein, the Democratic challenger to King. "There were seven flippable seats in the state, and he supported Republicans in two of them. […] To come down and say he wants to be the head of the Democratic Party—the hubris is unbelievable.”
He endorsed and raised funds for former Sen. Scott Brown in his reelection bid against Elizabeth Warren in 2012. He gave $2,700 to Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey and spent nearly $10 million on dark-money issue ads to keep him in office. In 2014, he gave $5,200 to Sen. Susan Collins in Maine. Protecting the status quo—and his low taxes—has been his priority, even at the same time that he's donated to Democrats. His bottom line seems to have been keeping the Senate, where his tax cuts are guaranteed, in Republican hands. Mike Mikus, former campaign manager for Toomey's 2016 Democratic opponent, Kathleen McGinty, pretty much nails it: "I'm certain his hand in giving Mitch McConnell a majority in the Senate will be remembered by a lot of Democratic voters."
When George W. Bush was president, Bloomberg gave donations to Bush, and only to other Republicans. He has never donated to Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren. It's hard to resist the notion that Bloomberg's political interests lie entirely in Michael Bloomberg, whether in preserving his wealth or in stroking his ego.
November 26, 2019
Report: Trump Wants To Bring Accused War Criminals Up On Stage At His Rallies And RNC
By Cristina Cabrera
November 26, 2019 11:23 a.m.
President Donald Trump has reportedly floated bringing the three accused war criminals he pardoned recently, including Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, up on the stage of his campaign rallies and even the 2020 Republican National Convention.
Two unnamed sources told the Daily Beast on Monday that Trump has mentioned potentially creating special roles for Gallagher, Clint Lorance and Matthew Golsteyn in his 2020 reelection campaign after having pardoned their war crime convictions on November 15.
“He briefly discussed making it a big deal at the convention,” one of the sources said.
Trump reportedly compared doing so to the 2016 RNC, where “on-stage heroes” were brought out.
more...
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/report-trump-wants-to-bring-accused-war-criminals-up-on-stage-at-his-rallies-and-rnc
Report: Trump Wants To Bring Accused War Criminals Up On Stage At His Rallies And RNC
Report: Trump Wants To Bring Accused War Criminals Up On Stage At His Rallies And RNC
By Cristina Cabrera
November 26, 2019 11:23 a.m.
President Donald Trump has reportedly floated bringing the three accused war criminals he pardoned recently, including Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, up on the stage of his campaign rallies and even the 2020 Republican National Convention.
Two unnamed sources told the Daily Beast on Monday that Trump has mentioned potentially creating special roles for Gallagher, Clint Lorance and Matthew Golsteyn in his 2020 reelection campaign after having pardoned their war crime convictions on November 15.
“He briefly discussed making it a big deal at the convention,” one of the sources said.
Trump reportedly compared doing so to the 2016 RNC, where “on-stage heroes” were brought out.
more...
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/report-trump-wants-to-bring-accused-war-criminals-up-on-stage-at-his-rallies-and-rnc
November 26, 2019
The researchers did not estimate how those costs were split between lower profits for U.S. companies or higher consumer prices.
The research did find, however, that China is feeling the impact of higher tariffs.
more...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-tariffs/americans-not-chinese-pay-trump-tariffs-ny-fed-study-idUSKBN1XZ2A4
Americans, not Chinese, pay Trump tariffs: NY Fed study
I know. D'uh.
November 25, 2019 / 2:17 PM / Updated a day ago
Americans, not Chinese, pay Trump tariffs: NY Fed study
Howard Schneider
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Chinese imports last year, officials insisted China would pay the cost - implying Chinese firms would have to cut their prices to absorb import “taxes” of up to 25% when the goods hit U.S. shores.
Instead, the prices Chinese firms charge have barely budged, meaning U.S. companies and consumers are paying the tariff costs, estimated at around $40 billion annually, New York Fed Reserve Bank researchers found in a study released on Monday.
As a result of the U.S.-China trade war, U.S. Customs and Border Protection adds as much as 25% to the import price as Chinese goods enter the country. If Chinese companies were absorbing that cost, they would have to cut their prices as much as 20% - a level that would allow U.S. retailers, manufacturers, or wholesalers to keep their own prices and profits stable.
That is not what is happening.
Import data from June 2018 to September 2019 shows Chinese import prices fell only 2%, the Fed study found, in line with price declines seen in many other nations as global trade slowed.
“The continued stability of import prices for goods from China means U.S. firms and consumers have to pay the tariff,” the Fed research team wrote.
The researchers did not estimate how those costs were split between lower profits for U.S. companies or higher consumer prices.
The research did find, however, that China is feeling the impact of higher tariffs.
more...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-tariffs/americans-not-chinese-pay-trump-tariffs-ny-fed-study-idUSKBN1XZ2A4
November 26, 2019
Brett Kavanaugh’s latest opinion should terrify Democrats
The Supreme Court now has five votes to sabotage the next Democratic presidency.
By Ian Millhiser Nov 26, 2019, 8:00am EST
If you’ve spent any time around the Federalist Society — the hugely influential conservative legal society that plays an outsized role in choosing President Trump’s judicial nominees — then you’ve probably noticed their obsession with a singular issue.
Beginning in the latter half of the Obama administration, Federalist Society gatherings grew increasingly fixated on diminishing the power of federal agencies to regulate businesses and the public — an agenda that would severely weaken seminal laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
On Monday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled that he is on board with this agenda.
snip//
Nondelegation would be a disaster for Democrats and a big win for Republicans
In theory, the Nondelegation Doctrine could be applied in a neutral way to administrations controlled by either party. In practice, it would be a boon to Republicans and an albatross around the neck of Democrats.
One reason why is that Democrats tend to support robust regulation while Republicans do not. An anti-regulatory doctrine inherently favors conservatives.
A second reason is that the Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans. So, even if it is possible for the Nondelegation Doctrine to be applied in a neutral way, this Supreme Court seems unlikely to do so.
more...
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/26/20981758/brett-kavanaughs-terrify-democrats-supreme-court-gundy-paul
Brett Kavanaugh's latest opinion should terrify Democrats
Brett Kavanaugh’s latest opinion should terrify Democrats
The Supreme Court now has five votes to sabotage the next Democratic presidency.
By Ian Millhiser Nov 26, 2019, 8:00am EST
If you’ve spent any time around the Federalist Society — the hugely influential conservative legal society that plays an outsized role in choosing President Trump’s judicial nominees — then you’ve probably noticed their obsession with a singular issue.
Beginning in the latter half of the Obama administration, Federalist Society gatherings grew increasingly fixated on diminishing the power of federal agencies to regulate businesses and the public — an agenda that would severely weaken seminal laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
On Monday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled that he is on board with this agenda.
snip//
Nondelegation would be a disaster for Democrats and a big win for Republicans
In theory, the Nondelegation Doctrine could be applied in a neutral way to administrations controlled by either party. In practice, it would be a boon to Republicans and an albatross around the neck of Democrats.
One reason why is that Democrats tend to support robust regulation while Republicans do not. An anti-regulatory doctrine inherently favors conservatives.
A second reason is that the Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans. So, even if it is possible for the Nondelegation Doctrine to be applied in a neutral way, this Supreme Court seems unlikely to do so.
more...
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/26/20981758/brett-kavanaughs-terrify-democrats-supreme-court-gundy-paul
November 26, 2019
The Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse
11/25/2019
Note to Democrats: Call the GOP's Bluff
Oh, it would be a shit show of open sewer proportions, for sure. It would be a scuzzy circus on top of a cheap zoo covered with crazy sauce. But House Democrats should call the bluff of the increasingly divorced-from-reality Republicans and hold hearings on all the fuckery they claim has been going on. Like fuckin' all of it. Like let's attempt to blow this shit up once and for all.
Just tell Republicans at different committees, "You wanna go? Let's go, motherfuckers. Call your witnesses. But everyone has to go under oath. Every fucking witness."
Start with one bullshit conspiracy and then move on to the next. You wanna prove that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, Republicans? Fine. Look at one of Devin Nunes's repetitive mad rants during the impeachment hearings and see who they might want to testify. Alexandra Chalupa? Groovy. How about all the Ukrainians that Republicans claim know shit about Hunter Biden or the 2016 election? Awesome. Bring 'em all in, Valeriy Chaly, Viktor Shokin (that'll make you shit blood, eh, Devin?), and more. And, sure, why not, let's get Hunter Biden. Do it up.
However, Democrats get to invite witnesses, too. Lev Parnas and Serhiy Leshchenko, perhaps. Hell, bring in Joe Biden.
Let's get it all out there. "Black book" and "Steele dossier" are still involved in this madness. So call back in Glenn Simpson, along with Peter Fritsch, two of the founders of Fusion GPS, who can explain one more goddamn time about the Republican origins of the Steele dossier and about how they have no connection to Ukraine and how deeply, deeply Trump is in with Russia.
snip//
We can't go on like this, as a country where there are two completely different versions of reality, one based in facts and one based in fantasy, especially when the fantasy side has built up a web of doubt against facts. If we had a functional news media (and no Fox "news" ), it could do the job. But we don't, and we now have the party that controls the executive branch, most of the judiciary, and half the legislative branch actively seeking to replace facts with fantasy. The kick in the ass is that most of them know it's a fantasy and don't give a shit as long as they maintain power.
It's an odious fucking task for Democrats. But while they have the ability to tear at that web through hearings, they need to do it until the goddamn thing snaps enough to make a difference. Or we're all gonna get trapped in it.
The Rude Pundit: Note to Democrats: Call the GOP's Bluff
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2019/11/note-to-democrats-call-gops-bluff.htmlThe Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse
11/25/2019
Note to Democrats: Call the GOP's Bluff
Oh, it would be a shit show of open sewer proportions, for sure. It would be a scuzzy circus on top of a cheap zoo covered with crazy sauce. But House Democrats should call the bluff of the increasingly divorced-from-reality Republicans and hold hearings on all the fuckery they claim has been going on. Like fuckin' all of it. Like let's attempt to blow this shit up once and for all.
Just tell Republicans at different committees, "You wanna go? Let's go, motherfuckers. Call your witnesses. But everyone has to go under oath. Every fucking witness."
Start with one bullshit conspiracy and then move on to the next. You wanna prove that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, Republicans? Fine. Look at one of Devin Nunes's repetitive mad rants during the impeachment hearings and see who they might want to testify. Alexandra Chalupa? Groovy. How about all the Ukrainians that Republicans claim know shit about Hunter Biden or the 2016 election? Awesome. Bring 'em all in, Valeriy Chaly, Viktor Shokin (that'll make you shit blood, eh, Devin?), and more. And, sure, why not, let's get Hunter Biden. Do it up.
However, Democrats get to invite witnesses, too. Lev Parnas and Serhiy Leshchenko, perhaps. Hell, bring in Joe Biden.
Let's get it all out there. "Black book" and "Steele dossier" are still involved in this madness. So call back in Glenn Simpson, along with Peter Fritsch, two of the founders of Fusion GPS, who can explain one more goddamn time about the Republican origins of the Steele dossier and about how they have no connection to Ukraine and how deeply, deeply Trump is in with Russia.
snip//
We can't go on like this, as a country where there are two completely different versions of reality, one based in facts and one based in fantasy, especially when the fantasy side has built up a web of doubt against facts. If we had a functional news media (and no Fox "news" ), it could do the job. But we don't, and we now have the party that controls the executive branch, most of the judiciary, and half the legislative branch actively seeking to replace facts with fantasy. The kick in the ass is that most of them know it's a fantasy and don't give a shit as long as they maintain power.
It's an odious fucking task for Democrats. But while they have the ability to tear at that web through hearings, they need to do it until the goddamn thing snaps enough to make a difference. Or we're all gonna get trapped in it.
November 26, 2019
Buttigieg picks up third congressional endorsement from New York lawmaker
By Rebecca Klar - 11/26/19 08:15 AM EST
New York Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) endorsed Pete Buttigieg (D) Tuesday in the Democratic presidential primary race, giving the South Bend, Ind., mayor his third congressional endorsement.
Rice, who had previously backed former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D) before he dropped out of the 2020 race, called Buttigieg a strong candidate to take on President Trump and unite the country after Trump is out.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/472034-buttigieg-picks-up-third-congressional-endorsement-from-new-york-lawmaker
Buttigieg picks up third congressional endorsement from New York lawmaker
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/472034-buttigieg-picks-up-third-congressional-endorsement-from-new-york-lawmakerButtigieg picks up third congressional endorsement from New York lawmaker
By Rebecca Klar - 11/26/19 08:15 AM EST
New York Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) endorsed Pete Buttigieg (D) Tuesday in the Democratic presidential primary race, giving the South Bend, Ind., mayor his third congressional endorsement.
Rice, who had previously backed former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D) before he dropped out of the 2020 race, called Buttigieg a strong candidate to take on President Trump and unite the country after Trump is out.
"Pete has demonstrated an unmatched ability and willingness to reach voters from across the political spectrum. He has introduced bold, yet commonsense policies that will address both our nation's long- and short-term challenges, and has avoided the divisive rhetoric that too often derails these important conversations," Rice said in a statement shared by the Buttigieg campaign.
"Pete represents the new voice and fresh perspective that our party and our country needs right now, and I'm proud to endorse him," she continued.
"Pete represents the new voice and fresh perspective that our party and our country needs right now, and I'm proud to endorse him," she continued.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/472034-buttigieg-picks-up-third-congressional-endorsement-from-new-york-lawmaker
November 26, 2019
Supreme Court Blocks Subpoena of Trump’s Financial Records for at Least 10 Days
By Mark Joseph Stern
Nov 25, 20197:09 PM
In an order issued on Monday night, the Supreme Court prevented the House of Representatives from obtaining Donald Trump’s financial records. In a unanimous decision, the justices blocked a lower court ruling compelling Trump’s former accounting firm, Mazars, to turn over the documents. Monday’s order invites Trump to ask the court to hear the case on the merits—setting up a potential showdown between Congress and the president before the Supreme Court in 2020.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena for Trump’s Mazars records in April as part of its investigation into presidential misconduct. At the time, the House was not pursuing an impeachment inquiry, but rather a host of urgent reforms. Michael Cohen had testified that the president engaged in financial malfeasance, and lawmakers sought Trump’s records to help fashion new laws addressing ethics and conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court has long held that courts must honor a congressional subpoena issued pursuant to a “legitimate legislative purpose.” A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the House subpoena easily met this lenient test.
But Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump nominee, dissented from the D.C. Circuit’s decision, crafting a novel theory that Congress may not investigate the president unless it does so pursuant to an impeachment inquiry. She added that the House’s decision to launch an impeachment inquiry does not matter because it cannot retroactively legitimize the subpoena. Backed by the Department of Justice, Trump appealed the D.C. Circuit’s decision to SCOTUS, urging the justices to adopt Rao’s bizarre argument and freeze the subpoena.
The Supreme Court did exactly that on Monday—with a catch. If Trump wants to keep the subpoena on ice, he must ask the court to hear the case on the merits by Dec. 5 at noon. Otherwise, the order will expire, the D.C. Circuit’s decision will take effect, and Mazars will be obligated to respond to the subpoena. Moreover, if Trump makes this request but the justices decline to take the case, the order will still expire. So Trump’s lawyers must now scramble to persuade the justices to hear this case in the coming months.
It is doubtful that the court would issue this unusual order if they planned to turn Trump away in a few weeks. More likely, the justices wanted to punt, putting off any real resolution for the time being. By doing so, however, they are only building anticipation for a fairly epic battle down the road. Presuming the justices take the case, they will hear arguments in the winter or spring and issue a decision by June, in the midst of the presidential campaign. Chief Justice John Roberts—who is almost certainly the swing vote in this case—will soon have to decide whether to run interference for Trump or respect Congress’ oversight authority. This dispute will reveal whether Roberts is more faithful to the Constitution or the Trump administration’s deranged view of unbridled executive power. There is good reason to believe that the chief justice will side with the rule of law.
Supreme Court Blocks Subpoena of Trump's Financial Records for at Least 10 Days
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/trump-supreme-court-subpoena-mazars.htmlSupreme Court Blocks Subpoena of Trump’s Financial Records for at Least 10 Days
By Mark Joseph Stern
Nov 25, 20197:09 PM
In an order issued on Monday night, the Supreme Court prevented the House of Representatives from obtaining Donald Trump’s financial records. In a unanimous decision, the justices blocked a lower court ruling compelling Trump’s former accounting firm, Mazars, to turn over the documents. Monday’s order invites Trump to ask the court to hear the case on the merits—setting up a potential showdown between Congress and the president before the Supreme Court in 2020.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena for Trump’s Mazars records in April as part of its investigation into presidential misconduct. At the time, the House was not pursuing an impeachment inquiry, but rather a host of urgent reforms. Michael Cohen had testified that the president engaged in financial malfeasance, and lawmakers sought Trump’s records to help fashion new laws addressing ethics and conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court has long held that courts must honor a congressional subpoena issued pursuant to a “legitimate legislative purpose.” A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the House subpoena easily met this lenient test.
But Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump nominee, dissented from the D.C. Circuit’s decision, crafting a novel theory that Congress may not investigate the president unless it does so pursuant to an impeachment inquiry. She added that the House’s decision to launch an impeachment inquiry does not matter because it cannot retroactively legitimize the subpoena. Backed by the Department of Justice, Trump appealed the D.C. Circuit’s decision to SCOTUS, urging the justices to adopt Rao’s bizarre argument and freeze the subpoena.
The Supreme Court did exactly that on Monday—with a catch. If Trump wants to keep the subpoena on ice, he must ask the court to hear the case on the merits by Dec. 5 at noon. Otherwise, the order will expire, the D.C. Circuit’s decision will take effect, and Mazars will be obligated to respond to the subpoena. Moreover, if Trump makes this request but the justices decline to take the case, the order will still expire. So Trump’s lawyers must now scramble to persuade the justices to hear this case in the coming months.
It is doubtful that the court would issue this unusual order if they planned to turn Trump away in a few weeks. More likely, the justices wanted to punt, putting off any real resolution for the time being. By doing so, however, they are only building anticipation for a fairly epic battle down the road. Presuming the justices take the case, they will hear arguments in the winter or spring and issue a decision by June, in the midst of the presidential campaign. Chief Justice John Roberts—who is almost certainly the swing vote in this case—will soon have to decide whether to run interference for Trump or respect Congress’ oversight authority. This dispute will reveal whether Roberts is more faithful to the Constitution or the Trump administration’s deranged view of unbridled executive power. There is good reason to believe that the chief justice will side with the rule of law.
November 25, 2019
Posted on Mon, Nov 25th, 2019 by Jason Easley
Lindsey Graham Just May Have Gotten Trump’s Kids Investigated
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney said that he is more than happy to have a conversation with America about the corruption of Donald Trump’s kids.
Rep. Maloney (D-NY) tweeted in response to Sen. Graham wanting to investigate Biden’s son:
Earlier in the day, House Judiciary and Intelligence Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) brought up Ivanka Trump in response to Sen. Graham’s tweet.
One of the main reasons why Trump and Graham’s effort to Benghazi hearing Joe Biden isn’t going to work is that unlike in the 2016 campaign, the House is controlled by Democrats, and the tweets by Democratic members should be read as a warning. Lindsey Graham doesn’t want to go there. There is a mountain of evidence that Donald Trump’s kids are up to their eyeballs in conflicts of interest.
Lindsey Graham may end up getting Trump’s kids investigated in his bid to smear Joe Biden.
Lindsey Graham Just May Have Gotten Trump's Kids Investigated
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/11/25/lindsey-graham-trump-kids.htmlPosted on Mon, Nov 25th, 2019 by Jason Easley
Lindsey Graham Just May Have Gotten Trump’s Kids Investigated
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney said that he is more than happy to have a conversation with America about the corruption of Donald Trump’s kids.
Rep. Maloney (D-NY) tweeted in response to Sen. Graham wanting to investigate Biden’s son:
Sean Patrick Maloney
✔
@RepSeanMaloney
If @LindseyGrahamSC wants to talk about how the kids of powerful people benefit from their parents’ officeholding - I’m more than happy to have that conversation.
We just need to invite Donald Trump Jr., Eric, Jared and Ivanka to join it... https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1199001745852129280 …
✔
@RepSeanMaloney
If @LindseyGrahamSC wants to talk about how the kids of powerful people benefit from their parents’ officeholding - I’m more than happy to have that conversation.
We just need to invite Donald Trump Jr., Eric, Jared and Ivanka to join it... https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1199001745852129280 …
Lindsey Graham
✔
@LindseyGrahamSC
I love Joe Biden as a person but we are not going to give a pass to what is obviously a conflict of interest.
I believe Hunter Biden’s association on the Burisma board doesn’t pass the smell test.
If a Republican was in the same position, they’d certainly be investigated!
8,598
4:01 PM - Nov 25, 2019
✔
@LindseyGrahamSC
I love Joe Biden as a person but we are not going to give a pass to what is obviously a conflict of interest.
I believe Hunter Biden’s association on the Burisma board doesn’t pass the smell test.
If a Republican was in the same position, they’d certainly be investigated!
8,598
4:01 PM - Nov 25, 2019
Earlier in the day, House Judiciary and Intelligence Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) brought up Ivanka Trump in response to Sen. Graham’s tweet.
One of the main reasons why Trump and Graham’s effort to Benghazi hearing Joe Biden isn’t going to work is that unlike in the 2016 campaign, the House is controlled by Democrats, and the tweets by Democratic members should be read as a warning. Lindsey Graham doesn’t want to go there. There is a mountain of evidence that Donald Trump’s kids are up to their eyeballs in conflicts of interest.
Lindsey Graham may end up getting Trump’s kids investigated in his bid to smear Joe Biden.
November 25, 2019
11/25/19
Trump Isn't Righting A Wrong, He's Covering Up SEAL's Alleged War Crimes
Eddie Gallagher was only acquitted after one witness's suspicious last-minute change of testimony.
By Susie Madrak
One important fact that's not emphasized in the Navy SEALs story is that Eddie Gallagher was accused of war crimes that were witnessed by his own men -- and was only acquitted after one witness who had repeatedly told investigators what happened, suddenly claimed he himself committed the murders -- after he received immunity. This is not about the Fox News version of a hero who was inexplicably wronged, and a president who stepped in to right that wrong. This is about war crimes.
Please note: The SEALs have a code of silence that rivals any big-city police department. Via the New York Times:
This trial was equivalent to cops turning on their superiors. Imagine the courage it took for them to testify:
So we have eyewitness testimony from his own men that Gallagher committed shocking crimes -- and a last-minute "confession" from another SEAL who already had immunity. Keep this in mind when you hear Trump praising this man.
Trump Isn't Righting A Wrong, He's Covering Up SEAL's Alleged War Crimes
https://crooksandliars.com/2019/11/trump-isnt-righting-wrong-hes-covering11/25/19
Trump Isn't Righting A Wrong, He's Covering Up SEAL's Alleged War Crimes
Eddie Gallagher was only acquitted after one witness's suspicious last-minute change of testimony.
By Susie Madrak
One important fact that's not emphasized in the Navy SEALs story is that Eddie Gallagher was accused of war crimes that were witnessed by his own men -- and was only acquitted after one witness who had repeatedly told investigators what happened, suddenly claimed he himself committed the murders -- after he received immunity. This is not about the Fox News version of a hero who was inexplicably wronged, and a president who stepped in to right that wrong. This is about war crimes.
Please note: The SEALs have a code of silence that rivals any big-city police department. Via the New York Times:
Three SEALs testified that while the platoon was deployed in Iraq, they saw Chief Gallagher fire a sniper rifle repeatedly at unarmed civilians, hitting an old man with a white beard and a school-age girl with a flowered hijab. Those shootings are included among the charges in the war-crimes trial, charges that the chief denies.
Because Special Operator Scott was just a foot away when the captive was stabbed, and remained with the captive until he died, he is considered a crucial witness in the trial. His testimony on Thursday blindsided some of his friends in the SEAL platoon who text one another regularly in a group chat that they call the “sewing circle,” according to one SEAL in the circle. The SEAL, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the case, said the medic had never mentioned killing the captive to the SEALs in the circle.
Because Special Operator Scott was just a foot away when the captive was stabbed, and remained with the captive until he died, he is considered a crucial witness in the trial. His testimony on Thursday blindsided some of his friends in the SEAL platoon who text one another regularly in a group chat that they call the “sewing circle,” according to one SEAL in the circle. The SEAL, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the case, said the medic had never mentioned killing the captive to the SEALs in the circle.
This trial was equivalent to cops turning on their superiors. Imagine the courage it took for them to testify:
Special Operator Dalton Tolbert, a sniper who was in Chief Gallagher’s platoon in 2017 and is now assigned to SEAL Team Six, testified on Friday that he had witnessed Chief Gallagher shoot an old man who, he said, “didn’t deserve to die.”
He told the court that he believes he will probably be cut from SEAL Team 6 because of his part in the trial and the public attention it has drawn. But despite that, he sent other platoon members a text message a few weeks before the trial urging them not to give in to pressure to keep silent.
“I know guys are all in different situations right now,” he wrote. “Some are worried about careers, others threatened with jail time or even death threats.” But if any of his fellow SEALs refused to testify out of loyalty to Chief Gallagher or to the SEALs’ culture of silence, he wrote, “I think our friendship will end there.”
He told the court that he believes he will probably be cut from SEAL Team 6 because of his part in the trial and the public attention it has drawn. But despite that, he sent other platoon members a text message a few weeks before the trial urging them not to give in to pressure to keep silent.
“I know guys are all in different situations right now,” he wrote. “Some are worried about careers, others threatened with jail time or even death threats.” But if any of his fellow SEALs refused to testify out of loyalty to Chief Gallagher or to the SEALs’ culture of silence, he wrote, “I think our friendship will end there.”
So we have eyewitness testimony from his own men that Gallagher committed shocking crimes -- and a last-minute "confession" from another SEAL who already had immunity. Keep this in mind when you hear Trump praising this man.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,105
