Octopus Overlords

Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:35 pm Shocking nobody he's filed to have it blocked while his appeal is heard. Based on the previous judgements this shouldn't happen, but of course it will. Master of abusing the court systems.

I'm not sure that he's such a master of it. It's more that McConnell has stacked the appellate courts with conservative judges willing to help out on stuff like this.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:48 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:35 pm Shocking nobody he's filed to have it blocked while his appeal is heard. Based on the previous judgements this shouldn't happen, but of course it will. Master of abusing the court systems.

I'm not sure that he's such a master of it. It's more that McConnell has stacked the appellate courts with conservative judges willing to help out on stuff like this.

This is crap he's been doing his entire life was my point. Even prior to being president he abused the living hell out of anything he could. I seriously have never hated anyone more than that piece of crap.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:48 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:35 pm Shocking nobody he's filed to have it blocked while his appeal is heard. Based on the previous judgements this shouldn't happen, but of course it will. Master of abusing the court systems.

I'm not sure that he's such a master of it. It's more that McConnell has stacked the appellate courts with conservative judges willing to help out on stuff like this.

No. No. Very serious people keep saying this is the system working as expected. Anyway, in reality the wrinkle of course is that these are Democratic appointed judges. I suspect they are granting the injunction because they got it at the last minute and the egg will be already broken if they didn't grant it. Still I'll say it again, this system is unable to confront the very real legal attack under way in any sort of timely manner. We're fucked.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:21 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:48 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:35 pm Shocking nobody he's filed to have it blocked while his appeal is heard. Based on the previous judgements this shouldn't happen, but of course it will. Master of abusing the court systems.

I'm not sure that he's such a master of it. It's more that McConnell has stacked the appellate courts with conservative judges willing to help out on stuff like this.

No. No. Very serious people keep saying this is the system working as expected. Anyway, in reality the wrinkle of course is that these are Democratic appointed judges. I suspect they are granting the injunction because they got it at the last minute and the egg will be already broken if they didn't grant it. Still I'll say it again, this system is unable to confront the very real legal attack under way in any sort of timely manner. We're fucked.

It was an unopposed motion to stay along with a request for an expedited briefing schedule. These are going to granted close to 100% of the time by any appellate court, regardless if the panel is made up of Democratic or Republican appointed judges. All briefing will be completed in two weeks and a hearing is set for 11/30.

This one is not a big deal, honestly.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:55 am

This one is not a big deal, honestly.

Right I get the mechanics. The big deal for me is the speed. Our democracy is under attack and the system is just grinding away slowly unable to adjust to the pace. 6 months to stand up a committee. Weeks to request documents. Lawsuits that are designed to slow everything down. Appeals that take weeks/months. All while the people opposing our democracy are running flat out. We're going to lose this race.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 2:04 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:55 am

This one is not a big deal, honestly.

Right I get the mechanics. The big deal for me is the speed. Our democracy is under attack and the system is just grinding away slowly unable to adjust to the pace. 6 months to stand up a committee. Weeks to request documents. Lawsuits that are designed to slow everything down. Appeals that take weeks/months. All while the people opposing our democracy are running flat out. We're going to lose this race.

I am in your corner on this, but you realize what your describing has been the nature of the beast for at least the past 75 years if not many more. This is the template that made the mold that created the cookie cutter for large bureaucracies. The irony for me is this is one of the top complaints "small government", "keep your Federal assess out of my business" conservatives complain about and the one of the first recourses they turn to when pressed.

Nice! Hopefully that'll put pressure on Meadows et. al. The worry after I read the Lawfareblog piece above is that Bannon will take it to trial ... and might win.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:08 pm Nice! Hopefully that'll put pressure on Meadows et. al. The worry after I read the Lawfareblog piece above is that Bannon will take it to trial ... and might win.

...or lose and be immediately pardoned by whatever nightmare (R) wins the next presidential election after getting soundly trounced in the popular vote...

Distinctly possible as well.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:08 pm Nice! Hopefully that'll put pressure on Meadows et. al. The worry after I read the Lawfareblog piece above is that Bannon will take it to trial ... and might win.

I am not understanding how you think Bannon could possibly win if he took this to trial. I read the Lawfareblog quote in the other thread. The fact that the DOJ has taken positions previously in favor of a robust executive privilege is, in my mind, leaps and bounds away from the situation at hand with Bannon. Trump is not president. The privilege is not personal, so he is in no position to assert it. And it clearly has no application here anyway since Bannon wasn't even an executive branch employee at the time in question. This is just so much BS.

Also, I felt like the Lawfareblog piece made it seem like a contempt charge requires a heightened level of intent. I could be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the only intent required here was the intent to not comply with the subpoena. I didn't think that Bannon having a good faith, subjective belief that the subpoena was invalid has anything to do with the question. If that's not the case, please correct me.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:15 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:08 pm Nice! Hopefully that'll put pressure on Meadows et. al. The worry after I read the Lawfareblog piece above is that Bannon will take it to trial ... and might win.

I am not understanding how you think Bannon could possibly win if he took this to trial. I read the Lawfareblog quote in the other thread. The fact that the DOJ has taken positions previously in favor of a robust executive privilege is, in my mind, leaps and bounds away from the situation at hand with Bannon. Trump is not president. The privilege is not personal, so he is in no position to assert it. And it clearly has no application here anyway since Bannon wasn't even an executive branch employee at the time in question. This is just so much BS.

I totally agree it should be BS but they seem to be indicating there will be potentially complicated defenses and we have to hope a potential jury is able to decide them.

Also, I felt like the Lawfareblog piece made it seem like a contempt charge requires a heightened level of intent. I could be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the only intent required here was the intent to not comply with the subpoena. I didn't think that Bannon having a good faith, subjective belief that the subpoena was invalid has anything to do with the question. If that's not the case, please correct me.

My read was that he could argue he believed he had good reason not to comply - even as obviously steeped in bullshit those arguments will be. The defect that work against him though there is that usually you have to appear to claim the privilege.

Anyway, where it comes to "imperial" Presidency stuff for me it comes down to it gets complicated and that doesn't make anything a slam dunk. Charging him is a good step and a win all its own IMO. An indictment is no small thing and might give some of these dumbasses at least a moment of pause before thumbing their noses at Congress.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:37 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:15 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:08 pm Nice! Hopefully that'll put pressure on Meadows et. al. The worry after I read the Lawfareblog piece above is that Bannon will take it to trial ... and might win.

I am not understanding how you think Bannon could possibly win if he took this to trial. I read the Lawfareblog quote in the other thread. The fact that the DOJ has taken positions previously in favor of a robust executive privilege is, in my mind, leaps and bounds away from the situation at hand with Bannon. Trump is not president. The privilege is not personal, so he is in no position to assert it. And it clearly has no application here anyway since Bannon wasn't even an executive branch employee at the time in question. This is just so much BS.

I totally agree it should be BS but they seem to be indicating there will be potentially complicated defenses and we have to hope a potential jury is able to decide them.

Also, I felt like the Lawfareblog piece made it seem like a contempt charge requires a heightened level of intent. I could be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the only intent required here was the intent to not comply with the subpoena. I didn't think that Bannon having a good faith, subjective belief that the subpoena was invalid has anything to do with the question. If that's not the case, please correct me.

My read was that he could argue he believed he had good reason not to comply - even as obviously steeped in bullshit those arguments will be. The defect that work against him though there is that usually you have to appear to claim the privilege.

Anyway, where it comes to "imperial" Presidency stuff for me it comes down to it gets complicated and that doesn't make anything a slam dunk. Charging him is a good step and a win all its own IMO. An indictment is no small thing and might give some of these dumbasses at least a moment of pause before thumbing their noses at Congress.

I don’t see it that way. The only good outcomes here are he complies with the subpoena and appears or he sits his ass in jail.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:55 pmI don’t see it that way. The only good outcomes here are he complies with the subpoena and appears or he sits his ass in jail.

Indeed. I'm just trying to find some positives because I'm pretty sure the first is not happening and the second is a ways off at the moment.

Trump HAS to win in 24. Otherwise he's gonna be going to prison. Tax evasion I think. Delay until then.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:21 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:48 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:35 pm Shocking nobody he's filed to have it blocked while his appeal is heard. Based on the previous judgements this shouldn't happen, but of course it will. Master of abusing the court systems.

I'm not sure that he's such a master of it. It's more that McConnell has stacked the appellate courts with conservative judges willing to help out on stuff like this.

No. No. Very serious people keep saying this is the system working as expected. Anyway, in reality the wrinkle of course is that these are Democratic appointed judges. I suspect they are granting the injunction because they got it at the last minute and the egg will be already broken if they didn't grant it. Still I'll say it again, this system is unable to confront the very real legal attack under way in any sort of timely manner. We're fucked.

The system IS working as expected…from the Republican party and especially Federalist Society perspective.

But it’s not just accidental ‘well oiled machine running smoothly’. It took them years, decades even, to get to this point of judicial dominance.

The party embraced it as a plank, and everyone moved in lockstep. Everyone on the same page wrt the courts, nominations, priority, etc: Federalist Society, Presidents, ‘R party operatives’, members of Congress, and maybe most importantly voters. And it’s been VERY effective.

I think the wrinkle and irony (for them) is that by achieving their Machiavellian-sequel goal, they have in effect destroyed the ‘majesty of the court’ where it gets its power.

We definitely live in interesting times already, but the next few years are going to be…riveting.

This is really something. A political party is paying for a former president’s legal bills for an investigation into his private business practices >

The Republican Party agreed to pay some of Trump’s legal bills in the N.Y. investigation about his finances. The party has paid lawyer Ronald Fischetti about $120k so far.

At least he's getting paid.

How many times is this?

Breaking Reuters: U.S. JUDGE DISMISSES CASE IN WHICH FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO KEEP HIS TAX RETURNS FROM CONGRESS -COURT DOCUMENT

Oh look, he's appealing the ruling:

A federal judge on Tuesday dealt a blow to former President Donald Trump's bid to keep his tax returns from Congress, ruling that the Treasury Department could disclose them to the House committee that requested them more than two years ago.

Overnight, Trump's attorneys told the court they would appeal.

The decision stems from the case initially brought by House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal against the Treasury Department under the Trump administration, when the department rebuffed his request for the returns under a law that allows disclosure of an individual's tax returns to the committee.

What is the point of you can just appeal forever?

Octavious wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 12:35 pm What is the point of you can just appeal forever?

Behold the majesty of due process in the United States*

*Only applicable if you're rich or powerful

Octavious wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 12:35 pm What is the point of you can just appeal forever?

Attorneys gotta eat.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:05 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 11:30 amThat said, really my main concern here is that Vance is running the show on this. I'm not an expert on him, but my general sense is that he doesn't have a great reputation for either competence or integrity. Though the NYAG is involved as well, though I'm not sure how long they've been on it.

Vance is a literal institutionalist. He was raised in the machine, he breathes it, and he has winked and nodded often at elites (including Kushner and Ivanka) which is why I'm glad she is involved.

Surprising absolutely no one Vance spent 3.5 years in this and came up empty.

And why should they? Nothing matters.

Former President Trump’s eldest son and daughter have refused to comply with subpoenas issued by the New York State attorney general’s office as it conducts a civil investigation into the way the family real estate business valued its holdings.

“A dispute has arisen between the OAG and the Individual Trump Parties regarding the Subpoenas,” a document filed Monday said.

The document, filed jointly by New York Attorney General Letitia James and an attorney for the Trump Organization, said Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump will now be named as respondents in James’ ongoing inquiry, which parallels a criminal investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office.

Subpoenas are only for the little people who can't afford to delay them years.

I still remember how excited I was in 2019 for the Democrats to gain subpoena power. What a sweet summer child I was.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 3:54 pm I still remember how excited I was in 2019 for the Democrats to gain subpoena power. What a sweet summer child I was.

I guess you completely forgot about the MULTIPLE stern tweets, right? I believe a few letters threatening to consider strong action were written as well. DID YOU FORGET THE LETTERS?!

Good old Merrick Garland is going to step out and tell us they are totes taking this very seriously.

Oh thank God. We're saved.

'Commitment to defend' is a future-oriented statement. 'Hold accountable' would be one directed at past actions.

I have an unwavering committment to mercilessly mock comments like this from the weak Democrats that want to seem like they can or are willing to ACTUALLY do something.

Holding out hope here for some justice.

I've been skeptical that state or local authorities would be the ones to charge Trump. They'd have to withstand a metric shit ton of pressure, plus there are actually genuinely good reasons to worry about empowering local criminal authorities to charge current or former Presidents (imagine how many Arpaios and Abbots of the world would love pursuing insane theories against Obama / Clinton / etc.).

That said, Georgia is intruiging because Trump was specifically targeting Georgia's election system / results.

Of course, I would think that the Georgia state government would come down on Fulton County like a ton of bricks if they pursue this.

El Guapo wrote:I've been skeptical that state or local authorities would be the ones to charge Trump. They'd have to withstand a metric shit ton of pressure, plus there are actually genuinely good reasons to worry about empowering local criminal authorities to charge current or former Presidents (imagine how many Arpaios and Abbots of the world would love pursuing insane theories against Obama / Clinton / etc.).

That said, Georgia is intruiging because Trump was specifically targeting Georgia's election system / results.

Of course, I would think that the Georgia state government would come down on Fulton County like a ton of bricks if they pursue this.

And is on tape doing just that. (but, this isn't the first time he's been caught on tape breaking the law).

This is the civil case btw - it means big trouble for the Trump Organization potentially but the underlying crimes that got it that way? Who knows if they'll get there. That is actually part of why they are resisting subpoenas in this civil case claiming it'll be used against them in criminal proceedings.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:55 am This is the civil case btw - it means big trouble for the Trump Organization potentially but the underlying crimes that got it that way? Who knows if they'll get there. That is actually part of why they are resisting subpoenas in this civil case claiming it'll be used against them in criminal proceedings.

And not to bring the law into it, BUT: (1) there's no fifth amendment (or other right) to not produce documents pursuant to subpoena even if those documents are incriminating, unless the subpoena is written in a really weird way (e.g., "please produce all documents that prove that you committed a crime"); (2) there's no fifth amendment right not to show up to testify pursuant to a subpoena (but you can show up and assert the right in response to any particular question).

Hey they got Al Capone on tax evasion...never know. Im just surprised NO ONE investigated a millionaire who pays less tax than me.