Oversight/Intel Committees: Allen Weisselberg Testimony, Trump Org CFO; Mazars USA; Re Financial Records

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9786
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Oversight/Intel Committees: Allen Weisselberg Testimony, Trump Org CFO; Mazars USA; Re Financial Records

#101

Post by GreatGrey » Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:34 am

So, Trump appointee Neomi Rao was the dissenter.

She gets ripped in the opinion.

I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.


TexasFilly
Posts: 18328
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: Oversight/Intel Committees: Allen Weisselberg Testimony, Trump Org CFO; Mazars USA; Re Financial Records

#103

Post by TexasFilly » Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:32 am

The opinion upholding the subpoena is excruciatingly detailed and thorough. If you read it (and I understand if you won't), you will see how having competent counsel in the House is critical. Good job.
I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Oversight/Intel Committees: Allen Weisselberg Testimony, Trump Org CFO; Mazars USA; Re Financial Records

#104

Post by fierceredpanda » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:16 pm

TexasFilly wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:32 am
The opinion upholding the subpoena is excruciatingly detailed and thorough. If you read it (and I understand if you won't), you will see how having competent counsel in the House is critical. Good job.
:yeah:
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27055
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Oversight/Intel Committees: Allen Weisselberg Testimony, Trump Org CFO; Mazars USA; Re Financial Records

#105

Post by bob » Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:15 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:24 am
Of course, the ruling will now be stayed for six more months while Trump's lawyers try to get it reheard en banc and Noel Francisco makes up some utterly nonsensical reason why SCOTUS needs to take up the case.
Enforcement of the subpoena has been stayed for seven days, so that the current president can seek rehearing, rehearing en banc, or cert. in SCOTUS.

And at each stage, the current president could seek an additional stay. If delaying for delay's sake, I could seek the current president asking for all three forms of review coupled with additional requests for a stay at each stage.

If trying to win on the merits, the current president should just leave the D.C. Cir., and ask for cert. (and a stay) in SCOTUS. Both, I think, would be granted.


FYI: The dissenting judge was Kavanaugh's replacement.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 22062
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Oversight/Intel Committees: Allen Weisselberg Testimony, Trump Org CFO; Mazars USA; Re Financial Records

#106

Post by RTH10260 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:19 pm

same:
Congress Can Seek Trump’s Financial Records, Appeals Court Rules

By Charlie Savage
Oct. 11, 2019 Updated 1:26 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s accounting firm must comply with House Democrats’ demands for eight years of his financial records, a federal appeals court panel ruled on Friday in a major victory for House Democrats in their struggle against his vow to stonewall “all” of their oversight subpoenas.

In a 66-page ruling, the panel rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that Congress had no legitimate legislative authority to seek his business records from the firm, Mazars USA, because the committee was trying to determine whether he broke existing laws — not weighing whether to enact a new one.

“Having considered the weighty issues at stake in this case, we conclude that the subpoena issued by the committee to Mazars is valid and enforceable,” wrote Judge David S. Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Trump is virtually certain to appeal the ruling, either to the full Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court. But the decision — affirming an earlier ruling by a Federal District Court judge — was the first test at the appeals court level of the Trump legal team’s sweeping challenges to the constitutional authority of Congress to conduct oversight of his activities.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/us/p ... turns.html

Post Reply

Return to “Congress”