Post by the Scribe on May 11, 2020 21:42:23 GMT
There are 3 cases that are at the Supreme Court to check out. They are 19-635 Trump vs. Vance (the prosecutor at the Southern District of NY.) 19-715 Trump vs. Mazars USA LLP, Trump's Accounting Firm and 19-760 Trump vs. Deutsche Bank, where Trump received a huge loan that was red flagged by some associates but was authorized by prior Justice Kennedy's son who worked there. Justice Kavanaugh clerked for Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy conveniently retired and Kavanaugh was installed. It was all Pay for Play so Trump could put Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in the Supreme Court to vote in Trump's favor. Will they follow the Constitution and their oath of office?
We already know Trump is a criminal but we need the proof and we need to set precedent so we don't go through this again when the loser wins. Funny how the Supremes had NO problem stealing the election away from Gore in 2000. They couldn't act fast enough to stop the vote count that later proved Gore won Florida and therefore the election. Imagine what a different world we would have on had these partisan supreme court conservative hacks not done that. No 9/11, no war in Iraq and Afghanistan, no 2008 economic crash, a GREEN ECONOMY by now, healthcare for all, etc. And just look at the mess Trump and the GOP conservatives have gotten us into again. As if the 2008 Republicon caused Great Recession wasn't bad enough. We are headed to a 2nd Republicon caused Great Depression. Keep these immoral criminals OUT of ALL offices.
Supreme Court battle over Donald Trump's finances carries risks for all three branches
www.yahoo.com/gma/white-house-looks-precautions-two-staffers-test-positive-144800102.html
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
USA TODAYMay 11, 2020, 12:26 PM MST
Supreme Court battle over Donald Trump's finances carries risks for all three branches
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump's effort to keep his personal and corporate financial records away from congressional and law enforcement investigators comes before the Supreme Court Tuesday amid indications some justices may be reluctant to weigh in.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/13/donald-trump-tax-financial-data-supreme-court/4410231002/
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/05/donald-trump-taxes-records-supreme-court-protect/2610694001/
The dramatic oral arguments, to be conducted by telephone amid the coronavirus pandemic and broadcast live, could result in historic rulings on a president's immunity from investigation while in office and Congress' oversight powers, right in the middle of the 2020 presidential campaign.
Or not.
Perhaps with an eye on the potential political repercussions, the court last month asked both sides fighting over congressional subpoenas to address whether the battle may be a "political question" beyond the reach of federal courts. If the justices so decide, they could avoid putting a thumb on the scale favoring the president or Congress.
"It's an uncomfortable position for the court," says Peter Shane, who teaches constitutional law at Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. "There’s nothing in it for the court to antagonize one of them if they don’t have to."
Among the justices who might find that attractive are Chief Justice John Roberts, who seeks to keep the court out of politics when possible, and Trump's two high court nominees, Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who otherwise face the choice of protecting or opposing the president who nominated them.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/05/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-chief-justice-john-roberts-winner/4648889002/
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/28/supreme-courts-conservative-shift-stalls-political-scrutiny-swells/1573001001/
Chief Justice John Roberts presided over President Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate.
Roberts wrote the court's 5-4 decision last summer that said disputes over partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures were "political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/27/supreme-court-allows-republican-democratic-partisan-election-maps/1290693001/
"In a novel political fight like this, the court might well look for ways both to extricate itself and to keep future fights like this out of the court system," says Lawrence Joseph, an attorney who suggested that approach to the court on behalf of the conservative Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund.
But both sides in the current dispute urged the justices Friday to weigh in on the merits rather than invoke the "political question" doctrine.
"Judicial abstention here would not fence off the court from 'a political tug-of-war,'" Trump's lawyer William Consovoy wrote. "It would be writing every congressional committee a blank check to subpoena any personal records it wants from any president any time it wishes simply by seeking those records from a custodian with no incentive to draw the ire of Congress. That is constitutionally intolerable."
"It is in the committees’ interest for this court to reach the merits now, rather than to let doubts as to the subpoenas’ validity linger," House general counsel Douglas Letter agreed. "It is also in the interest of the executive branch for this court to reach the merits here. The courts should be available to provide the executive branch safeguards, should it ever need them."
Risks for all three branches
It's not clear whether punting the battle with Congress back to the executive and legislative branches would help or hurt Trump in the end. House Democrats are seeking banking and accounting records held by Mazars USA, Deutsche Bank and Capital One. In a stalemate between the White House and Congress, they could refuse to release them or hand them over.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/11/trump-accounting-firm-mazars-usa-must-turn-over-documents-court-says/2273146001/
The legal battles pit Trump against three House committees, controlled by Democrats, that have issued subpoenas for eight years of financial documents. A separate fight involves Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance's subpoena for similar documents as well as the tax returns that Trump, unlike recent predecessors, has not released voluntarily.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/10/15/trump-cant-block-subpoena-for-tax-returns-prosecutor-argues/3980193002/
Lawmakers claim the records will help determine the need for future legislation in areas such as campaign finance law, bank loan practices, and efforts to prevent foreign influence in elections. Trump's lawyers say it's a fishing expedition to see if the president is guilty of tax fraud or money laundering.
All three branches of government have much at stake:
• The political earthquake that some justices may be seeking to sidestep would be most acutely felt if the president loses and the documents are made public during his reelection campaign. For nearly five years since declaring his candidacy in 2015, Trump has managed to keep his tax returns and much of his financial data from prying eyes.
"Publicly releasing information about individuals is a form of punishment," Trump's lawyers argue in court papers. "Yet that has been the goal here from the start."
• Congress has much at stake as well. Its oversight authority could be constrained by a ruling in Trump's favor, setting a precedent for future investigations – particularly those viewed as partisan.
"In more than 20 cases concerning the scope of Congress’s power to investigate, this court has only once held that a congressional inquiry exceeded its constitutional limits," House lawyers contend in defending the subpoenas.
• There also are high stakes facing the high court. If it sides with Trump along ideological lines – with five justices named by Republican presidents in the majority and four named by Democrats in dissent – it could emerge as damaged goods in the eyes of the public.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/07/abortion-immigration-gays-guns-supreme-court-blockbuster-term/3844507002/
"If the president wins and it’s 5-4 … there will be people claiming that the president's appointees have come to his defense," says Saikrishna Prakash, a University of Virginia law professor whose recent book, The Living Presidency, warns of its ever-expanding powers.
'Private lives of presidents'
The congressional subpoenas emanate from three House committees, rather than one or both houses of Congress – a potential shortcoming Trump's lawyers have sought to impress upon the Supreme Court.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena to Mazars USA, Trump's accounting firm, more than a year ago seeking financial records from the president, his family business, a trust and the company that runs Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. Thus far, two federal courts have upheld the subpoena.
Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that as a private citizen, Trump routinely overstated or understated his holdings for financial gain. The panel wants to compare eight years of financial documents to Cohen's testimony and government disclosures.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/27/michael-cohen-evidence-documents-given-congress-trump/3003149002/
The House Financial Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One more than a year ago seeking records from Trump, his three oldest children and the Trump Organization. The panels are probing risky lending practices by major financial institutions and efforts by Russia to influence U.S. elections. They have been upheld twice in lower courts.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/03/deutsche-bank-trumps-lender-must-turn-over-financial-records/2595336001/
Letter said the records are needed to help determine "whether senior government officials, including the president, are acting in the country's best interest and not in their own financial interest."
But Consovoy warned the justices that "given the obvious temptation to investigate the personal affairs of political rivals, subpoenas concerning the private lives of presidents will become routine in times of divided government."
The Manhattan DA's subpoenas came later as part of a criminal probe of hush-money payments that Cohen said were made to adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claimed they had affairs with Trump that he has denied. Once again, two lower courts upheld the subpoenas.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/18/justice-department-weighed-rule-not-charging-president-ending-trump-hush-money-case/1769339001/
Trump's lawyers have argued that the president has absolute immunity while in office from grand jury investigations of criminal conduct. During oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, they contended Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and escape prosecution until he leaves office.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/23/president-donald-trump-could-shoot-someone-without-prosecution/4073405002/
"Local officials ... cannot exercise their power to hinder the chief executive in the performance of the duties that he owes to the undivided nation," they argue in court papers. "The risk that politics will lead state and local prosecutors to relentlessly harass the president is simply too great to tolerate."
Nixon, Clinton, Trump
The legal battles are nothing new for Trump. As a New York-based real estate developer and reality TV star, he made it a practice to bring his personal and professional beefs to court. Since winning the White House, he has done the same thing on political and policy matters.
A USA TODAY analysis in 2016 of legal filings across the United States found that Trump and his businesses had been involved in at least 4,000 legal actions in federal and state courts over three decades, ranging from million-dollar real estate battles to personal defamation lawsuits.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/07/new-usa-today-interactive-database-shows-trump-lawsuits-surpass-4000/86809010/
Since his election, Trump has had better luck at the Supreme Court than the lower courts that have blocked many of his policies, particularly on immigration.
The administration has asked the justices for emergency stays of lower court actions 26 times in three-plus years, compared to eight times in the previous 16 years, according to University of Texas School of Law professor Stephen Vladeck. The court has complied in 15 of those cases, at least in part.
But in previous high-profile battles over documents or testimony, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Presidents Richard Nixon in 1974 and Bill Clinton in 1997, with their nominees in agreement. The decisions led eventually to Nixon's resignation and Clinton's impeachment.
That history raises the pressure on today's high court, which Roberts has said should seek unanimity wherever possible.
"At a time we are so politicized and Trump is such a polarizing president, I hope that the court doesn’t come down 5-4 along partisan lines," says Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Berkeley School of Law. "I do think the court's credibility is on the line."
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump's financial records: Congress, Supreme Court face risks
1 TERM LOSER9 hours ago
President Trump to claim 'absolute immunity' from subpoenas in Supreme Court appeal
Attorneys for President Donald Trump this week will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to grant him sweeping immunity from investigation by Congress and local prosecutors into his conduct as a private citizen, as long as he's still in office.
During oral arguments in three cases Tuesday, the justices will explore Trump's claim that he cannot be subjected to subpoenas or any criminal investigative process, by virtue of the demands of the presidency.
The assertion of expansive presidential power comes as Trump faces an array of mounting requests for his personal and business financial records. His efforts to challenge the subpoenas in federal courts have, so far, been unsuccessful at every level.
MORE: Supreme Court to livestream arguments in Trump financial records cases
"These are critical cases that are going to decide whether or not a president, in office, has presidential immunity for the duration of the time that he is sitting in office," said Claire Finkelstein, a criminal law expert at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and director of its Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law.
"It would literally put the president above the law if the Supreme Court sides with the president's lawyers in this case," Finkelstein said.
The outcome will also determine whether Trump -- the only modern American president to have not publicly released tax returns or divest from major business interests while in office -- has to share more personal financial information with voters before the November election.
Brian8 hours ago
Given the repeated refusal of the executive branch to comply with oversight by the legislative branch, I see no choice but for the judicial branch to intervene and confirm the constitutional validity of oversight. Otherwise, every future administration will claim oversight is political and refuse to comply.
Roy10 hours ago
The issue is simple, is our Supreme Court and the decisions made by them to be a “tool” as payback to one political group or to the all the citizens of America.
As to “uncomfortable decisions” is this not the purpose of the supreme court, this is their main job. If this court is not willing to answer questions that can only be answered smoothly by them, then why would we need this court opinions on any issue.
Even with today’s current technology we the citizen can not just turn on a computer sign in and vote our political preference on issues. We need legal scholars and experienced independent thinker of this court to decide what the history of America will be. This Branch of the Government should only have the best interest of the majority of the citizens of this republic. No decision should be made to pay back a debt believed owed to a political party. The decisions made by this current court will determine how the Democratic President and democratic Senate might think about adding to the number of Judges now seated as the only way to achieve fairness for all the citizens.
1 TERM LOSER9 hours ago
Trump, unlike other presidents in recent decades, has refused to make his returns public. He also has refused to divest himself of businesses and investments that could pose domestic or international conflicts of interest. For example, the Trump International Hotel, located just blocks from the White House, regularly hosts events with foreign diplomats, interest groups and industry associations.The Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution will be rendered meaningless if Democrats in Congress aren't allowed to sue President Trump for violating it, a lawyer for nearly 200 Democratic senators and representatives told a federal judge today.
"There's simply nothing Congress can do to stop the president's actions, no matter who's in control of the body," said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel of the Constitution Accountability Center, representing the Democratic lawmakers.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction compelling Trump to comply with the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which requires federal officials to get congressional consent before they accept gifts or rewards — emoluments — from foreign governments or officials. Trump has never sought that consent; he and his lawyers maintain the clause doesn't apply to his business holdings.
Without court-ordered enforcement, Gorod said, Washington "would essentially write the Foreign Emoluments Clause out of existence."
Gorod and Brett Shumate, a Justice Department lawyer representing Trump, made their arguments to Federal District Judge Emmett Sullivan over whether the Democratic lawmakers have legal standing to sue.
Stuart10 hours ago
It is clear the court has already cordoned itself off into political corners and made itself in many cases irrelevant. Roberts, often discussed as the one who wants to "balance the court" to make it seem not political has also been very transparent in his attempts to hide the fact he votes Republican on a decision when it most benefits Republicans and when the stakes are not so high (Obamacare which is under threat anyway the court cuts it for one example or the opposite like in the Voter Suppression technique of Gerrymandering when it will really effect the Republican Party).
He, perhaps is the most vile in his attempts at hiding the obvious...the Court now really just a "court" with heavy bias that threatens the cohesiveness of the country in that fewer and fewer Americans actually believe the court is impartial in Governmental Decisions.
I, for one, a strong Defender of the Constitution (in its real form) as evidenced by my willingness to do my duty in Viet Nam while so many others including our current "president" chose to duck and hide by lying to escape the draft, find the original Court void of any legitimacy in the ongoing battle of the wealthy against the poor in the cases of true meaning as to the winner in the battle.
So not only does the Republican court support the dictatorial and clearly UnConstitutional machinations of the Wealthy in their battle against any countervailing force (i.e. Unions, the Rise of Women as Equals (anti equal rights for women...in the abortion issues), Labor Laws (in which they favor the side of Employers) and generally any business interest over and above that of the American People.
Under the covers it is clear that through their concerted long term decisions they have made America no longer a democracy but a Corporatocracy where by the wealthy through their corporations now are able to buy Congressional and Executive representatives to make laws favoring their growing control over most of the wealth of America through laws that punish workers and other citizens and favor the control of corporations over Americans ("Corporations are People Too" is just the headline of their many decisions elevating corporate power over that of the people.
What most Americans see as clean government decisions are constantly thwarted by the court in favor of those powerful interests that have lately seen the rise in those hate groups that favor the Republicans...White Nationalists, White Supremacy, Right Wing Protesters with their military grade weaponry of which the Founders would be aghast that their Constitution is being used (fabricated) to support whereas they expressly used the "Exclusionary Clause" to make it the purview of the States to decide.
It is clear that we the citizens of the United States have been stripped our our Power by Constitution in order to favor the few, the wealthy, those "elected" to govern us and who extract the wealth of America for their own power and wealth seeking ends.
This next election will determine perhaps the final chapter in their takeover of American Democracy prior to the need for Revolution by the People to right the Ship of Destiny. I urge you to vote to reestablish the real Constitutional Power of the People...not the suborned interests of those who would enslave us.
Otherwise the remedy is unthinkable!
Nam Combat Vet who once fought for a Constitutional Empowered Country.
L6 hours ago
The one thing Trump has done is show us what legislation needs to be passed to make sure nothing like him ever happens again. 1) All candidates for Federal office should have to release their taxes and, if they win, divest themselves of their private business connection - either by sale or by placing everything in a blind trust controlled by someone not related to them in any way. 2) Congressional subpoena powers need to be strengthened. It is part of their DUTY to perform oversight of the Executive Branch and no president should be able to stop that. There can be a codicil that records remain classified until illegal or unethical activity is discovered, but Congress needs to be able to perform its duties. 3) No president should be able to order underlings not to submit to Congressional subpoenas. 4) No president should be able to have private conversations with foreign leaders or other foreign nationals without oversight.
You will notice I didn't put ANY partisan information in there. Trump is trying to become a dictator, and we need to stop him. But if we allow this precedent, ANY president could take the same course, regardless of party, and that HAS to be stopped.
We already know Trump is a criminal but we need the proof and we need to set precedent so we don't go through this again when the loser wins. Funny how the Supremes had NO problem stealing the election away from Gore in 2000. They couldn't act fast enough to stop the vote count that later proved Gore won Florida and therefore the election. Imagine what a different world we would have on had these partisan supreme court conservative hacks not done that. No 9/11, no war in Iraq and Afghanistan, no 2008 economic crash, a GREEN ECONOMY by now, healthcare for all, etc. And just look at the mess Trump and the GOP conservatives have gotten us into again. As if the 2008 Republicon caused Great Recession wasn't bad enough. We are headed to a 2nd Republicon caused Great Depression. Keep these immoral criminals OUT of ALL offices.
Supreme Court battle over Donald Trump's finances carries risks for all three branches
www.yahoo.com/gma/white-house-looks-precautions-two-staffers-test-positive-144800102.html
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
USA TODAYMay 11, 2020, 12:26 PM MST
Supreme Court battle over Donald Trump's finances carries risks for all three branches
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump's effort to keep his personal and corporate financial records away from congressional and law enforcement investigators comes before the Supreme Court Tuesday amid indications some justices may be reluctant to weigh in.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/13/donald-trump-tax-financial-data-supreme-court/4410231002/
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/05/donald-trump-taxes-records-supreme-court-protect/2610694001/
The dramatic oral arguments, to be conducted by telephone amid the coronavirus pandemic and broadcast live, could result in historic rulings on a president's immunity from investigation while in office and Congress' oversight powers, right in the middle of the 2020 presidential campaign.
Or not.
Perhaps with an eye on the potential political repercussions, the court last month asked both sides fighting over congressional subpoenas to address whether the battle may be a "political question" beyond the reach of federal courts. If the justices so decide, they could avoid putting a thumb on the scale favoring the president or Congress.
"It's an uncomfortable position for the court," says Peter Shane, who teaches constitutional law at Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. "There’s nothing in it for the court to antagonize one of them if they don’t have to."
Among the justices who might find that attractive are Chief Justice John Roberts, who seeks to keep the court out of politics when possible, and Trump's two high court nominees, Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who otherwise face the choice of protecting or opposing the president who nominated them.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/05/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-chief-justice-john-roberts-winner/4648889002/
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/28/supreme-courts-conservative-shift-stalls-political-scrutiny-swells/1573001001/
Chief Justice John Roberts presided over President Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate.
Roberts wrote the court's 5-4 decision last summer that said disputes over partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures were "political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/27/supreme-court-allows-republican-democratic-partisan-election-maps/1290693001/
"In a novel political fight like this, the court might well look for ways both to extricate itself and to keep future fights like this out of the court system," says Lawrence Joseph, an attorney who suggested that approach to the court on behalf of the conservative Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund.
But both sides in the current dispute urged the justices Friday to weigh in on the merits rather than invoke the "political question" doctrine.
"Judicial abstention here would not fence off the court from 'a political tug-of-war,'" Trump's lawyer William Consovoy wrote. "It would be writing every congressional committee a blank check to subpoena any personal records it wants from any president any time it wishes simply by seeking those records from a custodian with no incentive to draw the ire of Congress. That is constitutionally intolerable."
"It is in the committees’ interest for this court to reach the merits now, rather than to let doubts as to the subpoenas’ validity linger," House general counsel Douglas Letter agreed. "It is also in the interest of the executive branch for this court to reach the merits here. The courts should be available to provide the executive branch safeguards, should it ever need them."
Risks for all three branches
It's not clear whether punting the battle with Congress back to the executive and legislative branches would help or hurt Trump in the end. House Democrats are seeking banking and accounting records held by Mazars USA, Deutsche Bank and Capital One. In a stalemate between the White House and Congress, they could refuse to release them or hand them over.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/11/trump-accounting-firm-mazars-usa-must-turn-over-documents-court-says/2273146001/
The legal battles pit Trump against three House committees, controlled by Democrats, that have issued subpoenas for eight years of financial documents. A separate fight involves Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance's subpoena for similar documents as well as the tax returns that Trump, unlike recent predecessors, has not released voluntarily.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/10/15/trump-cant-block-subpoena-for-tax-returns-prosecutor-argues/3980193002/
Lawmakers claim the records will help determine the need for future legislation in areas such as campaign finance law, bank loan practices, and efforts to prevent foreign influence in elections. Trump's lawyers say it's a fishing expedition to see if the president is guilty of tax fraud or money laundering.
All three branches of government have much at stake:
• The political earthquake that some justices may be seeking to sidestep would be most acutely felt if the president loses and the documents are made public during his reelection campaign. For nearly five years since declaring his candidacy in 2015, Trump has managed to keep his tax returns and much of his financial data from prying eyes.
"Publicly releasing information about individuals is a form of punishment," Trump's lawyers argue in court papers. "Yet that has been the goal here from the start."
• Congress has much at stake as well. Its oversight authority could be constrained by a ruling in Trump's favor, setting a precedent for future investigations – particularly those viewed as partisan.
"In more than 20 cases concerning the scope of Congress’s power to investigate, this court has only once held that a congressional inquiry exceeded its constitutional limits," House lawyers contend in defending the subpoenas.
• There also are high stakes facing the high court. If it sides with Trump along ideological lines – with five justices named by Republican presidents in the majority and four named by Democrats in dissent – it could emerge as damaged goods in the eyes of the public.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/07/abortion-immigration-gays-guns-supreme-court-blockbuster-term/3844507002/
"If the president wins and it’s 5-4 … there will be people claiming that the president's appointees have come to his defense," says Saikrishna Prakash, a University of Virginia law professor whose recent book, The Living Presidency, warns of its ever-expanding powers.
'Private lives of presidents'
The congressional subpoenas emanate from three House committees, rather than one or both houses of Congress – a potential shortcoming Trump's lawyers have sought to impress upon the Supreme Court.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena to Mazars USA, Trump's accounting firm, more than a year ago seeking financial records from the president, his family business, a trust and the company that runs Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. Thus far, two federal courts have upheld the subpoena.
Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that as a private citizen, Trump routinely overstated or understated his holdings for financial gain. The panel wants to compare eight years of financial documents to Cohen's testimony and government disclosures.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/27/michael-cohen-evidence-documents-given-congress-trump/3003149002/
The House Financial Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One more than a year ago seeking records from Trump, his three oldest children and the Trump Organization. The panels are probing risky lending practices by major financial institutions and efforts by Russia to influence U.S. elections. They have been upheld twice in lower courts.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/03/deutsche-bank-trumps-lender-must-turn-over-financial-records/2595336001/
Letter said the records are needed to help determine "whether senior government officials, including the president, are acting in the country's best interest and not in their own financial interest."
But Consovoy warned the justices that "given the obvious temptation to investigate the personal affairs of political rivals, subpoenas concerning the private lives of presidents will become routine in times of divided government."
The Manhattan DA's subpoenas came later as part of a criminal probe of hush-money payments that Cohen said were made to adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claimed they had affairs with Trump that he has denied. Once again, two lower courts upheld the subpoenas.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/18/justice-department-weighed-rule-not-charging-president-ending-trump-hush-money-case/1769339001/
Trump's lawyers have argued that the president has absolute immunity while in office from grand jury investigations of criminal conduct. During oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, they contended Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and escape prosecution until he leaves office.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/23/president-donald-trump-could-shoot-someone-without-prosecution/4073405002/
"Local officials ... cannot exercise their power to hinder the chief executive in the performance of the duties that he owes to the undivided nation," they argue in court papers. "The risk that politics will lead state and local prosecutors to relentlessly harass the president is simply too great to tolerate."
Nixon, Clinton, Trump
The legal battles are nothing new for Trump. As a New York-based real estate developer and reality TV star, he made it a practice to bring his personal and professional beefs to court. Since winning the White House, he has done the same thing on political and policy matters.
A USA TODAY analysis in 2016 of legal filings across the United States found that Trump and his businesses had been involved in at least 4,000 legal actions in federal and state courts over three decades, ranging from million-dollar real estate battles to personal defamation lawsuits.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/07/new-usa-today-interactive-database-shows-trump-lawsuits-surpass-4000/86809010/
Since his election, Trump has had better luck at the Supreme Court than the lower courts that have blocked many of his policies, particularly on immigration.
The administration has asked the justices for emergency stays of lower court actions 26 times in three-plus years, compared to eight times in the previous 16 years, according to University of Texas School of Law professor Stephen Vladeck. The court has complied in 15 of those cases, at least in part.
But in previous high-profile battles over documents or testimony, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Presidents Richard Nixon in 1974 and Bill Clinton in 1997, with their nominees in agreement. The decisions led eventually to Nixon's resignation and Clinton's impeachment.
That history raises the pressure on today's high court, which Roberts has said should seek unanimity wherever possible.
"At a time we are so politicized and Trump is such a polarizing president, I hope that the court doesn’t come down 5-4 along partisan lines," says Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Berkeley School of Law. "I do think the court's credibility is on the line."
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump's financial records: Congress, Supreme Court face risks
1 TERM LOSER9 hours ago
President Trump to claim 'absolute immunity' from subpoenas in Supreme Court appeal
Attorneys for President Donald Trump this week will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to grant him sweeping immunity from investigation by Congress and local prosecutors into his conduct as a private citizen, as long as he's still in office.
During oral arguments in three cases Tuesday, the justices will explore Trump's claim that he cannot be subjected to subpoenas or any criminal investigative process, by virtue of the demands of the presidency.
The assertion of expansive presidential power comes as Trump faces an array of mounting requests for his personal and business financial records. His efforts to challenge the subpoenas in federal courts have, so far, been unsuccessful at every level.
MORE: Supreme Court to livestream arguments in Trump financial records cases
"These are critical cases that are going to decide whether or not a president, in office, has presidential immunity for the duration of the time that he is sitting in office," said Claire Finkelstein, a criminal law expert at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and director of its Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law.
"It would literally put the president above the law if the Supreme Court sides with the president's lawyers in this case," Finkelstein said.
The outcome will also determine whether Trump -- the only modern American president to have not publicly released tax returns or divest from major business interests while in office -- has to share more personal financial information with voters before the November election.
Brian8 hours ago
Given the repeated refusal of the executive branch to comply with oversight by the legislative branch, I see no choice but for the judicial branch to intervene and confirm the constitutional validity of oversight. Otherwise, every future administration will claim oversight is political and refuse to comply.
Roy10 hours ago
The issue is simple, is our Supreme Court and the decisions made by them to be a “tool” as payback to one political group or to the all the citizens of America.
As to “uncomfortable decisions” is this not the purpose of the supreme court, this is their main job. If this court is not willing to answer questions that can only be answered smoothly by them, then why would we need this court opinions on any issue.
Even with today’s current technology we the citizen can not just turn on a computer sign in and vote our political preference on issues. We need legal scholars and experienced independent thinker of this court to decide what the history of America will be. This Branch of the Government should only have the best interest of the majority of the citizens of this republic. No decision should be made to pay back a debt believed owed to a political party. The decisions made by this current court will determine how the Democratic President and democratic Senate might think about adding to the number of Judges now seated as the only way to achieve fairness for all the citizens.
1 TERM LOSER9 hours ago
Trump, unlike other presidents in recent decades, has refused to make his returns public. He also has refused to divest himself of businesses and investments that could pose domestic or international conflicts of interest. For example, the Trump International Hotel, located just blocks from the White House, regularly hosts events with foreign diplomats, interest groups and industry associations.The Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution will be rendered meaningless if Democrats in Congress aren't allowed to sue President Trump for violating it, a lawyer for nearly 200 Democratic senators and representatives told a federal judge today.
"There's simply nothing Congress can do to stop the president's actions, no matter who's in control of the body," said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel of the Constitution Accountability Center, representing the Democratic lawmakers.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction compelling Trump to comply with the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which requires federal officials to get congressional consent before they accept gifts or rewards — emoluments — from foreign governments or officials. Trump has never sought that consent; he and his lawyers maintain the clause doesn't apply to his business holdings.
Without court-ordered enforcement, Gorod said, Washington "would essentially write the Foreign Emoluments Clause out of existence."
Gorod and Brett Shumate, a Justice Department lawyer representing Trump, made their arguments to Federal District Judge Emmett Sullivan over whether the Democratic lawmakers have legal standing to sue.
Stuart10 hours ago
It is clear the court has already cordoned itself off into political corners and made itself in many cases irrelevant. Roberts, often discussed as the one who wants to "balance the court" to make it seem not political has also been very transparent in his attempts to hide the fact he votes Republican on a decision when it most benefits Republicans and when the stakes are not so high (Obamacare which is under threat anyway the court cuts it for one example or the opposite like in the Voter Suppression technique of Gerrymandering when it will really effect the Republican Party).
He, perhaps is the most vile in his attempts at hiding the obvious...the Court now really just a "court" with heavy bias that threatens the cohesiveness of the country in that fewer and fewer Americans actually believe the court is impartial in Governmental Decisions.
I, for one, a strong Defender of the Constitution (in its real form) as evidenced by my willingness to do my duty in Viet Nam while so many others including our current "president" chose to duck and hide by lying to escape the draft, find the original Court void of any legitimacy in the ongoing battle of the wealthy against the poor in the cases of true meaning as to the winner in the battle.
So not only does the Republican court support the dictatorial and clearly UnConstitutional machinations of the Wealthy in their battle against any countervailing force (i.e. Unions, the Rise of Women as Equals (anti equal rights for women...in the abortion issues), Labor Laws (in which they favor the side of Employers) and generally any business interest over and above that of the American People.
Under the covers it is clear that through their concerted long term decisions they have made America no longer a democracy but a Corporatocracy where by the wealthy through their corporations now are able to buy Congressional and Executive representatives to make laws favoring their growing control over most of the wealth of America through laws that punish workers and other citizens and favor the control of corporations over Americans ("Corporations are People Too" is just the headline of their many decisions elevating corporate power over that of the people.
What most Americans see as clean government decisions are constantly thwarted by the court in favor of those powerful interests that have lately seen the rise in those hate groups that favor the Republicans...White Nationalists, White Supremacy, Right Wing Protesters with their military grade weaponry of which the Founders would be aghast that their Constitution is being used (fabricated) to support whereas they expressly used the "Exclusionary Clause" to make it the purview of the States to decide.
It is clear that we the citizens of the United States have been stripped our our Power by Constitution in order to favor the few, the wealthy, those "elected" to govern us and who extract the wealth of America for their own power and wealth seeking ends.
This next election will determine perhaps the final chapter in their takeover of American Democracy prior to the need for Revolution by the People to right the Ship of Destiny. I urge you to vote to reestablish the real Constitutional Power of the People...not the suborned interests of those who would enslave us.
Otherwise the remedy is unthinkable!
Nam Combat Vet who once fought for a Constitutional Empowered Country.
L6 hours ago
The one thing Trump has done is show us what legislation needs to be passed to make sure nothing like him ever happens again. 1) All candidates for Federal office should have to release their taxes and, if they win, divest themselves of their private business connection - either by sale or by placing everything in a blind trust controlled by someone not related to them in any way. 2) Congressional subpoena powers need to be strengthened. It is part of their DUTY to perform oversight of the Executive Branch and no president should be able to stop that. There can be a codicil that records remain classified until illegal or unethical activity is discovered, but Congress needs to be able to perform its duties. 3) No president should be able to order underlings not to submit to Congressional subpoenas. 4) No president should be able to have private conversations with foreign leaders or other foreign nationals without oversight.
You will notice I didn't put ANY partisan information in there. Trump is trying to become a dictator, and we need to stop him. But if we allow this precedent, ANY president could take the same course, regardless of party, and that HAS to be stopped.