Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Milchshake]

Just want to remind everyone: Trump refused to disclose is fiscal interests, also known as conflicts of interest, and he refused to divest. He honestly wrote TEN BILLION DOLLARS! on his fiscal disclosure forms and offered no evidence but his word, for example. The House refused to accept that Trump's word is good enough. Thousands upon thousands of objective lies told in office later, it's clear the House was correct.

SCOTUS has two opportunities to protect Trump here.

One, they could rule that the power of the Oval Office is effectively infinite and retroactive, meaning that any President can block any oversight of anything they've done in the past. I don't think they will, see below.

Two, they could rule that the accusers -- multiple House investigations with subpoenas and criminal cases at the federal and state level, do not have sufficient reason to examine Trump's business dealings. Considering Trump is known to deal with Deutsche Bank, that Deutsche Bank admitted to fraud and money laundering multiple times, and that Deutsche Bank themselves were saying Team Trump was involved, this is going to be tough to handwave. And yes, Cohen's $130,000 is part and parcel of the whole deal.

We're about to see if the highest court in the land is ready for the President, whoever that is, to block felony investigations into their actions, even before they were President.

The fact it's even gotten this far is bad enough.

From the looks of things, Trump will be defended by the DoJ but the DoJ seems hesitant to use "the office of the President is immune". Every court thus far has teabagged that claim in public. This is going to be a tough one -- Trump is flanked, he's being attacked from multiple angles at once because, well, because of all that stuff he did and the lack of transparency he's trying to use.

I'll ask @cubby for help on this last part:

1) In 1974 Nixon tried these kinds of tactics to block criminal investigations. SCOTUS ruled against him, and it was unanimous.

2) In 1997 Clinton tried these kinds of tactics so he wouldn't have to forget what "is" meant on live TV. SCOTUS ruled against him, and it was unanimous.

Do you think Trump's cases have any more merit than either of these two famous ones, both of which failed to protect the office of the President?

Effing Quarantine Boredom ... and I'm back.


I'd say there's a third option. A slight variation on the above.

The Supremes could deal with this in three ways:

1. Rule that the documents must be turned over.
2. Rule that the documents must not be turned over.
3. Rule that the question of whether they should be turned over is non-justiciable because it’s inherently political rather than legal (this is the so-called political question doctrine).

The smart and cynical money is pretty much on (3), since this would be a way of protecting Trump.
Though there would be no legal barrier stopping the institutions from turning the documents over, there would be no way to legally force them to do so outside of Congress’s inherent subpoena power, which exists more in theory than in practice — while allowing the Federalist Five to primly insist that their business remains merely calling balls and strikes rather than partisan dicknanigans.

Roberts is the most likely swing vote here. So what would John ROberts do?
I think Roberts will see ruling against Trump as a relatively painless way to protect the SCOTUS’s institutional and cultural capital, because:

• Trump is probably going to lose in November anyway.
• How this case comes out is unlikely to have much effect on the margin on the election in any event, since the Trump cult is pretty much impervious to facts.

If that’s how Roberts is reading things, we’ll get to see Trump’s taxes, which will humiliate him no end, because they are likely to show that he’s both more or less broke and up to his neck in hock to various disorganized crime syndicates, from Deutsche Bank, China, and on down the Volga.

[kaelleria]

Effing Quarantine Boredom ... and I'm back.


I'd say there's a third option. A slight variation on the above.

The Supremes could deal with this in three ways:

1. Rule that the documents must be turned over.
2. Rule that the documents must not be turned over.
3. Rule that the question of whether they should be turned over is non-justiciable because it’s inherently political rather than legal (this is the so-called political question doctrine).

The smart and cynical money is pretty much on (3), since this would be a way of protecting Trump.
Though there would be no legal barrier stopping the institutions from turning the documents over, there would be no way to legally force them to do so outside of Congress’s inherent subpoena power, which exists more in theory than in practice — while allowing the Federalist Five to primly insist that their business remains merely calling balls and strikes rather than partisan dicknanigans.

Roberts is the most likely swing vote here. So what would John ROberts do?
I think Roberts will see ruling against Trump as a relatively painless way to protect the SCOTUS’s institutional and cultural capital, because:

• Trump is probably going to lose in November anyway.
• How this case comes out is unlikely to have much effect on the margin on the election in any event, since the Trump cult is pretty much impervious to facts.

If that’s how Roberts is reading things, we’ll get to see Trump’s taxes, which will humiliate him no end, because they are likely to show that he’s both more or less broke and up to his neck in hock to various disorganized crime syndicates, from Deutsche Bank on down the Volga.

I don't think this ruling is going to be close listening to the questioning... Even Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem to be skewering the admin's lawyers. Alito seems to be the only one who's questions seem to paint a sympathetic ear.

[cubby]

Just want to remind everyone: Trump refused to disclose is fiscal interests, also known as conflicts of interest, and he refused to divest. He honestly wrote TEN BILLION DOLLARS! on his fiscal disclosure forms and offered no evidence but his word, for example. The House refused to accept that Trump's word is good enough. Thousands upon thousands of objective lies told in office later, it's clear the House was correct.

SCOTUS has two opportunities to protect Trump here.

One, they could rule that the power of the Oval Office is effectively infinite and retroactive, meaning that any President can block any oversight of anything they've done in the past. I don't think they will, see below.

Two, they could rule that the accusers -- multiple House investigations with subpoenas and criminal cases at the federal and state level, do not have sufficient reason to examine Trump's business dealings. Considering Trump is known to deal with Deutsche Bank, that Deutsche Bank admitted to fraud and money laundering multiple times, and that Deutsche Bank themselves were saying Team Trump was involved, this is going to be tough to handwave. And yes, Cohen's $130,000 is part and parcel of the whole deal.

We're about to see if the highest court in the land is ready for the President, whoever that is, to block felony investigations into their actions, even before they were President.

The fact it's even gotten this far is bad enough.

From the looks of things, Trump will be defended by the DoJ but the DoJ seems hesitant to use "the office of the President is immune". Every court thus far has teabagged that claim in public. This is going to be a tough one -- Trump is flanked, he's being attacked from multiple angles at once because, well, because of all that stuff he did and the lack of transparency he's trying to use.

I'll ask @cubby for help on this last part:

1) In 1974 Nixon tried these kinds of tactics to block criminal investigations. SCOTUS ruled against him, and it was unanimous.

2) In 1997 Clinton tried these kinds of tactics so he wouldn't have to forget what "is" meant on live TV. SCOTUS ruled against him, and it was unanimous.

Do you think Trump's cases have any more merit than either of these two famous ones, both of which failed to protect the office of the President?

I'm just getting into the arguments here - thanks for that great link!

Listening to the arguments, they seem to be trying to find some line where there is a legislative purpose to subpoenas seeking information from the President, rather than just to harass. Talking about conflicts of interest vs just any kind of fishing expedition that "could be related" to a legislative process.

(having done a lot of Zoom and Teams calls, this would be brutal to do - I've argued in front of appellate judges before, and even if you're good, it's nerve wracking - this must be that on steroids)

They keep coming back to the idea of undermining the ability of the President to do his job. The attorney arguing in favor of getting the records just made a VERY interesting argument/point - a Justice asked about the undermining of President to do job, and the DoJ NEVER argued that it wouldn't. And the attorney went on to argue that the President doesn't have to do anything for these documents to be released - in fact, it's possible that the President never even seen these documents.

He's hammering the precedent of cases and historical laws and ruling.

- - - Updated - - -

Gorsuch up now.

- - - Updated - - -

Attorney arguing that Congress' powers of investigation, in order to legislate, is extreme - and shouldn't be limited.

Kavanaugh is up.

- - - Updated - - -

Asking about limitless authority. And the harassing nature of limitless subpoenas. How can we protect the House's interest to legislate while also protecting the President from harassment?

Using Demonstrably critical standard of need...[sorry, hard to keep up and research the term - this must be referring a previous ruling].

Nixon vs. Fitzgerald - the reason the President has immunity in some areas, is because of the House's ability to investigate and OVERSIGHT of the Executive Branch.

Interesting - Kavanaugh is asking how medical records would be handled - how they would be relevant to the legislative process and therefore the House's investigative needs.

[cubby]

At one point does the number of subpoena's matter? [interesting question]

- - - Updated - - -

Holy shit - Thomas is chiming in.

- - - Updated - - -

The number of subpoena's can matter if it overwhelms the Executive Branch's ability to do their primary job.

Attorney arguing that it could matter (as the issue was brought up in Clinton) - attorney making the very valid point that the President doesn't have to do anything - these are all from private organizations.

I can't tell who is asking questions.

[cubby]

Justices keep arguing/asking about the burden of the subpoena's. The attorney is answering them well, but it's possible we're seeing the foundation for a non-unanimous ruling on this issue.

[Levelfive]

At one point does the number of subpoena's matter? [interesting question]

- - - Updated - - -

Holy shit - Thomas is chiming in.

- - - Updated - - -

The number of subpoena's can matter if it overwhelms the Executive Branch's ability to do their primary job.

Attorney arguing that it could matter (as the issue was brought up in Clinton) - attorney making the very valid point that the President doesn't have to do anything - these are all from private organizations.

I can't tell who is asking questions.

What if the number of subpoenas scale with the president's behavior--is that really harassment?

[cubby]

Alito asking about separation of powers regarding subpoena power.

- - - Updated - - -

What if the number of subpoenas scale with the president's behavior--is that really harassment?

They aren't asking about the relevancy of the number of subpoena's - just the volume impeding the ability of the President to do their job. Interesting point though.

- - - Updated - - -

Attorney arguing that the request of President personal papers has long-standing historical precedence - it's always been done/allowed by Congress of the President.

[Levelfive]

What if the number of subpoenas scale with the president's behavior--is that really harassment?

It sounds like Breyer is siding with the conservatives--anything could be construed as being a for legislative purpose; nothing protects a president from Congressional harassment. So Trump will be crowned king. At least it'll be over with.

- - - Updated - - -

Alito asking about separation of powers regarding subpoena power.

- - - Updated - - -



They aren't asking about the relevancy of the number of subpoena's - just the volume impeding the ability of the President to do their job. Interesting point though.

- - - Updated - - -

Attorney arguing that the request of President personal papers has long-standing historical precedence - it's always been done/allowed by Congress of the President.

But that's exactly what I'm saying--what if there's good reason to issue 100 subpoenas? Congress can't because that's too many?

[kaid]

What if the number of subpoenas scale with the president's behavior--is that really harassment?

Still would the subpoenas need to be sent if the executive was giving the normal access every previous congress had? I don't see how a president blocking everything so that subpoenas are required is a problem for the legislature. If they find getting subpoenas burdensome then stop playing games in the first place.

[Levelfive]

Still would the subpoenas need to be sent if the executive was giving the normal access every previous congress had? I don't see how a president blocking everything so that subpoenas are required is a problem for the legislature. If they find getting subpoenas burdensome then stop playing games in the first place.

Closer to what I'm getting at, yes. Exactly.

[cubby]

Kavanaugh again. Limiting principle - doesn't seem to be one if it's for legislative purpose. Hinting at the idea that the subpoena process, while seemingly legitimate, could become purely political.

Attorney citing Clinton saying the courts can monitor that situation and make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
(this answer is going to push the idea of having some kind of standard)

- - - Updated - - -

The court can jump in and help if the volume of subpoena's starts to impede the Executive Branch's ability to do their job.

- - - Updated - - -

The attorney's for Trump are arguing, in closing, that by not having a limiting factor, it makes the power to great.

Trump Attorney arguing that they can't point out to a legislative need to the subpoena's - and the other side's attorney never gave one.

Trump attorney in closing just arguing previous points that have been overruled, both in lower courts and in previous SCOTUS rulings.

- - - Updated - - -

I will be curious as to when they come down with this ruling.

Anyone know what's keeping NY from releasing all the documents they currently have?

[Breccia]

What is this "GIFT" he's talking about?

Trump is a believer in the zero-sum game. For you to win, someone else must therefore lose. It's been his entire life from his failed casinos to the trade war with China.

Therefore, if someone else loses, then he wins by default.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump Attorney arguing that they can't point out to a legislative need to the subpoena's - and the other side's attorney never gave one.

That sounds factually false.

[cubby]

But that's exactly what I'm saying--what if there's good reason to issue 100 subpoenas? Congress can't because that's too many?

I think they were looking for some kind of litmus test and/or burden to rule on. A balancing factor in which the Executive Branch could refuse based on overburdening request. I think the attorney argued well in NOT giving one, or offering a legislative "reasoning" - it should be up to Congress to decide that.

- - - Updated - - -

That sounds factually false.

I didn't hear all the arguments, it's MUCH earlier here. I think the pro-subpoena attorney didn't offer one, because to do so, would bring about the requirement of a specific legislative need, rather than just a generic "this is our job" one.

I'm not putting this out very well....

[Paranoid Android]

Kavanaugh again. Limiting principle - doesn't seem to be one if it's for legislative purpose. Hinting at the idea that the subpoena process, while seemingly legitimate, could become purely political.

Attorney citing Clinton saying the courts can monitor that situation and make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
(this answer is going to push the idea of having some kind of standard)

- - - Updated - - -

The court can jump in and help if the volume of subpoena's starts to impede the Executive Branch's ability to do their job.

- - - Updated - - -

The attorney's for Trump are arguing, in closing, that by not having a limiting factor, it makes the power to great.

Trump Attorney arguing that they can't point out to a legislative need to the subpoena's - and the other side's attorney never gave one.

Trump attorney in closing just arguing previous points that have been overruled, both in lower courts and in previous SCOTUS rulings.

- - - Updated - - -

I will be curious as to when they come down with this ruling.

Anyone know what's keeping NY from releasing all the documents they currently have?

I haven't listened to any of this.

Are Trump's lawyers competent? As we have seen with previous lawyers they are pretty terrible at protecting Trump. Part is that a few have quit and the rest you can say is Trump gives them such flimsy cases to defend they have to really, really pull stuff out of their ass for a defense.

Anyways, it will be something if these attorneys are also incompetent fools and cannot defend this case, yet it won't matter cause the conservative judges have it in the bag for Trump.

[Levelfive]

I think they were looking for some kind of litmus test and/or burden to rule on. A balancing factor in which the Executive Branch could refuse based on overburdening request. I think the attorney argued well in NOT giving one, or offering a legislative "reasoning" - it should be up to Congress to decide that.

Right, I'm saying this is like a criminal committing 100 crimes and then complaining it's too burdensome (or 'harassment') to deal with a 100 charges, do you see what I mean? The burden on defending the number of subpoenas shouldn't necessarily fall to the people issuing them.

I didn't hear all the arguments, it's MUCH earlier here. I think the pro-subpoena attorney didn't offer one, because to do so, would bring about the requirement of a specific legislative need, rather than just a generic "this is our job" one.

I'm not putting this out very well....

He did point to legislative need, iirc.

[cubby]

I haven't listened to any of this.

Are Trump's lawyers competent? As we have seen with previous lawyers they are pretty terrible at protecting Trump. Part is that a few have quit and the rest you can say is Trump gives them such flimsy cases to defend they have to really, really pull stuff out of their ass for a defense.

Anyways, it will be something if these attorneys are also incompetent fools and cannot defend this case, yet it won't matter cause the conservative judges have it in the bag for Trump.

They are least reasonably competent - the problem is that their arguments, or the availability of rebuttal, so to speak, is almost nonexistent. There is almost no argument to be made in trying to quash these subpoenas. So even if Clarence Darrow were up there (Scopes Monkey Trial - Inherit the Wind), he would be having a tough time.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, I'm saying this is like a criminal committing 100 crimes and then complaining it's too burdensome (or 'harassment') to deal with a 100 charges, do you see what I mean? The burden on defending the number of subpoenas shouldn't necessarily fall to the people issuing them.

I hear you - I think the concern is that the Executive Branch could be flooded with subpoena's, not all of which might be entirely legitimate. I'm not making that argument, I'm just pointing to what I think they are arguing - just to be clear.

He did point to legislative need, iirc.

He did, but he also didn't point to a specific one - or the need to have one. In other words, there needs to be one, but the House doesn't need to state what the need is - leaving it to the Court to decide if it's legit.

IMO, this is a brilliant argument. It keeps the "why" argument away from the ruling. Making it just a Constitutional argument of the House powers. IMO, they strategized on this to make sure it went this route.

[kaelleria]

The argument Sekulow was trying to make was... special.

[Edge-]

The argument Sukulow was trying to make was... special.

It's Sekulow, of course it's special. All his arguments have been.

But now I'm real curious as to if it's anything like...

[kaelleria]

It's Sekulow, of course it's special. All his arguments have been.

But now I'm real curious as to if it's anything like...

Sekulow: Something something undue burden
Justice ?: Wouldn't he just hire a lawyer like he did today?
Sekulow: UNDUE BURDEN!

[Edge-]

Sekulow: Something something undue burden
Justice ?: Wouldn't he just hire a lawyer like he did today?
Sekulow: UNDUE BURDEN!

Hey, hiring a lawyer is a serious burden for a "billionaire", especially when they have access to taxpayer funded lawyers that can also defend them. I mean, Trump would have to like...DO SOMETHING, and that's a burdensome requirement.