Judge orders Trump Accounts to hand over info to House!

[NWRatCon]

The Fusion GPS subpoena got private information on 25 politicians and 30 contractors. Why is this case different?

Isn't obvious? According to Ocean's analysis, it's because Judge Leon is a Bush appointee, and therefore a real judge. Not only that, it was a righteous request, because the House Intelligence Committee was run by a righteous Republican (at the time). It couldn't possibly be because

“The Subpoena at issue in today’s case was issued pursuant to a constitutionally authorized investigation by a Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives with jurisdiction over intelligence and intelligence-related activities — activities designed to protect us from potential cyber-attacks now and in the future. The Subpoena seeks the production of records that have a ‘reasonable possibility’ … of producing information relevant to that constitutionally authorized investigation.”

or that

“Although the records sought by the Subpoena are sensitive in nature — and merit the use of appropriate precautions by the Committee to ensure they are not publicly disclosed — the nature of the records themselves, and the Committee’s procedures designed to ensure their confidentiality, more than adequately protect the sensitivity of that information,"

Judge: House panel entitled to Fusion GPS bank records (Politico); BEAN v. JOHN DOE BANK, and it couldn't possibly be because the Judge determined that Fusion GPS did not establish: 1) that they were likely to succeed on the merits; 2) likely to suffer irreparable harm; 3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor; and 4) an injunction was in the public interest. Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d. 1023, 1038 (2014).

 

[Simon W. Moon]

No, I am responding to claims that the Congress can impeach on anything they feel like. That's been stated on this thread over and over.

Congress shouldn't.
But the only thing which prevents them from doing so is the potential backlash from the electorate.

Feel free to tell us what prevents Congress from potentially using the impeachment process capriciously.

If you could make a case that such a thing exists, you'd shut up the people who are saying otherwise.
I'd certainly be thankful for the new knowledge anyway.

Further, it's been claimed that a citizen has no judicial right of review to Congress impeaching them, even if there were no grounds for impeachment.

You have claimed that there is a judicial review or presidential impeachment results despite the clear language of the Constitution and the legal proceedings around Nixon's debacle [which explicitly state that there is no judicial review].

Feel free to show some indication that there is judicial review of the results of presidential impeachment results rendered by the Senate.
Your argument for the existence of judicial review or presidential impeachment results seems to consist almost entirely of repeating "no one is above the Constitution"

That is simply untrue.

Whenever you feel froggy please offer some evidence for this.
The best evidence would be if you could quote the part in the Constitution where is says what a deposed President's remedy for an undesirable impeachment outcome is.
If that cannot be done, you could examine the court records around Nixon's fiasco. ☺

...Congress can impeach for any reason they choose...

That potential exists per the US constitution.
In actual practice, the expectation of voter backlash greatly inhibits the Congress from ganging up on the President without the electorate seeing it as good cause
But in theory, there is no mechanism which allows for a redo of an impeachment trial.

You case that such a mechanism exists would be greatly enhanced if you could point to the existence of such a mechanism.

...and the Constitution is subservient to Congress.

This is straw man hooey.

Ain't no one saying that.

The argument is that the Constitution tells us that the Senate alone has the power to determine impeachment results.
The argument is that established by previous Supreme Court decisions literally and specifically concur that there is no judicial review of these sorts of impeachments. see Nixon v. United States - Wikipedia

The court's decision was unanimous, but four separate opinions were published. The majority opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word sole it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word try was originally understood to include fact finding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments.​

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yeah.
At least these:

• the right a PotUS to appeal impeachment results with the SCotUS
• the right to a stay
• the right to remain whole

There're probably others as well.

In each of these cases you supported your argument by mere assertion rather than providing a textual basis for the existence of these rights.

Feel free to back up your assertion that these rights exist outside of your hopes.

He won’t because he can’t.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

He won’t because he can’t.

I suspect he's earnest though.

I suspect he genuinely feels that there must be some protection against corrupt or capricious impeachment by Congress.

I'm in favor of the idea in principle. I might have objections to specific plans to create that protection. But the idea in general is acceptable.
I'd like for it to be true that there was some clear, direct path to right that particular wrong should it ever occur.

But it looks like that ain't the case.

It'd take a new amendment to provide protection against corrupt or capricious impeachment by Congress.
I suspect there are not yet enough people willing to work hard enough to make that happen though.
His posts indicate that some percentage of American probably assumes that such protections already exist.

 

[OscarLevant]

No, I am responding to claims that the Congress can impeach on anything they feel like. That's been stated on this thread over and over.


Further, it's been claimed that a citizen has no judicial right of review to Congress impeaching them, even if there were no grounds for impeachment.


That is simply untrue.

The only people on a slippery slope are those who believe Congress can impeach for any reason they choose, and the Constitution is subservient to Congress.

Yes, individuals can always take any matter to court, that's a given. So?

 

[Chomsky]

What I suggest you do Chomsky, is take a deep breath and calm down.

Hah! That's never a bad idea! Calm, is good!

I appreciate you believe your interpretation is correct. I don't agree with it.

I'll use your wiki link to present a case in point.

Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and David Souter concurred, but voiced concern that the Court was foreclosing the area for review. While they found that the Senate had done all that was constitutionally required, they were concerned that the Court should have the power to review cases in which the Senate removed an impeached officer summarily without a hearing, or through some arbitrary process such as "a coin toss​

It's not my interpretation, Ocean; it's the Court's finding.

And I did see the above, as I read the article. Yeah - 3 judges had concerns, but they concurred with the ruling, and voted accordingly. There was no dissent.

There's a couple of key things here, in this ruling:

1] It was 9-0 unanimous. No dissenters. No dissenting opinion.

2] It's a relatively recent ruling - 1993.

3] The Court did not rule about a specific feature of the case; it blanket ruled the Court itself cannot get involved in impeachments.

This is an airtight ruling. I don't see how you can see otherwise. The ruling goes above-and-beyond usual rulings, by stating the Court is Constitutionally barred from participating in further cases of this nature.

So I'm not sure what you see here, beyond baseless and unrealistic hope.

But I will say this,

If we ever have the pleasure to play cards together, I'll happily sit all night long on my four aces, while you draw to your inside straight flush!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yes, individuals can always take any matter to court, that's a given. So?

Perhaps in some sense of "take it to court".

But the Constitution and SCotUS rulings say that Congressional impeachment of federal officers is not subject to judicial review.

So, you could technically take the case to a court.
But the court would tell you that they are unable to review the matter for Constitutional reasons.

So, in some senses of "take it to court" — practical and pragmatic senses — you really can't take your undesirable impeachment results to court.

 

[snakestretcher]

And then Executive Orders, Emergency Declarations, and Disregard of Congress will become the rule of day. Trump is virtually forcing the House to impeach. The next apex will be when Trump disregards the courts.

I surely as hell wouldn't want Pelosi's job! :doh

I'll bet that Trump also rues the day he took office. I recall seeing his face after Obama told him a few home truths about the job. He looked positively shell-shocked!

 

[Deuce]

All of the rights afforded citizens.

Which rights as a citizen does the President give up when taking office?

Yes, but you didn't identify which you think is violated in the scenario you made up.

I have no authority. Why would you suggest I did?

It was a question, and you are unwilling to answer for some inexplicable reason.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I suspect he's earnest though.

I believe that you are being generous in your estimation. There may be earnest, yet flawed belief, but there is also ample evidence of intentionally misleading comments.

I suspect he genuinely feels that there must be some protection against corrupt or capricious impeachment by Congress.

I'm in favor of the idea in principle. I might have objections to specific plans to create that protection. But the idea in general is acceptable.
I'd like for it to be true that there was some clear, direct path to right that particular wrong should it ever occur.

But it looks like that ain't the case.

It'd take a new amendment to provide protection against corrupt or capricious impeachment by Congress.
I suspect there are not yet enough people willing to work hard enough to make that happen though.
His posts indicate that some percentage of American probably assumes that such protections already exist.

It would be nice to have insurance against any deliberate and fraudulent application of law, but I don’t believe that is possible. There’s an entire profession dedicated to manipulating the legal system to their advantage that would probably find some loophole or create enough public animus against such a law that attempting to enforce it wouldn’t be worth possible long term consequences of alienating the American public.

I believe the impeachment process is already sufficiently burdensome for those who would consider that route, and fraught with hazards of tremendous political backlash that no party would be foolish/crazy enough to risk a fraudulent impeachment attempt.

But that’s just my 02.

 

[Chomsky]

I'll bet that Trump also rues the day he took office. I recall seeing his face after Obama told him a few home truths about the job. He looked positively shell-shocked!

Well, I believe his campaign was a PR stunt gone bad. And now we have an accidental President. Remember the look on Melania's face on election night, and at the inauguration? She knew wazzup'.

Trump's ego is costing his family, as he likes to say - "bigly". It cost him his foundation, and it may severely injure his business org. He will be fighting for survival long after his term in office. Of course if he, his family, and his business org survive, he may get to enjoy the financial & political spoils of his post-presidency.

 

[ludin]

The fact that you think Trump is on trial just shows how out of touch you are. My cat carries on better discussions than you do.

where did i say trump is on trial? why are you making stuff up?
you realize that the presumption of innocence exists outside a court right?

it is the reason that the police can't stop you just because you are walking down the street.
this is civics 101.

yes i am sure your cat does carry on better conversations than you.
you have no friggen clue what you are talking about
you can't understand basic civic rights.

then again if your cat was paying attention to the stuff you type it doesn't have a clue either.

 

[Athanasius68]

I suspect he's earnest though.

I suspect he genuinely feels that there must be some protection against corrupt or capricious impeachment by Congress.

I'm in favor of the idea in principle. I might have objections to specific plans to create that protection. But the idea in general is acceptable.
I'd like for it to be true that there was some clear, direct path to right that particular wrong should it ever occur.

But it looks like that ain't the case.

It'd take a new amendment to provide protection against corrupt or capricious impeachment by Congress.
I suspect there are not yet enough people willing to work hard enough to make that happen though.
His posts indicate that some percentage of American probably assumes that such protections already exist.

There are protections against capricious impeachment.
It's called Election Day.
Why are we assuming that what prevents the Dems from impeaching is that the Senate will never convict? Maybe the Dems in the House don't have the votes. Maybe they are concerned about it backfiring on them?

 

[tres borrachos]

where did i say trump is on trial? why are you making stuff up?
you realize that the presumption of innocence exists outside a court right?

it is the reason that the police can't stop you just because you are walking down the street.
this is civics 101.

yes i am sure your cat does carry on better conversations than you.
you have no friggen clue what you are talking about
you can't understand basic civic rights.

then again if your cat was paying attention to the stuff you type it doesn't have a clue either.

The presumption of innocence, until proven guilty, is part of this country's Constitutional rights. Outside of the court system, there is no such thing unless a person choses to live by that. If you were told your wife was cheating on your with the pool boy, you are under no obligation to decide she is "innocent" if you don't want to.

Since Trump is not on trial, your babble to me about "innocent until proven guilty" is totally off topic. Save it for one of your fellow Trump panty sniffers. I'm posting about current events that involve Trump and investigations into him and his activities. There is no discussion of "innocence or guilt" at this point because nobody knows anything. Including you.

 

[Chomsky]

No it isn't. A law is only a law once it has been passed by both houses and signed by the president.
so no the law is not whatever congress says it is.

A president exercising his powers of office is not an abuse of power. YOu might not like it but it isn't an abuse if he is allowed to do it.
please learn what terms mean.

No, you're thinking of statute in regular session. In impeachment, Congress decides everything and their word is law. If they say the President is unlawful, he is. There's no SCOTUS review. It's a closed case.

I really have no idea why you're so adamant about this.

 

[ludin]

The presumption of innocence, until proven guilty, is part of this country's Constitutional rights. Outside of the court system, there is no such thing unless a person choses to live by that. If you were told your wife was cheating on your with the pool boy, you are under no obligation to decide she is "innocent" if you don't want to.

sure she is innocent until you prove her guilty. she is not guilty because you make an accusation.
a cop cannot stop you for just walking down the street. why? the presumption of innocence that is why.

Since Trump is not on trial, your babble to me about "innocent until proven guilty" is totally off topic. Save it for one of your fellow Trump panty sniffers. I'm posting about current events that involve Trump and investigations into him and his activities. There is no discussion of "innocence or guilt" at this point because nobody knows anything. Including you.

he doesn't have to be on trial. the only person babbling is you.
actually we do know a lot.

no collusion
no coordination
no obstruction.

sorry you can't handle facts no my issue but yours.

 

[ludin]

No, you're thinking of statute in regular session. In impeachment, Congress decides everything and their word is law. If they say the President is unlawful, he is. There's no SCOTUS review. It's a closed case.

I really have no idea why you're so adamant about this.

nope they don't.
that is why impeachment is a two step process to prevent your abuse of power.
try and impeach trump on nothing.

the senate will clear him of wrong doing and the leftist morons will have egg on their face.

because i believe in the constitution and upholding the law. the law is not what congress says it is.
a law is something that has been voted on approved and signed by the president.

so should everyone else, but they aren't. people of this country have lost sight of the very thing that allows us to keep our freedom.
the fact that you support these leftist morons that are trying to take down our democracy shows how much you have shifted in your view
and not for the best.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw

The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:
This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress.

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

 

[NWRatCon]

No, you're thinking of statute in regular session. In impeachment, Congress decides everything and their word is law. If they say the President is unlawful, he is. There's no SCOTUS review. It's a closed case.

I really have no idea why you're so adamant about this.

It's simple, Chomsky. On the one hand we have wishful thinking, in the other we have incontrovertible settled law. Since the law, incontrovertibly, does not support the wishful thinking, it is imperative to wish harder.

I find it amusing, sometimes, to see the lengths some apologists go to support spurious argumentation, but more often I find it frustrating. I particularly find it frustrating when several posters insist that things are "in the law" that clearly are not, but insist that "it must be so" even though they cannot support that conclusion with anything but wishful thinking. But, I get angry (yup), when people criticize others "because they don't know the law" - when it is obvious to anyone with any legal training that they are communicating from unnatural sources of wind located in the lower portion of their anatomy. I suspect they are expelling regurgitated effluvia they picked up from Jennine Pirro or another FFN (Fox Fraud Network) commentator from whence they attained their legal acumen. Unless, of course, it was the Law School at Trump University.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

There are protections against capricious impeachment.
It's called Election Day.

That's what I was saying.

But OCean515 was telling us that a corruptly impeached and deposed PotUS could sue to be re-instated.
(Or somehow take the issue to the SCotUS or somewhere. Ocean was rather vague about the actual process)

Why are we assuming that what prevents the Dems from impeaching is that the Senate will never convict? Maybe the Dems in the House don't have the votes. Maybe they are concerned about it backfiring on them?

I'm not sure I am making those assumptions with you.
So maybe some other we.

I think that the politicians are checking the weather vanes.
The politicians will take actions according to the direction the vane blows.

If a politician thinks it's the will of the voters donors will give more if the politician calls for impeachment, then the politician will call for impeachment.
D or R is irrelevant in that calculation.

 

[tres borrachos]

sure she is innocent until you prove her guilty. she is not guilty because you make an accusation.
a cop cannot stop you for just walking down the street. why? the presumption of innocence that is why.



he doesn't have to be on trial. the only person babbling is you.
actually we do know a lot.

no collusion
no coordination
no obstruction.

sorry you can't handle facts no my issue but yours.

Your posts are so ignorant. I have no time to waste on you.

 

[ludin]

Your posts are so ignorant. I have no time to waste on you.

because you can't handle the argument because you have no clue what you are talking about.
you don't understand basic civic rights that are taught in high school classes.

 

[veritas1]

Why aren't we investigating Pelosi's financial information? Or Nadler's? Or Schumer's? Or Biden's? Or Obama's? You never know when you might find some irregularity overlooked by the IRS. If the left can go on a fishing expedition for crimes, other people should be able to as well. All they'll need is a judge not part of the TDS clan.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

nope they don't.
that is why impeachment is a two step process to prevent your abuse of power.
try and impeach trump on nothing.
the senate will clear him of wrong doing and the leftist morons will have egg on their face.

Let me offer some possible clarification to this conversation

You remember that Congress includes the Senate, don't ya?
So, if Congress makes a decision, that means that the Senate made a decision.

So, when Chomsky says

"In impeachment, Congress decides everything and their word is law"​

That means

"In impeachment, the Senate and the House decide everything and their word is law"​

So, in Chomsky's scenario the Senate are already in on the gig.
But in your scenario, only the House is in on it.
So, you guys are not comparing apples to apples.

because i believe in the constitution and upholding the law. the law is not what congress says it is.
a law is something that has been voted on approved and signed by the president.

That is exactly correct.
However...
The Constitution lays out a framework for impeachment and leaves the details to the sitting Legislative Branch as they see fit.
Loosely, the impeachment is process mostly whatever the current, sitting Legislative Branch decides to say it is.

The US Constitution and the SCotUS have both plainly said that the outcomes of impeachment is not subject to judicial review.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw

The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:
This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress.

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

This is all well and good — a discussion of theory.

However, in practice, there is no mechanism for undoing an impeachment outcome.

If Congress (the House and the Senate) got together and decided to capriciously or corruptly impeach, there's is no remedy available.
The courts are unable to review the case.

So even though the theory of impeachment requires a certain standard, there's not actually a mechanism to undo the results.
And, even though the theory of impeachment requires a certain standard, there's no mechanism besides the threat of retaliation at the ballot box to prevent corrupt or capricious impeachment.

If you know of how a bad impeachment outcome could be remedied, please share the process you discover.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Why aren't we investigating Pelosi's financial information? Or Nadler's? Or Schumer's? Or Biden's? Or Obama's? You never know when you might find some irregularity overlooked by the IRS. If the left can go on a fishing expedition for crimes, other people should be able to as well. All they'll need is a judge not part of the TDS clan.

Have you asked you GOP Senators why they are slacking off on these issues?
The Senate has the same investigatory authorities as the House.


What about Trump_DoJ?
Have you asked those guys why they are letting heinous criminal (possibly traitors? idk) walk around free damaging our country?