Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:

Biff Pocoroba wrote:Wow, I wasn't expecting them to return both cases back to the lower courts.
It buys Trump time but both imply that the records will eventually have to be handed over.

The key here is that they don't ultimately answer either way until after the election, reducing its salience on the campaign trail. It could heat up in either direction depending on if Trump loses or not.

The thing is...

1. At this point, his returns are pretty irrelevant to the campaign either way. He’s got no one left but true believers. That level of support is not enough to win. Clean tax returns wouldn’t change it, and neither would problematic ones.

2. It’s pretty clear that his hope was to establish a clean and complete presidential immunity to financial records requests, and to then to remain president.

His chances of remaining president notwithstanding, this seems to be a blow to that ambition.

elliseamos wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

Summon Herman Munster.

the more concerning opinion came out of the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Chris_H_2 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

I'm not sure it can, at least insofar as it concerns the executive branch. Impeachment is 100% a political exercise. And despite the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, there is nothing inherently criminal about it. In the political vein, if the House issues a subpoena to the President and she or he refuses to comply, then the answer may be that that refusal can (and indeed should) be considered in deciding whether to bring articles of impeachment.

As in the president or any official facing impeachment is pleading the fifth? In a non-legal way.

SCOTUS is a joke. This is like Tom Brady asking Brian Hoyer to check in during the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl.

elliseamos wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

I'm not sure it can, at least insofar as it concerns the executive branch. Impeachment is 100% a political exercise. And despite the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, there is nothing inherently criminal about it. In the political vein, if the House issues a subpoena to the President and she or he refuses to comply, then the answer may be that that refusal can (and indeed should) be considered in deciding whether to bring articles of impeachment.

As in the president or any official facing impeachment is pleading the fifth? In a non-legal way.

i think i understand what you're asking. if someone pleads the 5th in a civil proceeding, there's an "adverse inference" (legal term) that is made that the allegation to which the person asserts the 5th is true. so here, it could be the same type of thing.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

I'm not sure it can, at least insofar as it concerns the executive branch. Impeachment is 100% a political exercise. And despite the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, there is nothing inherently criminal about it. In the political vein, if the House issues a subpoena to the President and she or he refuses to comply, then the answer may be that that refusal can (and indeed should) be considered in deciding whether to bring articles of impeachment.

As in the president or any official facing impeachment is pleading the fifth? In a non-legal way.

i think i understand what you're asking. if someone pleads the 5th in a civil proceeding, there's an "adverse inference" (legal term) that is made that the allegation to which the person asserts the 5th is true. so here, it could be the same type of thing.

Right, that's what I was getting at. I'm now wondering if the refusal to comply with a house subpoena should be considered more than obstruction?

elliseamos wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

I'm not sure it can, at least insofar as it concerns the executive branch. Impeachment is 100% a political exercise. And despite the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, there is nothing inherently criminal about it. In the political vein, if the House issues a subpoena to the President and she or he refuses to comply, then the answer may be that that refusal can (and indeed should) be considered in deciding whether to bring articles of impeachment.

As in the president or any official facing impeachment is pleading the fifth? In a non-legal way.

i think i understand what you're asking. if someone pleads the 5th in a civil proceeding, there's an "adverse inference" (legal term) that is made that the allegation to which the person asserts the 5th is true. so here, it could be the same type of thing.

Right, that's what I was getting at. I'm now wondering if the refusal to comply with a house subpoena should be considered more than obstruction?

so it's a weird dynamic. subpoenas are ordinarily enforceable by the power of contempt. if the house holds someone in contempt, one of the ways it can enforce it is by referring the matter to the u.s. attorney's office, which is of course an arm of the executive branch, to prosecute. and we know that that's not happening when the executive branch itself is involved.

So what is it people are celebrating here? We are still never going to see his tax returns.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

I'm not sure it can, at least insofar as it concerns the executive branch. Impeachment is 100% a political exercise. And despite the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, there is nothing inherently criminal about it. In the political vein, if the House issues a subpoena to the President and she or he refuses to comply, then the answer may be that that refusal can (and indeed should) be considered in deciding whether to bring articles of impeachment.

Well said.

Their Twitter feed is en fuego right now.

Text I got from a maga today:

Scotus says you can't see Donald's taxes

He's not wrong

nah man cause this temporary shield of protection collapses once he leaves office

and he is so stupid he'll likely commit new crimes

96583UP wrote:nah man cause this temporary shield of protection collapses once he leaves office

and he is so stupid he'll likely commit new crimes

If we can't see them before November who cares?

Who gives a shit about trump? Half of Oklahoma is Indian territory now. That's hilarious.

verb_to_trust wrote:

96583UP wrote:nah man cause this temporary shield of protection collapses once he leaves office

and he is so stupid he'll likely commit new crimes

If we can't see them before November who cares?

people who want to see him punished in 2021+

96583UP wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

96583UP wrote:nah man cause this temporary shield of protection collapses once he leaves office

and he is so stupid he'll likely commit new crimes

If we can't see them before November who cares?

people who want to see him punished in 2021+

Anyone who thinks that will happen is delusional

I.... agree with verb.

that way madness lies

I can stop anytime I want to. Just this once.