Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2695

  • 4th&Five

    1699

  • jimmyjazz

    1286

  • atomheartbevo

    1219

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

GHOSTUSER
GHOSTUSER

I fucking love this President. My 2 faves during my lifetime are Trump and Nixon. They share a lot of similarities and were besieged by the same groups of assholes. No I’m not trolling. Y’all, the lef

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

This.....is magnificent. The "younger generation" is going to have to work double-time to fund YOUR Social Security, which YOUR generation of elected officials raided the fuck out of.  And which,

Posted Images

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46088

Posted
Posted

Eric Trump is on record years ago as saying they didn't need banks because they could get all the money they needed out of Russia.  Donald is trying to imply he doesn't need banks because he already has the money, when in fact he just uses another source of funding, one that comes with a great deal of overhang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18944

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Lobo said:

Dennison--------

 

You really don't think that's the kinda shit Trump would bounce back with to someone who called him a Loser.  

Do you really not get how message board replies work?  Or context?  Or language?  Or reading?  Honest question, how do you not see the exchange RPM and lemonlime and I just had?  Where is the disconnect for you?  I've seen some oblivious shitheaps on here, but c'mon.  Maybe you're just drunk.  I was intimating what Trump would say, and I think I was pretty damn accurate.  But when you posit what someone else would say in a hypothetical, it doesn't mean that's what you believe.  

In your world, how do people write fiction?  You fucking child. 

Do you really think I was making fun of you?

Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UpperWestside

UpperWestside 6186

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Lol. I was actually thinking the prices weren't so bad for an exclusive club. About the same as a middling Manhattan lounge. 

Yeah those prices are equivalent to your average Manhattan bar. Still fuck him for taking taxpayer money to pay for it.

Edited by UpperWestside
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13317

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Are y’all talking about Bong Dangino?  I know that guy!

Mr. Horn, I served with Dong Bon Joni, I knew Bag Dongjohnny, Bing Jang Boney was a friend of mine.  Mr. Horn, you are no Brawn Don Jango.

/Lloyd Bentsen

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27726

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

This is huge. Bigly. Also, there's some good legal bitchslapping where the judge is calling out the trump lawyers for getting their facts wrong in oral arguments with respect to scope of the subpoena. Also makes (and supports with case law) the argument that incident to congress's legislative function is the "informing function", which I hope is setting the tone for future suits by the trump admin to stonewall info.

Quote

Related to Congress’s legislative function is its “informing function.” The Supreme Court has understood that function to permit “Congress to inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the Government.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200 n.33 (1957). “From the earliest times in its history, the Congress has assiduously performed an ‘informing function’ of this nature.” Id. (citing James M. Landis, Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 HARV. L. REV. 153, 168–194 (1926)). The informing function finds its roots in the scholarship of President Woodrow Wilson, which the Court first cited in United States v. Rumely:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.

Thus, though not wholly distinct from its legislative function, the informing function is a critical responsibility uniquely granted to Congress under Article I. See Landis, 40 HARV. L. REV. at 205 n.227 (describing the informing function as “implied and inherent” within the legislative function).

In furtherance of these duties, Congress’s power to investigate is “broad.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187. “It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them.” Id. In short, “[t]he scope of the power of inquiry . . . is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.” Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959).

The judgement also lays out the basis for constraining congress's authority to investigate, but it's pretty broad, which is a good thing imo.

Quote

The critical inquiry then is not legislative certainty, but legislative potential: If the subject matter of the investigation is “one on which legislation could be had,” Congress acts within its legislative function.

This judgement is definitely worth a read if that's your cup of tea. It debunks arguments made by trumpers on this very board, and it gives me a small shred of hope.

Quote

It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27726

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Breaking:  They still aren't going to give them over.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Mazar's requested the subpoena as legal cover from trump rage-suing them, and this ruling denies a stay pending appeal

Quote

V. REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL

At the May 14th oral argument, Plaintiffs asked the court to stay the return date of the subpoena beyond the seven days already agreed upon by the parties, pending final appellate review by the D.C. Circuit. See Hr’g Tr. at 77–78. The court declines to do so.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) authorizes a district court to issue an injunction pending appeal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). To obtain a stay pending appeal, the moving party “must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” The court balances these factors on a “sliding scale,” such that “a strong showing on one factor could make up for a weaker showing on another.”

...

For the foregoing reasons, the court will enter judgment in favor of the House Oversight Committee and against Plaintiffs. The court denies Plaintiffs’ request for a stay pending appeal. A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

So presumably, Mazars is gonna start sending boxes over. The ruling is thorough and addressed every point made by the plaintiffs (DJT et al), so they'll have an uphill battle appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted

so can somebody connect the procedural dots for me?

the house sends subpoenas, either for people to appear or for documents to be produced.

the administration fights these subpoenas, hoping to get it bogged down in the courts.

once the court rules that they have to comply...then what?

they'll obviously continue to refuse, but they can't just go back hoping to fight it in the courts - or at least i would hope that circular bullshit isn't an actual option for them.

at some point, is there some sort of court order to seize the documents, and refusal to do so would result in...contempt?  arrests?  for who?  i know people can refuse to show up (or if they show up, they can refuse to talk), but these documents exist somewhere, and it seems more black and white.

sucks that all this obstruction is impeding the investigation into whether the president obstructed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This is huge. Bigly. Also, there's some good legal bitchslapping where the judge is calling out the trump lawyers for getting their facts wrong in oral arguments with respect to scope of the subpoena. Also makes (and supports with case law) the argument that incident to congress's legislative function is the "informing function", which I hope is setting the tone for future suits by the trump admin to stonewall info.

The judgement also lays out the basis for constraining congress's authority to investigate, but it's pretty broad, which is a good thing imo.

This judgement is definitely worth a read if that's your cup of tea. It debunks arguments made by trumpers on this very board, and it gives me a small shred of hope.

 

just started reading and it is already great.  "Buchanan = Trump" is a fun start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27726

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

so can somebody connect the procedural dots for me?

the house sends subpoenas, either for people to appear or for documents to be produced.

the administration fights these subpoenas, hoping to get it bogged down in the courts.

once the court rules that they have to comply...then what?

they'll obviously continue to refuse, but they can't just go back hoping to fight it in the courts - or at least i would hope that circular bullshit isn't an actual option for them.

at some point, is there some sort of court order to seize the documents, and refusal to do so would result in...contempt?  arrests?  for who?  i know people can refuse to show up (or if they show up, they can refuse to talk), but these documents exist somewhere, and it seems more black and white.

sucks that all this obstruction is impeding the investigation into whether the president obstructed.

The subpoena was sent to a third party that is a private, non-government entity. And did so at their request. Mazars doesn't have an interest to fight the subpoena because at this point, they'll be slapped with contempt charges and fines if they refuse. Trump's lawyers can fight it, but denying the stay pending appeal is a big dick energy play by the judge. Mazars has to comply by the date of the subpoena, otherwise pain starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45711

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

LOL @ people thinking laws still matter

This.  We are a couple of weeks away from "the dog ate my financial records" excuse.  Until people are arrested and this shit enforced, nothing matters.  Even then, these people will probably sit in jail rather than comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46088

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This.  We are a couple of weeks away from "the dog ate my financial records" excuse.  Until people are arrested and this shit enforced, nothing matters.  Even then, these people will probably sit in jail rather than comply.

No, this seems different.  This is what Mazars wanted.  They wanted to be able to show they resisted the House subpoena until ordered by the courts to comply.  "Sorry, POTUS -- the courts have ordered it and we have no choice".  They may get sued but they won't lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...