Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
SaintsInDome2006

The Case Against the President: Emoluments, Trump's Finances, Taxes & Foundation

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

I wish Judge Mehta would have said "Mr. Consovoy, finish this phrase:  Checks and blank. Checks and blank.". 

"Cash, Your Honor. We accept Checks and Cash."

Edited by apalmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@russchoma

Biggest takeaway from Trump's latest financial disclosure? He borrowed $11m from a south Florida bank. Bank CEO recently appointed to Miami branch of Atl Fed Reserve -- an independent appt but shows the messy nature of a sitting prez borrowing $$

 

Also, the $11m he borrowed from Popular Bank was to buy the house next door to Mar-A-Lago, quickly appeared on Trump realty website for $100k/month. Still there 10 months later, but now for $81k/month.

Edited by Bucky86
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 7:43 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I'm conscious of this. But leave Russia out of it. It's interesting to me that we got from Maddow the 1995 report. Now from the NYT we get the 1985-1994 reports. All are toplines, no schedules or annexes. So Trump loses continuously for 10 years and loses big, then in 1995 when he applies for help from DB he shows in the black and pays a decent amount. So what happens in 1996 and after? Does he return to huge losses? If so how does something like that happen?

I doubt it.  The economy was booming through the mid to late nineties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jonessed said:

I doubt it.  The economy was booming through the mid to late nineties.

That's quite the flipping of the switch from 1994 to 1995. Did something specifically happen in 1995 that would have turned a $100 million per year loser into a profit maker thereafter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

That's quite the flipping of the switch from 1994 to 1995. Did something specifically happen in 1995 that would have turned a $100 million per year loser into a profit maker thereafter?

If he was heavily invested in real estate.  RE crashed in the early 90s and then came back strong in the mid 90s.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge upholds House panel subpoena for Trump financial records.

District Judge Amit Mehta on Monday ruled in favor of a subpoena issued by the House Oversight Committee for President Trump's financial records from the accounting firm Mazars.

In a 41-page-long opinion, Mehta found that "President Trump cannot block the subpoena to Mazars."

Trump's attorneys had argued that the subpoena was unconstitutional because it wasn't tied to legislation. But attorneys for the House said that the records will help strengthen ethics and disclosure laws and see if Trump is in compliance with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

"These are facially valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations," Mehta wrote.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/regulation/444638-judge-upholds-house-panel-subpoena-for-trump-financial-records%3famp

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mile High said:

Judge upholds House panel subpoena for Trump financial records.

District Judge Amit Mehta on Monday ruled in favor of a subpoena issued by the House Oversight Committee for President Trump's financial records from the accounting firm Mazars.

In a 41-page-long opinion, Mehta found that "President Trump cannot block the subpoena to Mazars."

Trump's attorneys had argued that the subpoena was unconstitutional because it wasn't tied to legislation. But attorneys for the House said that the records will help strengthen ethics and disclosure laws and see if Trump is in compliance with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

"These are facially valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations," Mehta wrote.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/regulation/444638-judge-upholds-house-panel-subpoena-for-trump-financial-records%3famp

Not only that - but declined to issue a stay while Trump appeals (I assume the Appellate court will issue a stay.)

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the opinion. It's persuasive.

As things stand, Mazars is supposed to turn over the records in one week.

I'm sure Trump will appeal. I'm not sure what the process is for getting the appellate court to block the subpoena before it rules. I don't think it's automatic, but I'm not sure. If Trump has to convince the appellate court that his appeal is likely to succeed, I don't think that's going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Here's the opinion. It's persuasive.

As things stand, Mazars is supposed to turn over the records in one week.

I'm sure Trump will appeal. I'm not sure what the process is for getting the appellate court to block the subpoena before it rules. I don't think it's automatic, but I'm not sure. If Trump has to convince the appellate court that his appeal is likely to succeed, I don't think that's going to happen.

Its not automatic - but I would be surprised if the court does not issue a temporary stay - once the documents are disclosed it makes the case moot.

And, I would expect Team Trump to pull out all of the stops here - if the panel denies the stay, apply for an en banc hearing with the entire circuit, and if that fails, throw a hail mary to the SC.  (But I think the DC circuit will issue a temporary stay, and expedite the appeal.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Its not automatic - but I would be surprised if the court does not issue a temporary stay - once the documents are disclosed it makes the case moot.

And, I would expect Team Trump to pull out all of the stops here - if the panel denies the stay, apply for an en banc hearing with the entire circuit, and if that fails, throw a hail mary to the SC.  (But I think the DC circuit will issue a temporary stay, and expedite the appeal.)

If it's not automatic, there must be a test. I don't know what the specific test is, but it's hard to think of a reasonable one that he could pass. If irreparable harm is the only factor, okay, he can pass that. But I doubt there's a one-factor test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

If it's not automatic, there must be a test. I don't know what the specific test is, but it's hard to think of a reasonable one that he could pass. If irreparable harm is the only factor, okay, he can pass that. But I doubt there's a one-factor test.

"In the D.C. Circuit, courts assess four factors when determining whether to grant a motion for a stay pending appeal: '(1) the moving party’s likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, (2) whether the moving party will suffer irreparable injury, (3) whether issuance of the stay would substantially harm other parties in the proceeding, and (4) the public interest.'"
Akiachak Native Cmty. v. Jewell, 995 F. Supp. 2d 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2014).

 

This is, obviously, a pretty universal test.  The only slam dunk is irreparable harm, though you can argue effectively that Congress is not substantially harmed by the issuance of the stay, and "public interest" is really a fudge factor.  If Trump gets a favorable panel, I could see two judges deciding differently on the likelihood of success prong.

 

And, given that I would expect the Appelate Court to do the same as the District Court - hear the merits of the appeal at the same time it hears the motion for stay pending appeal - I could see the court issuing a temporary stay, with an expedited - next 1-2 weeks - appeal process.  It seems both parties have already extensively briefed the issues - the motions and arguments will be the same on appeal.

 

Of course, if the Court denies the stay - they are effectively saying Trump will not prevail on Appeal, and he will want it in front of the SC as quickly as possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

"In the D.C. Circuit, courts assess four factors when determining whether to grant a motion for a stay pending appeal: '(1) the moving party’s likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, (2) whether the moving party will suffer irreparable injury, (3) whether issuance of the stay would substantially harm other parties in the proceeding, and (4) the public interest.'"
Akiachak Native Cmty. v. Jewell, 995 F. Supp. 2d 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2014).

That's the same test the district court judge just applied and resolved in favor of the Committee. The circuit court might analyze things differently, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it. The district court's reasoning seemed right.

Trump has almost no shot of succeeding on the merits. His arguments are extremely stupid.

Trump would be irreparably injured if a stay is denied (and if he would have ended up prevailing), but the harm is mitigated by the fact that disclosure isn't to a business competitor: it's to Congress. Congress is presumed to be somewhat responsible about what they do with the info.

The last two factors aren't a huge deal, but the public interest generally favors transparency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

That's the same test the district court judge just applied and resolved in favor of the Committee. The circuit court might analyze things differently, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it. The district court's reasoning seemed right.

Trump has almost no shot of succeeding on the merits. His arguments are extremely stupid.

Trump would be irreparably injured if a stay is denied (and he would have ended up prevailing), but the harm is mitigated by the fact that disclosure isn't to a business competitor: it's to Congress. Congress is presumed to be somewhat responsible about what they do with the info.

The last two factors aren't a huge deal, but the public interest generally favors transparency.

Its an uphill climb - but, I would not be shocked if the court issued a stay, if the parties can not brief the court prior to Mazars turning over the documents.  Once Congress gets the documents, it shuts down the appelate process.  Really hard to unring that bell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One really disturbing piece underlying the president’s arguments has been the idea that the executive is separate and apart in our system, so for instance they argue that the WH can’t compel Congressmen into the Oval Office and so Congress can’t compel the WH’s staffs or documents to the Hill. But we have a republic, with a few very defined exceptions laws and power derive from Congress. Imo Trump is arguing for an authoritarian executive branch outside the reach of the Congress, it’s anti-constitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

One really disturbing piece underlying the president’s arguments has been the idea that the executive is separate and apart in our system, so for instance they argue that the WH can’t compel Congressmen into the Oval Office and so Congress can’t compel the WH’s staffs or documents to the Hill. But we have a republic, with a few very defined exceptions laws and power derive from Congress. Imo Trump is arguing for an authoritarian executive branch outside the reach of the Congress, it’s anti-constitutional.

In fairness, if we want to enable the leader of the executive branch to achieve his party’s objectives more effectively, it does make sense to disempower the legislature. That’s one of the take-home lessons from 1933.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merrick Garland is overseeing Trump's appeal? The writers of this show are just mailing it in now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.