The Case Against the President: Emoluments, Trump's Finances, Taxes & Foundation (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Eventually, if the property is sold, would they not equal? (Or at least there would be a tax on the difference, right?)

That's one way to update the tax value, yes....through sale.  Another is a periodic tax assessment done by the state/local govt.  I've even seen tax values updated based on them being used as collateral.  It's not uncommon at all for the values to be different.  What IS uncommon is for them to be significantly different.  If they are significantly different, the primary reason would be that the person's had the property forever.  Like my mom...her tax value of her house is maybe a quarter of the FMV.  She's lived in the same house over forty years and it's never been used as collateral etc.  If she sells it, what she pays in taxes now will be significantly less than what the new owner pays.

 

[timschochet]

Expand on what’s corrupt? It’s not unusual for the actual value of a property and the book value shown in tax returns to differ....don’t you agree?

I’m sorry I thought he was talking about misrepresenting income, not property valuations. Basically some landlords I know don’t report all income and that is illegal. Most of them simply hide a few checks a year- they just “disappear”. But I know one guy with a center that has a cash flow of over a million a year, and he insists all the tenants pay him cash, and his tax return shows $600,000. I know, I’ve seen it. At some point this dude is going to be audited and he will go to jail; that’s very dangerous.

Property  valuations are a different story. In my state they’re not connected to tax assessments at all due to Prop 13. But there are ways to cheat on this too, more subtly. 

 

[timschochet]

Eventually, if the property is sold, would they not equal? (Or at least there would be a tax on the difference, right?)

Theoretically. But if you have a property worth 100 million and then sell it to a buddy for 10 million... you get the point. 

 

[timschochet]

Anyhow the taxes appear to show that Trump was a terrible businessman in the 90s, got overextended, lost a ton of money. He wasn’t the only one, but die to his incessant bragging it’s pretty embarrassing. 

 

[msommer]

Theoretically. But if you have a property worth 100 million and then sell it to a buddy for 10 million... you get the point. 

It would seem that your buddy got a great deal...

 

[GoBirds]

Eventually, if the property is sold, would they not equal? (Or at least there would be a tax on the difference, right?)

You all are discussing the municipality assessment value used for property taxation, this is separate from your cost basis on a tax return. When a property is sold the municipality would see the price it sold at and should adjust that assessment so for at least that small window of time the assessment value and fair market value should be reasonably close. Neither of these are whats shown on a tax return (besides sales price i sold that year of return), the return has the cost basis of the asset which is based on your investment in the property less depreciation. That value will be used to base the cap gains tax the seller will owe at sales price - cost basis. This is why the "release the tax returnz!" outrage is comical as it isn't going to prove anything, especially on his personal tax returns. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Judge fast-tracks fight over congressional subpoena of Trump financial records
 

Judge Amit Mehta plans next week to weigh the major legal issues raised in President Donald Trump's challenge of a congressional subpoena for his accounting firm's records, according to an order issued Thursday -- putting the case on an even faster track than it previously looked to be.

Congress has subpoenaed Trump and his business' accounting records from the firm Mazars USA, and Trump's personal legal team sued to stop the records from being turned over.

A hearing is now scheduled for May 14.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Anyhow the taxes appear to show that Trump was a terrible businessman in the 90s, got overextended, lost a ton of money. He wasn’t the only one, but die to his incessant bragging it’s pretty embarrassing. 

Yaknow, the Trump defense of this is also an argument about why Congress should have these. If corporate owners of conglomerates - like casinos and real estate for crying out loud - can get away with being $250 million in the red - 25-35 years ago - then how many are doing this and what are they getting away with now? I think the argument is actually there for Congress to look at this from a tax reform standpoint.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is why the "release the tax returnz!" outrage is comical as it isn't going to prove anything, especially on his personal tax returns. 

I just want you to know I've appreciated reading these points.

Just on this though, Trump actually said during the campaign that his manipulations of the tax code meant that he was better prepared to reform the unfair loopholes better than anyone. If I take your points at face value, and they read reasonably, it seems like an argument why the tax code should be reformed. I can't think of a better set of tax returns to work off of than Trump's. Almost everything you point out suggests perhaps even a better reason why Congress should review them. I can't imagine there are even 5-10 individuals in America who have managed $1 billion in individual reported losses in any decade, so there really isn't a better case to examine.

 

[The Commish]

I just want you to know I've appreciated reading these points.

Just on this though, Trump actually said during the campaign that his manipulations of the tax code meant that he was better prepared to reform the unfair loopholes better than anyone. If I take your points at face value, and they read reasonably, it seems like an argument why the tax code should be reformed. I can't think of a better set of tax returns to work off of than Trump's. Almost everything you point out suggests perhaps even a better reason why Congress should review them. I can't imagine there are even 5-10 individuals in America who have managed $1 billion in individual reported losses in any decade, so there really isn't a better case to examine.

I appreciate where you're going here but there is exactly zero chance he had any sort of meaningful knowledge of the tax code

That said am i reading that they are after more than tax records?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I appreciate where you're going here but there is exactly zero chance he had any sort of meaningful knowledge of the tax code

That said am i reading that they are after more than tax records?

Ha, I am willing to plead ignorance there. I meant to include others who were discussing it if it wasn't clear, you, Tim and Sammy too.

I hadn't thought of your second point, the requests to the banks and accountants and all that might be included too, though I somewhat think it may be on a different track.

 

[The Commish]

Ha, I am willing to plead ignorance there. I meant to include others who were discussing it if it wasn't clear, you, Tim and Sammy too.

I hadn't thought of your second point, the requests to the banks and accountants and all that might be included too, though I somewhat think it may be on a different track.

I'm talking about trump. Not gobirds

 

[GoBirds]

I just want you to know I've appreciated reading these points.

Just on this though, Trump actually said during the campaign that his manipulations of the tax code meant that he was better prepared to reform the unfair loopholes better than anyone. If I take your points at face value, and they read reasonably, it seems like an argument why the tax code should be reformed. I can't think of a better set of tax returns to work off of than Trump's. Almost everything you point out suggests perhaps even a better reason why Congress should review them. I can't imagine there are even 5-10 individuals in America who have managed $1 billion in individual reported losses in any decade, so there really isn't a better case to examine.

A bunch of political puppets already requested the returns in manners similar to those in here that have shown they have no handle on what they are asking for whatsoever......all they are doing is trying to score political points. There is absolutely no doubt the IRS has been all over this guys @#@# from every direction for the last 4 decades, the odds of anyone in here or the morons on congress turning up something the IRS hasn't just isn't real life. Good political theater for the Left, very little substance. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm talking about trump. Not gobirds

Yep, sorry I was trying to be complimentary (to everyone) earlier.

About Trump, he has some idea about taxes. I do believe that. For one thing he lobbied for those very same loopholes in the 90s.

For another real reform could come out of it, and I'm guessing he's aware of that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There is absolutely no doubt the IRS has been all over this guys @#@# from every direction for the last 4 decades, the odds of anyone in here or the morons on congress turning up something the IRS hasn't just isn't real life.

This was kind of my point. If corporate magnates are doing this kind of thing - taking tens and hundreds of millions in personal losses while actually, per you about Trump, doing quite well and making money as being very successful - then that's a problem. Ideally Congress would see that and do something about it. I personally don't understand why we want crazy rich people getting away with no taxes if that's the argument. I think that was actually a campaign theme of Trump's, at some point he actually said that he was well positioned to reform the very tax laws that he had taken advantage of.

 

[Sammy3469]

This was kind of my point. If corporate magnates are doing this kind of thing - taking tens and hundreds of millions in personal losses while actually, per you about Trump, doing quite well and making money as being very successful - then that's a problem. Ideally Congress would see that and do something about it. I personally don't understand why we want crazy rich people getting away with no taxes if that's the argument. I think that was actually a campaign theme of Trump's, at some point he actually said that he was well positioned to reform the very tax laws that he had taken advantage of.

I mean crazy rich people get away with paying slim to no tax all the time (the whole carrried interest loophole and private equity industry are built around that).  Heck it’s not unusual for the crazy rich to show huge losses in a (or in a few) years.

What isn’t usual is for the crazy rich to show continually losses on their taxes and make money. That simply can’t happen especially for someone who was buying and selling properties especially when we know every Wall Street firm got burned by him.  That’s not possible.  

You can show the losses, but eventually you have to gain the gain on the sale.  Trump was doing enough buying and selling that the losses were at least in part real.

 

[GoBirds]

This was kind of my point. If corporate magnates are doing this kind of thing - taking tens and hundreds of millions in personal losses while actually, per you about Trump, doing quite well and making money as being very successful - then that's a problem. Ideally Congress would see that and do something about it. I personally don't understand why we want crazy rich people getting away with no taxes if that's the argument. I think that was actually a campaign theme of Trump's, at some point he actually said that he was well positioned to reform the very tax laws that he had taken advantage of.

Trust me, I don’t think anyone would be surprised at Democrats in Congress trying to make life harder on business owners. More of the same, I guess they could try but it doesn’t even sound like you all have a handle on how things work regarding these tax laws or how you would change it to make it better? You realize these same laws you are worried about for large corporations also affect the small corporations and business too? The loss carry forward is legal and is very helpful for those in cyclical businesses like real estate that take big losses to recover. No matter how good you are if you were in real estate in times like 2008 it was a blood bath and you were lucky to hang on. But if Democrats are just looking for something new to complain about and hurt businesses and the economy then spinning this I guess is red meat for their base.  

 

[McJose]

Seth Meyers called Trump “a one-man Fyre Festival”.

 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm talking about trump.

Just a follow up on this point.

Is Donald Trump Smart Enough to Understand His Own Tax Returns?

Trump Tax Attorney: ‘He Didn’t Understand the Code’

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trust me, I don’t think anyone would be surprised at Democrats in Congress trying to make life harder on business owners. More of the same, I guess they could try but it doesn’t even sound like you all have a handle on how things work regarding these tax laws or how you would change it to make it better? You realize these same laws you are worried about for large corporations also affect the small corporations and business too? The loss carry forward is legal and is very helpful for those in cyclical businesses like real estate that take big losses to recover. No matter how good you are if you were in real estate in times like 2008 it was a blood bath and you were lucky to hang on. But if Democrats are just looking for something new to complain about and hurt businesses and the economy then spinning this I guess is red meat for their base.  

Just to be clear I think the time period was 1985-1994. I'm not sure but I am guessing 1987-88 may have been rough due to the crash. But Sammy has a good point above, it's not 1-2 years, like a 2008, it's every year, an average of -100 mill per year, a total of over -$1 billion.

I also want to be sure we are talking about the same thing. I said corporate magnates, not corporations. I am talking about individuals, not businesses.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Feds open foreign-money investigation into Trump donor Cindy Yang

 

[GoBirds]

Just to be clear I think the time period was 1985-1994. I'm not sure but I am guessing 1987-88 may have been rough due to the crash. But Sammy has a good point above, it's not 1-2 years, like a 2008, it's every year, an average of -100 mill per year, a total of over -$1 billion.

I also want to be sure we are talking about the same thing. I said corporate magnates, not corporations. I am talking about individuals, not businesses.

So what changes do you make and how do you target these individuals and not hurt the smaller guys at the same time? Many of these corporations like S Corps pass through to your individual return. 

 

[The Commish]

Just a follow up on this point.

Is Donald Trump Smart Enough to Understand His Own Tax Returns?

Trump Tax Attorney: ‘He Didn’t Understand the Code’

It's not a leap.  He thinks that China is paying the increased costs due to his tariffs.  I can't expect someone who knows so little about basic economics to understand the most complicated tax code in the world.  Logic simply doesn't allow you to go that path  

 

[Amused to Death]

It's not a leap.  He thinks that China is paying the increased costs due to his tariffs.  I can't expect someone who knows so little about basic economics to understand the most complicated tax code in the world.  Logic simply doesn't allow you to go that path  

I don't believe he thinks this at all. I believe he keeps saying it so his base thinks China is paying the tarrifs. There's no way at this point no one has corrected him on it.

Trump is Dear Leader, if he says it, it must be true.

 

[The Commish]

I don't believe he thinks this at all. I believe he keeps saying it so his base thinks China is paying the tarrifs. There's no way at this point no one has corrected him on it.

Trump is Dear Leader, if he says it, it must be true.

Perhaps. I just don't think he's that smart.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So what changes do you make and how do you target these individuals and not hurt the smaller guys at the same time? Many of these corporations like S Corps pass through to your individual return. 

I think I personally would like a Congressional explanation of how this happens and a decision if it is good policy.

And while I think your point about small business RE vs megacorporate real estate sharing the same goals or using the same tools is a good one, I have a hard time seeing the 1-1 on how a billionaire casino owner can personally show $100 million per year losses affects my or my family's ability to invest in real estate. And I do generally support business incentives.

I just want to break the partisan logjam with you for a moment as this is Trump from the campaign.

CLINTON: But, of course, there's no way we can know whether any of that is true, because he hasn't released his tax returns. He is the first candidate ever to run for president in the last 40-plus years who has not released his tax returns, so everything he says about charity or anything else, we can't prove it. You can look at our tax returns. We've got them all out there.

But what is really troubling is that we learned in the last debate he has not paid a penny in federal income tax. And we were talking about immigrants a few minutes ago, Chris. You know, half of all immigrants -- undocumented immigrants in our country -- actually pay federal income tax. So we have undocumented immigrants in America who are paying more federal income tax than a billionaire. I find that just astonishing.

...TRUMP: So let me just tell you very quickly, we're entitled because of the laws that people like her passed to take massive amounts of depreciation on other charges, and we do it. And all of her donors -- just about all of them -- I know Buffett took hundreds of millions of dollars, Soros, George Soros, took hundreds of millions of dollars...

...Let me just explain. ... Most of her donors have done the same thing as I do. ... You know what she should have done? ... And you know, Hillary, what you should have done, you should have changed the law when you were a United States senator... because your donors and your special interests are doing the same thing as I do, except even more so. ... You should have changed the law. But you won't change the law, because you take in so much money. ...

- That's not exactly the quote I have been thinking of. The quote I'm thinking of was Trump at a campaign rally telling his followers that yes it's true that he takes big deductions (not sure anyone knew how big then but anyway...) because of that he was best positioned to understand the loopholes and he would be working for the American people not himself in the White House.

- About the above , Trump may have been right. Maybe Dems do not want to reform the actual loopholes, they receive benefits from such donors as well, I'm sure that is true. But I as an American would like to know how it is that apparently a man can have as much as $250 million tax losses (in 1990 dollars, who knows what this is now...) and yet apparently per you still profit. Or is he really not profiting at all? I really don't care whose tax ox gets gored there.

But I don't think it helps that Buffet showed that Trump was lying when he made that claim, at least to him. So if Trump was lying about Buffett who is the comp?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I know there are some people that buy into the Rachel Maddow theory that he borrowed money from Deutche, who gets their money from Russia, so Trump is a stooge of Russia.

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?

 

[GoBirds]

I think I personally would like a Congressional explanation of how this happens and a decision if it is good policy.

And while I think your point about small business RE vs megacorporate real estate sharing the same goals or using the same tools is a good one, I have a hard time seeing the 1-1 on how a billionaire casino owner can personally show $100 million per year losses affects my or my family's ability to invest in real estate. And I do generally support business incentives.

I just want to break the partisan logjam with you for a moment as this is Trump from the campaign.

- That's not exactly the quote I have been thinking of. The quote I'm thinking of was Trump at a campaign rally telling his followers that yes it's true that he takes big deductions (not sure anyone knew how big then but anyway...) because of that he was best positioned to understand the loopholes and he would be working for the American people not himself in the White House.

- About the above , Trump may have been right. Maybe Dems do not want to reform the actual loopholes, they receive benefits from such donors as well, I'm sure that is true. But I as an American would like to know how it is that apparently a man can have as much as $250 million tax losses (in 1990 dollars, who knows what this is now...) and yet apparently per you still profit. Or is he really not profiting at all? I really don't care whose tax ox gets gored there.

But I don't think it helps that Buffet showed that Trump was lying when he made that claim, at least to him. So if Trump was lying about Buffett who is the comp?

I think you are confusing what I’m saying and maybe it’s my fault, I was speaking of profiting over the long haul......no doubt those years the losses were realized he was taking big hits. Being able to carry forward that loss helps you survive/bounce back and be around for the good years. From experience I can tell you that law helps much much smaller guys as well. Depreciation has also been around forever, none of this is new it just sounds like a bunch are disgruntled about it now cuz Trump. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trump's lawyers question Congress' power to investigate him, battle House over demand for financial records
 

...

Trump’s personal lawyer, William Consovoy, argued repeatedly that Congress was seeking the president's financial information for what is essentially a law-enforcement purpose – which was outside its authority – rather to work on legislation. The subpoena sought Trump’s financial records to look for inconsistencies in his financial disclosure forms, and whether he misstated his holdings for loans that could leave him beholden to foreigners.

“That is law enforcement,” Consovoy said. “Are you complying with federal law?”

At one point, Mehta asked if Congress could investigate if the president was engaged in corrupt behavior in office.

“I don’t think that’s the proper subject of investigation as to the president,” Consovoy said, although executive agencies could be investigated.

Mehta sounded incredulous, asking whether Congress could have investigated Watergate, which led to President Richard Nixon's resignation, and Whitewater, which led to President Bill Clinton's impeachment. Consovoy initially said he’d had to look at the basis for those investigations.

“They were inquiring as to violations of criminal law,” Mehta said. “It’s pretty straightforward – among other things.”

Consovoy said the question is whether the legislation the committee cited was a valid reason for the subpoena.

“That is still law enforcement," Consovoy said. ...

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

Trump's lawyers question Congress' power to investigate him, battle House over demand for financial records
 

Good Lord

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim Mak‏Verified account @timkmak

Was in the courtroom today for Judge Mehta's hearing on Trump v Oversight Cmte, regarding subpoena for Trump's financial docs Judge seemed rather skeptical of Trump lawyer argument, and noted that not a single case had ruled that Congress had overstepped in subpoenas since 1880

10:01 AM - 14 May 2019

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

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

 

[apalmer]

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."

 

[jonessed]

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.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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?

 

[jonessed]

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.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Honda held an event for automakers at Maralago.

 

[That one guy]

Honda held an event for automakers at Maralago.

They mustn’t have tipped well, he (Trump) called them (foreign car imports) a national security threat recently 

 

[Mile High]

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

 

[Sinn Fein]

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.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

 

[Sinn Fein]

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.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

 

[Sinn Fein]

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.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

"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.

 

[Sinn Fein]

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.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Apparently IRS Attorneys concluded that the IRS must comply with Congress

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Judge denies Trump request to stop Congressional subpoenas of Deutsche Bank & Cap One financial records.

- 0-2.