President Trump

[bogey5]

Supreme Court hears Trump argument for absolute immunity today. I am concerned that the court will side with him. The Clinton case is the closest precedent, I am surprised the court was willing of hear the case at all which means I am more afraid it will side with him. Kavanaugh has written some frightening legal briefs on this subject.
In 2004 he was forced to submit finances in a court case. In a written brief Trump claimed his net worth was excess of $3b. When the finance records were turned over, the banks had it at less than $800m. While I understand some dispute in net worth (value of brands for example), I'll go with the banks assessment. People who saw those sealed documents in 2004 cannot talk about them in detail but have said their were items lawmakers would definitely want to investigate further.
I hope the court supports the New York AG and congress' constitutional right to oversight.
I peg Trump's net worth at about $1.2-1.8b. I doubt it approaches $3b even today. That would make him a exceptionally average businessman (even at $3b it would not make him a genius as he claims). Considering he inherited something in the neighbourhood of $400m a genius would be worth in excess of $4b at least. I'll bet their are some truly concerning co-signers for loans, nefarious business partners and lenders a president has no business dealing with.

trump assigns $billions of net worth for the value of his "brand".

[Bosco]

I’m sure he could get Kislyak a deal on a membership at Mar a Lago

[WWFS]

Why would the Head of State of a democracy seek legal immunity?

That is a principle identified with dictators.

Even The Queen is not above the law, as per Magna Carta.

Because it’s the only thing keeping him out of jail?

[Bellyhungry]

I'm almost afraid to ask. How much wilder could it get than what has gone on to date?

Buckle up Fred.The next 8 months are gonna be lit!

[Fredk]

Buckle up Fred.The next 8 months are gonna be lit!

No doubt. I used to think the GOP had limits. We now know that is not the case, so whatever Trump tries the GOP supports.

[pudubny]

I’ll definitely give it a listen . In the end, my guess is that the court will decide it’s too political, and punt.

There are three arguments, they can punt on the congressional supeonas but cannot see how they dodge NY case. I tend to agree they will try to dodge the supeona from congress, then it's up to congress if they want to really use their power, to charge and detain people for contempt. Not used since the 30's.

[pudubny]

trump assigns $billions of net worth for the value of his "brand".

Meaningless. These arguments go on all the time between lenders and companies or with auditors but essentially its value is decided by those from outside, not inside. Until he tries to sell it nobody knows for certain but for valuation purposes outside estimates are considered a better gauge.

[Bellyhungry]

No doubt. I used to think the GOP had limits. We now know that is not the case, so whatever Trump tries the GOP supports.

It is a learned behavior. Look what happened to all the GOPs who had stood up to Trump? None managed to sway the base.

[hackerhare]

I think Kaitlan Collins was going to defend her . . . then he goes too slow, it is over . . .

I think the Jack Nicholson (A Few Good Men) moment is fast approaching.

[WWFS]

There are three arguments, they can punt on the congressional supeonas but cannot see how they dodge NY case. I tend to agree they will try to dodge the supeona from congress, then it's up to congress if they want to really use their power, to charge and detain people for contempt. Not used since the 30's.

I thought there were only 2... congressional oversight and NY State.

I still think they will punt on both. With congressional oversight, I think they will punt saying it's a negotiation between congress and the executive. I expect they will try to find a way to punt the NY State investigation back to the lower courts, so as to extend the issue past the November election.

I'll be listening closely to questions from Kavanaugh and Roberts.

[pudubny]

I thought there were only 2... congressional oversight and NY State.

I still think they will punt on both. With congressional oversight, I think they will punt saying it's a negotiation between congress and the executive. I expect they will try to find a way to punt the NY State investigation back to the lower courts, so as to extend the issue past the November election.

I'll be listening closely to questions from Kavanaugh and Roberts.

2 separate congressional committee cases. I agree there is some wiggle room on the state case. But if they kick it back, the State court ruling stands as I understand and Vance gets his records. Will likely take a few months to resolve but eventually he gets them. Currently before a grand jury so they would still be sealed until after the election and might never be unsealed.
If they find someway to rule against congress, congressional oversight will become virtually meaningless without impeachment.

[WWFS]

2 separate congressional committee cases. I agree there is some wiggle room on the state case. But if they kick it back, the State court ruling stands as I understand and Vance gets his records. Will likely take a few months to resolve but eventually he gets them. Currently before a grand jury so they would still be sealed until after the election and might never be unsealed.
If they find someway to rule against congress, congressional oversight will become virtually meaningless without impeachment.

I think the compromise of kicking the NY State case back has one goal... to extend the issue past November.

Whether they punt on congressional oversight by determining that it is a political issue, or find in favor of Trump, the result will be the same. It will castrate congressional oversight and separation of powers for at least a generation.

[SeanAvery2point0]

If they find someway to rule against congress, congressional oversight will become virtually meaningless without impeachment.

I don't see how congressional oversight of the President's taxes affects the ability of Congress to conduct oversight for matters related to legislation or executive oversight. It is pretty easy to argue that the records they are seeking are not needed for any proper legislative purposes.

[pudubny]

I don't see how congressional oversight of the President's taxes affects the ability of Congress to conduct oversight for matters related to legislation or executive oversight. It is pretty easy to argue that the records they are seeking are not needed for any proper legislative purposes.

You would have to believe Trump's lawyers argument that oversight and legislative purpose are related. They are not. Since the Teapot Dome Scandal, SCOTUS endorsed this stating in 1922, "The power of inquiry … is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” At that time the Harding Admin had granted sweetheart deals to oil companies and the DOJ was not investigating. The senate and congress stepped up to investigate if the DOJ was ignoring obvious conflicts of interest at the least. They had that right as part of oversight of the DOJ. The court ruled that as part of their oversight, they could inquire to see if DOJ had done a thorough investigation of the circumstances. It was the biggest presidential scandal up until Watergate.
The senate and congress have oversight of the ethics office. They feel Trump is likely violating the emoluments clause in several areas. Both the ethics office and DOJ are essentially ignoring these issues. The circumstances are remarkably similar. Without knowing the facts, they cannot determine if these issues are in fact being ignored.
So if SCOTUS ignore the power of inquiry as part of oversight I don't see how any potential wrongdoing done within a presidential administration can be investigated without an impeachment trial. The legwork that lead to Nixon's impeachment would be impossible. No request to investigate would ever be obeyed or would have to be.
the legislative argument is a very slippery slope, congress loses many powers of oversight if SCOTUS endorses it. I'm not sure anyone wants to go down that road except of course Trump. His philosophy is "investigate everyone but not me."

So Trump is asking SCOTUS to overrule 100 years of precedent, I find it further very concerning that DOJ joined him in this case.

[ginrin]

If you get rid of all your oversight avenues, what do you end up with? A DICTATORSHIP.