Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Places Administrative Stay on Congressional Subpoena For President Trump’s Financial Records…

Shortly after 6pm this evening Supreme Court Justice Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put a prior 2nd Circuit ruling on hold until next Friday, December 13, at 5 p.m.

President Trump went to the Supreme Court after the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One seeking President Trump’s tax records. In his request to the court [Read Here] Trump asked SCOTUS to block the subpoenas on the ground they go beyond the committees’ powers.

Justice Ginsburg’s order tonight gives the justices time to rule on Trump’s request for a longer stay of the lower court’s decision while he files a petition for review. Ginsburg ordered the House of Representatives to file a response to Trump’s request by 11 a.m. on Wednesday, December 11.

At their private SCOTUS conference next week, the justices are scheduled to consider President Trump’s original petition for review of a lower-court ruling that would require him to turn over tax records to the SDNY who are seeking them as part of a grand-jury investigation. The SCOTUS decision today, placing a hold on a similar House effort, essentially allows the court to receive arguments relating to the second request for tax records and contemplate the merit of both.

The first request to the Supreme Court resulted in them issuing a ruling maintaining the block against House Democrats receiving President Trump’s tax returns.  The one paragraph order [pdf here] essentially maintained the stay and requested the Trump administration to file a formal request for review by the court.   The Trump filing today is a response to that SCOTUS request:

FULL PDF AVAILABLE HERE

The underlying House case has several defects.

Attorney Ristvan previously provided a good encapsulation of the problems for the House that explains why President Trump could likely win the case:

House Oversight is one of three committees that 26USC§6103(f) requires the IRS to turn over individual returns “upon request”.

They requested (PDJT taxes for 6 years 2013-2018) long before Pelosi announced her impeachment inquiry, way before the House vote on same, to which Pelosi said Sunday, (paraphrased) “We haven’t decided to impeach. We are only inquiring about it.”

The ‘upon request’ is not as absolute as it seems. The request must still be predicated on a legitimate legislative purpose. SCOTUS has held (I skip the rulings, since previously commented on here many months ago) that there are only two valid purposes, both constrained to legislative powers expressly granted by A1§8.

1. An inquiry into making, repealing, or amending an A1§8 law.
2. Oversight of executive administration of an existing law.

With respect to (1), a legitimate legislative purpose would be reviewing real estate tax law for possible changes. BUT then, the request should have come from Ways and Means (Neal) where tax laws originate. AND, it should have included requests for tax returns from other big real estate developers also. Singling out only PDJT is a fatal defect to this purpose.

With respect to (2), after Nixon/Agnew the tax code was amended to require a special IRS audit of annual POTUS and VPOTUS returns, with the results held in the National Archive. Reviewing those special audits by IRS would be a proper Oversight and Reform legislative purpose, BUT ONLY for 2017-2018 after PDJT was inaugurated. The earlier 4 years demanded are a fatal defect to this purpose.

Both these valid points were raised by President Trump and were already on their way to SCOTUS. Now the committee is trying to ‘cure’ these fatal request defects by claiming the returns are necessary for impeachment. This raises four new issues where PDJT can also win.

1. Impeachment is not a legislative purpose within A1§8.
2. Articles of Impeachment have historically been the the province of Judiciary, NOT Oversight.
3. The demand was made BEFORE the impeachment inquiry unofficially started and cannot be retrospectively cured.
4. No tax ‘high crimes of misdemeanors’ have even been alleged. Impeachment fishing expeditions are unconstitutional.

IMO this case has the potential to set a major constitutional precedent about POTUS harassment via political impeachment. The constitutional convention minutes and Federalist #65 both make it clear why ‘maladministration’ (the original third test after treason and bribery, and which WOULD allow for political impeachment) was replaced by ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’. The phrase was borrowed from prior British law, has a specific set of meanings, and DOES NOT allow political impeachment. (link)

The quest for President Trump’s financial records is essentially a legislative fishing expedition in an attempt to gain opposition research for their Democrat candidate in the 2020 election.

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the unilaterally declared House impeachment process.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry” upon which they have built their original legal arguments.

♦The first case is the House Oversight Committee effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight.  That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court.  Written briefs soon, arguments perhaps in early December? Outcome pending.  There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.

Ginsburg placed a hold on the order on Friday, according to Reuters. The 2nd District Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Tuesday ordering Deutsche Bank and Capital One to turn over financial documents on Trump, members of his family, and his business.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put the 2nd Circuit’s ruling on hold until next Friday, December 13, at 5 p.m. Ginsburg’s order gives the justices time to rule on Trump’s request for a longer stay of the lower court’s decision while he files a petition for review. Ginsburg ordered the House of Representatives to file a response to Trump’s request by 11 a.m. on Wednesday, December 11. (link)

Probability of loss to Pelosi 90%.

♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation.  The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was  stayed by a three member DC Appellate court.  Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case could will also go to SCOTUS]

[…] the appeals court in a brief order said it would not immediately release the documents “pending further order of the court.” The court also asked the House and the Justice Department for more briefings and set a Jan. 3 date for another hearing.  (link)

Probability of SCOTUS 100%

♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn.  Issue: subpoena validity.  The HJC asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered her ruling November 25th.:

Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)

However, two days later Judge Brown-Jackson stayed her own ruling...

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, an Obama appointee on the district court in D.C., granted McGahn’s request for a temporary stay while she deliberates on whether to issue a lengthier one to allow him to appeal her decision.

The House Judiciary Committee, which had asked the court to enforce its subpoena for President Trump‘s former legal adviser, said it would not oppose a temporary stay. (read more)

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90%

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are now rushing toward a full House impeachment vote while simultaneously attempting to stall any judicial decision (Appeals or SCOTUS) that would undermine their manufactured impeachment authority.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Impeachment, media bias, President Trump, Supreme Court, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

163 Responses to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Places Administrative Stay on Congressional Subpoena For President Trump’s Financial Records…

  1. Gort says:

    Tells you just far Democrats have gone off the deep end when even Ginsburg can’t abide by their tactics.

    Liked by 36 people

  2. Sounds like something Ruthie didn’t have much leeway on, but we’ll take it either way.

    Liked by 23 people

  3. Fnck ‘Em! Gonna go out and get me a big, fat Sharpie!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Mark W says:

    Senate confirmed EIGHT new federal judges this week – Nearly all in 40s/50s – lifetime appointments – will shape American law for generations
    https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/senate-confirmed-eight-new-federal-judges-this-week-nearly-all-in-40s-50s-lifetime-appointments-will-shape-american-law-for-generations/

    Liked by 21 people

  5. Harvey Lipschitz says:

    The weight of the matter (Nadler crushing a horse on The Jerry-go-round)
    They prefer a delay over a rejection. Don’t forget the House is not a court. ,

    Liked by 16 people

    • spoogels says:

      Thoughts from the ammo line

      Ammo Grrrll has discovered FOUR PEOPLE MORE QUALIFIED FOR THEIR LUCRATIVE NEW JOBS THAN HUNTER BIDEN – altogether a PARODY divided into 4 parts. She writes:

      “GQ (formerly Gentleman’s Quarterly) has announced that Jerry Nadler has been named Style Editor with a salary and benefits package of $80,000 a month. GQ Editor-in-Chief Will Welch said: “The new look for 2020 will be that belted-under-the-armpits look made so popular by Mr. Nadler, or as we call him Natty ‘Nads. What a trendsetter! Although this will probably represent a cut in pay for any politician, he has agreed to step in to save the magazine from what some feared was a turn away from its legendary macho look, especially with the spring magazine showing a lot of man purses and little matching gloves. The Nadler New Direction – the baggy suit, the shirt damp with House Judicial Committee Hearing flopsweat, the food-stained tie, and especially the belt – well, he’s just got it all.”

      https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/thoughts-from-the-ammo-line-301.php

      Liked by 10 people

    • Thanks Lipschitz, as that there Nadless mention there is hilarious! So nads were the only thing that weren’t crushed on the Jerry-go-round. Ha!

      Like

  6. In the end – “a writ of attainder.” The Legislature, on its own authority, singling out a particular person and declaring him or her to be guilty of some crime, and then punishing him or her for the same, all without a trial or due process. Classic attainder, according to every legal test.

    Enough is enough. §1.9.3 and §10.10.1 mean exactly what they say. The Founders of our country were scholars and historians. They’d seen this before.

    Liked by 26 people

    • trnathens says:

      Guys, this is WHY PDJT is practically daring Pelosi to impeach. “Get on with it!” And she’s delaying, doing everything she can to make it look like an impeachment, but not technically an impeachment, because once they technically impeach him, PDJT’s defense is airtight, based on the attainder defense. The ban on Attainders is predicated on a legislative body “passing a law”… I’m guessing the legal team of VSGPDJT is waiting for the passage of Articles of Impeachment, so they can then firmly rely upon Supreme Court precedent (contained in U.S. Constitution, and every state constitution, I think), the explicitly forbids this exact situation. This is gong to backfire so badly against Democrats. They are going to inadvertently strengthen the OFFICE of the President, and thus the Executive Branch, at their Oversight expense. The backlash will be harsh. The precedent is SO clear, that any decision otherwise will show the compromise of the Supreme Court. This is the last chance of any compromised Justices to easily rely on stare decisis, and affirm the longstanding precedent against attainder bills. Without fear of reprisal, because THIS DECISION could remove all hurdles for PDJT to be clear of all this. And to expose everything without fear of anything anymore.

      Like Sundance says, there are trillions at stake, and, the profuse blackmailing, and graft, that control a lot of politicians on both sides.

      Liked by 10 people

      • Xena Laminak says:

        But if Nancy fails to impeach the MF, SOB, dirt bag, what will AOC, Jane Fonda, Cher, Alyssa Milano, Robert De Niro Jr., Bette Midler, and the rest of Hollyweird and the Squad do? I’d hate to see them all, like stop making movies, 0h wait.

        Liked by 1 person

        • littleanniefannie says:

          Then again, they could just rerun movies from 50 years ago and we wouldn’t be worried about the garbage Hollyweird is putting out today. From the “power” actors (aka wannabes) listed above, maybe they can move on to the fold folks home, where they belong, in a new wing designed specifically for their ilk—The Demented Ward!

          Like

        • testpointwp says:

          United we stand. Divided they fall.

          The top four Dem’s combined, running for President, garner less than 50% support from their base. Biden’s base will be confused over which Tuesday is election day. Bernie will drop out to get the payoff of his fourth home and his followers will throw a tantrum and not vote. Butt-gigs pals will gather round for mimosas. Warren’s people will have to decide on whether to vote for Warren or write in Hillary.

          Bottom line – I’m predicting this will be the worst turnout of Dem’s in a Presidential election in the history of the Republic.

          Liked by 2 people

      • trnathens says:

        And wouldn’t it make sense that those screaming the loudest, the longest, and those willing to subvert the Constitution so clearly, and without precedent logically must be, right, the most compromised, or in on the Big Con?

        I mean, wouldn’t that make sense? And the MSM is compromised for NOT covering what they know. And THEY don’t want to be exposed as knowing the graft, corruption, and blackmail is real, but keeping it quiet because they support the political aims of those involved.

        Liked by 5 people

        • littleanniefannie says:

          The Media will claim ignorance (very apropos) and a lack of curiosity (based on their hero Obama’s manipulations of the Intelligence community moral absence). Both points are valid to those who are willfully blind and intellectually bankrupt.

          Liked by 2 people

      • trnathens says:

        If she doesn’t ever “technically” impeach by passing Articles of Impeachment, PDJT wins, she loses hugely (short-term: politically, long-term: Executive is strengthened), and then PDJT pummels them over the head with all of it, and decimates everyone/institution involved, thereby draining the swamp.

        Or, she impeaches and SCOTUS declares that the purpose and effect of the Articles of Impeachment are consistent with a bill of attainder, and therefore clearly unconstitutional. PDJT wins. She loses…hugely, in every way. And so do all those in on it, while those blackmailed are free from their bondage. No one who is compromised knows who to support. Everyone seems to be breaking towards the Democrat side (Napolitano anyone), but they don’t know what they think they know.

        It’s gonna turn out that they chose poorly, but it doesn’t look that way right at this moment in time.

        Like

        • It looks like they chose poorly to me, and since they are all corrupt as hell and involved in the “trickle-down” theft of trillions, they are all also incredibly screwed.

          We were ALL told by President Trump what he was going to do when elected, and he is going to do it.

          Liked by 1 person

      • The Demon Slick says:

        I believe that Chief justice Roberts is completely compromised. Let’s examine. Saved Obamacare twice, no need to rehash that except to point out that both times he completely ignored the law and his own previous. Let’s skip ahead to recent events. The census question case. He wrote the administration has the right to ask the question but didn’t provide the court adequate justification. That’s got nothing to do with the law, that’s straight outta feelings. It stands The Constitution completely on its head. The courts have no business demanding justification. It’s either legal or it’s not. If it is, that’s that, regardless of the “justification”. So yeah, wrong on every level. And finally, let’s talk about the fisa court. Lots of nasty things going on there, right? Say, who’s the boss of the fisa court? Yeah, that’s him. And now we’re supposed to trust him to preside over impeachment? As a matter of fact, is there a single SCOTUS judge free of any conflict of interest? Sure doesn’t seem like it. What a mess.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elle says:

        “This is the last chance of any compromised Justices to easily rely on stare decisis, and affirm the longstanding precedent against attainder bills.”

        So much packed into your comment that that I just felt my IQ go up. Thanks

        Liked by 2 people

    • thedoc00 says:

      Great theory that applies only if legislation is actually passed. Impeachment is not legislation. To date not a single bit of legislation has been proposed or passed but do keep this thought alive if it does come to fruition.

      There is no legal basis to bring this before the courts, yet. This is still a matter between the President and Legislative Branch of Government that does not involve a law created by legislation.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Red says:

    Wonder if they did this only to show that she is alive and kicking

    Liked by 3 people

  8. JohnCasper says:

    The Nancy Pelosi Democrat House, 1/2 of 1/3 of the US Government, seems to think they are the Fourth Reich.

    Liked by 14 people

  9. Doppler says:

    A reminder that ~97% of what federal judges do is not political.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. JohnCasper says:

    Breaking News: 80% of democrats who offered Organs For Ruth have already resided their offer.

    Liked by 6 people

  11. L4grasshopper says:

    Hence the hyper fast rush to get a couple Impeachment Articles passed.

    Liked by 5 people

  12. Johnny Boost says:

    She’s alive!

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Magabear says:

    If it’s Ruthie’s last ruling, that would be a good way to go out. Going out on retirement that is, of course. 😉

    Liked by 6 people

  14. Dances with Wolverines says:

    Our Founding Fathers did not intend for the individual states to send representatives of their constituents to the Capitol to form a unified political coalition to work against all of the people of the country. That is what has happened.

    Liked by 23 people

  15. Zombie says:

    Have the rabid given RBG the “Turkey Treatment” yet?

    Like

  16. So you’re saying this is an impeachable Abuse of Power by Nancy Pelosi.

    huh.

    Like

    • Rosemaryflower says:

      I wish
      Democrats are the party of Satan

      Liked by 3 people

    • Members of Congress cannot be impeached. They can be expelled from office by a 2/3’s vote of House members, or 290. The Founding Fathers should have required the same vote requirement for impeachment by the House. It would have eliminated the “tyranny of the majority”, and required some bi-partisanship.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes–it’s tradition that legislators not be impeached, But the very first impeachment was a senator, just 10 years after the Constitution was ratified. That means the Framers understood it to include legislators. The verdict against Senator Blount was dismissed because he had been expelled already, not because impeachment didn’t apply.

        Liked by 2 people

  17. Fronting the Ginsburg name (when obviously her peers and the paralegals did the underlying task) means her condition has likely deteriorated, and they are overcompensating as misdirection. I would estimate Ginsburg will be gone — judicially, or otherwise — within 3 weeks (end of December). Mark my prediction.

    Liked by 9 people

  18. Genie says:

    Biden to Nadler: “C’mon Fats! Impeach the m-effer already. Ginsburg ain’t getting any younger.”

    Liked by 5 people

  19. Timothy McClellan says:

    Thank ristvan for the comments on 11/17

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Sentient says:

    That’s why McConnell should treat the president fairly in the impeachment trial – and not extract some concessions that weaken the president’s agenda. Because if McConnell thinks Trump’s supporters will enthusiastically vote to re-elect a President Pence, he’s got another think coming.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Robert Smith says:

      If Republicans vote Trump guilty and/or otherwise allow harm to come to Trump by impeachment and removal, they win.

      They can also forget about getting into office anytime thereafter. They can all F themselves and I’ll do my part at elections.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Next up, President Pelosi attempts to impeach Ruth.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Has anybody seen Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Woody Allen In the same room at the same time?

    Liked by 3 people

  23. WES says:

    Ristvan very nicely summarized the 3 cases for us.

    Case 1: Ristvan figured 90% chance Nancy looses at SCOTUS.

    Case 2: Ristvan figured 100% chance the case is appealed to SCOTUS.

    Case 3: Ristvan figured 100% chance this case is appealed and a 90% chance this case reaches SCOTUS.

    I guess what I would like to know are:

    Case 2: What are President Trump’s chances of winning at SCOTUS?

    Case 3:. I am assuming President Trump’s chances of winning at the Appeal Court are next to 0%. So what are President Trump’s chances of winning at SCOTUS?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Joemama says:

      Being prescient and capable of predicting the future with 100% accuracy, I predict that PDJT will kick @ss.

      He will clean the swamp (as much as is possible) and win to serve a second term.

      He will go down in history as the best US president in history. He will also go down in history as the man that saved the entire world from the tyranny of the banking families.

      Like

  24. Linda K. says:

    Ruth is seeing the light..

    Like

  25. Drogers says:

    I must admit to a certain amount of perverse pleasure reading progs comments about how Justice Ginsburg has turned her back on the movement.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. mamajen says:

    I am not a legal expert, as is probably about to be obvious, but… Judge Jackson’s stay and now this from RBG make me think delay tactic. The Dems have been plowing through this process without any regard for the law. So why not just push it through without waiting for the outcomes of these cases? These delays give them time to do just that. It’s better for them if the SC doesn’t weigh in because their odds aren’t good. If they finish it first and then the SC indicates it wasn’t a constitutional process after the fact…well, I don’t see them undoing it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dutchman says:

      Mamajen,
      You seem to me to be echoeing an undercurrent of Sundances article.

      One reason for the Dems headlong rush, is BECAUSE any of these 3 cases, reaching the SCOTUS, with rulings favoring DJT, undermine their legal basis for Impeachment.

      If the SCOTUS says “No, you can’t DO it that way, your Impeachment process is legally, fatally flawed” its over for them.ï

      Liked by 1 person

      • RightAroundTheBlock says:

        That’s what 8 got from it D-man. The delay is to give the house more time, any false leftist ant-Ginsberg comment in the media is cover for scheming or low info players.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Donzo says:

      SCOTUS can declare a law unconstitutional and null and void. So why not an impeachment?

      Like

      • thedoc00 says:

        Impeachment is not a law and is not legislation. The roles of each part of the government is described in the constitution with respect to an impeachment. It is part of the separation of powers embedded in that document.

        Note, that folks claiming any kind of equality between branches of the government are flat wrong, the constitution does not include any language stating there is some sort of “co-equality” . The constitution prescribes roles and authority allocated to each part of the government under the concept of “separation of powers”. Each branch “shares”, “allocates” or “abrogates” its assigned constitutional powers as that branch allows. The courts primary role in supporting governance is to ensure there is no usurping of power.

        To date, President Trump has held the line but the courts (under Justice Roberts) have failed miserably with activist district courts actually being allowed to legislate law , issue nation wide injunctions (usurping power of the Supreme Court and other district courts) or allowing Executive Orders, President Trump tries to change, to stand.

        Liked by 1 person

  27. wodiej says:

    This is how evil works.

    Like

  28. X XYZ says:

    Put yourself in the shoes of, the mind of, or the position of Ginsburg if you can. Or for that matter anyone in any extremely high position of power – with life tenure, no removal from office for his opinion, and no mandatory retirement. The highest Judicial branch of our government has only nine tribal elders in it, that ultimately controls the entire fate of this country. The ratio of power is 1:9 in SCOTUS. In the Senate it is 1:50. In the House it is much less than that. Everything beneath that position of power in the swamp is whale shit. The presidency is 1:1, but nowadays the president is often merely a puppet at the bidding of his party. Trump is the exception, thus there is a big target painted on his back.

    So what motivates Ginsburg at this point in time? This is her SWAN SONG. She won’t be alive much longer. It gets her name in the news, meaning it garners her adulation and attention, which virtually every public official craves. Those in power thrive on the publicity. As is said in the entertainment business, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

    “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.”

    Ginsburg is in the final scene of the final act. Perhaps she is trying to leave the stage gracefully. Or perhaps the stay she issued is actually enacting or reflecting her trying to delay her final departure from life. Or, perhaps she plans to eventually literally drop dead in her black robes.

    As was once said, long ago, in a statement that was then considered scandalous, The judge,”roared Mike Quill in a thick brogue, “can drop dead in his black robes!”

    Like

  29. ZurichMike says:

    Ginsburg: Places administrative stay, which in effect helps Trump’s case.

    CNN: BREAKING NEWS! In law school, Ruth “Notorious” Bader Ginsburg inappropriately touched a male student during a beer-drinking game.

    Liked by 3 people

  30. 1handsomeman says:

    Isn’t it about time the administration uses its tools of a coequal branch of government to investigate the wrongdoings of those in Congress trying to destroy him? There are many more points of actual evidence of wrong doing by the Democrats than there are of Trump doing anything other than getting elected. Many of these subpoenas are in search of a crime to charge him with. Time to fight fire with fire. Kick some doors in at 5 a.m. Film it. Make unsubstantiated allegations and drag them through the mud. I am tired of waiting for some report from some potentially Deep State member. Time to stop getting wailed on in the corner and time to come out swinging.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedoc00 says:

      There is NO such thing as “co-equal” among branches of the government described in the constitution. There is a “separation powers”, with each branch of the government having specified power, authority and roles. The executive Branch does have the constitutional AUTHORITY to bring wrong doing before the courts and/or bring suite against the congress for exceeding their authority. Like it or not that is how it works. It is the President’s choice how he defends the powers allocated to the Executive Branch of the Government.

      Liked by 2 people

  31. Jennifer Verner says:

    Maybe we should tell the Supremes about Adam Schiff illegally obtaining phone records of journalists and members of Congress from the NSA and AT&T. Gee. How many constitutionally protected rights does that violate?

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Sherri Young says:

    Why do the Dimms so badly want to be able to see (and leak) the grand jury material that is redacted in the Mueller report? They hired some of the attorneys from the special counsel’s team. Are a couple of those attorneys prodding Nanzi and Nadler to get that info declassified because they know what is there?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Robert Smith says:

      DeepState “None.”

      Like

      • Robert Smith says:

        Whoops. Wrong place.

        Mueller collected all kinds of BS “evidence.” Typical hearsay, 2nd, 3rd “person” generated hearsay to dirty up Trump. Of course they didn’t use it or make it public because it’s complete crap. But now, Lawfare wants to activate it and make it real by re-re-examining it in light of new developments. Kind of like how they keep recycling crap stories and see if it sticks with a new twist.

        Liked by 3 people

  33. JL says:

    RBG is going to need to recuse herself in any case related to impeachment.

    That’s the consequence of all the foolish anti-Trump remarks she publicly made in 2016.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. islandpalmtrees says:

    Here is the way, I see it. The SCOTUS wants to know. the contents of the FISA Report before making a decision. They know, the Gang-Of-Gang of 2016 are the same people, for the most part involved in this impeachment. They would look like fools, if they ruled against the President, just to find out Schiff and Pelosi were indicted for corruption.

    Like

    • islandpalmtrees says:

      The SCOTUS doesn’t set in a vacuum, they know the following too. And, they are political too. On a scale of from 1 to 10. Schiff and Pelosi have an 8+ headed their way.

      President Trump Could Stall or End the Entire Impeachment Hoax by Taking the Unconstitutional Sham to the Courts
      by Joe Hoft December 7, 2019

      President Trump may have the Democrats exactly where he wants them in regards to their bogus impeachment related to a Ukraine hoax.
      The President encouraged them to hurry up and in so doing they are exposing themselves to numerous actions that are unconstitutional. If the President wants to, and he’s a fighter, he could take them to court on numerous activities and he’s likely win. He would also put the whole sham on hold and with a judgement from the courts the whole process would slow down. This could prevent him from being impeached in this horrible activity from the corrupt Democrats in the House and their cohorts in the Deep State.

      Earlier this week President Donald Trump dropped a bomb upon arrival in London. Trump threatened to go to the US Supreme Court to stop the unconstitutional impeachment proceedings.

      President Trump: Just landed in the United Kingdom, heading to London for NATO meetings tomorrow. Prior to landing I read the Republicans Report on the Impeachment Hoax. Great job! Radical Left has NO CASE. Read the Transcripts. Shouldn’t even be allowed. Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?

      The Democrat Impeachment process is Unconstitutional:
      ** President has no due process
      ** President has no right to confront the witnesses
      ** President has no right to bring forward witnesses
      ** President has not been convicted or indicted of any crime of any kind
      ** Rep. Adam Schiff was a witness, investigator, the prosecutor, the judge and jury
      ** Rep. Nadler will take over and declare himself the lead investigator, prosecutor, the judge and jury
      ** Rep. Schiff determined which questions could be asked
      ** Rep. Schiff determined which questions could be answered
      ** Rep. Schiff denied Republicans their right to call witnesses
      ** Rep. Schiff is withholding evidence — The ICIG interview and testimony in the Capital dungeon still has not been released
      ** Rep. Schiff refuses to call in the alleged whistleblower to testify
      ** Rep. Schiff and his team met with several witnesses (including the whistleblower) before the whistleblower even filed his report
      ** President Trump has NO IDEA who he is being accused by!
      ** The whistleblower has NO firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s phone call – nor do all but one of the witnesses
      ** Democrats are trying to prosecute impeachment for a thought crime and the president’s “intent” — Something impossible to prove

      Many others believe the Democrats’ impeachment effort is unconstitutional.

      The President has a great case in regards to the unconstitutional Democrat impeachment process, investigation and indictment. The President, any President, deserves more. The President, any President, deserves justice.

      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/president-trump-could-stall-or-end-the-entire-impeachment-hoax-by-taking-the-unconstitutional-sham-to-the-courts/

      Liked by 1 person

  35. testpointwp says:

    True. But who enforces that action?

    Liked by 1 person

  36. testpointwp says:

    My guess is that going after Deutsche Bank and Capital One for PDJT’s tax records, would be like Geraldo’s safe opening. If/when they open the vault, it’ll be empty. No one has to provide a bank or investment company with complete tax records to do business. Especially a billionaire with a long track record.

    This is a win/win for the President. If the Dem’s win the case, there will be nothing in the vault. If they lose the case they lose the basis for impeachment.

    Liked by 2 people

    • islandpalmtrees says:

      They have already lost – just don’t know it yet.

      Like

    • thedoc00 says:

      My instinct is to agree with you. It was Trump INC. asking for money, So, the president’s personal records are not there but the Trump business “income” records may be there to support a loan application. This could be another case of the oh so smart lawyers in congress having zero comprehension of business and finance.

      Under this scenario, the only real threat to expose the President’s personal tax records rests in the cases brought by the New State AG vs Trump related businesses, looking to link wrong doing by the businesses to the President’s personal finances.

      Like

  37. rebelinme2 says:

    Ginsberg first of all should not have extended herself into this matter. The reason she can’t rule that President Trump’s financial records must be exposed if asked for is that it would set a precedent. If his could be demanded, so can Biden’s, Pelosi’s, and anyone else. Since the whole impeachment charade is to interfere with the revelation of the corruption that took place rampantly in the Obama administration, they can’t proceed with demanding Our President’s or anyone else’s financial records without resulting in hanging themselves. Jackson-Lee is back pedaling like mad now as well. Someone must have noted the precedent it would set if they succeeded in being able to just request anyone’s financial records and have them revealed.. What’s good for the Goose, you know.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. dbethd says:

    What happened to her hunchback/osteoporosis?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s