ChrisWeigant.com

Trump's Legal Stalling May Backfire On Him

[ Posted Tuesday, May 21st, 2019 – 16:29 UTC ]

President Donald Trump is stonewalling Congress. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is not convinced that the time has yet come to open impeachment hearings. If this dynamic doesn't change, then the battles over access to Trump, Trump's advisors, and Trump's business records (including his taxes) will likely play out in the federal courts. Trump is convinced that this is either a winning strategy for him, or at the very least a way to stall the entire fight until after next year's election. If either of those are true, he will avoid any negative consequences for his actions at least until he knows whether he's going to get a second term or not. But he may have miscalculated, because his "big stall" tactic may just backfire on him in a big way.

The first of many judicial decisions to come on Trump's stonewalling was handed down yesterday. The federal judge ruled on a case where Trump is suing to quash a subpoena for his financial records, which was issued to his accounting firm. The judge essentially laughed out of court the arguments made by Trump's legal team, and for good reason. Team Trump was arguing that, constitutionally, Congress can only legislate -- make laws, that is -- and that they really have no right to investigate a sitting president at all. Investigating the president furthered no "legislative function," Trump's lawyer's argued, therefore no such investigation was legitimate or constitutional. Trump's lawyers wouldn't even agree that former presidential investigations (Whitewater, Watergate, Teapot Dome) were legal and proper.

The judge disagreed. In a big way. If Trump's legal argument were to be adopted, it would mean that Congress couldn't even investigate a president they were attempting to impeach, which is a clearly-defined congressional responsibility in the Constitution itself, he pointed out. That reasoning is ludicrous on its face, obviously. The judge ruled the subpoena was properly issued, handing Trump the first big legal loss in his stonewalling strategy (hopefully, it won't be the last, especially if Trump's lawyers continue making the same laughable argument to different judges).

Trump immediately appealed the decision. Because to Trump, stalling is a big part of his strategy. He can be expected to appeal all adverse rulings, all the way up to his pet Supreme Court, in fact. But before this particular case gets there, it will be heard first by a three-judge panel selected at random from the D.C. Court of Appeals, and then perhaps by the entire appellate court sitting en banc. This particular court is headed by (oh, the irony!) a judge named Merrick Garland.

The outcome of the appellate court's decision is probably not going to be a surprise to anyone, mostly because Trump's legal argument is so shaky. But what's going to be crucial in this (and all the rulings on other stonewalling cases which follow) is going to be the schedule. How long will the issue take at the appellate level? How soon, in other words, will it be appealed to the Supreme Court?

These are crucial questions for Trump. The first case (as one would have expected) is not all that complicated. There is one argument for quashing the subpoena, and one against. There are no real extraneous matters and no complicated evidence or testimony. It's pretty straightforward -- does Congress have the right to issue this subpoena, or does it not? This is why the case moved forward so quickly in the first place (the second case to be heard will be a related matter, whether a subpoena to Trump's banks for his banking records is likewise legitimate). So the appellate court doesn't have a whole lot to consider other than what has already been argued. Which means they could issue a ruling fairly quickly -- say, within the next few months. If Trump demands an en banc ruling, this could slow things down a bit more, but not much.

If Trump loses again (as virtually every competent legal scholar expects him to), then he will turn right around and appeal it to the Supreme Court. All it takes for the court to agree to hear any case is a preliminary vote among the nine justices where only four of them agree to take up the case. This is a very low bar, but it is conceivable that Trump won't get them to agree to hear each and every one of the stonewalling cases making their way through the legal system. Still, since this one is the first, the chances are pretty high that the court will agree to hear it. They may combine this case with other similar cases (ones where the Trump legal team is making the same or very similar legal arguments), but sooner or later they're going to take some of theses cases up.

But will it be sooner, or later? That is the real question.

Trump is confident that after installing two conservative justices on the Supreme Court, that they can be expected to give him everything he wants. He has reason to believe this, especially with Justice Fratboy sitting there. But he may be overestimating the leniency they'll give him, especially on such important separation-of-powers questions as will be brought before them. Conservatives are supposed to be "originalists" or "strict constructionists" when it comes to interpreting the Constitution itself, after all. And it's pretty obvious that Congress has the right to conduct investigations in the course of its duties. So Trump may be unpleasantly surprised by what the high court has to say about his interpretation of the reach of legislative and executive powers. John Roberts, in particular, will be key to watch in these cases. It's a safe bet at this point that while Trump may win some Supreme Court decisions, but he is not likely to win all of them.

But back to the timeline. Let's say multiple cases are ruled on by the original judges and then upheld by appellate courts over the course of the summer. This is probably a pretty safe bet, unless the appellate courts really drag their feet. The Supreme Court will end its current term in June, and then won't reconvene before October. They do have the option of hearing emergency cases over the summer, but this is usually reserved for pretty extraordinary cases (such as a death-row prisoner's appeal, with a looming execution date). Assuming that they don't see any of Trump's stonewalling cases as being all that emergency in nature, the earliest they'll hear them will be October. What the court may do over the summer is to agree to hear some of the cases, but they won't actually be heard before the fall, at the earliest.

The Supreme Court can take months to issue their rulings. This pushes things out months, but not forever. If, for instance, the case that was just ruled on reaches the Supreme Court first and is heard in early October, perhaps a ruling will come down by December or January. That would be the earliest we could expect any of these rulings to happen, barring extraordinary circumstances. But if any of these rulings go against Trump, that would be way too early to do him any good, because January of 2020 is still many months before the election happens.

And that's just the earliest a ruling might appear. Since there will be a whole passel of cases to follow (since Trump is stonewalling just about everything the House is trying to do), we can likely expect a whole caravan of such rulings to follow after the initial one. This might not end until the court's term expires next June. But that's still too early for Trump.

If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, then the investigations will move forward. Trump is pretty obviously trying to hide some very big things (his taxes, his business records, his blatant obstruction of justice, etc.), but if he loses at the highest court he won't be able to hide them any longer. This will give congressional Democrats many months to reveal precisely what Trump is fighting so hard to hide -- right in the middle of the presidential election campaign.

Trump will likely try to tie things up back in the lower courts, by filing other frivolous lawsuits to gum up the legal works. This may work for him to some degree, but it's doubtful that it'll work in every case. He's going to be defending so many legal cases simultaneously that the chances that he'll be able to completely run the table and block any adverse rulings from going into effect is likely pretty low.

Trump's overall stonewalling strategy will serve to delay things, that much is assured. But it may not serve to delay things enough for it to be any real political use to him. Rather than have any negative information come out now -- in mid-2019 -- he may only be able to delay such negative information until mid-2020, which puts it right smack in the middle of the presidential campaign. Which would be worse for him, politically? To have it out there now so it will be at least partially forgotten next year, or to have it fresh in everyone's minds with new revelations occurring regularly right when the general election really heats up?

Trump, of course, is likely convinced that the high court will rule with him in every instance. With that outlook, it makes sense for him to push everything to them and let them dispose of the problems, no matter how quickly they act. But if he turns out to be wrong -- if John Roberts is more concerned with bad precedents being set than with Donald Trump's political prospects, for instance -- then Trump may only have succeeded in making the issues a bigger political deal than they might have been, by pushing them smack dab in the middle of the election season. All his stonewalling and all his delay tactics might just wind up backfiring on him in spectacular fashion.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

74 Comments on “Trump's Legal Stalling May Backfire On Him”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the real question for CW is why he is yet again stonewalling on the opportunity presented by pie-based voting. 2020 is only seven months away, and it's never too late for pie.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's Legal Stalling May Backfire On Him

    TRUMP IS TOAST PREDICTION #1,756,359

    The first of many judicial decisions to come on Trump's stonewalling was handed down yesterday. The federal judge ruled on a case where Trump is suing to quash a subpoena for his financial records, which was issued to his accounting firm. The judge essentially laughed out of court the arguments made by Trump's legal team, and for good reason. Team Trump was arguing that, constitutionally, Congress can only legislate -- make laws, that is -- and that they really have no right to investigate a sitting president at all. Investigating the president furthered no "legislative function," Trump's lawyer's argued, therefore no such investigation was legitimate or constitutional. Trump's lawyers wouldn't even agree that former presidential investigations (Whitewater, Watergate, Teapot Dome) were legal and proper.

    Except it was an Obama Judge and President Trump knew he wouldn't get a fair shake...

    Come talk to me when the case gets to the SCOTUS, where it will be a slam dunk in favor of President Trump..

    The outcome of the appellate court's decision is probably not going to be a surprise to anyone, mostly because Trump's legal argument is so shaky.

    No, it won't be a surprise to anyone because the appellate court is made up of Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters..

    There is only one court that matters here..

    Trump is confident that after installing two conservative justices on the Supreme Court, that they can be expected to give him everything he wants. He has reason to believe this, especially with Justice Fratboy sitting there.

    And my references to Odumbo and the Dumbocrats explained.. :D

    If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, then the investigations will move forward. Trump is pretty obviously trying to hide some very big things

    Just as Odumbo was obviously trying to hide some very big things when he refused to release his transcripts.

    All his stonewalling and all his delay tactics might just wind up backfiring on him in spectacular fashion.

    Yea, cuz President Trump has ALWAYS been wrong in his tactics and strategy and NOTHING ever worked out for him, eh? :D

    Ya'all said much the same thing and President Trump's {sic} "Muslim" ban..

    And yet, President Trump emerged victorious and all of the Demcorats, Never Trumpers and Trump America haters were covered in their own kaa-kaa...

    Here.. Let me help ya out with a rebuttal..

    "Oh....well... er... uh... That's different!!"

    Don't say I never do anything for ya'all.. :D heh

    The reason Democrats always lose is the either play by the old rules or they play Trump's game on Trump's field..

    And they lose.. They lose and lose and lose...

    And they will continue to lose until Jan of 2024...

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    @JL

    From a previous commentary..

    i accept the definition of the term you provided, but not the "completely and utterly exonerated" claim.

    I know.. You want to say TOE-MAY-TOE and I want to say TOE-MAA-TOE...

    But we're still talking about the same thing (President Trump is innocent of Russia Collusion) so it doesn't bother me we don't agree on the terminology..

    as i mentioned earlier, the lack of evidence to confirm that a crime is committed is not the same as the presence of evidence that a crime was not committed.

    IOW, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..

    All things being equal, I would agree with you.

    But in THIS case, a case that spanned almost 2 years with a VERY HIGHLY motivated cabal of investigators who were VERY HIGHLY motivated to find SOMETHING... ANYTHING and who had unfettered access and a blank check???

    In THAT case, it's clear that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence...

    Put another way..

    If you were in a very large building looking for a dog or any evidence of a dog and you had 2 years to do it and unlimited funds and had a team of dog-loving experts and you couldn't find ANY evidence of ANY dog....

    It's pretty conclusive that there was no dog..

    at least in theory, new evidence could someday be uncovered that would justify filing charges of conspiracy.

    That is addressed by the fact that everyone here over the span of two years stated how thorough and professional and competent Mueller is..

    So either they all lied then or they all are lying now..

    PLUS the fact of the very highly motivated cabal of investigators brings us back to the Search For The Dog analogy...

    So, while I would agree with you that, IN THEORY, new evidence is out there, given the facts that possibility is virtually nil..

    therefore the exoneration is partial.

    Any exoneration, even a partial one is still miles and miles away from Blathy's and Russ' claim that Trump is GUILTY of Russia Collusion...

    "Good talk.."
    -Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic impeachment calls swell as McGahn defies subpoena

    WASHINGTON (AP) — More Democrats are calling — and more loudly — for impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump after his latest defiance of Congress by blocking his former White House lawyer from testifying on Tuesday.

    A growing number of rank-and-file House Democrats, incensed by former counsel Don McGahn’s empty chair in the Judiciary Committee hearing room, are confronting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and pushing her and other leaders to act. Their impatience is running up against the speaker’s preference for a more methodical approach , including already-unfolding court battles.
    https://apnews.com/6384c08d99de4bfa982cdd5065f63434

    Yea, Balthy.. I am trying to goad Dumbocrats into impeaching President Trump..

    And, apparently, my efforts are bearing fruit..

    But you and I both know that it would be a mistake for Democrats to impeach President Trump..

    It would virtually GUARANTEE President Trump's re-election.. Even more so than it is ALREADY guaranteed..

    Dumbocrats were given the House to GOVERN.. To LEGISLATE... But all they have done of any consequence is to harass President Trump and preside over witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt...

    So, go ahead, Dumbocrats..

    Impeach President Trump.. I DOUBLE DOG dare ya!! :D

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dumbocrats can't get McGhan...

    Dumbocrats can't get Mueller...

    Dumbocrats are Old Mother Hubbard and they got ZILCH in their cupboard!!!

    BBWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOITkxy18dY

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Brit Hume: Joe Biden a ‘walking time-bomb’ despite Democratic front-runner status
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/brit-hume-joe-biden-timebomb-democratic-2020

    Democrats piling on Joe Biden...

    Almost makes me feel sorry for him..

    He's a good man, but has said some awful things..

    He doesn't deserve what's going to happen to him..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

    Looks like President Trump's approval rating has taken a hit..

    The huge uptick I crowed about last week has been erased.. :^/

    Oh well, it will bounce back up once Trump gets more SCOTUS wins under his belt...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    What the Bloody Hell Just Happened in Australia?

    A shocking election upset has confused Australians searching for answers.
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/australia-election-upset-scott-morrison.html

    Trumpism happened, baby!! :D

    People are getting sick and tired of Left Wing politics and policies.. :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    The polls were wrong. The pundits were wrong. The party insiders were wrong. The bookies were wrong. I was wrong. Even Burt the psychic croc was wrong.

    Sound familiar??? :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Left is a dying breed.. :D

    The New Right Is Beating the New Left. Everywhere.

    From Australia to Europe, the signs are multiplying that conservative populism is on the rise.

    Heralding a new political era?

    Sometimes political revolutions occur right before our eyes without us quite realizing it. I think that’s what’s been happening over the last few weeks around the world, and the message is clear: The populist “New Right” isn’t going away anytime soon, and the rise of the “New Left” is exaggerated.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-20/australia-election-is-not-the-only-one-the-new-right-is-winning?srnd=opinion

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden's rumble in the jungle of empty rhetoric

    Pity good ol’ Joe Biden. He’s eager at last to master the hounds, to impose order in the kennel. He wants to encourage the amiable golden retrievers, collies and cocker spaniels in his care, and he has to throw a little raw meat to the rabid pit bulls. How can he do that and escape with his life, too?

    The ex-veep opened his campaign for the Democratic nomination the other day in Philadelphia, “the city of brotherly love,” and revealed his scheme to “unify America” with an all-out assault, in the name of brotherly love, on the leader of the other half of America. It’s an unusual strategy, “bringing America together” by driving it apart.

    The former vice president kicked off his White House bid with an impassioned call for fairness and equality in the country, urging voters to put an end to the mean-spirited pettiness and partisan squabbles that have made Americans angry and dispirited.

    “This nation needs to come together,” he told a crowd of 5,000 raucous supporters. “Our president is the divider-in-chief,” and “if the American people want a president to add to our division, to lead with a clenched fist, closed hand and a hard heart, to demonize opponents and spew hatred, they don’t need me. They’ve got Donald Trump.” This was a curious enough strategy, bewailing the demonization of an opponent by demonizing an opponent.

    But like politicians of both right and left, good ol’ Joe doesn’t necessarily mean the harsh things he says. He doesn’t always take what he says seriously, and you shouldn’t, either. In the first of his three races for president, he ran as the son of a Welsh coal miner, having picked up a copy of a speech by a British politician who really was the son of a Welsh coal miner, and without paying close attention to the printed page, that’s what he said he was, too. Father and son had actually never been closer to Cardiff or the Vale of Glamorgan than Scranton or Wilkes-Barre.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/20/joe-biden-uses-empty-rhetoric-in-2020-presidential/

    I have always liked Pruden.. A crusyy old journalist who doesn't mince words... :D

    This was a curious enough strategy, bewailing the demonization of an opponent by demonizing an opponent.

    hehehehehe

    "It's funny because it's true..."
    -Homer Simpson

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    We talked about the Pennsylvania match-up over the weekend..

    President Donald Trump vs Joe Biden..

    The BATTLE OF THE RALLIES...

    Biden had about 220 attend his Pennsylvania rally..

    President Trump had 10,000 (capacity) inside and a few thousand outside watching on the monitors.. :D

    Guess we know who won.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It must be nice to have a timeline on when you will get an answer.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pennsylvania Republican Fred Keller projected to win special House election
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-republican-fred-keller-projected-to-win-special-house-election

    I said it in 2016 and was proven right... :D

    I'll say it again...

    Pennsylvania is a MAGA State.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    It must be nice to have a timeline on when you will get an answer.

    Yea.. They had a "timeline" on Russia Collusion..

    "All we have to do is wait for Mueller to finish his investigation and we'll get out answer.. Trump will be frog-marched from the Oval Office.."

    Well, they got their answer..

    They didn't like it..

    So, their strategy is to do the same exact thing over and over and over and over again, hoping for a different result...

    The very definition of insanity...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sociologists surprised to find America LESS racist in Trump era

    Any American who watches the mainstream media knows America has become a much more racist place since President Donald Trump took office in 2017.

    Trump’s course language about illegal immigrants and terrorists has awakened the inner bigots that lurk in white people and unleashed a wave of hateful prejudice that’s tearing the country to tatters, the media reports.

    Ironically – like the botched reporting on the Russia investigation, the Jussie Smollett hate hoax, the Covington Catholic debacle, and other televised spectacles – it’s actually just fake news.

    A new study by two University of Pennsylvania sociologists shows the election of President Trump corresponded with a statistically significant drop in anti-black and anti-Hispanic prejudice in America, among both Republicans and Democrats.

    It wasn’t the results they were expecting, and it suggests current thinking about race and prejudice is all wrong.
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/study-america-less-racist-in-trump-era/

    Once again.. Conventional "wisdom" says one thing...

    But the FACTS say quite another..

  17. [17] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    I just watched the two-part Mark Steyn interview with George Papadopolous about his experiences with the Mueller investigation. VERY interesting and informative!

    I'd recommend that Kick and her cohort do the same, but I'm only too aware of their reluctance to be exposed to anything that isn't confirming their political biases.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    but I'm only too aware of their reluctance to be exposed to anything that isn't confirming their political biases.

    Yea.. Gods forbid they should actually be exposed to relevant FACTS....

    Their whole world will be torn asunder...

  19. [19] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay - you've had your say, now mine.

    Chris is stating the obvious. Trump has no timeline, and no grand strategy, save to save his own neck.

    And so far, the Courts haven't been very good to him.

    Indeed, save for SCOTUS, it's expected to go very badly for him. Is he planning to kick everything - all 20 cases so far - to that court?

    And he's planning on a 100% win rate, too. Whew! That's playing chicken on a big scale.

    Further, his polls are dropping, making it a harder and harder position to take politically.

    Folks like a good fight, but when it starts to hit their pocket books, they tend to start paying attention. Unlike him, China's been picking winners and losers, and have decided that the midwest is their target. How long are soybean farmers gonna hold on for the great negotiator?

    All this, and he's only about halfway through his first term. Sure he's thrown up some walls, but they're made of sand, and already crumbling.

    The American people can be foolish, but they're not fools. Sooner or later, it's time to leave the sandbox, wash our hands, and be decent folk again.

    He's even made it far easier to talk impeachment, with his shenanigans.

  20. [20] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Pelosi will have her hands full in this morning's meeting. The new leftists are angling for a fight, and will press for impeachment. Pelosi will argue that if we have patience, impeachment will come to them.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay - you've had your say,

    I did!?? Where?? :D hehehehehe

    Chris is stating the obvious. Trump has no timeline, and no grand strategy, save to save his own neck.

    With absolutely NO FACTS to back it up..

    It's all mind-reading...

    And so far, the Courts haven't been very good to him.

    That is simply not factually accurate. The *ONLY* court that matters is the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS has been VERY good to Trump.. Hell, even the LIBERALS on the court sided with Trump over the Native American case..

    And he's planning on a 100% win rate, too. Whew! That's playing chicken on a big scale.

    And it has served him so well since Jun of 2015...

    Indeed, save for SCOTUS, it's expected to go very badly for him. Is he planning to kick everything - all 20 cases so far - to that court?

    Why not? It's where he ALWAYS wins.. The latest win is the Native American case that you so graciously brought into the discussion. :D

    Further, his polls are dropping, making it a harder and harder position to take politically.

    Only over the past few days.. In the few days before THAT, his poll numbers were striking..

    Funny how you only believe the polls that say what you want to hear. :D

    The American people can be foolish, but they're not fools. Sooner or later, it's time to leave the sandbox, wash our hands, and be decent folk again.

    Yea, you have been predicting that for over 2 years.. One of these days ya actually MIGHT be right..

    But what do we say to the god of death??

    "Not today.."

    He's even made it far easier to talk impeachment, with his shenanigans.

    OF COURSE he has made it easier to not only TALK about impeachment, but actually easier to consider to do it.

    That's been his plan since the Mueller report totally and completely exonerated President Trump over Russia Collusion..

    And, as usual, Dumbocrats are falling for it hook line and sinker!! :D

    Gods what a genius President Trump is!!! :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi will have her hands full in this morning's meeting. The new leftists are angling for a fight, and will press for impeachment. Pelosi will argue that if we have patience, impeachment will come to them.

    What's your position??

    Start impeachment or wait??

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Indeed, save for SCOTUS, it's expected to go very badly for him.

    Glad to see you acknowledge the fact that the SCOTUS will be President Trump's saving grace...

    :D

    There is hope for you yet.. :D

  24. [24] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Gods what a genius President Trump is!

    Well, you've drunk the Kool-Aid. Trump is Kool with you. Got it.

    I'm with Pelosi. We're winning. As long as we keep winning, there's no need to impeach, 'cause in a very short time, the American people are gonna send his fat ass back to his NY penthouse.

  25. [25] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And I'd like to thank the Alabama Legislature for putting Abortion on the ballot.

    Good move!

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm with Pelosi. We're winning. As long as we keep winning, there's no need to impeach, 'cause in a very short time, the American people are gonna send his fat ass back to his NY penthouse.

    OK, so you agree with Pelosi..

    Taking up impeachment right now is a BAD idea and only a moron would think that impeachment now is a good course of action..

    Is that an accurate assessment of your thought process in the here and now??

    And I'd like to thank the Alabama Legislature for putting Abortion on the ballot.

    It was...

    Say good-bye to Roe V Wade...

    No more baby killing after birth for Dumbocrats..

  27. [27] 
    Paula wrote:

    DJT stages a temper tantrum in the Rose Garden. Since they had talking points already typed up for press it's clear this "impromptu" presser was planned so that the big orange could try to rile up his cultists.

    But he's sweating.

    Apparently Barr is going to allow DHS to give Schiff background material they wanted in exchange for not being held in contempt a second time. We'll if he delivers satisfactorily.

    Mnuchin lies about IRS memo which concluded IRS must provide DJT tax info to Congress. Mnuchin says "no it doesn't" and Congressional Dems must now respond. Another contempt citation?

  28. [28] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You've mis-stated her (and my) position. Of course.

    There's a good time for impeachment, we just haven't reached it yet. Patience, grasshopper.

    Say good-bye to Roe V Wade...

    Got any idea just how UN-popular that point of view is? (Outside the deep south, natch.) I think that one poll had support for Roe at 80%.

    It's about time that it was codified into constitutional law, so that these challenges can end.

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [27]: Well, Trump did say that we'd get tired of "winning". Who knew that he was talking about this?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's a good time for impeachment, we just haven't reached it yet. Patience, grasshopper.

    Like I said..

    Taking up impeachment right now is a BAD idea and only a moron would think that impeachment now is a good course of action..

    Is that an accurate assessment of your thought process in the here and now??

    You know, you CAN agree with me.. Your soul won't turn to fire if you do.. :^/

    I think that one poll had support for Roe at 80%.

    Yea, it was a DailyKos poll...

    Hey... If you want to support infanticide, fine..

    Just don't expect me to applaud you for it..

    It's about time that it was codified into constitutional law, so that these challenges can end.

    Codify what?? That all life is precious and has the right to liberty and pursuit of happyness???

    I think it's already in there..

    Dumbocrats are trying to take it out...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mnuchin lies about IRS memo which concluded IRS must provide DJT tax info to Congress.

    Actually, the memo didn't say that...

    But why let FACTS ruin yer perfectly good hysterical ignorance..

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another contempt citation?

    YOu mean, the one like Odumbo's moron AG got??

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I imagine that one of the most nervous people in Washington right now is Steve Mnuchin. There he was, cruising along playing secretary when this hit his desk. He played along for a minute, but Congress is talking about impeaching him. Poor Steve.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    I imagine that one of the most nervous people in Washington right now is Steve Mnuchin.

    Yea, but you imagined that Trump would be frog-marched from the Oval Office after Mueller found facts to support Russia Collusion..

    I know, I know.. Imaginings are fun...

    I prefer to deal in FACTS...

    Got any???

    He played along for a minute, but Congress is talking about impeaching him.

    Facts to support??

    Regardless, impeachment has been a wet dream of Dumbocrats since Nov of 2016..

    Of course, they don't have the BALLS to actually do it..

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If you want to support infanticide, fine.

    But it's NOT infanticide, and your religious nuts can't seem to grok that. "Fetal Heartbeat" isn't even a thing before 10 weeks, and then, it's only plumbing.

    Roe was decided correctly. The Court said, "when the child is viable (able to live outside the womb without assistance), then it's our problem. Until then, it's the woman's choice. That's reasonable.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it's NOT infanticide, and your religious nuts can't seem to grok that. "Fetal Heartbeat" isn't even a thing before 10 weeks, and then, it's only plumbing.

    Actually I despise religion likely more than you do.. It's the root cause of untold human suffering for thousands of years..

    But I also despise Democrats who think it's perfectly OK to murder an unwanted baby that survives an abortion attempt..

    Until then, it's the woman's choice.

    The woman made the choice when she decided to participate in an activity that has the possibility of pregnancy..

    What she is doing now is simply murdering a baby because she can't handle the consequences of her choice..

    Yea.. something to cheer about :eyeroll:

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Facts to support?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/07/first-hold-them-contempt-then-impeach/?utm_term=.779e3d932524

    Suddenly, as Paula said, the DOJ is playing (soft)ball with Congress. Contempt seems to focus the mind.

    I expect Treasury to do the same.

  38. [38] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    it's perfectly OK to murder an unwanted baby that survives an abortion attempt..

    The Alabama bill goes much, much further. You could leave Roe alone and fix what you've said here.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Facts to support?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/07/first-hold-them-contempt-then-impeach/?utm_term=.779e3d932524

    I ask for FACTS and you give me WaPoop OPINION...

    No wonder you people can't ever win.. Out there or in here..

    :eyeroll:

    I expect Treasury to do the same.

    Yea, you expected Trump to lose the election..

    You expected Mueller to find Russia Collusion....

    Eventually you will realize that your expectations are NOTHING more than wishful thinking...

    Sorry I am being so rough on you and Paula.. I am watching DIVERGENT and it's pretty kick ass :D

  40. [40] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula:

    Just (finally) read a run-down of Trump's faux "explosion" in the rose garden. I say "faux" because Presidential snits don't come with pre-made signs.

    Apparently, Trump just doesn't want to play ball with Congress. As I've said, that's because he doesn't understand what Pelosi can do TO him.

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I ask for FACTS and you give me WaPoop OPINION...

    That's what you get when you ask for facts about an opinion.

    The walls are closing on Trump. Once he shuts Congress completely out, watch the money dry up.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what you get when you ask for facts about an opinion

    So, you concede you have no facts, that it's just some Left Wingers hysterical opinion..

    I accept your concession..

    The walls are closing on Trump.

    AGAIN!??? You have said that a dozen times before..

    You have always been wrong..

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's because he doesn't understand what Pelosi can do TO him.

    Absolutely nothing..

    As she has proven time and time again.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno.. It COULD be like it was in the old days here in Weigantia.. Where we would all debate and argue but still have fun..

    It can be that way again once ya'all concede that ya'all are not always right and those who disagree with ya'all are not always wrong..

    But, with a few notable exceptions, no one here can concede that they are wrong..

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don't know about you, but I'm having fun.

    Trump, not so much. He looks so small in the Rose Garden, bickering with Democrats when he should be running the country.

    Shame.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't know about you, but I'm having fun.

    Yea, but it was a lot more fun before..

    Trump, not so much. He looks so small in the Rose Garden, bickering with Democrats when he should be running the country.

    As opposed to Democrats who should be helping the country but all they can do is harass the freely, fairly and legally elected POTUS...

    Don't worry.. It will be better in 2020.. Trump is re-elected in a landslide and Democrats will be even MORE demoralized and decimated than they are now..

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trump is re-elected in a landslide

    Cmon, he got in by the skin of his teeth the last time. I think Bannon said they "drew to an inside straight" to win it last time. And he hasn't made any new friends since getting there (that you'd want in your house, anyway). So I'd say 'landslide' is a stretch.

    I DO worry, though, that he'll dispute the election if it doesn't go his way. That's very possible.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cmon, he got in by the skin of his teeth the last time.

    Com'on... Considering he had a 98%!!! chance of losing..... If he lost by 50% it would have been a MIRACLE..

    The fact that he WON is mind blowing..

    Which explains your brain-addled thought process.. :D

    Yer right.. This IS fun.. :D

    . I think Bannon said they "drew to an inside straight" to win it last time.

    I drew a Straight Flush (diamonds) our last poker night.. Cleaned up against a guy who had an inside straight.. :D

    I won.. THAT is all that matters..

    TRUMP won.. And THAT is what you refuse to accept..

    Go ahead.. Prove me wrong..

    Concede that President Trump is the fairly, freely and legally elected President Of The United States...

    20,000 Quatloos says you can't do it..

    50,000 Quatloos says that only 4 people here in Weigantia can do it..

    So I'd say 'landslide' is a stretch.

    Of course you would... But you said that Russia Collusion was a sure thing..

    You have no credibility..

    I DO worry, though, that he'll dispute the election if it doesn't go his way. That's very possible.

    You mean, like ya'all have done???

    Why is it OK for ya'all to do it but not for President Trump to???

  49. [49] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    all they can do is harass the freely, fairly and legally elected POTUS...

    I think He's harassing them. He wants the country to run as a dictatorship, but doesn't have the tools for it. As a result, nothing gets done.

    Nothing got done, by the way, when Republicants ran the House either.

    And all that McConnell can do is vote on judges.

    Trump can't continue to run the country by executive fiat forever.

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The fact that he WON is mind blowing..

    I guess so. It's blown your math to hell.

    TRUMP won. And THAT is what you refuse to accept

    Yeah, but then what? Are we supposed to bow?

    You have no credibility

    Odd thing to hear from a Trump supporter.

    Why is it OK for ya'all to do it but not for President Trump to?

    Yeah, you guys are gonna make a mess of it alright. Oh well, have to fight that fight when we get to it.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Feds bring new charges against lawyer Michael Avenatti for misappropriating nearly $300,000 from former client Stormy Daniels
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/feds-expected-charge-avenatti-dealings-stormy-daniels-sources/story?id=63203832

    See?? Ya'all picked the porn star Stormy Daniels as ya'all's hero... Then ya'all picked Porn Star lawyer Avenatti as your hero..

    Ya'all have been LAUGHINGLY wrong and each and every juncture..

    Ya'all lose each and every time..

  52. [52] 
    Paula wrote:

    "Judge says Deutsche Bank, Capital One can give Trump financial records to House Democrats, CNBC reports."

    Not a good day for the criminal-in-chief.

    [45] Balthsar: Yep!

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump can't continue to run the country by executive fiat forever.

    Why not?? Odumbo did..

    And ya'all didn't have a SINGLE problem with it..

    Yeah, you guys are gonna make a mess of it alright.

    Yea?? You have been saying that since Nov of 2016..

    Ya have ***ALWAYS*** been wrong..

    ZERO credibility...

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Judge says Deutsche Bank, Capital One can give Trump financial records to House Democrats, CNBC reports."

    President Trump gives the finger to Trump/America hating Judge..

    SCOTUS backs President Trump..

    Ya'all LOSE...

    AGAIN....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hamas-Obsessed NJ Man Spoke of NYC Terror Attacks, Sent Money to Militants and Polled Instagram Audience 'Should I Bomb Trump Tower?,' Court Documents Say
    https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/New-Jersey-Terror-Trump-Tower-Bombing-510273571.html

    Trump/America hating terrorist Dumbocrats...

    'nuff said...

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    President Trump gives the finger to Trump/America hating Judge..

    That's TWO judges, so far. You're losing.

    Better luck tomorrow.

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why not?? Odumbo did.

    Your ability to re-write history is truly amazing.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's TWO judges, so far. You're losing.

    How many Trump/America hating judges have LOST when Trump won at the SCOTUS??

    Dozens...

    The SCOTUS ruling is the ONLY ruling that matters.

    Your ability to re-write history is truly amazing.

    Do you deny that Odumbo expanded Executive Orders to un-matched heights???

    Talk about re-writing history... :eyeroll:

    If this commentary thread was a formal debate??

    You would have lost 20 times over... :D

  59. [59] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    But I also despise Democrats who think it's perfectly OK to murder an unwanted baby that survives an abortion attempt..

    I despise anyone who thinks it’s perfectly OK to murder an unwanted baby that survives an abortion attempt!

    Your comment shows us two very important things:

    1) That you failed to state that you despise Republicans who think it’s perfectly OK to murder an unwanted baby that survives an abortion attempt.

    2) You have NO IDEA how the procedures used by doctors to perform an abortion work!

    Just a hint: They don’t perform a C-section to remove a fully formed miniature baby from the woman’s belly!

    There are no babies involved. If the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, then it wasn’t an abortion, it was a pregnancy. Killing a baby that is alive is murder, and we already have laws covering that.

  60. [60] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yunno.. It COULD be like it was in the old days here in Weigantia.. Where we would all debate and argue but still have fun..

    It can be that way again once ya'all concede that ya'all are not always right and those who disagree with ya'all are not always wrong..

    Funny, no one on here crows that they are always right...except for YOU!

    Also, most of us here do agree that we can disagree and that does not necessarily mean the other person’s views are wrong....except when they are.

    Like when you make comments like:

    That's been his plan since the Mueller report totally and completely exonerated President Trump over Russia Collusion..

    Cannot exonerate someone for a crime that doesn’t exist and that Mueller took the time to explain was not part of the investigation. Of course you know this, but you still claim, “Mueller did not find any evidence that Trump had committed collusion with the Russians,” because honesty means so little to you.

    Trump is traitorous scum that you defend willingly. I would say that you “blindly” support Trump, but that is not true — you see what the truth is , but you choose to defend him, nonetheless. You demonstrate the type of loyalty that Trump would love...but would never reciprocate!

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    michale may have some vocabulary issues, but as kick clarified, the crime donald was being investigated for was not "collusion," it was conspiracy, which is definitely a crime. given the potential co-conspirator was a rival country, it could have even been called treason, if true. but there's no evidence that it was true, so what's left is essentially obstruction of justice to cover-up a crime that either was completely unrelated to russia, or didn't exist at all.

    JL

  62. [62] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22,

    A prosecutor declining to indict because they believe that there is not enough evidence to successfully garner a conviction for the charge of conspiracy/treason is not the same as saying there was ”NO EVIDENCE” that any criminal action took place!

    Mueller does a very good job of detailing how Russia interfered in our election, but it has become fairly clear that he did not conduct a counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s relationship with Russia. We know that the FBI had started a counterintelligence investigation into this matter prior to Mueller being brought on as the Special Counsel, but there has not been any update on where the investigation is to date. It makes sense on one level...if the DOJ will not indict a sitting president for obstruction of justice, then if they had found evidence that Trump committed crimes on Russia’s behalf, all that reporting it would accomplish is to give Trump notice — allowing him to pardon everyone involved before they can ever face a jury of their peers.

    And Mueller listed over 160 contacts with Russians that Trump and his campaign all lied about. Mueller never questioned Trump directly. It is not easy to determine intent if you never ask about it. That being said, Mueller found plenty of evidence that completely justified the investigation into Trump’s campaign; regardless if he found enough to warrant an indictment!

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As I understand it, there wasn't no evidence of conspiracy and there was plenty of evidence of collusion.

    In other words, Trump is caught between collusion and conspiracy. Clearly, not a good place to be.

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What Russ said.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I understand it, there wasn't no evidence of conspiracy and there was plenty of evidence of collusion.

    And yet Mueller said this:

    “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    To conspire and coordinate with the Russian Government is collusion..

    There were no FACTS to support the claim that Trump or the Trump campaign colluded..

    That's the fact that NO ONE here (sans myself, CRS and JL) can accept..

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is traitorous scum that you defend willingly.

    This is why you always lose these debates..

    Because you are hysterical and never have any facts to support your hysteria..

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    A prosecutor declining to indict because they believe that there is not enough evidence to successfully garner a conviction for the charge of conspiracy/treason is not the same as saying there was ”NO EVIDENCE” that any criminal action took place!

    And yet, Mueller stated specifically that there was NO EVIDENCE..

    “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    Look, I get it.. You banked your heart and soul on Mueller...

    You lost and it's hard to accept..

    I get that.. I felt the same way after Hillary escaped justice on the 4 Americans killed on her watch...

    But I ACCEPTED the facts...

    That's what you simply cannot do..

    You lost and you can't accept it..

    And here we are...

  68. [68] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Just dropping in on my way to bed..

    Mueller stated specifically that there was NO EVIDENCE..

    No, he said "did not establish". That's different.

    He was never able to interview Trump or the Trump family, or (I think) Roger Stone or Julian Assange.
    Moreover, I'd like to know whether he was told, "your investigation is over", or words to that effect.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just dropping in on my way to bed..

    Late night party?? :D

    No, he said "did not establish". That's different.

    Not when you consider Mueller had carte blanche, an unlimited bank account and a cabal of VERY HIGHLY motivated investigators who really REALLY wanted to find something.. ANYTHING..

    Give those FACTS, if Mueller couldn't establish any facts it's because there were no facts to support the accusation..

    Moreover, I'd like to know whether he was told, "your investigation is over", or words to that effect.

    I would also like to know if Mueller is Klingon.. But since there are NOT FACTS to support that, it's not really relevant, is it..

    Get some sleep.. Rest up.. Yer gonna need it. :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that 2 years and 35 million dollars that the Mueller cabal just didn't look hard enough!??

    I mean, let's employ some logic here..

    Which is the more logical assessment..

    1. Despite having complete carte blanche, an unlimited expense account and unlimited time, the very highly motivated investigators missed something conclusive...

    OR

    2. There was no Russia Collusion... It was all just a sore luser excuse from a candidate and a Party who simply refused to accept the loss..

    Employ Occams Razor.. Which of those 2 possibilities are the most likely..

    Think like a rational objective person, if you can..

    And the whole issue is clear..

    You need to face reality..

    Nothing was found because there was nothing TO find...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    michale may have some vocabulary issues,

    And then again, he may NOT.. :D

  72. [72] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    1. Despite having complete carte blanche, an unlimited expense account and unlimited time, the very highly motivated investigators missed something conclusive...

    Mueller was missing the authority to indict all involved parties if that was where the evidence led him. Mueller also had to stick to the guidelines laid out by the Asst. AG as to what the Special Counsel’s duties were.

    And who said he had unlimited time? Barr became AG and immediately after that Mueller closed shop. We do not know if Barr shut him down or if he had reached the end of the investigation. It is strange that there were 13 other investigations related to the Special Counsel’s work that were redacted as on-going cases.

    As to whether investigators missed anything..they missed questioning Trump and his family. Trump should have been subpoenaed to answer questions, and if he weren’t the sitting president he most likely would have been.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller was missing the authority to indict all involved parties if that was where the evidence led him.

    And yet, several indictments WERE handed down.. So your claim is not factually accurate..

    And the FACTS clearly show that the evidence led him to the conclusion:

    “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    This is fact and you can't handle that.

    We do not know if Barr shut him down or if he had reached the end of the investigation.

    Yer right.. You DON'T know.. Yet you claim it's the former without ANY facts to back it up..

    As to whether investigators missed anything..they missed questioning Trump and his family.

    Again, you ASSUME that.. Without ANY facts to back it up..

    Since Mueller is a Democrat hero and ya'all sung his praises on a daily, if not hourly, basis if Mueller needed to depose Trump or his family to make his case, he would have.

    IF there was a case to be made..

    But Mueller stated CLEARLY that there was no case to be made..

    “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    When all the hysteria is said and done, when all yer spin in spin'ed out, one fact remains..

    In the contest of Russia Collusion between President Trump versus the hysterical Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters....

    Ya'all LOST...

    Fini...

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I would think ya'all would want to simply move past this devastating decimating loss.

    I mean, seriously.. Why do ya'all want to relive it day in and day out???

    "Such masochistic tendencies could indicate a deeper mental disorder."
    -Spock

Comments for this article are closed.