BREAKING: Appeals Court has REJECTED Trump's appeal of the House Oversight Committee's subpoena for

[demmiblue]

BREAKING: Appeals Court has REJECTED Trump’s appeal of the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena for his financial records.

Big win for House Democrats.

Link to tweet

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. K & R!!!

[joost5]

42. Rick Wilson on the news

Link to tweet

[50 Shades Of Blue]

46. I'm celebrating a temporary win and you're quoting a temporary ally.

[joost5]

52. You're correct

We should celebrate the wins no matter how incremental, no matter how much it feels like Lucy will pull Charlie's football away again. This is progress. Sorry I interjected gloom. It's a WIN! YAY!

Rick Wilson (author of Everything Trump Touches Dies: A Republican Strategist Gets Real About the Worst President Ever) has been truthful as a pundit on MSNBC and I respect his integrity.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

53. When Trump is gone Wilson will go back to attacking Democrats.

[LenaBaby61]

55. When Trump is gone Wilson will go back to attacking Democrats.

Which is WHY I'm not jumping on board with these never-tRumpers willy-nilly.

My friend said, Hey wait and see. They might just change how they think about Dems/politics. I told him, yeah, I won't hold my breath waiting to see if that happens

Hey, IF, IF, IF that happens and current never-tRumpers change their ways as it relates to Dems/politics then great.

Again, I'm not holding my breath.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

58. That's how I feel.

[NCLefty]

70. I could listen to them rail against Trump ALL DAY LONG. They are usually right on that part.

And they seem more passionate than many Dems on TV about it!

Having said that, when Trump is gone from my life, they are too unless they have seriously moved to the left.

I tried listening to Steve Schmidt's podcast. I turned it off inside of 15 minutes because they kept talking about the conservative point of view. There's a reason I don't watch Fox News. I already know who they are. :p

[Loki Liesmith]

71. Why should they change how they feel about politics?

[MyOwnPeace]

66. You know what?

Gimme' "Trump gone" and I'll deal with what happens next.....

[NCLefty]

69. *gasp*

[MFGsunny]

2. K & R for visibility .... n/t

[Cha]

3. Big Win for Democracy!

[NewJeffCT]

4. Next stop is SCOTUS?

or is there another level before SCOTUS?

[Sanity Claws]

8. En Banc review

That means it is reviewed by all judges in that appellate court sitting as one. Today's ruling is by a 3 court panel of the appellate court.

[NewJeffCT]

9. Thanks

hopefully, they won't overturn

[Sanity Claws]

12. It may go to en banc review.

I haven't done appellate work in federal courts for over a decade now and won't venture an opinion whether that is required prior to requesting Supreme Court review.

[cstanleytech]

56. When or if it does hit scotus what's your best guess on what will happen?

Will they turn it away as not an area for scotus to be involved in or will the conservative judges show their where their true loyalties lay yet once again?

[Polybius]

67. It barely survived the appellate court (2-1)

The SC is certain to take it, and it will no doubt be overturned.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Not necessarily - it's not automatic

A majority of the acting sitting judges must vote to go to en banc. If they don't, no en banc ...

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Can either party appeal to SCOTUS

En banc or not?

[StarfishSaver]

30. No need for the House to appeal at this point since they prevailed

[SWBTATTReg]

31. Yes, I was wondering why would the Supreme Court even take up this case? There doesn't seem to...

be an issue of law that needs re-interpretation, etc. Am I right in my understanding?

Also, just wait, they'll come out and say they don't even have any financial papers or tax returns, just like D Bank did the other day...

[StarfishSaver]

47. I'll be surprised if the Supreme Court took the case

But I'm often surprised these days, so ...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. I was very, very surprised when they granted cert in Bush v. Gore,

which IMHO they shouldn't have done at all. But my guess is that the Supremes, even Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, won't want to touch any aspect of Trump's dumpster fire unless they absolutely have to.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. But if they lose an En Banc vote...? Nt

[StarfishSaver]

48. If there's an en banc, whoever loses can appeal, but there's no guarantee the SCt will take it

[Grins]

62. And the sole dissenting Judge...?

Judge Neomi Rao. Who took Brett “Boofer” Kavanaugh’s seat. And if you are not familiar with this judicial blight - Google her!

[Texin]

22. That's what I was just thinking. I guess we all know how THAT will turn out.

[unblock]

5. and on to the supreme court, where i'm sure justice will be... aw sh*t....

[bluestarone]

10. Time frame?

How long will they sit on it? 3 months or more? Just give me your best guess!

[unblock]

11. there's some urgency to the situation, so i would hope not that long.

but the supreme court is not known for speed....

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

32. Stuff like this they do immediately.

[unblock]

36. "immediately" in supreme court time scale can mean a month or few.

yes it jumps up in the schedule ahead of less urgent matters, but the appellant still needs to file the appeal, a justice needs to read it and decide if the full court will hear it, then schedule that to happen, then they have to decide it, etc.

[jberryhill]

43. US v Nixon - three weeks

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

44. Bush v Gore was four weeks.

And they've periodically done other things on a very speeded up basis.

[unblock]

45. oh dear please let's hope the time frame is the only similarity with that case....

[bigbrother05]

19. If SCOTUS backs Trump, that's a huge issue for 2020, especially Senate

Majority of voters think he's guilty and that would be a huge FU and should drive many of the complacent out to take back the Senate

[NoMoreRepugs]

24. Agree.... this could turn out to be really important.

[Pepsidog]

33. SCOTUS backs Trump means SCOTUS goes rogue. Were are finished as a nation of laws.

[wasupaloopa]

38. We will need the next Dem President to increase the number of justices.

[Pepsidog]

40. Absolutely or impeach Kavenaugh for his lying under oath. Not about sex assault but stupid stuff

Like “Renata Club”, “Boof” etc. I was in HS when Kavenaugh was And we all know Boof didn’t mean farting.

[druidity33]

63. YES, and thank you for saying that! K&R, nt.

[bluestarone]

6. AWESOME news!

One more step up the ladder of truth, justice, and democracy!

[underpants]

7. That's a big NYET for Trump

[Zoonart]

13. K&R

This is BIG...break out the cannon.

[malaise]

14. Huge win

Rec

[StarfishSaver]

15. This is a BFD

Among other things, the records are in the accountants' hands, not Trump's.

[Mike 03]

29. Glad you're here to explain the importance of some of these decisions.

Always appreciated!

[Trumpdumper]

17. This is NOT good news

It was a split decision. The two D-appointed judges voted in the majority. The former clerk to Clarence Thomas dissented. This is a tea leaf. The associated members of the Supreme Court will be split 4-4, and we will see whether John Roberts will summon the will to do the right thing.

[bluestarone]

23. Definitely need another McCain moment. (like the thumbs down)

Will Roberts be the one? SCARY!

[riversedge]

27. crossing my fingers and toes.

[StarfishSaver]

49. A win is a win - and this is a win. A big one

[calimary]

18. I bet this is the reason trump wanted to pack the courts.

Assuming that friendly judges (including two new justices) will hand him friendly rulings in the future. To show their gratitude for their big promotions. Remember, he’s the guy who makes all those “great deals. The best deals, dontchaknow.”

[subana]

20. finally!!

& there will be a whole lot of bad shit in those documents!! I'm guessing it's a whole lot of Russian money.

[bdamomma]

21. hand it over

K&R!

good news.

[iluvtennis]

26. woohoo, yippee, hooray

[Bromwell]

28. He was right! So much winning! n/t

[SummerSnow]

34. Hand them over Donnie!!

[Pepsidog]

35. Confusion comes from NY case dealing with the same issues, but I think NY is a state court matter on

appeal.

[StarfishSaver]

50. NY case was a federal district court case

And the issue was a very different one.

[Pepsidog]

57. See there's the confusion factor. I thought NY case was Letitia James NY AG who subpoenaed His tax

returns and Dotard filed a last minute injunction to stop the release.

[StarfishSaver]

61. It it is confusing, isn't it?

Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan DA, subpoenaed the records in a state investigation. Trump went to federal district court to ask it to issue an injunction blocking him from having to turn over the records. The court refuse to do so, and Trump appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a stay allowing him to hold off on turning the records over immediately.

Today's case involves the House Oversight Committee's subpoena of Trump's tax records from his accountants. The DC federal District Court ruled in the House's favor and the DC Crcuit Court of Appeals today upheld them

[Pepsidog]

64. Ok. That makes sense now it was Vance. Thanks for clearing that up.

[blaze]

65. That was very helpful. Thanks. nt

[dalton99a]

39. Trump judge's dissent is 'extraordinary'

Link to tweet

[The Liberal Lion]

41. Correction: Big win for the country, big win for the rule of law and big win for democracy

[BlancheSplanchnik]

54. YAY!!!

Oh Fraptious Day!!
Kalloo!! Kallay!!

[dlk]

59. That didn't take long

Will SCOTUS grant cert to hear whether or not we have a “king”?

[napi21]

68. I don't think they'll take the case. Roberts doesn't want his court to appear biased, and if he

sides with the Dems on the court, the vote to take the case would be 5-4.