Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(128,896 posts)
Fri Oct 11, 2019, 07:27 PM Oct 2019

Trump renews claim that he is immune from criminal investigation in effort to block Manhattan D.A.

Source: Washington Post

President Trump on Friday repeated his assertion of sweeping executive immunity — arguing in court that, because he is president, he cannot be investigated by any prosecutor, anywhere. Trump’s personal attorneys made the argument in a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York.

They are seeking to overturn a lower court’s dismissal of a suit the president filed seeking to block Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. (D) from obtaining Trump’s tax returns. “The President is immune from criminal process while in office, and a grand-jury subpoena (a coercive order backed by the State’s threat of contempt) is certainly a form of ‘criminal process,’?” wrote Trump’s private legal team, led by William Consovoy.

The subpoena in this case was not actually directed at Trump. Vance has subpoenaed the records from Trump’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, as part of an investigation that appears targeted at possible falsification of business records related to a scheme to silence two women who alleged that they had affairs with Trump.

In his filing Friday, Trump returned to an argument that a lower-court judge had already rejected earlier this week. He argued that, as president, he is too important to be prosecuted while in office.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-renews-claim-that-he-is-immune-from-criminal-investigation-in-effort-to-block-manhattan-da-probe/2019/10/11/e7d0df28-ec5d-11e9-9c6d-436a0df4f31d_story.html



Full headline: Trump renews claim that he is immune from criminal investigation in effort to block Manhattan D.A. probe

These "lawyers" (in quotes) need to be disbarred.
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

SWBTATTReg

(22,114 posts)
1. Idiot is missing the point...any protections went out w/ the criminal aspects of his crap...no
Fri Oct 11, 2019, 07:29 PM
Oct 2019

defense against criminal behavior.

flibbitygiblets

(7,220 posts)
13. This is all going to come down to Roberts. Will he do the right thing? I'm betting yes.
Fri Oct 11, 2019, 10:29 PM
Oct 2019

It's happened before, and the stakes for our country couldn't be higher. And he already knows that.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,681 posts)
4. I'm wondering why some judge hasn't hit Trump's lawyers with Rule 11 sanctions yet.
Fri Oct 11, 2019, 07:51 PM
Oct 2019
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,

-It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

-The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

-The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

-The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
https://www.upcounsel.com/legal-def-sanctions-rule-11

After the ass-kicking the judge dished out the other day, I'm gobsmacked that they keep raising the same frivolous arguments. Judge Marrero wrote that the president’s claim that of complete immunity from criminal investigation was “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” If that argument doesn't warrant Rule 11 sanctions I don't know what does.

ancianita

(36,031 posts)
7. Is their repetition a way to get help with how to refine their thinking with the NEXT judge? Are
Fri Oct 11, 2019, 08:21 PM
Oct 2019

they getting "passed along"? Are they trying to end up arguing for new law?

Might SCOTUS use Rule 11 as the reason to uphold the appeal court ruling?

Layman questions.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,681 posts)
8. Maybe they're trying to argue for a change in the law,
Fri Oct 11, 2019, 08:36 PM
Oct 2019

but it's a really, really weak argument because there's absolutely no authority for it. Rule 11 is used to punish lawyers for shoveling bullshit but it's not used as a basis to uphold or overturn a substantive ruling. The frivolous nature of the claim itself would be sufficient.

ancianita

(36,031 posts)
11. I'm sure that if you see it, whoever they appeal to next will see it. The sources of their
Fri Oct 11, 2019, 09:29 PM
Oct 2019

arguments almost seem to be wanting to simply rewrite law to privilege the Executive Branch.

It looks like legalized subversion of the Constitution.

raising2moredems

(638 posts)
15. SCOTUS..
Sat Oct 12, 2019, 11:44 PM
Oct 2019

We need to remember that Roberts is *really* concerned with his legacy. Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh have no issue sucking selected anatomical parts. I can't quite peg Gorsuch yet. I don't think is a true Souter but I don't think think he is the suck-ass Trump thinks he is. Which brings me back to Roberts - his ideological bent tells him to vote with his cronies. But his ego (legacy) keeps interrupting his ideological bent. IMHO, his ego will win. AND he is smart enough to know that if the same situation comes up when a Democrat is in the Oval Office, voting against the Dem when he voted in favor of the puke will send him to trash heap of history. Thus making the Supreme Court nothing but a lifetime taxpayer funded joke.

BaronChocula

(1,548 posts)
12. Oh, of course!
Fri Oct 11, 2019, 10:28 PM
Oct 2019

...But just in case, you better start working out how you're going to smuggle your orange makeup into the clink.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trump renews claim that h...