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. Trumps 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 courts dismissal of a suit the president filed seeking to block Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. (D) from obtaining Trumps tax returns. The President is immune from criminal process while in office, and a grand-jury subpoena (a coercive order backed by the States threat of contempt) is certainly a form of criminal process,? wrote Trumps private legal team, led by William Consovoy.
The subpoena in this case was not actually directed at Trump. Vance has subpoenaed the records from Trumps 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.
SWBTATTReg
(22,114 posts)defense against criminal behavior.
durablend
(7,460 posts)LOCK HIM UP
yaesu
(8,020 posts)flibbitygiblets
(7,220 posts)It's happened before, and the stakes for our country couldn't be higher. And he already knows that.
Evolve Dammit
(16,725 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,681 posts)-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.
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 presidents claim that of complete immunity from criminal investigation was repugnant to the nations governmental structure and constitutional values. If that argument doesn't warrant Rule 11 sanctions I don't know what does.
BumRushDaShow
(128,896 posts)ancianita
(36,031 posts)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)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)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)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.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,000 posts)Cha
(297,160 posts)Disassembled(figuratively)
BaronChocula
(1,548 posts)...But just in case, you better start working out how you're going to smuggle your orange makeup into the clink.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,937 posts)scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)talk to Bill Clinton donny blowhard