jberryhill
jberryhill's JournalWorst. White House Turkey Pardon. Ever.
Well, the turkey pardon got a little weird this year....
Did something awful happen to Tesla today?
Dang.... company lost a good chunk of its value. Was there some bad news?
Is there another word for "cinnamon" that means the same thing?
If Trump wants to find corruption in Ukraine, he should pardon Manafort and set him loose...
...because that boy is certainly good at finding it there.
What's worse than being an answer on Jeopardy?
Being one nobody can remember:
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1195147519166164993
The best part is that Avenatti then attacked one of the participants:
AZ GOP US Rep. Pushing "Epstein Didn't Kill Himself" On Twitter
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/470377-gosar-leaves-message-in-tweets-epstein-didnt-kill-himself
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) left a hidden message in his tweets Wednesday, spelling out “Epstein didn’t kill himself.”
The first letters in 23 tweets in a row from Gosar's account read “E-P-S-T-E-I-N-D-I-D-N-T-K-I-L-L-H-I-M-S-E-L-F.”
The tweets, which were posted over the course of several hours, comment on the impeachment inquiry, as the first public testimony took place Wednesday. Throughout the tweets, Gosar condemns the House Democrats and their witnesses while defending the president.
...
Gosar’s tweets come a week after conservative site Project Veritas released a video showing anchor Amy Robach on hot mic complaining that ABC would not allow her to air her reporting on Epstein three years prior.
The loony right seems to be heavily invested in pushing this theme.
Key Filings in the Kupperman/Bolton and Maybe Mulvaney Lawsuit re: Subpoenas
For those interested in the topic of "why don't top WH advisors just show up and testify", this is the full docket of the case filed by Kupperman.
The basic problem for someone whose testimony may, or may not, be the subject of a claim of privilege is whether to comply with a subpoena or to comply with the demand of the person claiming privilege.
Some folks on DU have the unshakeable notion that complying with a subpoena is always mandatory. But that is simply not so. It is particularly not so when there is a privilege involved. I've recently been raked over the coals for suggesting that former presidential advisors against whom the WH has asserted privilege in the face of subpoenas to testify, would do well to seek a judicial resolution rather than deciding for themselves whether to go ahead and give testimony that could prove worthless if indeed it was privileged (and subject them to legal peril).
For example, as an attorney, if I were subpoenaed to testify about a conversation with a client, I would not comply with that subpoena, but would require that a court expressly find that, for some reason, the privilege does not apply.
Kupperman is a former NSC staffer. He has been subpoenaed by the House to testify. He has been ordered by the WH not to testify. Accordingly, he filed this proceeding against the House AND the WH:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16386212/kupperman-v-house-of-representatives-of-the-usa/
40. Plaintiff is bound by his oath of office to abide by the lawful constitutional commands of both the President and the House of Representatives.
41. Plaintiff has a duty to abide by a lawful constitutional assertion of immunity by the President and a lawful instruction by the President that he decline to testify before Congress concerning his official duties as a close advisor to the President.
...
47. It is not possible for Plaintiff to satisfy the commands of both the House Defendants on the one hand, and President Trump on the other.
48. Plaintiff is neither authorized nor able to resolve a Constitutional dispute between the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government; instead, “it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177.
49. Accordingly, Plaintiff is “an interested party seeking” a declaration of his “rights and other legal relations” with the House Defendants on the one hand, and the President on the other. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Plaintiff takes no position on whether the command of the Legislative Branch or the command of the Executive Branch should prevail; he seeks only to carry out whichever constitutional obligation the Judicial Branch determines to be lawful and binding on Plaintiff.
--------------------------
Now, just the other day, someone was spitting nails at me for suggesting that this was the proper course of action for someone caught in Kupperman's (and Bolton's) circumstances.
This is the action in which Mick Mulvaney has filed a motion saying, "I'd like to do the same thing."
The problem there is that Mulvaney, unlike Kupperman and Bolton, HAS a position on whether or not he should testify. Mulvaney, as something of a participant in the underlying "drug deal" sides with the White House.
Accordingly, Kupperman and Bolton's attorneys said, "Oh, Hell no" to Mulvaney's intervention.
That "Oh, Hell no" has attracted some attention in the press today, and you might find the actual motion interesting, if you are the type of person who thinks for themselves and does not want other people telling you what to think:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.212284/gov.uscourts.dcd.212284.30.0_2.pdf
There are four key distinctions between Plaintiff’s case and the complaint that Mulvaney proposes to file that preclude intervention as of right pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 24(a), and that also counsel strongly against the exercise of the Court’s discretion to permit intervention under FED.R.CIV.P. 24(b). First, Plaintiff is and will remain neutral on the question whether the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch should prevail on the merits of the unsettled Constitutional dispute at issue in this case. In contrast, Mulvaney has made it clear that he supports the Executive, and he accordingly seeks declaratory relief against only the House Defendants.
...
Second, Mulvaney has publicly discussed the events at issue in the House’s impeachment inquiry, including appearing to admit that there was a quid pro quo relationship between the President’s decision to withhold appropriated financial assistance from Ukraine and a Ukrainian investigation into what happened to a Democratic server in 2016 (an admission he subsequently sought to disavow). Plaintiff, in contrast, has never publicly disclosed information relating to any of his official duties, including the matters under investigation by the House. Accordingly, there is a serious question as to whether Mulvaney waived the absolute testimonial immunity claimed by the President such that a judgment in Plaintiff’s case upholding the claim of immunity will not necessarily apply to Mulvaney.
...
Third, because Mulvaney is a current advisor to the President whereas Kupperman is a former advisor, a judgment in Plaintiff’s case that the subpoena must be enforced will not necessarily apply to Mulvaney, given that one important justification offered by the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) for its longstanding assertion of absolute testimonial immunity for close Presidential advisors against Congressional process is that “preparing for such examinations would force them to divert time and attention from their duties to the President at the whim of congressional committees.”
...
Fourth, all of Plaintiff’s official duties exclusively concerned advising the President on highly sensitive matters of national security and foreign affairs, and if any close personal advisor to the President qualifies for testimonial immunity, it surely must be the President’s National Security Advisor and his deputy. In contrast, the bulk of Mulvaney’s duties “d[o] not involve the sensitive topics of national security or foreign affairs.” Comm. on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 105 (D.D.C. 2008).
Permitting Mulvaney to intervene could thus prejudice Plaintiff’s strong interest in an expeditious resolution of the merits of the momentous Constitutional issue presented here in accordance with the aggressive schedule the Court has adopted for reaching final judgment as quickly as possible.
--------------------------
Now, elsewhere on DU, you will find persons peddling the notion that Bolton is seeking to drag this thing out, or resist testifying, for reasons not clearly explained because he has a book deal (but no book as yet).
Those persons will have to explain why Kupperman and Bolton's attorneys don't want Mulvaney slowing down a decision, or bending it in favor of the White House, in the Kupperman action to resolve the privilege issue with respect to former NSC advisors.
Some interesting filings in Stormy Daniels' Ohio wrongful arrest case
Some folks here are probably old enough to remember when Stormy Daniels was arrested at a strip club in Ohio on a bullshit charge that was primarily motivated by politics.
She brought a civil suit against the local prosecutor and reached a $450,000 settlement:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/stormy-daniels-settlement-columbus/index.html
Stormy Daniels settles for $450K after arrest at Columbus, Ohio, strip club
Sounds pretty good, right?
Well, it sounds pretty good to quite a distinguished list of other guests who have shown up to the party. Here's the recent docket in that case:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8495132/clifford-v-keckley/
Nov 6, 2019
NOTICE of Registration of Foreign Judgment by Interested Party Donald J. Trump (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Binau, Dan) Modified text on 11/7/2019 (ew). (Entered: 11/06/2019)
It turns out, once you've attracted the interest of Donald Trump, it's a hard thing to shake. The President of the United States is shaking down a stripper to the tune of $300k:
.
.
.
.
Although, to be fair, that judgment in favor of Trump was precipitated by the disastrous advice of incompetent grifter attorney Michael Avenatti.
And, what would be a client damage award without Michael Avenatti rising up from his crypt to get his fingers on it:
Nov 7, 2019
NOTICE by Interested Party Michael Avenatti re 40 Notice (Other) of Pending Arbitration Resulting in the Removal of Lien (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Notice of Pending Arbitration) (Warren, Thomas) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
The best part of Avenatti's claim to the judgment here is that he wants to collect his fees for, among other things, pursuing the case in which Daniels ended up owing Trump the $300k that Trump is going after:
.
.
.
.
The full filing can be found here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ohsd.220607/gov.uscourts.ohsd.220607.45.1.pdf
But, and maybe I should put the interesting stuff up front, we finally find out in this filing just what, exactly, was the fee agreement between Avenatti and Daniels, among a few other things. Just getting to the good parts:
.
.
.
.
What's interesting about a header? Well, for one thing, it puts to bed the bullshit that was peddled by Avenatti and insisted on by his acolytes concerning Avenatti's various corporate guises. Early on in the Avenatti follies, the troubles of Eagan Avenatti were public information. This was dismissed by Avenatti, as his "former firm" which had nothing to do with his current representation of Daniels. Anyone who disagreed was labeled a "troll" or Trump supporter.
Moving on, I defy anyone to square his claim for legal fees above, with the operative passage of the agreement:
.
.
.
.
...and, yes, this is the actual agreement they signed:
.
.
.
.
So, what he agreed to do was take $100, bill his hourly rate against any online donations, and then negotiate a "reasonable percentage" of any book or media appearance in which he was involved.
His complaint, on the other hand, is "she only paid me $100", which seems to be all she was supposed to pay him.
And, oh, on that reasonable percentage... As you might know, he fraudulently took all of certain payments from her book deal by informing the publisher that they were to send he payments to him, but not informing Daniels that he was pocketing the payments. In fact, he pulled his usual stunt - confirmed by text messages - of telling his client that he was chasing payment when he had actually already received it and spent it on himself.
If you are wondering why he's not behind bars yet, then it doesn't seem as if it is going to be much longer:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-avenatti/u-s-lawyer-michael-avenatti-gets-trial-date-on-charges-of-stealing-from-ex-client-idUSKBN1WN2DP
U.S. lawyer Michael Avenatti gets trial date on charges of stealing from ex-client
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Lawyer Michael Avenatti, who became nationally known as an outspoken critic of U.S. President Donald Trump before his arrest earlier this year, will stand trial in April on charges that he stole from his former client Stormy Daniels, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts set the April 21 trial date at a brief hearing in Manhattan federal court. The trial is expected to last one to two weeks.
Avenatti, 48, was arrested in New York in March. New York prosecutors have charged him with stealing nearly $300,000 from Daniels in the course of representing her and helping her secure a book deal, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Second Circuit Opinion In Trump v. Vance (actual document here for people who think for themselves)
Unlike a lot of other things you see in the news, court decisions are things where you don't have to rely on what someone else decides to tell you about them. You can directly read them for yourself.
That is a useful habit to develop, since it can go a long way toward dispelling various popular, but wrong, notions about how courts work and how appeals courts work in particular, and can render you resistant to knee-jerk attacks against the judiciary as are depressing common.
The full decision is here:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6538526/11-4-19-Trump-v-Vance-Opinion.pdf
What a lot of folks seem to miss is that the underlying subpoena battle here is between the state of NY and the accounting firm which handles Trump's taxes. The subpoena is not even directed to Trump:
The President argues that this case is distinguishable from Nixon and
related cases because this subpoena comes from a state rather than a federal
court. While the Supreme Court has not had occasion to address this question, it
has noted in passing that “any direct control by a state court over the President”
may “implicate concerns” under the Supremacy Clause. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 691
n.13. But, as already discussed, this subpoena does not involve “direct control by
a state court over the President.” Although the subpoena is directed to the
President’s custodian, no court has ordered the President to do or produce
anything.
There is another point here worth mentioning for the "courts are rigged" or who go on about how slow they are:
We emphasize again the narrowness of the issue before us. This appeal
does not require us to consider whether the President is immune from
indictment and prosecution while in office, nor to consider whether the President
may lawfully be ordered to produce documents for use in a state criminal
proceeding. We accordingly do not address those issues. The only question
before us is whether a state may lawfully demand production by a third party of
the President’s personal financial records for use in a grand jury investigation
while the President is in office. With the benefit of the district court’s well‐
articulated opinion, we hold that any presidential immunity from state criminal
process does not bar the enforcement of such a subpoena.
By taking the time to issue a thorough and well-supported decision, the District Court saved time for the appellate court, and gave the appellate court no reason to conclude that the District Court gave the matter less attention than needed.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Delaware
Member since: Fri Jan 20, 2006, 08:14 PM
Number of posts: 62,444
