Here Are The Trump Grand Jury Subpoenas To Show How Screwed Trump Really Is!!!

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday July 09, 2020 · 11:09 AM PDT

2020/07/09 · 11:09

Today our Supreme Court ruled that Trump is just like anyone else when it comes to a Grand Jury Subpoena.

To see how screwed he really is, here are the two subpoenas from the New York Grand Jury he tried to stop which are contained in his own Petition to our Supreme Court:

Trump Subpoenas

The subpoena to the Trump Organization is Appendix I starting on Page 160.

The subpoena to Mazars is Appendix J starting on Page 167.

Interesting to see that it is the “Major Economic Crimes Bureau” of the New York County District Attorney’s Office that is investigating this matter. Let that sink in for a minute…. Trump is being investigated by the “Major Economic Crimes Bureau!”

The Grand Jury appears to be looking at everything from Stormy Daniels to taxes.

Here are some of the things the Grand Jury is getting from the Trump Organization:

1. For the period of June 1, 2015, through September 20, 2018, any and all documents and communications that relate to, reference, concern, or reflect:

a. payments made for the benefit of or agreements concerning Karen McDougal,

b. payments made for the benefit of or agreements concerning Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels aka Peggy Peterson,

c. payments made to or agreements with Michael Cohen or American Media, Inc. that concern Karen McDougal or Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels aka Peggy Peterson

Here are the things the Grand Jury is getting from Trump’s accountant Mazars:

1. For the period of January 1, 2011 to the present, with respect to Donald J. Trump, the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, the Trump Organization Inc., the Trump Organization LLC, the Trump Corporation, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., the Trump Old Post Office LLC, the Trump Foundation, and any related parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures, predecessors, or successors (collectively, the “Trump Entities”):

a. Tax returns and related schedules, in draft, as filed, and amended form;

b. Any and all statements of financial condition, annual statements, periodic financial reports, and independent auditors’ reports prepared, compiled, reviewed, or audited by Mazars USA LLP or its predecessor, WeiserMazars LLP;

c. Regardless of time period, any and all engagement agreements or contracts related to the preparation, compilation, review, or auditing of the documents described in items (a) and (b);

d. All underlying, supporting, or source documents and records used in the preparation, compilation, review, or auditing of documents described in items (a) and (b), and any summaries of such documents and records; and

e. All work papers, memoranda, notes, and communications related to the preparation, compilation, review, or auditing of the documents described in items (a) and (b), including, but not limited to,

i. All communications between Donald Bender and any employee or representative of the Trump Entities as defined above; and

ii. All communications, whether internal or external, related to concerns about the
completeness, accuracy, or authenticity of any records, documents, valuations, explanations, or other information provided by any employee or representative of the Trump Entities.

No wonder Trump went on a Tweet Storm today.

Trump must know that his own records are going to do him in. Did Trump overvalue assets to get loans, but then undervalue the same assets for tax assessment purposes? Did Trump claim payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels as business expenses? Did Trump underpay his taxes? Did Trump commit bank and/or wire fraud? Did Trump have accomplices? Can Trump’s assets be subject to forfeiture?

Anyone who has to turn this volume of materials over to a grand jury knows they are in trouble!

Supreme Court has huge Minneapolis Police Case set for Thursday's Conference...They Better Act!!!

MRH1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday June 01, 2020 · 10:58 AM PDT

2020/06/01 · 10:58

Believe it or not pending this Thursday June 4, 2020, before our US Supreme Court, is a civil rights case captioned Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The details are here: www.scotusblog.com/…

For too long our Supreme Court has allowed the police to be out of control. They throw out civil cases against the police and allow illegal searches to stand in criminal cases!

The devil is a court invented doctrine called “Qualified Immunity.” Here are some links to other cases to be considered this Thursday and a good article: www.scotusblog.com/… www.scotusblog.com/… reason.com/…

So, while many of us want to protest and demand change…here is a concrete chance to make change. The Supreme Court can change its idiotic decisions and allow people to sue the police again.

Since these are legal arguments I could write at length. I want to leave you with just one thought about how out of control our police have been allowed to become:

How is it that every police department in every jurisdiction everywhere across our country appears to have instant access to riot gear, shields, batons, tear gas, rubber bullets and the like and yet when we need them the most we don't have enough N95 masks for our health care workers?

MIND BLOWING....How Dumb the $2 Trillion Is Being Spent w/ MATH!!!! Give it to People!!!

MRH1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday March 25, 2020 · 2:13 PM PDT

2020/03/25 · 14:13

The United States is a nation of roughly 327 million people. That’s everyone. The young, the old, the rich and the poor.

For a total price tag of $2 Trillion we could give:

327 Million People $6,117.00 (That is every living American)

300 Million People $6,667.00

200 Million People $10,000.00

100 Million People $20,000.00

50 Million People $40,000.00

This stimulus plan is more corporate bailouts. Let them file for bankruptcy and reorganize like everyone else.

Give the People the money to survive.

When I see the $2 Trillion amount broken down like this I cannot believe what they are doing.

We should send $10,000.00 to 200 million people which is basically everyone over the age of 18.

That would fix a lot of problems. But no…the People get a small amount like $1,200.00.

This stupidity has got to stop in a democracy.

Pennsylvania's Governor Just Laid Off Every Bartender, Waiter,Card Dealer...Financial Help Needed!!!

MRH1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday March 17, 2020 · 2:46 PM PDT

2020/03/17 · 14:46

With good cause, Pennsylvania’s governor yesterday ordered a close to all non essential businesses. The statement says:

Non-essential businesses include public-facing industries such as entertainment, hospitality, and recreation facilities, including but not limited to community and recreation centers; gyms, including yoga, barre and spin facilities; hair salons and barber shops, nail salons and spas; casinos; concert venues; theaters; sporting event venues and golf courses; retail facilities, including shopping malls except for pharmacy or other health care facilities within retail operations.

Further, the Governor has ordered that all restaurants and bars close their dine-in facilities to help stop the spread of COVID-19. Businesses that offer carry-out, delivery, and drive-through food and beverage service may continue to do so, but eating and drinking inside restaurants and bars is temporarily prohibited. These businesses offering carry-out, delivery, and drive-through food and beverage should employ social distancing best practices and be aware of the Trump Administration’s guidance to avoid gatherings of 10 or more people. www.governor.pa.gov/...

It appears that almost 580,000 people work in the restaurant industry at large in Pennsylvania. restaurant.org/…

Here is the bad news. While they all certainly qualify for unemployment compensation that is such a small amount. Apparently in Pennsylvania “Your weekly benefit amount will be about 50% of your average weekly wages, subject to a weekly maximum of $573. Benefits are available for up to 26 weeks.” www.nolo.com/…

When it is a major health crisis that forces the Governor to close all “Non-essential businesses” all employees should get 100% of their pay. This is a once in a generation crisis and workers should get paid 100% of their wages through the unemployment system. Since this is industry wide they cannot even go and get a job elsewhere…everything is closed.

It was probably the right thing to do to close all “Non-essential businesses”, but it is totally wrong to not compensate these people fairly.

All workers need taken care of before any industry gets a bail out.

Poll

128 votes Show Results

Should anyone who loses their job through a forced closing due to Coronavirus be compensated 100% of their wages?

128 votes Vote Now!

Should anyone who loses their job through a forced closing due to Coronavirus be compensated 100% of their wages?

Yes

106 votes

22 votes

Why Trump Must Be Impeached and Convicted...Stated as Plainly As I Can...

MRH1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday November 23, 2019 · 5:34 AM PST

2019/11/23 · 05:34

After numerous hearings the evidence is clear that President Trump must be impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate.

No rational person can deny that President Trump sought Ukraine to interfere in our upcoming 2020 Presidential Election.

Elections are sacred for they represent the will of the People which is the only source of any legitimate authority a government may possess. The efforts of Trump are no different than, in the old days, stuffing a ballot box to win an election.

The testimony shows that Trump did not actually seek a real investigation or wish to pursue any real evidence — Trump sought only the announcement of an investigation!

Imagine in a local race for County Commissioner one of the incumbent candidates was to ask the Sheriff to announce an investigation into an opponent. Or a City Council member asking the Chief of Police to announce an investigation into an opponent. No actual investigation need take place nor need their be any evidence — just an announcement is all that is sought.

Seeking the announcement of an unsubstantiated investigation into a political opponent would not be tolerable at a local level and it certainly is not tolerable from the President of the United States.

To make things worse, Trump sought such an announcement from a foreign country that had been invaded and was in need of our assistance. It would have been bad enough if Trump had the FBI or Department of Justice announce an investigation, but to break our laws and illegally withhold money is even more grounds to impeach and convict.

Trump did not just ask for a favor from Ukraine, Trump used his power as President to Order money withheld until he got his way. Trump has both extorted Ukraine and committed bribery.

Tampering with our 2020 presidential election by seeking the meritless announcement of an investigation into a political opponent is sufficient grounds to impeach and convict Trump.

The Term "Background Checks" Is Too Intimidating. To Win, We Need To Use A More Appropriate Phrase!

MRH1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday September 13, 2019 · 8:05 AM PDT

2019/09/13 · 08:05

The term “background checks” generally has a scary meaning. The term “expanded background check” even more so. Background checks are often thought to mean a full investigation into your character, your listed references and your full history.

That is not what a “background check” is when required before the purchase of a firearm. The sole purpose of a “background check” is to make sure the firearm purchaser is not a “prohibited person.”

Here is the link to the ATF form you have to complete when buying a firearm in most situations:

www.atf.gov/…

The purpose of the form is to make sure you are not a “prohibited person.” That is to say, someone who our law says is not allowed to possess a firearm or ammunition. The full list of events that make someone a prohibited person is found in 18 USC 922 and is listed here:

www.law.cornell.edu/…

So when we call for expanded “background checks” we are not calling for more investigation into people and their history.

Expanded “background checks” simply means that no one may obtain a firearm or ammunition until it is confirmed they are not a “prohibited person.” Basically, the procedure you have to follow when you go into a store to buy a gun you would have to follow every time you buy a firearm wherever and from whomever.

Using phrases like “expanded background checks” seems to me to scare off a lot of people. That phrase just makes the average law abiding citizen -- who is not a “prohibited person” -- nervous. They think it will make it harder for them to obtain a firearm when it will not. The average person does not want the government to do a full “background check” into them just to buy a hunting rifle. Of course, no such “background check” is ever done, but the average people may not know all the facts.

So, I believe a new approach is needed in order to advance universal background checks. Basically work to make it clearer that it is not expanding any investigation into the buyer...it is just confirming the buyer is not a “prohibited person.”

Republicans should be asked every time:

“Do you want a ‘prohibited person’ to obtain a firearm?”; or

“What’s wrong with checking to make sure a firearm purchaser is not a ‘prohibited person’?”; or

“Do you agree that a ‘prohibited person’ should not be allowed to obtain a firearm?”; or

“Shouldn’t we do everything we can to make sure a ‘prohibited person’ does not obtain a firearm?”

I am interested in your suggestions for a better phrase.

Maybe saying things like “we need universal prohibited person check” or “we should check to make sure a firearm purchaser is not a prohibited person every time.”

If people knew what was meant by “expanded background checks” it would have even more support then it does now.

Look forward to your input on this post. Thanks.

Supreme Court Precedent Says Trump Loses "Bigly" At The May 14 and May 22 Hearings On Subpoenas...

MRH1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday May 12, 2019 · 8:56 AM PDT

2019/05/12 · 08:56

My May 8, 2019 Blog gave a lot of detail of Trump’s upcoming court dates to try to quash Congressional subpoenas served on third parties. The Blog is available here and thanks all for putting it on the REC List for a brief bit: www.dailykos.com/…

The same topic was coincidentally discussed on Rachel Maddow’s show soon after.

The 1975 US Supreme Court case Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund kills Trump’s arguments to quash the subpoenas. Full case link here: caselaw.findlaw.com/...

For me the following quote from the case destroys every one of Trump’s meritless arguments against subpoenas addressed to third parties:

Respondents also contend that the subpoena cannot be protected by the speech or debate immunity because the "sole purpose" of the investigation is to force "public disclosure of beliefs, opinions, expressions and associations of private citizens which may be unorthodox or unpopular." App. 16. Respondents view the scope of the privilege too narrowly. Our cases make clear that in determining the legitimacy of a congressional act we do not look to the motives alleged to have prompted it. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S., at 200; Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S., at 614. In Brewster, we said that "the Speech or Debate Clause protects against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts." 408 U.S., at 525 (emphasis added). And in Tenney v. Brandhove we said that "[t]he claim of an unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege." 341 U.S., at 377. If the mere allegation that a valid legislative act was undertaken for an unworthy purpose would lift the protection of the Clause, then the Clause simply would not provide the protection historically undergirding it. "In times of political passion, dishonest or vindictive motives are readily attributed to legislative conduct and as readily believed." Id., at 378. The wisdom of congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto. Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S., at 313. Nor is the legitimacy of a congressional inquiry to be defined by what it produces. The very nature of the investigative function - like any research - is that it takes the searchers up some "blind alleys" and into nonproductive enterprises. To be a valid legislative inquiry there need be no predictable end result.

Finally, respondents argue that the purpose of the subpoena was to "harass, chill, punish and deter" them in the exercise of their First Amendment rights, App. 16, and thus that the subpoena cannot be protected by the Clause. Their theory seems to be that once it is alleged that First Amendment rights may be infringed by congressional action the Judiciary may intervene to protect those rights; the Court of Appeals seems to have subscribed to that theory. That approach, however, ignores the absolute nature of the speech or debate protection and our cases which have broadly construed that protection.

I particularly like the line “The wisdom of congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto.”

Trump will lose his first effort, in regards to the subpoena to his accounting firm Mazars USA LLP, at the hearing on May 14, 2019.

Trump may attempt to get a stay from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, but that is highly unlikely as the Standard of Review for the granting or denial of an injunction is Abuse of Discretion — the most difficult legal standard to win on appeal.

SCOTUS might step in and pause things for a few days while the “whole court” looks at it. Even though SCOTUS is packed with right wing conservatives it still has some decency. A SCOTUS appeal won’t work either.

My prediction...by June 10, 2019 Mazars USA LLP will comply with the congressional subpoena.

The walls are closing in...

Trump's Day In Court Is Coming Sooner Than Many Think --- The Dates Are Set For May 14 & May 22

MRH1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday May 08, 2019 · 9:29 AM PDT

2019/05/08 · 09:29

Before I get into the upcoming court dates for Trump’s challenges to subpoenas, I want to share with everyone a great free service to view and follow all Federal Court Dockets for free…

You can view and download any case docket at these two locations:

www.courtlistener.com

www.courtlistener.com/…

And for those of you with a PACER account if you want to install the extension in your browser you can do so for free here:

free.law/…

The first case is the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoena to Mazars USA LLP for Trump records they hold as his accounting firm. The docket is available for free here:

www.courtlistener.com/…

And as you can tell by docket entry 11 that they have set “Oral Argument for 5/14/2019 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 10 before Judge Amit P. Mehta.” So if Trump does not win his Motion for Preliminary Injunction this independent third party will have to comply with the subpoena.

The next case is the the House Financial Services Committee subpoena to Deutsche Bank, AG and Capital One Financial Corp for more Trump records. The docket is available here for free:

www.courtlistener.com/…

And as you can tell by docket entry 22 that “Oral Argument set for 5/22/2019 at 02:30 PM before Judge Edgardo Ramos.” So if Trump does not win his Motion for Preliminary Injunction these independent third parties will have to comply with the subpoena.

The docket are also a good place to read all the briefs and see the issues. I’m biased, but the briefs supporting Congress seem pretty overwhelming.

So sooner than many think we will begin to get this first set of rulings in cases involving House subpoenas for Trump’s records.

Barr Letter Differs From What Mueller Has Said In Publicly Available Court Filings...

MRH1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday March 25, 2019 · 12:13 PM PDT

2019/03/25 · 12:13

Let’s start with Michael T. Flynn:

In the government’s Addendum to their Sentencing Memorandum at page 3 (available here www.documentcloud.org/...) Robert Mueller said “The defendant has also assisted with the SCO investigation concerning links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.” Flynn himself claims “General Flynn provided timely and substantial assistance to law enforcement.” (The Flynn Sentencing Memorandum is here: assets.documentcloud.org/... ) Flynn gave 19 interviews. If Flynn is getting rewarded for cooperation what did he say? What was the “links or coordination?” How could he assist if nothing happened? What “links or coordination” did Flynn testify about?

Next lets look at Roger Stone:

The full indictment is available here: www.justice.gov/…

My attention is drawn to paragraphs 5, 11 and 12 which state:

5. During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organization 1.

11. By in or around June and July 2016, STONE informed senior Trump Campaign officials that he had information indicating Organization 1 had documents whose release would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The head of Organization 1 was located at all relevant times at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, United Kingdom.

12. After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1.

Obviously Mueller knows who the “Trump Campaign officials” are and so should we!

Finally let’s look at Rick Gates.

In the 3-15-19 Joint Status Report (Document is available here: www.courtlistener.com/...) the SCO states “defendant Gates continues to cooperate with respect to several ongoing investigations, and accordingly the parties do not believe it is appropriate to commence the sentencing process at this time.”

What does Gates know? How can he “continue to cooperate” if the Mueller investigation is over?

Conclusion:

There are a lot of questions here? No way this investigation could have taken this long if there is nothing to investigate. Why did Flynn get such a good plea deal if he didn’t know anything?

For me, all the interviews and transcripts need to be made public to fully understand these events.

Certainly the full Mueller Report MUST be made public.

Sick of waiting for Mueller...Congress Must Act...People Need the Facts (w/ Poll)

MRH1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday January 29, 2019 · 8:30 AM PST

2019/01/29 · 08:30

Roger Stone exits the federal courthouse Friday in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The Roger Stone Indictment shows why the People need to know the facts NOW! The full indictment is available here: www.justice.gov/…

My attention is drawn to paragraphs 5, 11 and 12 which state:

5. During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organization 1.

11. By in or around June and July 2016, STONE informed senior Trump Campaign officials that he had information indicating Organization 1 had documents whose release would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The head of Organization 1 was located at all relevant times at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, United Kingdom.

12. After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1.

Obviously Mueller knows who the “Trump Campaign officials” are and so should we! The American People should know the facts — be they for or against Trump. If it was Bannon or Manafort that is one thing, but if it was Trump or his family that is much more.

The Congress should find out immediately who the “Trump Campaign officials” are and make it public.

I cannot believe any criminal case would be put in jeopardy, at this point in the time, if we know who the “Trump Campaign officials” are.

Mueller is taking way too long. His efforts --however — can run along as we learn facts. Most of us want to know who the “Trump Campaign officials” were and what they did.

Name their names and get this public!

Poll

37 votes Show Results

Should the American People be immediately told who the “Trump Campaign officials” are mentioned in the Stone Indictment?

37 votes Vote Now!

Should the American People be immediately told who the “Trump Campaign officials” are mentioned in the Stone Indictment?

Yes

25 votes

12 votes

Sadly, Congress Has Given Trump the Power to Declare a "National Emergency" and Build a Wall...

MRH1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday January 13, 2019 · 8:40 AM PST

2019/01/13 · 08:40

This link, from the Brennan Center for Justice, sets forth the entire array of emergency powers Congress has given our President to exercise mostly unilaterally:

www.brennancenter.org/…

The list is scary!

The fact that one person can declare a “national emergency” and can only be stopped by a veto proof number of Representatives and Senators is dangerous. The National Emergencies Act (50 USC §1601 et seq.) allows Congress to pass a Joint Resolution against the declaration, but it must be “enacted into law” which means it requires a presidential signature or 10 days of presidential inaction. A President can veto the Joint Resolution requiring a veto override by 2/3rds of each house — which is 292 Representatives and 67 Senators. See 50 USC §1622 (a)(1) here www.law.cornell.edu/…

Basically, the President, with the support of 34 senators and/or 144 Representatives, can do whatever he wants?!

The Brennan Center points to two (2) sections that probably authorize the building of a wall and the diversion of funds:

10 USC § 2808(a):

(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.

and

33 USC § 2293:

(a) Termination or deferment of civil works projects; application of resources to national defense projects

In the event of a declaration of war or a declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] that requires or may require use of the Armed Forces, the Secretary, without regard to any other provision of law, may (1) terminate or defer the construction, operation, maintenance, or repair of any Department of the Army civil works project that he deems not essential to the national defense, and (2) apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.

If any good comes from this mess Trump has created, I hope it is the People are aware of these laws and they demand Congress change them. The easiest change is to say that all “national emergencies” shall last for no more than so many days unless extended by Congress.

Poll

41 votes Show Results

Prior to Trump's threat to declare a "National Emergency" were you aware that Congress had given the President this kind of power?

41 votes Vote Now!

Prior to Trump's threat to declare a "National Emergency" were you aware that Congress had given the President this kind of power?

Yes

21 votes

20 votes

Under Law, Trump's "National Emergency" Would Force the Senate Republicans to Vote For or Against It

MRH1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday January 10, 2019 · 9:27 PM PST

2019/01/10 · 21:27

The “National Emergencies Act” became law September 14, 1976 and is found at United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 34

As codified: www.law.cornell.edu/...

Original 1976 Act: www.govinfo.gov/…

As amended in 1985 Title VIII, §801: www.govinfo.gov/...

Should idiot Trump declare a “National Emergency” on our southern border the law has remedies. The Congress can override the declaration. 50 USC §1622 (a)(1) states:

(a) Termination methods Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter shall terminate if—

(1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency

To me, the most important part is the mandatory requirement that a vote be had if a joint resolution to terminate the “National Emergency” is introduced. 50 USC §1622 (c) states:

(c) Joint resolution; referral to Congressional committees; conference committee in event of disagreement; filing of report; termination procedure deemed part of rules of House and Senate

(1) A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(2) Any joint resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(3) Such a joint resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the other House and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

So, under section (c)(1) a Democratic controlled House Committee could report out the termination of the “National Emergency” very quickly and under (c)(2) it could be voted on very quickly.

Once the Joint Resolution to terminate the “National Emergency” passes the house is where it gets interesting. Under (c)(3) the Senate MUST vote on it. While they can drag their feet 15 days in committee and 3 days before a vote, they will have to vote ----no filibuster.

If idiot Trump declares a “National Emergency” he will be putting the Senate Republicans in the position where they will have to vote for or against his declaration of a “National Emergency.”

While, yes Trump could ultimately veto a passed Joint Resolution -- I want to see how these Republican Senators vote.

Go ahead...make my day.

Newer
Older

RSS