So not only does Stone not go to jail, he has been freed from post-jail supervision and from paying any fine.
In a more recent development, the House Judiciary Committee is going to seek to limit Trump’s pardon power through legislation, according to this Axios Story:
House Judiciary Committee Barr Whistleblowers (New) —
Background — See my June 24, 25, 29 & July 21 TICs.
Recent Developments — On July 13, the House Judiciary Committee issued a Press Release containing excerpts of testimony from ousted SDNY Prosecutor Geoffrey Berman. Here are some of the bombshells he let loose on AG Barr:
Barr tried to “entice” Berman to step down—which would have resulted in delay and disruption of SDNY’s ongoing investigations. Berman acknowledged this could be described as a “quid pro quo.”
- Attorney General Barr “was trying to entice me to resign so that an outsider could be put into the acting U.S. attorney position at the Southern District of New York, which would have resulted in the delay and disruption of ongoing investigations. … And, in fact, my belief as to what he was trying to engineer actually proved to be correct when he issued his press release Friday night.” (71)
- Berman testified that accepting the offer would have impacted his “official duty” to ensure “that the office’s cases proceeded without disruption or delay.” (18)
- “You know, he wanted me to resign to take a position. I assume you could call that a quid pro quo. You resign and you get this, that would mean quid pro quo.” (34)
When Berman declined Barr’s offer, he threatened to fire Berman. Berman still refused to resign.
- “The Attorney General said that if I did not resign from my position I would be fired. He added that getting fired from my job would not be good for my resume or future job prospects. I told him that, while I did not want to get fired, I would not resign.” (9)
Barr was lying when told the American people that Berman was stepping down.
- Berman testified: “Sometime after 9:14 p.m., on Friday, I became aware that DOJ issued a press release that I would be, quote, stepping down, unquote. That statement was false.” (10)
- Berman testified regarding Barr’s false statement in his press release: “I believe that, when you issue a press release, everything in the press release should be accurate.” (69)
Barr offered Berman an obviously false cover story, but Berman confirmed that he believed Barr never explained the actual reason he was really asking Berman to resign.
- “I do not know what the Attorney General's motives were, but the irregular and unexplained actions by the Attorney General raised serious concerns for me. … Why did the Attorney General not tell me the actual reason he was asking me to resign instead of saying that it was to get Clayton into the position? And why did he announce the appointment of Craig Carpenito as acting U.S. attorney when Audrey Strauss was the logical and normal successor?” (12-13)
While Barr did not tell Berman the actual reason for his removal, Berman testified that Barr’s plan to bring in an outsider would have been “unprecedented, unnecessary, and unexplained,” and resulted in the delay and disruption of SDNY’s ongoing investigations.
- “Firing me and then bypassing my deputy, Audrey Strauss, to place Carpenito in charge of the office would have caused significant disruption and delay to the investigations the office was handling.” (32)
- “Well, this was not a normal change of command in the Southern District of New York. In fact, it was extraordinary and unprecedented.” (32)
Although House Republicans argued that Barr committed no specific wrongdoing, Berman testified that Barr made false statements and that Barr’s actions were against the normal operation of law, inappropriate, unprecedented, and part of a larger pattern of conduct, as Barr had already abruptly removed other U.S. Attorneys in key offices.
- Berman testified that Barr’s June 19 statement was false. (10)
- Berman testified that he did not think that Barr asking him to resign outside the normal procedure was “appropriate.” (16)
- Berman testified that Barr’s plan of appointing Carpenito “as acting U.S. attorney or anyone outside of the office would have been unprecedented, unnecessary, and unexplained, and would have resulted in the delay and disruption of the office’s investigations.” (13)
- Berman testified that “based on the Attorney General Barr's prior practice of removing U.S. attorneys,” he had “grave concern that what happened with the removal of the U.S. attorney in D.C. could happen here.” (50)
- “I do not know what the Attorney General's motives were, but the irregular and unexplained actions by the Attorney General raised serious concerns for me.” (59-60)
Just WOW!
A full copy of the Geoffrey Berman interview transcript is available here.
New Developments — None.
House Judiciary & Intelligence Committee Flynn Subpoena —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE. Also, see my May 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19, 20, 27, June 3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 18, 23 & 29 TICs.
Recent Developments — First, the Appeals Court’s Three Judge Panel’s decision against Judge Sullivan is NOT the final word in Flynn’s case. According to this July 10th CNN Report:
The appeals court says it will hear from Flynn's attorneys and from the Justice Department before July 20. The case won't be dismissed until at least then, the order said Friday.
So in response to the Appeals Court request, we have this from Flynn’s legal team, courtesy of
POLITICO:
Lawyers for former national security adviser Michael Flynn urged an appeals court Monday to immediately shut down the lingering fight over whether a lower-court judge must dismiss the criminal case against him.
"The district court has hijacked and extended a criminal prosecution for almost three months for its own purposes,” Flynn’s attorneys wrote in a filing with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
And not to be outdone, we have this from Flynn’s new Best Buddies at DoJ, Courtesy of TPM:
The Justice Department said Monday that it would suffer “irreparable injury” if the judge in the Michael Flynn case was allowed to probe the circumstances of its request that the case be dropped.
So DoJ says it will suffer “irreparable injury” if the full Appeals Court were allowed to probe into this case. What about the irreparable harm to Justice and the Rule of Law caused by letting Flynn go free? OMFG!
New Developments — None.
House Committees Subpoenas/Requests for Trump Banking/Financial Records & Taxes:
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE. Also, see my May 11 , 12 , 13 & 14 TICs.
NOTE: In previous TICs, there were 3 separate topic threads (1. Deutsche/Capital One Bank Subpoenas, 2. Mazars’ Subpoena, and 3. Trump Taxes) covering 5 different court cases. Since they are all dealing with the same general topic (Trump’s hidden financial history) and were starting to get intertwined in my brain, I have rolled them all under the single header above to hopefully make things less confusing.
Also, to further help keep things organized, below are the five (5) ongoing court cases dealing with Trump’s Banking/Financial Records and tax returns.
1. Trump vs. Deutsche Bank and Capital One — Case brought by Trump against the the two banks in an effort to block a subpoena from the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees for the Trump Organization’s banking records, including tax returns.
2. Trump vs. Mazars (Congressional Case) — Congressional Mazar’s case brought by Trump against Mazars (the Trump Organization’s former Accounting Firm) in an effort to block a subpoena from the House Oversight and Reform Committee for the Trump Organization’s financial records, including tax returns.
3. Trump vs. Mazars (Criminal Case) — Case brought by Trump against against Mazars (the Trump Organization’s former Accounting Firm) in an effort to block a subpoena from the Manhattan DA for Trump’s tax returns. The DA has subpoenaed these takes returns in conjunction with his criminal investigation of Trump’s hush money pay off to Stormy Daniels.
4. Congress vs. the IRS & Treasury Department (Trump’s Federal Tax Returns) — This case is a lawsuit brought by the House Ways & Means Committee against the IRS and Treasury Department for their failure to turn over Trump’s tax returns upon the Committee’s request as required BY LAW.
5. Trump vs. NYS Tax Department (Trump’s State Tax Returns) — This case is a lawsuit brought by Trump to block NYS from turning over his State tax returns to Congress.
I will use these case #s below to help keep things organized.
Recent Developments — Well as news to almost no one by now, SCOTUS has handed down it’s decisions in Cases 1, 2 & 3 above. First, you can read the entire decision in the Trump vs. Deutsche Bank and the Trump vs. Mazars Cases (Congressional Cases 1 & 2 above) HERE courtesy of this Joan McCarter Post. Second, you can read the entire decision on the Trump vs. Vance Subpoena Case (Case #3) HERE courtesy of CNN. Having read both myself, or at least the important parts, I have come a way with the general conclusion that contrary to media reports, neither is a slam dunk defeat for Team Trump I am sorry to say. So let me give you a brief summary of both decisions with my 2 cents on each, starting with the two Congressional cases (Cases 1 & 2):
Trump vs. Congress Cases 1&2 — On the positive side, the Court did not accept Trump’s argument that his status as President gives him the power to block Congressional subpoenas. On the negative side, it also did not grant Congress unlimited subpoena power, citing that Congress can only issue subpoenas for legislative purposes and not for law enforcement or other reasons. On the end their decision relied heavily on the over 100 years of Congress and the Executive Branch working out compromises in subpoena matters without Court intervention. Here’s the “Bottom Line” Paragraph from the SCOTUS decision:
When Congress seeks information “needed for intelligent legislative action,” it “unquestionably” remains “the duty of all citizens to cooperate.” Watkins, 354 U. S., at 187 (emphasis added). Congressional subpoenas for information from the President, however, implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns. The judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit and the Second Circuit are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So while SCOTUS said Trump has the duty to comply with Congressional subpoenas as all citizens do, they scolded the lower court for not considering Legislative vs. Executive Separation of Powers considerations which they remanded back to the Appeals Court to consider. They specifically laid out four of these considerations prior to making the above ruling, and left the door open for more. So IMO this decision was somewhat of a non-decision, in that it punts the Congressional subpoena cases back to the lower court for further proceedings. However, in terms of Trump keeping his financial secrets most likely until after the 2020 election, it is a win for Team Trump, sorry to say.
Trump vs. Vance Case 3 — As in the Congressional case above, SCOTUS turned a Big Thumbs Down to Team Trump’s argument that a President has “Absolute Immunity” to subpoenas while in office. While this was obvious to anyone with an ounce of Constitutional knowledge, it still is good to have a SCOTUS decision to set this important precedent in legal stone. However, also as in the Congressional case, it did not provide a clear win for DA Vance and his Grand Jury. Here are the “money quotes” from the SCOTUS ruling in this case:
Finally, in the absence of a need to protect the Executive,the public interest in fair and effective law enforcement cuts in favor of comprehensive access to evidence. Requiring a state grand jury to meet a heightened standard of need would hobble the grand jury’s ability to acquire “all information that might possibly bear on its investigation.”
R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U. S., at 297. And, even assuming the evidence withheld under that standard were preserved until the conclusion of a President’s term, in the interim the State would be deprived of investigative leads that the evidence might yield, allowing memories to fade and documents to disappear. This could frustrate the identification, investigation, and indictment of third parties (for whom applicable statutes of limitations might lapse). More troubling, it could prejudice the innocent by depriving the grand jury of exculpatory evidence.
But:
Rejecting a heightened need standard does not leave Presidents with “no real protection.”
Post, at 19 (opinion of ALITO, J.). To start, a President may avail himself of the same protections available to every other citizen. These include the right to challenge the subpoena on any grounds permitted by state law, which usually include bad faith and undue burden or breadth.
And:
Furthermore, although the Constitution does not entitle the Executive to absolute immunity or a heightened standard, he is not “relegate[d]” only to the challenges available to private citizens.
Post, at 17 (opinion of ALITO, J.). A President can raise subpoena-specific constitutional challenges, in either a state or federal forum. As previously noted, he can challenge the subpoena as an attempt to influence the performance of his official duties, in violation of the Supremacy Clause. See supra, at 17. This avenue protects against local political machinations “interposed as an obstacle to the effective operation of a federal constitutional power.” In addition, the Executive can—as the district attorney concedes—argue that compliance with a particular subpoena would impede his constitutional duties.
So the bottom line in this case seems to be that while SCOTUS rejected Team Trump’s claim of “Absolute Immunity” as a reason to block a Grand Jury subpoena, they left open other reasons as would be afforded any common man wishing to block a subpoena of his records and Trump can use the interference of his duties as President as one of those reasons. Since Team Trump chose not to cite any of these “other” reasons in the first go round, it can be assumed that they are not as strong and will not provide Trump a “win” in the end. However, it does leave Trump to fight another day in the lower courts, and with the ability to likely delay any access to his financial records to the Vance Grand Jury until after the election.
Conclusion On Both SCOTUS Decisions — Whatever your feelings about Chief Justice John Roberts (sometimes we like-em and sometimes we hate-em) you got to admire the way he handled these cases from a purely legal perspective. In reading these rulings, both of which he authored, it seems clear to me he set out to accomplish the following important goals:
1. He wanted to make clear that Trump and any future President did NOT deserve any treatment that is not already provided to the common man (woman) when it comes to Congressional and Judicial subpoenas;
2. He wanted to stick to precedent, as he did by basing the decision on the Jefferson-Burr case and the Nixon case;
3. He wanted an non-partisan, apolitical decision to avoid tipping the political scales just before the election; and
4. He wanted to have as close to a unanimous ruling as he could get, which he did by giving Trump other options in both cases.
I have to admit, he amazingly accomplished both. However, I would agree that punting these cases back to the lower courts, he obviously did Trump a favor in allowing him to block these subpoenas most likely through election day. So I will have to hold my applause for Justice Roberts on this one.
New Developments — SCOTUS denies House Democrats request to “fast-track” the Congressional Cases 1 & 2. According to this story from The Hill:
The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request by House Democrats to accelerate the timeline of remaining court battles over congressional subpoenas for President Trump’s tax returns.
The bid by lawmakers came in response to the court’s landmark 7-2 ruling earlier this month to shield a trove of Trump’s financial records from several Democratic-led House committees and return the dispute to lower courts for further litigation.
Under regular Supreme Court procedure, the ruling would reach the lower courts no earlier than Aug. 3, a delay Democrats sought to avoid by asking the justices to expedite the process.
But the conservative-majority court rejected that request Monday in an unsigned order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the more liberal justices, said she would have granted it.
Not a surprise really. It was Roberts’ intention to slow walk these cases to prevent any public release of Trump’s taxes until after the election.