House Judiciary Committee Barr Whistleblowers (Berman & Others) —
Background — See my June 24, 25, 29, July 21 & 22 TICs.
Recent Developments — Barr to appear before House Judiciary on Tuesday! Notice I said “appear” because whether he will offer any meaningful testimony as to his unjustifiable conduct in a wide range of matters is highly questionable. According to NPR:
Barr is expected to vehemently defend his independence, saying the president "has not attempted to interfere" in decisions related to criminal cases. "Indeed, it is precisely because I feel complete freedom to do what I think is right that induced me serve once again as Attorney General," he will say, according to prepared remarks released last night.
The attorney general has defended his independence and that of the Justice Department in response to the criticism offered by Nadler and others. He told NPR he believes the department is separated appropriately from the White House and that he has a responsibility to make sure cases are handled correctly.
All the same, Nadler's panel has heard from Justice Department whistleblowers and outside critics who argue that Barr's camp leans on underlings to deliver the results that it — and the White House — want.
Democrats are likely to press the attorney general on Tuesday about matters involving Trump's friends, including political adviser Roger Stone, in whose case Barr interceded; former national security adviser Mike Flynn, whose charges Barr dropped; and others.
There are a wide range of topics to grill Barr on (So many injustices, so little time), but what Barr will say and how he will conduct himself is anybody’s guess. But chances are not great that anyone will pin the slimy Barr down. He is a master at avoidance and saying a lot of nothing. Still something newsworthy could happen.
New Developments — Barr appeared before House Judiciary on Tuesday as you all know by now. Since much has already been posted about Barr’s testimony, I will not try to recap it by writing paragraph’s of text. However, I have provided a number of links below to previous excellent posts that can provide you with the juicy details:
1. Kerry Eleveld's Post
2. Walter Einenkel's Post
3. CNN Report
4. The Oregonian Report (Fact Checking Barr on Portland Protests)
5. NY Times Report
Not much left to say, except Barr’s responses throughout the day seemed to ooze of arrogance and despise-ment towards Democrats, with a “you can’t touch me” attitude. Noe let’s see if Dems. allow him to go untouched?
On a humorous note, I caught Barr lying within the first minute of his testimony when he said to the Committee:
“I am very pleased to be here.”
An obvious lie. The truth is he would rather be undergoing numerous root canals without Novocain, then to sit in a Congressional Hearing.
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 & July 22 TICs.
Recent Developments — None.
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, July 22 & 23 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. Vance (Criminal Case) — Case brought by Trump against against the Manhattan DA for Trump’s tax returns and other financial records. Trump is attempting to block a subpoena from the Manhattan DA to Mazars (the Trump Organization’s former Accounting Firm). 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 — If you remember, the SCOTUS decision in Case #3 above (Trump vs. Vance) Handed Trump a “loss” in his effort to block the DA Grand Jury subpoena on grounds of Presidential “Absolute Immunity”, but allowed him to fight on in the lower court using other basis for opposing the subpoena available to the “common man”. That appears to be what Team Trump is now doing in this case. According to TPM:
President Trump filed a new complaint on Monday, seeking to further delay a criminal subpoena for his long-withheld financial information.
The Supreme Court remanded the case, in which President Trump hired personal attorneys to block a state-level subpoena for records held by his longtime accountant, back to the Southern District of New York three weeks ago. It did so with the proviso that Trump embark on new avenues of argument, other than that the simple fact of his holding the office of President negates any potential involvement in a state-level criminal probe.
The high court denied earlier arguments from Trump that his status as President made him immune from any kind of criminal procedure.
In his supposedly new arguments, Trump called the subpoena “wildly overbroad,” saying that it “is not a properly tailored subpoena for the President’s records.”
He also accused Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, who got the subpoena from a grand jury, of acting “in bad faith” and trying to engage in “harassment of the President.”
Trump went on to claim that Vance is limited on a number of grounds, all of which allegedly invalidate the subpoena.
The Manhattan DA’s jurisdiction is limited to “New York County,” and the DA is barred by a statute of limitations that keeps “most New York crimes” unprosecutable “from one to five years after the commission of the offense.”
But the President’s business, his attorneys argued, spans the globe — with documents “in Canada, the Dominican Republic, Dubai, India, Indonesia, Ireland, the Philippines, Scotland, and Turkey.”
Trump went on to argue that the subpoena was both invasively broad and invasively detailed, asking for “an accounting and analysis of every single asset and liability of the President, including each one of the listed entities.”
“That is hundreds — if not thousands — of comprehensive reports, each one containing a trove of information about the health, trajectory, and operations of the business,” his attorneys wrote.
So now Trump is throwing everything at the subpoena but the kitchen sink. Makes one wonder why he didn’t do that in the first place? Did Team Trump consider these weaker arguments than the “Absolute Immunity” argument, or were they betting on a SCOTUS loss on that argument and that they would be allowed to present other arguments to further delay the subpoena past the election? Any guesses?
New Developments — None.