WTF Community

The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump



And this puts a big STOP on the Investigations into Trump’s businesses, but was a ruling like this one was expected by Judge Sullivan.

One effect of Sullivan’s ruling will be to keep on hold the “discovery” process, a pretrial fact-finding period in which the Democrats wanted to serve 37 subpoenason Trump businesses, asking about their foreign customers.

Sullivan had paused that process in July, after the appeals court’s ruling.

Earlier, attorneys working with the Democrats said that subpoenas delayed would, in effect, be subpoenas denied — that Trump’s first term might run out before the plaintiffs could get any answers. They also questioned Trump’s lawyers’ argument that the suit was a distraction.

There is simply no reason — and the President has offered none — why discovery against businesses that he plays no role in running should ‘distract [him] from the performance of his constitutional duties,’ ” the lawyers wrote in recent court filings, trying to persuade Sullivan to let discovery continue.


Here’s the meat of Nadler’s reasoning for the document requests.

Nadler’s request comes one day after Trump’s attorneys argued that two of the committees — Intelligence and Financial Services — may not invoke the possibility of impeachment in order to gain access to Trump’s personal financial information held by Deutsche Bank and Capital One. Trump’s lawyers called impeachment “a non-legislative power that the Committees do not and cannot invoke here (because, among other reasons, they have no jurisdiction over it under the House Rules).”

The Judiciary Committee’s move request appears to directly answer that claim: All documents gathered by other committees investigating Trump might become relevant to its impeachment probe. That also bolsters House General Counsel Douglas Letter’s effort to link the Intelligence and Financial Services Committees’ demands to the ongoing impeachment inquiry.

“In fact, the House Committee on the Judiciary is investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment against President Trump,” Letter wrote. He issued a similar filing in a separate lawsuit on behalf of the Oversight Committee, which is seeking Trump’s financial records through his accounting firm, Mazars.

The president’s attorneys say those panels have no right to obtain Trump’s financial documents because only the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over impeachment. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, too, argue that the panel hasn’t formally invoked impeachment since there hasn’t been an official vote of the committee or the House, a precedent that has been adhered to in all prior presidential impeachment probes.




@dragonfly9 “Meanwhile these two banks Deutsch and Capital One are refusing to verify if they do have T’s tax returns…this has been a highly anticipated hearing. We need to wait another 48 hrs.”

Yes, so frustrating. And it sounds like the panel of judges is also very frustrated. From their remarks in court (see below), you might suppose they will rule in support of the subpoenas, but we’ve been burned before, so I’m still holding my breath until we get an actual ruling. – Let’s hope that will be on Monday. Even with a favorable ruling, if the banks decide not to cooperate, it sounds like they could drag this out even further. Arrrrgh.

Here’s an NYP article that goes into more depth about the contentious back-and-forth between the judges and the bank’s lawyers. Note that the DoJ lawyer is asking the judges not to release Trump’s financial information – surprise, surprise.

A lawyer for Deutsche Bank is refusing to say whether or not his institution has President Trump’s tax returns — despite repeated questioning by the three-judge panel — as Trump continues his fight to quash congressional subpoenas seeking 10 years of financial records for him and his family.

“Does the bank have the tax returns?” United States Circuit Judge Jon Newman, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asked Deutsche Bank lawyer Raphael Prober Friday.

“That unfortunately is not a question we’re able to address,” Prober responded, kicking off a back and forth in which the three-judge panel repeatedly asked him to answer the question, and he repeatedly declined. Capital One lawyer James Murphy also refused to answer the question.

An exasperated judge Peter Hall finally asked, sarcastically: “If we want an answer to that question, do we have to go to a court and seek an order?”

“If you do them, we have to worry about them,” Hall said.

The panel finally decided they would give the lawyers 48 hours to file a letter under seal stating whether or not they were in possession of the long-sought documents — though both Prober and Murphy remained unclear on whether they would actually answer the question in their submission.

The sparring followed morning arguments between a Justice Department lawyer and the general counsel to the United States House of Representatives, as Trump continues his attempts to keep Deutsche Bank and Capital One from releasing personal financial records belonging to him, his businesses, and his family.

DOJ attorney Patrick Strawbridge argued that Congress had overstepped their boundaries and moved into law enforcement territory, calling this “the broadest possible subpoena ever served that targets a sitting president.

“The real object does appear to be law enforcement,” Strawbridge told the three-judge panel. “I do not think they have the legitimate legislative purpose that validate these subpoenas.”

He went on to say that legislators didn’t need 10 years of records in order to see “every diet coke that a teenager bought using a credit card from Capitol One.”

Meanwhile, general counsel Douglas Letter said that Congress needed that many records to determine “how the money is flowing and why the money is flowing.”

“We’re trying to figure out if Mr. Trump is under the influence of the Saudis or the Russians,” Letter said.

The panel declined to immediately rule.

Friday’s arguments stemmed from Trump’s appeal of a lower court’s decision that would allow Deutsche bank and Capital One to turn over 10 years of financial documents related to Trump, his three eldest children, and two of his businesses.

Trump personally sued the banks to keep the information secret, after they were served Congressional subpoenas demanding the documents.


Porter is mentioned several times in the Mueller report because he witnessed many episodes in which Trump tried to constrain the investigation. The report cites Porter’s contemporaneous notes to bolster claims about the president’s actions, painting a portrait of a White House in chaos after Mueller was first appointed as special counsel.

At one point, according to the report, Trump instructed Porter to inquire with a top Justice Department official at the time, Rachel Brand, about taking over supervision duties of the Mueller probe. Trump was particularly incensed that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from overseeing the investigation, and Mueller’s report chronicles Trump’s attempts to fire or otherwise interfere with the probe.


From NYT writer who broke the T finances piece on his 400 mil extra dollars from father’s estate…

Ok good news!:boom:


If it is walks like a duck…


And :boom:

If true…

O’Donnell (msnbc - The Last Word) is saying the co-signers on T’s Deutsch Bank’s loans (from a single source close to Deutsch Bank) are…Russian Oligarchs.


(David Bythewood) #510

Ironic timing…

What does Trump see in Putin anyway?


Has any other news outlet confirmed this MSNBC story?

(David Bythewood) #512

I’ve been keeping an eye on this and thus far it seems to be a single source yet; it may not get verified for some time, so I’ve been careful about my “ifs” and “could means”.



(David Bythewood) #514

Trump is threatening to sue. which could be a very dumb move, especially since O’Donnell was VERY careful with his wording, noting he only had a single source and IF true. The discovery process would be… fascinating.


Sorry to not respond sooner…no @Pet_Proletariat not of last night. It was Lawrence O’Donnell probably speaking to one of the lawyers? or someone associated with the judge possibly

I did hear some potential ‘what if’s’ from former Senator Claire McCaskill (on Morning Joe) who also a Former Proscecutor - if these were allegations were true, it is possible for the Judge to look them over “in camera” she described (in court’s chambers?) and he would verify that indeed they were signed by foreign subjects, and deem them very much in the public’s/Committee’s purview to review.

This is all conjecture…but if all the things we had heard re: Deutsche (corrupt bank/funding/launderer for Russians) and for T - he used the Russians to help finance his Golf courses, and Eric T did say it was the Russians…it could well be true.

Again…a conjecture and potential game-changer.

In camera - in private


Ok…just reading this now. @Pet_Proletariat and @Windthin

O’Donnell is backing down.

Day 951
(David Bythewood) #517

Doesn’t mean it won’t turn out to be true, but I can see why he’d back down on something that uncertain. Shows the danger of jumping the gun.


Congressional Democrats plan to launch inquiry into Trump’s alleged role in scheme to silence affair accusations

The House Judiciary Committee is preparing to hold hearings and call witnesses involved in hush-money payments to ex-
Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult-film star Stormy Daniels as soon as October
, according to people familiar with the plans who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.

Democrats say they believe there is already enough evidence to name Trump as a co-conspirator in the episode that resulted in his former attorney, Michael Cohen, pleading guilty to two campaign finance charges.

Cohen, who is serving a three-year prison sentence for those counts and other crimes, testified under oath that Trump directed the payments that helped land him behind bars. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan also described Trump’s alleged role in the scheme, referring to him in court papers as “Individual-1.” But they concluded their investigation this summer without bringing any additional charges.

The hush-money inquiry will open a new chapter in the House’s months-long consideration of whether to draft articles of impeachment against the president.


:newspaper: Header has been updated. Breaking news starts below. :point_down:


Pentagon tells Congress which projects it will defund to pay for Trump’s wall

The Pentagon on Wednesday began notifying lawmakers that certain military construction projects in their districts will be defunded to free up $3.6 billion from the Defense Department budget for President Trump’s border wall project.


Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) hit out at the more than $72 million worth of projects the Pentagon was planning to defund in Virginia, including a cyber operations facility at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, a Navy ship maintenance facility in Portsmouth and projects to replace hazardous-materials warehouses in Norfolk and Portsmouth.

“I’m deeply concerned about President Trump’s plan to pull funding from critical national security projects — including millions of dollars from important projects in Virginia — so he can build his border wall,” Kaine said in a statement. “The well-being of American troops is the core responsibility of every commander in the military, yet the Commander-in-Chief is shirking that duty so he can advance his own political agenda.”

Officially, the Pentagon is saying that the 127 affected projects are “deferred,” but in order for them to go ahead in the future, Congress must again fund them. The Republican-led Senate has agreed to do so in its annual defense policy bill, but the Democratic-led House refused in its version of the bill. The two sides will negotiate a possible compromise in conference, the period when the Senate and House make trades to meld two bills into one before seeking the president’s signature.

If Congress declines to fund the construction projects — or “backfill” them, in the Trump administration’s parlance — they will remain in limbo and effectively be defunded. If they are backfilled in the coming year’s budget, some could proceed without delay, because the Pentagon deliberately chose projects with contract award dates scheduled for future years. The department also chose projects that were already facing delays.

A partial list of projects reviewed by The Washington Post demonstrated how the affected projects range the gamut, from a space control facility at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado to weapons training ranges in Mississippi, Oregon, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Alaska to central heat and power plant boilers that need repairs at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska.


The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the Department of Homeland Security for documents connected to President Donald Trump’s alleged offer to pardon officials who break the law while carrying out his wishes on immigration policy.

Trump has denied making the offer and his allies have reportedly claimed his closed-door comments — revealed in media reports — were jokes. But Democrats say they want to see the records from inside the department, particularly as the Judiciary Committee considers whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the full House.

"The Framers did not envision the use of the presidential pardon power to encourage criminal acts at the President’s direction," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said in a statement. "As the Committee continues its investigation into whether to recommend articles of impeachment, it is imperative that we are able to obtain information about ongoing presidential misconduct and abuses of power."

The subpoena, issued to acting DHS secretary Kevin McAleenan, requires a response by Sept. 17 at 10 a.m.