Oh, karma....
https://nypost.com/2019/05/21/trumps-subpoena-appeal-headed-to-merrick-garlands-court/
Trump’s subpoena appeal headed to Merrick Garland’s court
Deutsche Bank Trump records Subpoenaed on money laundering probe
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Oh, karma....
https://nypost.com/2019/05/21/trumps-subpoena-appeal-headed-to-merrick-garlands-court/
Trump’s subpoena appeal headed to Merrick Garland’s court
But . . . but . . . but . . . Merrick Garland is Obama's friend ,
he will whine ,
like a biatch.
he will whine ,
like a biatch.
They should be happy he'll fast track it to SCOTUS by ruling against Trump
Some of the tards here and in the media are prematurely self-stimulating over this Merrick Garland thing.
Four points:
1) So what? It also puts a lot of pressure on Garland to show that he is not a political hack, which would preserve his bona fides for appointment to the next opening if a dem wins in 2020. He does not need any political controversy around this.
2) And this is sort of worth noting. Appeals Courts hear cases (usually/often) in three judge panels. There are 17 judges on the panel. He might not/probably would not even get it assigned to him anyway, and he may recuse if he feels anyone sees him as being biased. Refer to my first point above if you think I am dreaming and he would not turn down a chance to even the score with trump. He is in an excellent place to be appointed to the Court if the dems win. To show judicial temperament prevailing over personal bias would be a massive feather in his cap. Of course if the dems dont win, he may wish he kicked Trump in the balls when he had the chance.
3) The action is not about the underlying case, it is about the motion to stay the implementation of the district court case. The district court has already ruled that he will not stay the implementation because a judge can conclude that if he thinks the plaintiff is likely to prevail on appeal anyway. That motion to say was denied but trump gets to appeal that without regard to any issues related to the underlying case. If all of the frigging material is released per order of the district court, then you can't put that genie back in the bottle on appeal. So that is where all the action is, and how the appeal court rules on that motion. If trump prevails on appeal on the motion to stay then he can spin it off into the courts for a few years.
And yes, as I said above courts do or can consider the likelihood of prevailing on appeal as a basis for denying the motion to stay. And that is what you do if you are a lefty Obama-appointed judge as the district court judge is. But courts also take into consideration what irreversible damage is done if the plaintiff gets to have his appeal first. And what would that damage be here? Oh I see. Jerry needs some material for impeachment sooner rather than later.
4) If Trump loses, then we just get on with it, and accept it. It could lead to Trump's impeachment which would all be for the good. The dems love to double down on their losses so give that opportunity. Joe Biden had 6,000 people at his opening rally in Philly- the same number that Pete had in South Bend. Go ahead and impeach Trump if you think his rallies are not YUGE enough already. You tards are playing with fire. That is why Pelosi is having the not-so-secret meeting tomorrow with dems to try to get them to turn their burner down. BUT I AM ALL FOR IT. Go for it pussies.
Four points:
1) So what? It also puts a lot of pressure on Garland to show that he is not a political hack, which would preserve his bona fides for appointment to the next opening if a dem wins in 2020. He does not need any political controversy around this.
2) And this is sort of worth noting. Appeals Courts hear cases (usually/often) in three judge panels. There are 17 judges on the panel. He might not/probably would not even get it assigned to him anyway, and he may recuse if he feels anyone sees him as being biased. Refer to my first point above if you think I am dreaming and he would not turn down a chance to even the score with trump. He is in an excellent place to be appointed to the Court if the dems win. To show judicial temperament prevailing over personal bias would be a massive feather in his cap. Of course if the dems dont win, he may wish he kicked Trump in the balls when he had the chance.
3) The action is not about the underlying case, it is about the motion to stay the implementation of the district court case. The district court has already ruled that he will not stay the implementation because a judge can conclude that if he thinks the plaintiff is likely to prevail on appeal anyway. That motion to say was denied but trump gets to appeal that without regard to any issues related to the underlying case. If all of the frigging material is released per order of the district court, then you can't put that genie back in the bottle on appeal. So that is where all the action is, and how the appeal court rules on that motion. If trump prevails on appeal on the motion to stay then he can spin it off into the courts for a few years.
And yes, as I said above courts do or can consider the likelihood of prevailing on appeal as a basis for denying the motion to stay. And that is what you do if you are a lefty Obama-appointed judge as the district court judge is. But courts also take into consideration what irreversible damage is done if the plaintiff gets to have his appeal first. And what would that damage be here? Oh I see. Jerry needs some material for impeachment sooner rather than later.
4) If Trump loses, then we just get on with it, and accept it. It could lead to Trump's impeachment which would all be for the good. The dems love to double down on their losses so give that opportunity. Joe Biden had 6,000 people at his opening rally in Philly- the same number that Pete had in South Bend. Go ahead and impeach Trump if you think his rallies are not YUGE enough already. You tards are playing with fire. That is why Pelosi is having the not-so-secret meeting tomorrow with dems to try to get them to turn their burner down. BUT I AM ALL FOR IT. Go for it pussies.
.This should make them feel better . . . . . . . . Trump having fun while milking the hardworking Democrat taxpayer.
no money laundering here . . .
Trump’s Golf Costs: $102 Million And Counting, With Taxpayers Picking Up The Tab
Trump promised never to golf. Instead, he’s spent more than twice as many days golfing as Obama at the same point, costing taxpayers over three times as much.
Donald Trump’s golf habit has already cost taxpayers at least $102 million in extra travel and security expenses, and next month will achieve a new milestone: a seven-figure presidential visit to another country so he can play at his own course.
U.S. taxpayers have spent $81 million for the president’s two dozen trips to Florida, according to a HuffPost analysis. They spent $17 million for his 15 trips to New Jersey, another $1 million so he could visit his resort in Los Angeles and at least $3 million for his two days in Scotland last summer ― $1.3 million of which went just for rental cars for the massive entourage that accompanies a president abroad.
The $102 million total to date spent on Trump’s presidential golfing represents 255 times the annual presidential salary he volunteered not to take. It is more than three times the cost of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that Trump continually complains about. It would fund for six years the Special Olympics program that Trump’s proposed budget had originally cut to save money.
While Republicans and Trump himself frequently criticized former President Barack Obama for his golf outings, Trump has spent more than twice as many days on the links, to date, as Obama did at the same point in his first term. And because Trump has insisted on dozens of trips to New Jersey and Florida to play at his resorts there, taxpayers are spending more than three times as much as they did for golf by the same point in Obama’s term.
The White House did not respond to numerous queries regarding this story. North Carolina Republican congressman Mark Meadows, a close Trump ally, dismissed the $102 million figure as insignificant.
no money laundering here . . .
Trump’s Golf Costs: $102 Million And Counting, With Taxpayers Picking Up The Tab
Trump promised never to golf. Instead, he’s spent more than twice as many days golfing as Obama at the same point, costing taxpayers over three times as much.
Donald Trump’s golf habit has already cost taxpayers at least $102 million in extra travel and security expenses, and next month will achieve a new milestone: a seven-figure presidential visit to another country so he can play at his own course.
U.S. taxpayers have spent $81 million for the president’s two dozen trips to Florida, according to a HuffPost analysis. They spent $17 million for his 15 trips to New Jersey, another $1 million so he could visit his resort in Los Angeles and at least $3 million for his two days in Scotland last summer ― $1.3 million of which went just for rental cars for the massive entourage that accompanies a president abroad.
The $102 million total to date spent on Trump’s presidential golfing represents 255 times the annual presidential salary he volunteered not to take. It is more than three times the cost of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that Trump continually complains about. It would fund for six years the Special Olympics program that Trump’s proposed budget had originally cut to save money.
While Republicans and Trump himself frequently criticized former President Barack Obama for his golf outings, Trump has spent more than twice as many days on the links, to date, as Obama did at the same point in his first term. And because Trump has insisted on dozens of trips to New Jersey and Florida to play at his resorts there, taxpayers are spending more than three times as much as they did for golf by the same point in Obama’s term.
The White House did not respond to numerous queries regarding this story. North Carolina Republican congressman Mark Meadows, a close Trump ally, dismissed the $102 million figure as insignificant.
