talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-09--NYC To Begin Painting Black Lives Matter Mural In Front Of Trump Tower On Thursday

New York City will begin painting the words “ Black Lives Matter ” in yellow on the road section of Fifth Avenue in front of President Donald Trump ’ s Trump Tower on Thursday .
On Thursday morning , New York 1 News reporter Lindsay Tuchman reported that the city had shut down the street in preparation of the project .
Local NBC News affiliate News 4 New York reported on Wednesday night that city workers would begin painting the mural the following morning .
Trump , who has thrown his support behind the police amid recent protests against anti-Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter last week by claiming a Black Lives Matter sign was a “ symbol of hate ” and that painting it on the upscale street will “ antagonize New York ’ s Finest.
” “ Maybe our GREAT Police , who have been neutralized and scorned by a mayor who hates and disrespects them , won ’ t let this symbol of hate be affixed to New York ’ s greatest street , ” he tweeted .
De Blasio fired back shortly afterward , telling Trump that Black people “ BUILT 5th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Your ‘ luxury ’ came from THEIR labor , for which they have never been justly compensated .
We are honoring them , ” the mayor tweeted .
“ The fact that you see it as denigrating your street is the definition of racism .
”

New York City will begin painting the words “Black Lives Matter” in yellow on the road section of Fifth Avenue in front of President Donald Trump’s Trump Tower on Thursday.
On Thursday morning, New York 1 News reporter Lindsay Tuchman tweeted that the city had shut down the street in preparation of the project.
Fifth avenue officially closed as the city gets ready to paint a Black Lives Matter mural in front of Trump Tower. More on @NY1 pic.twitter.com/KdaZYcnea6 — Lindsay Tuchman (@LindsayTuchman) July 9, 2020
Local NBC News affiliate News 4 New York reported on Wednesday night that city workers would begin painting the mural the following morning.
Trump, who has thrown his support behind the police amid recent protests against anti-Black police brutality, had bashed the project on Twitter last week by claiming a Black Lives Matter sign was a “symbol of hate” and that painting it on the upscale street will “antagonize New York’s Finest.”
“Maybe our GREAT Police, who have been neutralized and scorned by a mayor who hates and disrespects them, won’t let this symbol of hate be affixed to New York’s greatest street,” he tweeted.
De Blasio fired back shortly afterward, telling Trump that Black people “BUILT 5th Ave and so much of this nation.”
“Your ‘luxury’ came from THEIR labor, for which they have never been justly compensated. We are honoring them,” the mayor tweeted. “The fact that you see it as denigrating your street is the definition of racism.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-09--Biden Jabs Trump For Focusing On ‘The Dow And NASDAQ, Not You’ Amid COVID-19 Pandemic

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Thursday bashed President Trump by accusing him of prioritizing the stock market over the well-being of Americans as coronavirus cases continue surging across the country .
Speaking at a campaign event in Dunmore , Pennsylvania , Biden outlined his economic platform which would include raising the corporate tax rate to 28 % from the current 21 % , demanding that Amazon pay income taxes and calling for a $ 15 an hour federal minimum wage .
Biden particularly appealed to growing frustrations among people who feel that Wall Street is getting bailed out more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues roiling under health , economic and racial crises amid the COVID-19 pandemic .
The former VP specifically knocked Trump for being “ almost singularly focused on the stock market ” as the U.S. surpasses 3 million coronavirus cases .
The President slammed Biden the day before in a tweet warning that stocks will “ disintegrate and disappear ” if he loses the presidential election in November .
“ The Dow and Nasdaq , not you .
Not your families , ” Biden said .
“ If I ’ m fortunate enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be laser-focused on working families .
The middle class families I came from here in Scranton , not the wealthy investor class .
They don ’ t need me , but working families do.
” Later in his speech , Biden touted that he sees “ a different America than Trump ” that is “ still dedicated to equality , liberty , human dignity and justice.
” “ That ’ s the tragedy of Donald Trump being our president , ” Biden said , before arguing that Trump is “ exactly the wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and won ’ t bring the country together .
“ He ’ s determined to drive us apart , to keep his base in place .
He ’ ll not be President for all the American people , ” Biden said .
“ His base — he believes he ’ s elected president only by his base .
He will not appeal to the best instincts in the rest of us .
He ’ s determined to stroke and revive the worst moments from our past .
”

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Thursday bashed President Trump by accusing him of prioritizing the stock market over the well-being of Americans as coronavirus cases continue surging across the country.
Speaking at a campaign event in Dunmore, Pennsylvania, Biden outlined his economic platform which would include raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from the current 21%, demanding that Amazon pay income taxes and calling for a $15 an hour federal minimum wage.
Biden particularly appealed to growing frustrations among people who feel that Wall Street is getting bailed out more than the average American as the country continues roiling under health, economic and racial crises amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The former VP specifically knocked Trump for being “almost singularly focused on the stock market” as the U.S. surpasses 3 million coronavirus cases. The President slammed Biden the day before in a tweet warning that stocks will “disintegrate and disappear” if he loses the presidential election in November.
“The Dow and Nasdaq, not you. Not your families,” Biden said. “If I’m fortunate enough to be elected president, I’ll be laser-focused on working families. The middle class families I came from here in Scranton, not the wealthy investor class. They don’t need me, but working families do.”
Later in his speech, Biden touted that he sees “a different America than Trump” that is “still dedicated to equality, liberty, human dignity and justice.”
“That’s the tragedy of Donald Trump being our president,” Biden said, before arguing that Trump is “exactly the wrong person to lead at this moment” and won’t bring the country together.
“He’s determined to drive us apart, to keep his base in place. He’ll not be President for all the American people,” Biden said. “His base — he believes he’s elected president only by his base. He will not appeal to the best instincts in the rest of us. He’s determined to stroke and revive the worst moments from our past.”
Watch Biden’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-09--Feds Feared Epstein Confidant Ghislaine Maxwell Might Kill Herself

LITTLE ROCK , Ark .
( AP ) — Federal officials were so worried Jeffrey Epstein ’ s longtime confidant Ghislaine Maxwell might take her own life after her arrest that they took away her clothes and bedsheets and made her wear paper attire while in custody , an official familiar with the matter told The Associated Press .
The steps to ensure Maxwell ’ s safety while she ’ s locked up at a federal jail in New York City extend far beyond the measures federal officials took when they first arrested her in New Hampshire last week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ precautions and placed federal officials outside the Bureau of Prisons in charge of ensuring there is adequate protection for Maxwell .
That ’ s to help prevent other inmates from harming her and to stop her from harming herself , the official said .
The concern comes in part because Epstein , 66 , killed himself in a federal jail in Manhattan last summer while in custody on sex trafficking charges , spawning conspiracy theories over his death despite a medical examiner ruling it a suicide .
The sprawling case against him ensnared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties at his mansions .
Whispers over who knew what and when about Epstein even reached the White House , after video surfaced of President Donald Trump and the financier chatting at a Mar-a-Lago party in 1992 .
The case appeared dormant until Maxwell was arrested last Thursday on charges she helped lure at least three girls — one as young as 14 — to be sexually abused by Epstein , who was accused of victimizing dozens of girls and women over many years .
Maxwell , the daughter of the late British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former girlfriend and longtime close associate of Epstein .
She is accused of facilitating his crimes and even joining him in sexually abusing the girls , according to the indictment against her .
Several Epstein victims have described Maxwell as his chief enabler , recruiting and grooming girls for abuse .
She has denied wrongdoing and called claims against her “ absolute rubbish.
” Maxwell was arrested by a team of federal agents last week at a $ 1 million estate she had purchased in New Hampshire .
The investigators had been keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been hiding out in various locations in New England .
She had switched her email address , ordered packages under someone else ’ s name and registered at least one new phone number under an alias “ G Max , ” prosecutors have said .
When the agents swooped in to arrest her , they weren ’ t sure that she was even at the home , the official said .
Some investigators believed she may have already fled the United States to avoid prosecution , the official added .
Maxwell was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rather , she was taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn , just over the Brooklyn Bridge from where Epstein was held .
The other protocols put in place for Maxwell ’ s confinement include ensuring that she has a roommate in her cell , that she is monitored and that someone is always with her while she ’ s behind bars , the official said .
The official could not discuss the ongoing investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity .
The Bureau of Prisons has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Epstein ’ s death , with staff shakeups and leadership changes .
Attorney General William Barr said his death was the result of the “ perfect storm of screw ups.
” The Bureau of Prisons been plagued for years by serious misconduct , violence and staffing shortages so severe that guards often work overtime day after day or are forced to work mandatory double shifts .
It has also struggled recently with an exploding number of coronavirus cases in prisons across the U.S .

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Federal officials were so worried Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime confidant Ghislaine Maxwell might take her own life after her arrest that they took away her clothes and bedsheets and made her wear paper attire while in custody, an official familiar with the matter told The Associated Press.
The steps to ensure Maxwell’s safety while she’s locked up at a federal jail in New York City extend far beyond the measures federal officials took when they first arrested her in New Hampshire last week.
The Justice Department has added extra security precautions and placed federal officials outside the Bureau of Prisons in charge of ensuring there is adequate protection for Maxwell. That’s to help prevent other inmates from harming her and to stop her from harming herself, the official said.
The concern comes in part because Epstein, 66, killed himself in a federal jail in Manhattan last summer while in custody on sex trafficking charges, spawning conspiracy theories over his death despite a medical examiner ruling it a suicide. The sprawling case against him ensnared British royalty and American elite who attended parties at his mansions. Whispers over who knew what and when about Epstein even reached the White House, after video surfaced of President Donald Trump and the financier chatting at a Mar-a-Lago party in 1992.
The case appeared dormant until Maxwell was arrested last Thursday on charges she helped lure at least three girls — one as young as 14 — to be sexually abused by Epstein, who was accused of victimizing dozens of girls and women over many years.
Maxwell, the daughter of the late British publishing magnate Robert Maxwell, was the former girlfriend and longtime close associate of Epstein. She is accused of facilitating his crimes and even joining him in sexually abusing the girls, according to the indictment against her. Several Epstein victims have described Maxwell as his chief enabler, recruiting and grooming girls for abuse. She has denied wrongdoing and called claims against her “absolute rubbish.”
Maxwell was arrested by a team of federal agents last week at a $1 million estate she had purchased in New Hampshire. The investigators had been keeping an eye on Maxwell and knew she had been hiding out in various locations in New England.
She had switched her email address, ordered packages under someone else’s name and registered at least one new phone number under an alias “G Max,” prosecutors have said.
When the agents swooped in to arrest her, they weren’t sure that she was even at the home, the official said. Some investigators believed she may have already fled the United States to avoid prosecution, the official added.
Maxwell was not sent to the same jail. Rather, she was taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, just over the Brooklyn Bridge from where Epstein was held.
The other protocols put in place for Maxwell’s confinement include ensuring that she has a roommate in her cell, that she is monitored and that someone is always with her while she’s behind bars, the official said.
The official could not discuss the ongoing investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
The Bureau of Prisons has been the subject of intense scrutiny since Epstein’s death, with staff shakeups and leadership changes. Attorney General William Barr said his death was the result of the “perfect storm of screw ups.”
The Bureau of Prisons been plagued for years by serious misconduct, violence and staffing shortages so severe that guards often work overtime day after day or are forced to work mandatory double shifts. It has also struggled recently with an exploding number of coronavirus cases in prisons across the U.S.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-09--‘I Find That Hard To Believe’: Tension As Esper Claims Ignorance Of Who Cleared Lafayette Square

Defense Secretary Mark Esper maintained at a committee hearing Thursday that it ’ s “ still unclear ” to him who gave the order to clear D.C. ’ s Lafayette Square of protesters for President Donald Trump ’ s photo-op in front of St. John ’ s Church .
The widely-publicized violence involved the U.S. Park Police — possibly aided by D.C. police — storming the square near the White House and pepper-spraying peaceful protesters before the city ’ s curfew on June 1 .
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith ( D-WA ) interjected to ask the question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Democratic lawmakers .
“ Who gave the order , and to whom , to clear the protesters out of that square ?
” he asked from his desk laden with papers and hand sanitizer .
After saying that the topic had come up a few times recently , Esper responded that “ It ’ s still unclear to me who gave the order to clear the park at that moment in time.
” “ I find that hard to believe , ” responded Smith , shaking his head and furrowing his brow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a pretty big decision , a lot of people there , everyone ’ s there and it just sorta happened ?
” he asked incredulously .
“ No , I ’ m not saying that , I ’ m just saying I don ’ t know , ” Esper said .
“ I ’ ve never inquired , I ’ ve never pursued with anybody , because we , you know , get caught up with things more relevant to… ” he trailed off .
Esper offered that Major General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D.C. National Guard , may have more insight .
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley , who was testifying alongside Esper , said that he too had no “ personal knowledge ” of who gave the order .
Milley previously called his presence with Trump in the square , while he was wearing fatigues , a “ mistake.
” Esper offered the weak defense days after the episode that he didn ’ t know where he was going when he accompanied Trump on the photo-op , saying that he thought they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the square .
Trump told Axios in late June that “ They should be proud to walk alongside of their president for purposes of safety.
” Milley and Esper both emphasized , at various points in their testimony Thursday , that no active-duty troops were used in policing the protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd .
Washington D.C. became a focal point for debate over the use of force in patrolling the mostly peaceful protesters , as the Trump administration employed its broad powers of intervention over the district to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement officers , ranging from other states ’ National Guards to officers from the Bureau of Prisons .
An “ after-action report ” examining the behavior of National Guard troops in D.C. is expected to be handed over to Congress early next week .
One Guard tactic that has been especially criticized was the use of low-flying helicopters to scatter the protesters .
The White House , for its part , has said it has “ no regrets ” for how the square was cleared .

Defense Secretary Mark Esper maintained at a committee hearing Thursday that it’s “still unclear” to him who gave the order to clear D.C.’s Lafayette Square of protesters for President Donald Trump’s photo-op in front of St. John’s Church.
The widely-publicized violence involved the U.S. Park Police — possibly aided by D.C. police — storming the square near the White House and pepper-spraying peaceful protesters before the city’s curfew on June 1.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) interjected to ask the question between the back-and-forth of inquiries from Republican and Democratic lawmakers.
“Who gave the order, and to whom, to clear the protesters out of that square?” he asked from his desk laden with papers and hand sanitizer.
After saying that the topic had come up a few times recently, Esper responded that “It’s still unclear to me who gave the order to clear the park at that moment in time.”
“I find that hard to believe,” responded Smith, shaking his head and furrowing his brow. “I’m sorry but it’s a pretty big decision, a lot of people there, everyone’s there and it just sorta happened?” he asked incredulously.
“No, I’m not saying that, I’m just saying I don’t know,” Esper said. “I’ve never inquired, I’ve never pursued with anybody, because we, you know, get caught up with things more relevant to…” he trailed off.
Esper offered that Major General William Walker, commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, may have more insight.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley, who was testifying alongside Esper, said that he too had no “personal knowledge” of who gave the order.
Esper and Milley testify that they don’t know who gave the order to clear Lafayette Square of protesters ahead of Trump’s June 1 photo-op in front of St. John’s Church pic.twitter.com/9YxVuRl91d — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) July 9, 2020
Milley previously called his presence with Trump in the square, while he was wearing fatigues, a “mistake.”
Esper offered the weak defense days after the episode that he didn’t know where he was going when he accompanied Trump on the photo-op, saying that he thought they were going to inspect a vandalized bathroom in the square.
Trump told Axios in late June that “They should be proud to walk alongside of their president for purposes of safety.”
Milley and Esper both emphasized, at various points in their testimony Thursday, that no active-duty troops were used in policing the protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd.
Washington D.C. became a focal point for debate over the use of force in patrolling the mostly peaceful protesters, as the Trump administration employed its broad powers of intervention over the district to flood it with a medley of law enforcement officers, ranging from other states’ National Guards to officers from the Bureau of Prisons.
An “after-action report” examining the behavior of National Guard troops in D.C. is expected to be handed over to Congress early next week. One Guard tactic that has been especially criticized was the use of low-flying helicopters to scatter the protesters.
The White House, for its part, has said it has “no regrets” for how the square was cleared.
“We stand by those actions,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-09--Barr: If I Wanted To Meddle In SDNY, I Wouldn’t Have Fired Berman

Attorney General Bill Barr defended himself against allegations of mendacity in an interview with ABC , offering his view of what led to the firing of U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman .
Barr said that “ even if one were interested in trying to influence a case you wouldn ’ t do it by removing … the head of the office.
” “ That ’ s simply not how the Southern District of New York or the Department as a whole operates , ” the attorney general added .
“ So it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just simply not a plausible basis for not making a change there.
” Berman testified to the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday that Barr had pushed him out with the aim of delaying investigations that SDNY is conducting .
Initially , Barr wanted to replace Berman with an attorney from outside the office — a highly irregular move .
In issuing a press release last month disputing a statement from Barr saying that he had resigned , Berman pointedly noted that investigations at his office would continue .
In the interview , Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issuing a statement saying that Berman had resigned .
Instead , the attorney general opted to dispute the meaning of the phrase “ stepped down.
” “ I don ’ t know what he ’ s describing , ” Barr said , referring to Berman ’ s allegation that Barr lied in saying that Berman had resigned .
“ It was not misleading .
Stepping down is a term that we use .
It ’ s ambiguous as to what the basis for it is.
” “ We said he was stepping down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in these — in these kinds of announcements , ” Barr addd .
“ But it left open the possibility that once he saw that he was leaving the position , that he ’ d be interested in figuring out other alternatives.
” Barr argued more broadly that he hadn ’ t interfered in federal criminal cases for political reasons .
“ I ’ d like to hear some examples of people we ’ ve charged that they think were unrighteous cases to bring , ” Barr said .

Attorney General Bill Barr defended himself against allegations of mendacity in an interview with ABC, offering his view of what led to the firing of U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman.
Barr said that “even if one were interested in trying to influence a case you wouldn’t do it by removing … the head of the office.”
“That’s simply not how the Southern District of New York or the Department as a whole operates,” the attorney general added. “So it’s actually ludicrous and I felt it was just simply not a plausible basis for not making a change there.”
Berman testified to the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday that Barr had pushed him out with the aim of delaying investigations that SDNY is conducting.
Initially, Barr wanted to replace Berman with an attorney from outside the office — a highly irregular move. In issuing a press release last month disputing a statement from Barr saying that he had resigned, Berman pointedly noted that investigations at his office would continue.
In the interview, Barr denied that he had been misleading in issuing a statement saying that Berman had resigned.
Instead, the attorney general opted to dispute the meaning of the phrase “stepped down.”
“I don’t know what he’s describing,” Barr said, referring to Berman’s allegation that Barr lied in saying that Berman had resigned. “It was not misleading. Stepping down is a term that we use. It’s ambiguous as to what the basis for it is.”
“We said he was stepping down which is usually the language we use in these — in these kinds of announcements,” Barr addd. “But it left open the possibility that once he saw that he was leaving the position, that he’d be interested in figuring out other alternatives.”
Barr argued more broadly that he hadn’t interfered in federal criminal cases for political reasons.
“I’d like to hear some examples of people we’ve charged that they think were unrighteous cases to bring,” Barr said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-09--McConnell Won’t Say If He’ll Go To RNC As Several Fellow GOPers Ditch The Event

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) signaled on Thursday that he , like half a dozen of his Republican colleagues , may not show up at the Republican National Convention ( RNC ) in Jacksonville , Florida for President Donald Trump ’ s official nomination next month .
“ It ’ s a challenging situation and a number of my colleagues announced they are not going to attend , ” McConnell told Enquirer Media reporter Chris Mayhew during a visit at the Gravity Diagnostics lab in Covington , Kentucky .
“ And we ’ ll have to wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ August to determine whether or not you can safely convene that many people , ” the senator added .
McConnell ’ s remark was a step back from his spokesperson ’ s claim earlier this week that the GOP leader “ has every intention ” of attending the RNC .
Over the past week , five Republican senators have stated that they would not be at the convention : Sens .
Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) , Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) , Susan Collins ( R-ME ) , Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Sen. Pat Roberts ( R-KS ) told reporters on Thursday that he “ will probably not ” go .
The spate of absences began on Monday with Grassley , who announced that he would not be going to the event due to the COVID-19 outbreak .
Grassley was the only one who cited the virus as their reason for skipping the convention .
Alexander ’ s office said the Tennessee senator “ believes the delegate spots should be reserved for those who have not had that privilege before as he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ aides told the Washington Post that the Maine senator has never attended an RNC that took place in the same year she was running for reelection , as she is now .
Murkowski and Romney , both of whom have publicly criticized Trump , have not explained their absences .
Roberts stated on Thursday that he was unlikely to attend the convention because “ I have some things to do in Kansas that I got to do and unfortunately I didn ’ t know what was canceled and what was not and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originally slated to be held in Charlotte , North Carolina , was relocated to Jacksonville after Trump demanded that the event be held in a state that would allow full attendance at the venue , despite the pandemic and a massive spike in COVID-19 cases in Florida .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) signaled on Thursday that he, like half a dozen of his Republican colleagues, may not show up at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Jacksonville, Florida for President Donald Trump’s official nomination next month.
“It’s a challenging situation and a number of my colleagues announced they are not going to attend,” McConnell told Enquirer Media reporter Chris Mayhew during a visit at the Gravity Diagnostics lab in Covington, Kentucky.
“And we’ll have to wait and see how things look in late August to determine whether or not you can safely convene that many people,” the senator added.
McConnell’s remark was a step back from his spokesperson’s claim earlier this week that the GOP leader “has every intention” of attending the RNC.
Over the past week, five Republican senators have stated that they would not be at the convention: Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Mitt Romney (R-UT). Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) told reporters on Thursday that he “will probably not” go.
The spate of absences began on Monday with Grassley, who announced that he would not be going to the event due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
Grassley was the only one who cited the virus as their reason for skipping the convention. Alexander’s office said the Tennessee senator “believes the delegate spots should be reserved for those who have not had that privilege before as he has had,” while one of Collins’ aides told the Washington Post that the Maine senator has never attended an RNC that took place in the same year she was running for reelection, as she is now.
Murkowski and Romney, both of whom have publicly criticized Trump, have not explained their absences.
Roberts stated on Thursday that he was unlikely to attend the convention because “I have some things to do in Kansas that I got to do and unfortunately I didn’t know what was canceled and what was not and whatever.”
The RNC, which was originally slated to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina, was relocated to Jacksonville after Trump demanded that the event be held in a state that would allow full attendance at the venue, despite the pandemic and a massive spike in COVID-19 cases in Florida.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-09--Flynn Judge Asks DC Circuit To Rehear Demand That He Dismiss Flynn’s Case

The federal judge that has been presiding over Michael Flynn ’ s case asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit to review the extraordinary order from an appellate panel last month that the judge dismiss Flynn ’ s case .
The request Thursday by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is an escalation of a high-stakes battle over his ability to air out evidence that the Justice Department had inappropriate reasons for wanting Flynn ’ s case dropped .
That a judge is kicking the dispute to the full circuit court level makes the development all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sullivan said that move by the appeals court panel to intervene at this point in the proceedings represented a “ a dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice.
” The Justice Department asked in May that Flynn ’ s case be dropped , claiming that it had learned new information about the Flynn prosecution that made it doubt the strength of its case against President Trump ’ s former National Security Advisor .
That claim had been widely viewed with skepticism since Flynn had previously plead guilty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that plea twice in court .
The DOJ ’ s reversal in the case was one of several recent actions by Department , under Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s directive , that sought to walk back or undermine key prosecutions brought by special counsel Robert Mueller .
Instead of immediately granting the DOJ request that the Flynn case be dropped , Sullivan appointed a so-called amicus ( or “ friend of the court ” ) to oppose the DOJ ’ s request and to brief the judge on what he could consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move , using a rare procedural tactic seeking an appeals court intervention .
In a 2-1 vote , the appellate panel last month said that Sullivan had exceeded his authority and was infringing on the executive branch ’ s power to decide which prosecutions to pursue and which to drop .
Now Sullivan is asking the D.C .
Circuit to hear the dispute “ en banc , ” meaning that the entire circuit court would weigh in .
“ Judicial decisions are supposed to be based on the record before the court , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold , ” Sullivan ’ s petition said .
He defended the steps he ’ d taken in handling the matter so far , describing the approach as him considering “ both sides of an issue before ruling.
” “ Outside the panel opinion , those actions have not been considered inappropriate—much less an extreme separation-of-powers violation justifying mandamus , ” Sullivan said .
Sullivan said that the panel erred by getting involved before Sullivan had formally ruled on whether to grant the motion to dismiss .
He argued that the panel had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeals courts should intervene in cases that are still at the district court level .
The panel also ignored multiple D.C .
Circuit decisions giving judges discretion to go beyond just rubber stamping dismissal requests , Sullivan claimed .
He also critiqued the panel ’ s conclusion that an appointment of the amicus was inappropriate , because the panel “ identified no authority questioning this common practice or suggesting that it is the exclusive province of appellate courts.
” The panel decision that Sullivan is challenging was authored by Judge Neomi Rao , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willingness to adopt extreme positions in the President ’ s favor .
Rao was joined by Judge Karen Henderson , a George H.W .
Bush appointee who has also broken Trump ’ s way in previous highly political cases .
Judge Robert Wilkins , an Obama appointee , dissented from their order that Sullivan immediately dismiss the case and that his move to appoint the amicus be reversed .
Now the question of whether the decision was correct is in front of the full D.C .
Circuit bench , where Democratic appointees make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The federal judge that has been presiding over Michael Flynn’s case asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the extraordinary order from an appellate panel last month that the judge dismiss Flynn’s case.
The request Thursday by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is an escalation of a high-stakes battle over his ability to air out evidence that the Justice Department had inappropriate reasons for wanting Flynn’s case dropped. That a judge is kicking the dispute to the full circuit court level makes the development all the more remarkable.
In his petition, Sullivan said that move by the appeals court panel to intervene at this point in the proceedings represented a “a dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice.”
The Justice Department asked in May that Flynn’s case be dropped, claiming that it had learned new information about the Flynn prosecution that made it doubt the strength of its case against President Trump’s former National Security Advisor. That claim had been widely viewed with skepticism since Flynn had previously plead guilty to lying to the FBI and had affirmed that plea twice in court. The DOJ’s reversal in the case was one of several recent actions by Department, under Attorney General Bill Barr’s directive, that sought to walk back or undermine key prosecutions brought by special counsel Robert Mueller.
Instead of immediately granting the DOJ request that the Flynn case be dropped, Sullivan appointed a so-called amicus (or “friend of the court”) to oppose the DOJ’s request and to brief the judge on what he could consider doing next.
Flynn quickly challenged the move, using a rare procedural tactic seeking an appeals court intervention. In a 2-1 vote, the appellate panel last month said that Sullivan had exceeded his authority and was infringing on the executive branch’s power to decide which prosecutions to pursue and which to drop.
Now Sullivan is asking the D.C. Circuit to hear the dispute “en banc,” meaning that the entire circuit court would weigh in.
“Judicial decisions are supposed to be based on the record before the court, not speculation about what the future may hold,” Sullivan’s petition said. He defended the steps he’d taken in handling the matter so far, describing the approach as him considering “both sides of an issue before ruling.”
“Outside the panel opinion, those actions have not been considered inappropriate—much less an extreme separation-of-powers violation justifying mandamus,” Sullivan said.
Sullivan said that the panel erred by getting involved before Sullivan had formally ruled on whether to grant the motion to dismiss.
He argued that the panel had broken from several court precedents dictating when appeals courts should intervene in cases that are still at the district court level. The panel also ignored multiple D.C. Circuit decisions giving judges discretion to go beyond just rubber stamping dismissal requests, Sullivan claimed. He also critiqued the panel’s conclusion that an appointment of the amicus was inappropriate, because the panel “identified no authority questioning this common practice or suggesting that it is the exclusive province of appellate courts.”
The panel decision that Sullivan is challenging was authored by Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee who has shown a willingness to adopt extreme positions in the President’s favor. Rao was joined by Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee who has also broken Trump’s way in previous highly political cases. Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, dissented from their order that Sullivan immediately dismiss the case and that his move to appoint the amicus be reversed.
Now the question of whether the decision was correct is in front of the full D.C. Circuit bench, where Democratic appointees make up the majority of judges considering it.
Read the petition below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-09--Cohen Back In Custody For Violating Terms Of Release After He Was Seen Dining In Manhattan

President Trump ’ s former personal attorney and fixer Michael Cohen has been taken back into custody for violating the terms of his early release from prison , the federal Bureau of Prisons said Thursday .
“ Today , Michael Cohen refused the conditions of his home confinement and as a result , has been returned to a BOP facility , ” a Bureau of Prisons official said in a statement to The Associated Press .
Cohen was furloughed from prison in late May due to coronavirus concerns and was restricted to home confinement as part of a program to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus rapidly spread in prisons across the country .
A federal judge had previously denied Cohen ’ s plea for an early release to home confinement after serving just 10 months of his three-year sentence .
But the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to move prisoners to home confinement without a judicial order .
Attorney General William Barr ordered the Bureau of Prisons to increase the practice of home confinement for inmates citing concerns about the spread of coronavirus .
Cohen was among those granted a May 21 release .
The President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Post dining out at a Manhattan restaurant earlier this month .
Some speculate the outing is among the reasons for his return to custody , but that has not been confirmed .
ABC News reported that , according to a source , Cohen was in a Manhattan federal court on Thursday to arrange the conditions for his confinement at home and when he “ scoffed ” at one of the conditions for his release , he was taken back into custody .
Vanity Fair reporter Emily Jane Fox , citing Cohen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was given eight different terms for his home confinement , including not tweeting or talking to the media .
Before his May release , Cohen was serving a three-year sentence in a New York federal prison .
He ’ s been incarcerated since May 2019 after he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress , criminal tax evasion and campaign finance violations .
The campaign finance charges stem from his involvement in a 2016 hush money scheme designed to keep two women silent about alleged affairs with Trump .
Trump has denied the affairs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hush payments .

President Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer Michael Cohen has been taken back into custody for violating the terms of his early release from prison, the federal Bureau of Prisons said Thursday.
“Today, Michael Cohen refused the conditions of his home confinement and as a result, has been returned to a BOP facility,” a Bureau of Prisons official said in a statement to The Associated Press.
Cohen was furloughed from prison in late May due to coronavirus concerns and was restricted to home confinement as part of a program to release inmates from federal custody as the virus rapidly spread in prisons across the country.
A federal judge had previously denied Cohen’s plea for an early release to home confinement after serving just 10 months of his three-year sentence. But the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to move prisoners to home confinement without a judicial order. Attorney General William Barr ordered the Bureau of Prisons to increase the practice of home confinement for inmates citing concerns about the spread of coronavirus. Cohen was among those granted a May 21 release.
The President’s ex-lawyer was photographed by the New York Post dining out at a Manhattan restaurant earlier this month. Some speculate the outing is among the reasons for his return to custody, but that has not been confirmed.
ABC News reported that, according to a source, Cohen was in a Manhattan federal court on Thursday to arrange the conditions for his confinement at home and when he “scoffed” at one of the conditions for his release, he was taken back into custody. Vanity Fair reporter Emily Jane Fox, citing Cohen’s attorney, reported that Cohen was given eight different terms for his home confinement, including not tweeting or talking to the media.
Michael Cohen was presented with 8 terms of home confinement this morning, 1 of which required him to agree not to talk to media, not to tweet or publish a book. He wouldn't agree and, after going back and forth for an hour and a half, was handcuffed, according to Lanny Davis — Emily Jane Fox (@emilyjanefox) July 9, 2020
Before his May release, Cohen was serving a three-year sentence in a New York federal prison. He’s been incarcerated since May 2019 after he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress, criminal tax evasion and campaign finance violations. The campaign finance charges stem from his involvement in a 2016 hush money scheme designed to keep two women silent about alleged affairs with Trump. Trump has denied the affairs and claims he was uninvolved in the hush payments.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-09--WH: SCOTUS Ruling Upholding Criminal Subpoena For Trump Taxes Is ‘A Big Win’

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Thursday argued the Supreme Court ’ s ruling upholding Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance ’ s criminal subpoena for President Trump tax returns is a “ win ” for the President .
On Thursday morning , the Supreme Court ruled in a striking 7-2 decision to back the subpoena issued by the Manhattan District Attorney ’ s Office for the President ’ s financial records as part of a wide-ranging probe into the Trump organization .
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , who were nominated by Trump , sided with the majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefing Thursday afternoon about how he feels about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh following the ruling , McEnany first replied that “ the justices are entitled to their opinion ” before explaining why the White House believes it ’ s a “ win ” for the President .
“ But as for the decision , President Trump underscored to me — I was just in the Oval Office with him — that it was Justice Kavanaugh who pointed out in the New York state court case that there was unanimous agreement that this should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President may raise constitutional and legal arguments , ” McEnany said .
“ That was a unanimous agreement.
” McEnany then pointed to a note in Roberts ’ opinion saying that prosecutors are barred from “ arbitrary fishing expeditions ” as well as “ initiating investigations out of malice or intent to harass.
” “ That language made it pretty clear that this is a win for the President , ” McEnany said , before claiming that she and the President didn ’ t talk specifically about either justices during their meeting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to double down on this argument later in the briefing when asked about the President ’ s Twitter screed shortly after the Supreme Court ruling came down .
The White House press secretary insisted that Trump feels that the Supreme Court should have done more to support his argument regarding “ absolute immunity ” for investigations of a sitting president .
“ The President was making general points about deference , on the principle of absolute immunity , which is the posture that the President took in court , ” McEnany said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have been more deference there.
” McEnany reiterated that the ruling was a “ big win ” given Justice Kavanaugh ’ s note that “ all nine justices said this needs to be remanded back to the lower court.
” In a statement later Thursday , McEnany wrote that the President is “ gratified ” by the Supreme Court ’ s rulings , saying that “ further proceedings are required in the lower court in which the President can raise additional arguments , including constitutional protections , against this frivolous and politically @ @ @ @

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Thursday argued the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s criminal subpoena for President Trump tax returns is a “win” for the President.
On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court ruled in a striking 7-2 decision to back the subpoena issued by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office for the President’s financial records as part of a wide-ranging probe into the Trump organization. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who were nominated by Trump, sided with the majority.
When asked during a White House briefing Thursday afternoon about how he feels about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh following the ruling, McEnany first replied that “the justices are entitled to their opinion” before explaining why the White House believes it’s a “win” for the President.
“But as for the decision, President Trump underscored to me — I was just in the Oval Office with him — that it was Justice Kavanaugh who pointed out in the New York state court case that there was unanimous agreement that this should be remanded to the district court where the President may raise constitutional and legal arguments,” McEnany said. “That was a unanimous agreement.”
McEnany then pointed to a note in Roberts’ opinion saying that prosecutors are barred from “arbitrary fishing expeditions” as well as “initiating investigations out of malice or intent to harass.”
“That language made it pretty clear that this is a win for the President,” McEnany said, before claiming that she and the President didn’t talk specifically about either justices during their meeting in the Oval Office.
McEnany went on to double down on this argument later in the briefing when asked about the President’s Twitter screed shortly after the Supreme Court ruling came down.
The White House press secretary insisted that Trump feels that the Supreme Court should have done more to support his argument regarding “absolute immunity” for investigations of a sitting president.
“The President was making general points about deference, on the principle of absolute immunity, which is the posture that the President took in court,” McEnany said. “You know, he believes there should have been more deference there.”
McEnany reiterated that the ruling was a “big win” given Justice Kavanaugh’s note that “all nine justices said this needs to be remanded back to the lower court.”
In a statement later Thursday, McEnany wrote that the President is “gratified” by the Supreme Court’s rulings, saying that “further proceedings are required in the lower court in which the President can raise additional arguments, including constitutional protections, against this frivolous and politically motivated subpoena.”
Watch McEnany’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-09--SCOTUS Puts Judges Smack In The Middle Of The POTUS-Congress Subpoena Fight

President Trump ’ s few wins in his court battles against congressional oversight have come when judges have been unwilling to get dragged into his disputes with the House over its demands .
But on Thursday , the Supreme Court handed Trump at least a short-term victory by giving judges a more active role in refereeing fights over congressional subpoenas .
While effectively allowing a case concerning a subpoena of Trump ’ s financial records to be punted past November , the Supreme Court has set the stage for fights over Congress ’ oversight power to get even muddier .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ future Presidents to go back to court anytime they object to a demand for information about their personal conduct , legal experts told TPM .
And even if in the long term , the judiciary might favor Congress in those fights , the immediate pay off for the executive branch is that it can run down the clock before the next election .
“ I think we could see both this President and any future president turn to the court and litigate the legality of any congressional subpoena that goes after their personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the director of The Constitution Project at Project On Government Oversight , a government transparency organization .
“ It really disincentivizes the Congress and executive branch from coming to some agreement … as to how to work this out , ” Turberville told TPM .
The Supreme Court decided two major cases dealing with subpoenas for Trump ’ s financial records .
In both , a broad court majority rejected Trump ’ s and the Justice Department maximal positions that put the President above oversight and investigation .
But in the case Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House subpoena for Trump ’ s financial docs , the Supreme Court gave presidents a “ road map ” for issues the executive branch can raise in court when facing a congressional subpoena , said Andy Wright , a lawyer who worked in the Obama White House and before that , for Congress , dealing with oversight issues .
The court — in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by six other justices , including Trump ’ s two appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch — laid out four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether to enforce subpoenas of a President ’ s personal records .
The four-part test isn ’ t particularly advantageous to the President on its face .
But the slow pace of litigation means that in practice , challenging subpoenas in court will usually be a useful tool for an executive branch seeking to keep information out of lawmakers ’ hands until the next election .
Meanwhile , Congress , at least for now , won ’ t be able to rely on the courts to give it quick and clean decisions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While courts in the past have suggested that there is some limit to what Congress can demand , it mostly gave ample deference to taking Congress ’ word for when and why it needed the information it was requesting .
“ This [ Mazars ] opinion says , courts should get right up in there into Congress ’ mind and start asking , is this a legitimate topic , did they draft their subpoena appropriately … what are the burdens on the President , ” Wright , who is now a research scholar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law and an author at the legal blog Just Security , told TPM .
“ I really think the court actually expanded their power with this opinion .
They ’ re going to now be the ones really refereeing this .
Up until the Trump administration adopted a strategy of complete stonewalling , there had been incentives for both sides — Congress and the executive branch — to negotiate subpoena disputes themselves , rather than turn to the courts .
Since these kinds of fights lived in a gray area of jurisprudence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could suffer a major loss and sacrifice significant leverage in standoffs over subpoenas .
This threat was enough to encourage both sides to work out a deal on their own instead of bringing their disputes to the judiciary .
But Trump , instead , took a hardball approach that included extremely aggressive legal arguments , and in the cases decided by Supreme Court Thursday , he proactively sued third parties that had been subpoenaed for his records to stop them from complying .
In those and other cases , Trump ’ s Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisors are immune to the type of congressional scrutiny House Democrats were trying to do .
Trump ’ s personal attorneys argued that he was also above the sort of state criminal proceeding that was at the heart of Trump v. Vance , the second subpoena case the Supreme Court decided Thursday , concerning a demand by a New York grand jury for Trump ’ s records .
There was speculation that the Supreme Court would rule that the federal judiciary has no role in settling those disputes , producing a stalemate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A federal appellate court came to a similar conclusion in a separate case concerning the House ’ s subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn .
The Supreme Court , instead , went the “ exact opposite direction , ” Wright said.. “ They created a very heavy judicial set of tests that they ’ re going to be involved in , ” Wright said .
The upshot for Congress of Thursday ’ s Supreme Court decision is that it may want to more seriously consider the other options it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those tools include attaching subpoena compliance to funding or other must-pass legislation , though such an approach comes with political risks and only works if both chambers are on the same page .
Congress could also pass rules for the judiciary that would expedite cases dealing with subpoena disputes so that the “ delay tactics are not that effective , ” Turberville said .
To some , the delay caused by the decision itself qualifies as a clear win for President Trump , who prevailed in raising the bar for what Congress must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its subpoenas .
“ That ’ s more or less a win , not because they won on the substance but because they won on there having to be a heightened standard , ” said Jed Shugerman , a law professor at Fordham .

President Trump’s few wins in his court battles against congressional oversight have come when judges have been unwilling to get dragged into his disputes with the House over its demands. But on Thursday, the Supreme Court handed Trump at least a short-term victory by giving judges a more active role in refereeing fights over congressional subpoenas.
While effectively allowing a case concerning a subpoena of Trump’s financial records to be punted past November, the Supreme Court has set the stage for fights over Congress’ oversight power to get even muddier.
This will almost certainly encourage Trump and future Presidents to go back to court anytime they object to a demand for information about their personal conduct, legal experts told TPM. And even if in the long term, the judiciary might favor Congress in those fights, the immediate pay off for the executive branch is that it can run down the clock before the next election.
“I think we could see both this President and any future president turn to the court and litigate the legality of any congressional subpoena that goes after their personal information,” said Sarah Turberville, the director of The Constitution Project at Project On Government Oversight, a government transparency organization.
“It really disincentivizes the Congress and executive branch from coming to some agreement … as to how to work this out,” Turberville told TPM.
The Supreme Court decided two major cases dealing with subpoenas for Trump’s financial records. In both, a broad court majority rejected Trump’s and the Justice Department maximal positions that put the President above oversight and investigation.
But in the case Trump v. Mazars, which dealt with a House subpoena for Trump’s financial docs, the Supreme Court gave presidents a “road map” for issues the executive branch can raise in court when facing a congressional subpoena, said Andy Wright, a lawyer who worked in the Obama White House and before that, for Congress, dealing with oversight issues.
The court — in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by six other justices, including Trump’s two appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch — laid out four criteria the courts must weigh when deciding whether to enforce subpoenas of a President’s personal records.
The four-part test isn’t particularly advantageous to the President on its face. But the slow pace of litigation means that in practice, challenging subpoenas in court will usually be a useful tool for an executive branch seeking to keep information out of lawmakers’ hands until the next election. Meanwhile, Congress, at least for now, won’t be able to rely on the courts to give it quick and clean decisions in favor of its requests for information.
While courts in the past have suggested that there is some limit to what Congress can demand, it mostly gave ample deference to taking Congress’ word for when and why it needed the information it was requesting.
“This [Mazars] opinion says, courts should get right up in there into Congress’ mind and start asking, is this a legitimate topic, did they draft their subpoena appropriately … what are the burdens on the President,” Wright, who is now a research scholar at the New York University School of Law and an author at the legal blog Just Security, told TPM. “I really think the court actually expanded their power with this opinion. They’re going to now be the ones really refereeing this.
Up until the Trump administration adopted a strategy of complete stonewalling, there had been incentives for both sides — Congress and the executive branch — to negotiate subpoena disputes themselves, rather than turn to the courts. Since these kinds of fights lived in a gray area of jurisprudence, there was a chance that either side could suffer a major loss and sacrifice significant leverage in standoffs over subpoenas. This threat was enough to encourage both sides to work out a deal on their own instead of bringing their disputes to the judiciary.
But Trump, instead, took a hardball approach that included extremely aggressive legal arguments, and in the cases decided by Supreme Court Thursday, he proactively sued third parties that had been subpoenaed for his records to stop them from complying. In those and other cases, Trump’s Justice Department has claimed he and his close advisors are immune to the type of congressional scrutiny House Democrats were trying to do. Trump’s personal attorneys argued that he was also above the sort of state criminal proceeding that was at the heart of Trump v. Vance, the second subpoena case the Supreme Court decided Thursday, concerning a demand by a New York grand jury for Trump’s records.
There was speculation that the Supreme Court would rule that the federal judiciary has no role in settling those disputes, producing a stalemate that would essentially be a win for Trump. A federal appellate court came to a similar conclusion in a separate case concerning the House’s subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn.
The Supreme Court, instead, went the “exact opposite direction,” Wright said..
“They created a very heavy judicial set of tests that they’re going to be involved in,” Wright said.
The upshot for Congress of Thursday’s Supreme Court decision is that it may want to more seriously consider the other options it has for getting compliance with its subpoenas. Those tools include attaching subpoena compliance to funding or other must-pass legislation, though such an approach comes with political risks and only works if both chambers are on the same page.
Congress could also pass rules for the judiciary that would expedite cases dealing with subpoena disputes so that the “delay tactics are not that effective,” Turberville said.
To some, the delay caused by the decision itself qualifies as a clear win for President Trump, who prevailed in raising the bar for what Congress must show in order to get court enforcement of its subpoenas.
“That’s more or less a win, not because they won on the substance but because they won on there having to be a heightened standard,” said Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-09--How SCOTUS Let Trump Win — For Now — In The Financial Records Cases

Thursday ’ s dual Supreme Court decisions on Trump ’ s financial records were both , in one sense , a loss for the President .
But , in another way , they were a victory : Trump may have won a crucial battle in his bid to stop anyone from gaining access to information about his financial past before the November election .
In deciding a case about a congressional subpoena for records from Trump ’ s accounting firm and a criminal subpoena obtained by the Manhattan District Attorney , the Supreme Court likely effectively achieved the same result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either subpoena beyond the November election .
“ The rank politics of both of these decisions are that it is highly unlikely that records that President Trump does not want to be disclosed before the election are going to be disclosed before the election , ” said Andy Wright , a lawyer who has experience working on both the congressional side and the White House side of oversight issues .
In a challenge Trump brought against Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance for a subpoena issued in a state criminal investigation , Trump had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal process .
One attorney of his went so far as to say during appellate arguments that the President could not be investigated for shooting someone on Fifth Avenue while in office .
The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the “ patently absurd claim ” from Trump ’ s lawyers that the President “ should have absolute immunity from state grand jury subpoenas , ” said Peter Arenella , law professor emeritus at UCLA .
“ But , Trump ’ s strategy all along has been to use the court challenges to slow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to release his tax returns to anybody , state grand jury or Congress , until after the election , ” Arenella told TPM via email .
“ So , score one abstract victory for the rule of law principle but appreciate that pragmatically Trump secured his real objective : no disclosure before the election.
” Trump attorney Jay Sekulow treated both decisions as a victory , expressing approval at the rulings in a statement .
“ We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kayleigh McEnany praised both decisions in a statement , saying that the court found in Vance that “ further proceedings are required in the lower court in which the President can raise additional arguments , including constitutional protections , against this frivolous and politically motivated subpoena.
” By the same token , McEnany praised the Mazars ruling for “ declaring that more is required to establish a valid legislative purpose than the mere say-so of partisan committee chairmen.
” In Vance , the court remanded the case back to the federal district court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise further arguments as appropriate.
” Writing for the majority , the last two pages of Chief Justice John Roberts ’ s opinion are devoted to the options which President Trump still has available to him .
“ 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 , ” Roberts wrote .
“ A President can raise subpoena-specific constitutional challenges , in either a state or federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional law professor at Iowa Law , Roberts struck down Trump ’ s argument that the President is immune from the criminal process , but left ample room for other concerns to be raised .
“ It ’ s just saying , look , there are different ways to challenge the subpoena , ” he said .
Despite that wiggle room , it ’ s worth noting that the Supreme Court roundly rejected the arguments that Trump had made for why the subpoenas weren ’ t legitimate .
In the Mazars case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Congress has no right , or that the legislative purposes put forth by the House were somehow insufficient .
By the same token , in the Vance case , the Supreme Court rejected Trump ’ s argument that he was immune from any sort of criminal process .
But in the House Mazars decision , Wright noted , the Supreme Court held back from affirming Congress ’ right to issue subpoenas for the sake of oversight alone , separate from a legislative function .
“ There used to be Supreme Court cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the legislative and this opinion doesn ’ t allow for oversight to be a check on the legislative as an independent constitutional boundary , ” Wright , who is a founding editor of the legal blog Just Security , said .
“ And that ’ s where the election stuff matters — if you ’ re not going to have this information get in Congress ’ hands before an election cycle , then the accountability piece is really not in play for what oversight ’ s functions are.
” It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts to resolve the specifics of the Trump financial record dispute .
“ We ’ re really in uncharted territory and I think it ’ s going to take a long time for this to get sorted out , ” said Sarah Turberville , director of The Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight , a government transparency organization .
But according to Randall Eliason , a former federal prosecutor and professor at George Washington Law , a trip back to the lower court always seemed likely for the Vance case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it up last year .
“ Long term , it ’ s a loss , and short-term , it ’ s a win if your primary aim is going beyond November , ” Eliason said .
“ It says the President is not above the law , but it ’ s a short-term political win that he ’ s able to keep fighting .
”

Thursday’s dual Supreme Court decisions on Trump’s financial records were both, in one sense, a loss for the President.
But, in another way, they were a victory: Trump may have won a crucial battle in his bid to stop anyone from gaining access to information about his financial past before the November election.
In deciding a case about a congressional subpoena for records from Trump’s accounting firm and a criminal subpoena obtained by the Manhattan District Attorney, the Supreme Court likely effectively achieved the same result in both matters: pushing enforcement of either subpoena beyond the November election.
“The rank politics of both of these decisions are that it is highly unlikely that records that President Trump does not want to be disclosed before the election are going to be disclosed before the election,” said Andy Wright, a lawyer who has experience working on both the congressional side and the White House side of oversight issues.
In a challenge Trump brought against Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance for a subpoena issued in a state criminal investigation, Trump had argued that he was immune from the criminal process. One attorney of his went so far as to say during appellate arguments that the President could not be investigated for shooting someone on Fifth Avenue while in office.
The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the “patently absurd claim” from Trump’s lawyers that the President “should have absolute immunity from state grand jury subpoenas,” said Peter Arenella, law professor emeritus at UCLA.
“But, Trump’s strategy all along has been to use the court challenges to slow the process down so he would not have to release his tax returns to anybody, state grand jury or Congress, until after the election,” Arenella told TPM via email. “So, score one abstract victory for the rule of law principle but appreciate that pragmatically Trump secured his real objective: no disclosure before the election.”
Trump attorney Jay Sekulow treated both decisions as a victory, expressing approval at the rulings in a statement.
“We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts,” he said.
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany praised both decisions in a statement, saying that the court found in Vance that “further proceedings are required in the lower court in which the President can raise additional arguments, including constitutional protections, against this frivolous and politically motivated subpoena.”
By the same token, McEnany praised the Mazars ruling for “declaring that more is required to establish a valid legislative purpose than the mere say-so of partisan committee chairmen.”
In Vance, the court remanded the case back to the federal district court level, “where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate.” Writing for the majority, the last two pages of Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion are devoted to the options which President Trump still has available to him.
“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,” Roberts wrote. “A President can raise subpoena-specific constitutional challenges, in either a state or federal forum.”
To Andy Grewal, a constitutional law professor at Iowa Law, Roberts struck down Trump’s argument that the President is immune from the criminal process, but left ample room for other concerns to be raised.
“It’s just saying, look, there are different ways to challenge the subpoena,” he said.
Despite that wiggle room, it’s worth noting that the Supreme Court roundly rejected the arguments that Trump had made for why the subpoenas weren’t legitimate.
In the Mazars case, the Supreme Court knocked down the notion that Congress has no right, or that the legislative purposes put forth by the House were somehow insufficient. By the same token, in the Vance case, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s argument that he was immune from any sort of criminal process.
But in the House Mazars decision, Wright noted, the Supreme Court held back from affirming Congress’ right to issue subpoenas for the sake of oversight alone, separate from a legislative function.
“There used to be Supreme Court cases about how congressional oversight was a check on the legislative and this opinion doesn’t allow for oversight to be a check on the legislative as an independent constitutional boundary,” Wright, who is a founding editor of the legal blog Just Security, said. “And that’s where the election stuff matters — if you’re not going to have this information get in Congress’ hands before an election cycle, then the accountability piece is really not in play for what oversight’s functions are.”
It’s not clear how long it will take the courts to resolve the specifics of the Trump financial record dispute.
“We’re really in uncharted territory and I think it’s going to take a long time for this to get sorted out,” said Sarah Turberville, director of The Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight, a government transparency organization.
But according to Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and professor at George Washington Law, a trip back to the lower court always seemed likely for the Vance case once the Supreme Court agreed to take it up last year.
“Long term, it’s a loss, and short-term, it’s a win if your primary aim is going beyond November,” Eliason said. “It says the President is not above the law, but it’s a short-term political win that he’s able to keep fighting.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-11--Coverup Complete: Trump Commutes Roger Stone’s Prison Sentence

The White House announced Friday that President Trump is commuting the prison sentence of his longtime friend and sometimes campaign adviser Roger Stone , the culmination of a scheme one federal judge called a coverup for the President .
While the President has broad constitutional authority to issue commutations and pardons , his move to rescue Stone from his prison sentence is perhaps the most extreme example yet of the President ’ s eagerness to shield his allies from the criminal justice system .
Stone was scheduled to surrender on Tuesday .
The commutation was announced in a ranting statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kayleigh McEnany .
It called Stone the “ victim of the Russia Hoax ” pushed by “ the out-of-control Mueller prosecutors ” who “ took pains to make a public and shameful spectacle of his arrest.
” “ The simple fact is that if the Special Counsel had not been pursuing an absolutely baseless investigation , Mr. Stone would not be facing time in prison , ” the statement claimed .
Stone was convicted of lying to Congress about conversations he had related to hacks of Democratic emails in the 2016 election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , planned ” effort to obstruct the U.S. House ’ s Russia probe , U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said at his sentencing in February .
“ He was not prosecuted , as some have complained , for standing up for the President , he was prosecuted for covering up for the President , ” the judge said then .
A jury in Washington , D.C. last year found him guilty of all the counts prosecutors had brought alleging false statements , witness tampering and obstruction .
Stone was convicted for lying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ release of hacked Democratic emails ahead of the 2016 election .
Stone withheld from Congress documents that would have shed light on relevant communications he had with both the campaign and with intermediaries to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange .
He also threatened a potential witness who could have blown up the false account of communications he gave to House investigators .
He recently had sought to delay his surrender date until late summer , citing the COVID-19 outbreak .
The judge instead ordered that he start serving his sentence on July 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to several bogus conspiracies Stone , Trump and their allies pushed about federal prosecutors .
It alluded to the debunked claim that prosecutors tipped off CNN to Stone ’ s arrest .
It reiterated Stone ’ s allegations , already dismissed by a judge , that his jury was biased against him because the foreperson once tweeted negatively about Trump .
And the statement asserted the prosecutors only “ set their sights on Mr. Stone ” because they were “ desperate for splashy headlines to compensate for a failed investigation.
” “ Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutors pursing [ sic ] a case that never should have existed , and arrested in an operation that never should have been approved , but there were also serious questions about the jury in the case , ” the statement said .
Trump ’ s pardon of Stone ’ s crimes is the latest step the President and his allies have taken to undo key prosecutions brought by special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Russia investigation .
Trump ’ s Justice Department is in the midst of an extraordinary legal battle so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn — a prosecution the Justice Department had defended until May , when it filed its bombshell request to drop the case .
Prior to Trump ’ s Stone commutation , the Justice Department , under the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr , had also sought to water down the sentencing recommendation that had been submitted for Stone by the career DOJ attorneys who had led the prosecution in his case .
One of those career attorneys testified to Congress last month that a fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher-ups to pressure the prosecutors to pull back on their recommendations .
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) , whose committee Stone lied to , said Friday that of Trump ’ s “ countless acts that are both self-serving and destructive to our democracy , ” the Stone commutation was “ among the most offensive to the rule of law and principles of justice.
” “ With this commutation , Trump makes clear that there are two systems of justice in America : one for his criminal friends , and one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the statement responding to the commutation news .
While the Justice Department cooperated with some of Stone ’ s initial requests to postpone his surrender date , ostensibly because of the coronavirus outbreak , the Department has stopped short of supporting his more recent gambits to put off prison and Barr this week said he believed Stone ’ s sentence was fair .
The reprieve Trump granted Stone was a long time in the making .
Their friendship goes back to the 1980s , when Stone was launching a lobbying shop with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chairman who was also prosecuted by Mueller .
Stone advised Trump through the years on several flirtations Trump had with running for President .
Though their political relationship suffered a public break-up in 2015 at the beginning of the Trump campaign , the two seem to have remained in contact , particularly in the summer of 2016 , according to evidence presented in Stone ’ s trial .
Phone records connected Stone to a number suggested to be Trump ’ s on several occasions that summer , just as the release of hacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also showed Stone ’ s outreach to the campaign regarding the email dumps .
Former members of the Trump campaign testified about their knowledge of Stone phone calls with Trump during which Wikileaks ’ plans were apparently discussed .
Even as Trump had at times publicly distanced himself from Stone , he turned into a Stone defender once Mueller formally brought charges against the longtime GOP operative .
Trump went on several Twitter tirades about the prosecution , including a particularly notable series of attacks during Stone ’ s sentencing .
Stone meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had refused to give false testimony against the President .
Discussions between Trump and his advisors about potentially pardoning Stone reportedly picked up as Stone ’ s surrender date loomed .
Some advisers encouraged Trump to commute Stone ’ s sentence rather than outright pardon him , according to a Politico report , in the hopes that a commutation would be less politically damaging than a full blown pardon .
Repeatedly in June , Trump used his Twitter account to preview the action he took Friday .
He commented on one tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ victim of a corrupt and illegal Witch Hunt ” and that he “ can sleep well at night !
” Late last month , he retweeted another tweet urging that Stone be pardoned .
Trump also made comments in recent interviews hinting at his plans to give Stone some relief — including one interview where he was told Stone was “ praying ” for a pardon .
“ If you say he ’ s praying , his prayer may be answered , ” Trump said .
To explain why Trump was commuting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , the Friday night statement referenced Stone ’ s appeal of his conviction and Stone ’ s efforts to “ vindicate himself before the courts.
” “ The President does not wish to interfere with his efforts to do so , ” the statement said , but Trump nonetheless was commuting his sentence “ in light of the egregious facts and circumstances surrounding his unfair prosecution , arrest , and trial.
” “ Roger Stone has already suffered greatly .
He was treated very unfairly , as were many others in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free man !
” the statement said .

The White House announced Friday that President Trump is commuting the prison sentence of his longtime friend and sometimes campaign adviser Roger Stone, the culmination of a scheme one federal judge called a coverup for the President.
While the President has broad constitutional authority to issue commutations and pardons, his move to rescue Stone from his prison sentence is perhaps the most extreme example yet of the President’s eagerness to shield his allies from the criminal justice system. Stone was scheduled to surrender on Tuesday.
The commutation was announced in a ranting statement ostensibly issued by White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany.
It called Stone the “ victim of the Russia Hoax” pushed by “the out-of-control Mueller prosecutors” who “took pains to make a public and shameful spectacle of his arrest.”
“The simple fact is that if the Special Counsel had not been pursuing an absolutely baseless investigation, Mr. Stone would not be facing time in prison,” the statement claimed.
Stone was convicted of lying to Congress about conversations he had related to hacks of Democratic emails in the 2016 election. Stone had engaged in a “deliberate, planned” effort to obstruct the U.S. House’s Russia probe, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said at his sentencing in February.
“He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the President, he was prosecuted for covering up for the President,” the judge said then.
A jury in Washington, D.C. last year found him guilty of all the counts prosecutors had brought alleging false statements, witness tampering and obstruction.
Stone was convicted for lying specifically about conversations he had regarding Wikileaks’ release of hacked Democratic emails ahead of the 2016 election. Stone withheld from Congress documents that would have shed light on relevant communications he had with both the campaign and with intermediaries to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. He also threatened a potential witness who could have blown up the false account of communications he gave to House investigators.
He recently had sought to delay his surrender date until late summer, citing the COVID-19 outbreak. The judge instead ordered that he start serving his sentence on July 14.
The statement announcing the commutation pointed to several bogus conspiracies Stone, Trump and their allies pushed about federal prosecutors. It alluded to the debunked claim that prosecutors tipped off CNN to Stone’s arrest. It reiterated Stone’s allegations, already dismissed by a judge, that his jury was biased against him because the foreperson once tweeted negatively about Trump.
And the statement asserted the prosecutors only “set their sights on Mr. Stone” because they were “desperate for splashy headlines to compensate for a failed investigation.”
“Not only was Mr. Stone charged by overzealous prosecutors pursing [sic] a case that never should have existed, and arrested in an operation that never should have been approved, but there were also serious questions about the jury in the case,” the statement said.
Trump’s pardon of Stone’s crimes is the latest step the President and his allies have taken to undo key prosecutions brought by special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Trump’s Justice Department is in the midst of an extraordinary legal battle so that it can walk away from its prosecution of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn — a prosecution the Justice Department had defended until May, when it filed its bombshell request to drop the case.
Prior to Trump’s Stone commutation, the Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, had also sought to water down the sentencing recommendation that had been submitted for Stone by the career DOJ attorneys who had led the prosecution in his case.
One of those career attorneys testified to Congress last month that a fear of angering the President had motivated DOJ higher-ups to pressure the prosecutors to pull back on their recommendations.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), whose committee Stone lied to, said Friday that of Trump’s “countless acts that are both self-serving and destructive to our democracy,” the Stone commutation was “among the most offensive to the rule of law and principles of justice.”
“With this commutation, Trump makes clear that there are two systems of justice in America: one for his criminal friends, and one for everyone else,” Schiff said in the statement responding to the commutation news.
While the Justice Department cooperated with some of Stone’s initial requests to postpone his surrender date, ostensibly because of the coronavirus outbreak, the Department has stopped short of supporting his more recent gambits to put off prison and Barr this week said he believed Stone’s sentence was fair.
The reprieve Trump granted Stone was a long time in the making. Their friendship goes back to the 1980s, when Stone was launching a lobbying shop with Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who was also prosecuted by Mueller.
Stone advised Trump through the years on several flirtations Trump had with running for President.
Though their political relationship suffered a public break-up in 2015 at the beginning of the Trump campaign, the two seem to have remained in contact, particularly in the summer of 2016, according to evidence presented in Stone’s trial. Phone records connected Stone to a number suggested to be Trump’s on several occasions that summer, just as the release of hacked Democratic emails was ramping up. Emails also showed Stone’s outreach to the campaign regarding the email dumps. Former members of the Trump campaign testified about their knowledge of Stone phone calls with Trump during which Wikileaks’ plans were apparently discussed.
Even as Trump had at times publicly distanced himself from Stone, he turned into a Stone defender once Mueller formally brought charges against the longtime GOP operative. Trump went on several Twitter tirades about the prosecution, including a particularly notable series of attacks during Stone’s sentencing. Stone meanwhile claimed that Mueller was prosecuting him because he had refused to give false testimony against the President.
Discussions between Trump and his advisors about potentially pardoning Stone reportedly picked up as Stone’s surrender date loomed. Some advisers encouraged Trump to commute Stone’s sentence rather than outright pardon him, according to a Politico report, in the hopes that a commutation would be less politically damaging than a full blown pardon.
Repeatedly in June, Trump used his Twitter account to preview the action he took Friday. He commented on one tweet calling for a pardon that Stone was “victim of a corrupt and illegal Witch Hunt” and that he “can sleep well at night!” Late last month, he retweeted another tweet urging that Stone be pardoned.
Trump also made comments in recent interviews hinting at his plans to give Stone some relief — including one interview where he was told Stone was “praying” for a pardon.
“If you say he’s praying, his prayer may be answered,” Trump said.
To explain why Trump was commuting Stone’s sentence rather than pardoning him, the Friday night statement referenced Stone’s appeal of his conviction and Stone’s efforts to “vindicate himself before the courts.”
“The President does not wish to interfere with his efforts to do so,” the statement said, but Trump nonetheless was commuting his sentence “in light of the egregious facts and circumstances surrounding his unfair prosecution, arrest, and trial.”
“Roger Stone has already suffered greatly. He was treated very unfairly, as were many others in this case. Roger Stone is now a free man!” the statement said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-07-10--Trump Threatens To Cut Funding From Schools Over ‘Radical Left Indoctrination’

President Donald Trump threatened to yank federal funding from schools that provide education that he deems too left-wing on Friday .
Trump complained on Twitter that “ too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination , not Education.
” “ Therefore , I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status and/or Funding , which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues , ” he tweeted .
“ Our children must be Educated , not Indoctrinated !
” The President did not elaborate on what constitutes an “ act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not respond to TPM ’ s query .
It wouldn ’ t be the first time Trump ’ s administration targeted a school on ideological or political grounds : Last September , the Education Department threatened to withdraw funding from a Middle East studies program at Duke University and the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill for focusing too heavily on the “ positive aspects of Islam.
” The department demanded that the schools change the program ’ s activities to fix its “ lack of balance ” before receiving federal funds .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Friday stand in stark contrast with the President ’ s claims to be a vigilant defender of free speech on student campuses , which led to him to issue an executive order on “ improving free inquiry , transparency , and accountability at colleges and universities.
” Critics pointed out that the order didn ’ t really mandate universities do anything federal agencies hadn ’ t already required of them .

President Donald Trump threatened to yank federal funding from schools that provide education that he deems too left-wing on Friday.
Trump complained on Twitter that “too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education.”
“Therefore, I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status and/or Funding, which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues,” he tweeted. “Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated!”
The President did not elaborate on what constitutes an “act against public policy.” The White House did not respond to TPM’s query.
It wouldn’t be the first time Trump’s administration targeted a school on ideological or political grounds: Last September, the Education Department threatened to withdraw funding from a Middle East studies program at Duke University and the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill for focusing too heavily on the “positive aspects of Islam.” The department demanded that the schools change the program’s activities to fix its “lack of balance” before receiving federal funds.
The incident and Trump’s tweet on Friday stand in stark contrast with the President’s claims to be a vigilant defender of free speech on student campuses, which led to him to issue an executive order on “improving free inquiry, transparency, and accountability at colleges and universities.”
Critics pointed out that the order didn’t really mandate universities do anything federal agencies hadn’t already required of them.