The Trump Card...

[Pilgrim]

Finally, the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are getting serious:

"Jordan in his subpoena cover letter referenced correspondence on March 25 from Bragg to Pomerantz, which Breitbart News has reviewed, in which Bragg instructed Pomerantz, a private citizen, not to provide Congress with any materials relevant to Pomerantz’s work at the district attorney’s office.
Pomerantz then told the committee on March 27 that he would be complying with Bragg’s instructions rather than Jordan’s requests.
Jordan contended Thursday, however, that Pomerantz is “uniquely situated” to provide insight to the Judiciary Committee and that he has “no basis to decline to testify” given he has already made detailed accounts of his work on the Trump probe widely public."

Exclusive: Jordan Subpoenas Manhattan Prosecutor Who Resigned over Suspended Trump Probe

Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan escalated the GOP's investigation into Trump's indictment by subpoenaing Mark Pomerantz.

www.breitbart.com

 

[danthewolf00]

He doesn't get executive privilege lol

 

[danthewolf00]

Oh get this Biden is blaming trump over the 13 deaths and the failure in pulling out of Afghanistan....trump was NOT in office.....

 

[muttly]

You and I can find and quote polls all day long to support our points of view. Here's one that shows:

Trump Favorable: 39.5%
Trump Unfavorable: 54.2%

As of April 5, this summary of multiple polls shows Trump's favorability decreased and his unfavorability increased. Boost? What boost?

Donald Trump : Favorability Polls

The latest political polls and polling averages from FiveThirtyEight.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Surging…

 

[ATeam]

Should a judge who donated a trivial amount of money to political causes that could be construed as anti-Trump, years before any Trump-related case came before his court, recuse himself from a Trump-related case now before him?

Yes, I think he should. Judge Merchan should recuse himself from The People v. Donald J. Trump case.

While I do not believe for one second that such contributions would interfere with this judge's ability to rule fairly and objectively in this case, the contributions create an appearance of bias and an appearance of conflict. Accordingly, the judge should recuse.

About the ability to be fair and objective while maintaining a particular bias, many people regularly do that. Parents favor their kids but in a playground dispute with other kids, they may well rule in the favor of the other kid who is in the right. A police officer may hate someone of another race, but that cop may well write the same traffic ticket for that person as they would for any other. A particularly enthusiastic Republican service writer at a car dealership may hate all Democrats but that does not stop them from treating fairly the person who drives in with Biden bumper stickers and slogans on their car. A public defender who has been personally victimized by a crime of violence can still zealously defend every criminal to whom the defender is assigned. And I believe most judges, while having a bias, can still be objective when rulings are considered.

Judge Merchan will either recuse himself or not. If he does not, the bias question will almost certainly become a basis for an appeal if Trump loses a motion or his case. If the judge does not recuse, I would not criticize Trump for an appeal on that basis. That does not mean Trump would win the appeal but I would not criticize him for making it.

An appeal is nearly certain anyway so I'm not saying the judge should recuse to avoid an appeal. For the sake of the justice system overall, he should recuse simply to avoid the appearance of bias and/or conflict.

In the bigger picture, if Merchan does recuse, will they be able to find ANY judge who has not made campaign contributions or donations to political committees? If a replacement judge donated a trivial amount to the Trump campaign years ago, would they thereby be ineligible to preside over The People v. Donald J. Trump?

I've never looked into this in depth. Before people become judges they are generally all politically involved to one degree or another. Where is the line drawn? To what extent does prior political activity disqualify a judge from hearing a case that has political implications?

We might get an answer to that question if Trump files a motion asking the judge to recuse himself from the case. But, surprisingly, Trump has not yet done so. He would normally jump all over an opportunity like this, would he not? If he has not done so in a week or two, it would be nice to know the reason why.

Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing Trump case, donated to Biden campaign in 2020

Judge Juan Merchan donated to Democratic causes in 2020, including to President Biden’s campaign and a group dedicated to “resisting … Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.”

nypost.com

 

[ATeam]

Bragg Sues Jordan

"Bragg is asking a judge to invalidate subpoenas that Jordan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has or plans to issue as part of an investigation of Bragg's handling of the Trump case.

"'Chairman Jordan's subpoena is an unconstitutional attempt to undermine an ongoing New York felony criminal prosecution and investigation,' Bragg said. 'As our complaint details, this is an unprecedented, illegitimate interference by Congress that lacks any legal merit and defies basic principles of federalism.'" (Source)

 

[danthewolf00]

The judiciary committee has jurisdiction over braggs.....he just don't want daddy to spank him.

 

[muttly]

Congressional oversight:

 

[ATeam]

The judiciary committee has jurisdiction over braggs ...

So you say, but I expect the court will say different.

 

[ATeam]

Congressional oversight:
View attachment 22361
View attachment 22362

Jurisdictional issues apply in America. In the filing, Bragg said,

“In sum, Congress lacks any valid legislative purpose to engage in a free-ranging campaign of harassment in retaliation for the District Attorney’s investigation and prosecution of Mr. Trump under the laws of New York,” the lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, states.

“That campaign is a direct threat to federalism and the sovereign interests of the State of New York. This Court should enjoin the subpoena and put an end to this constitutionally destructive fishing expedition.”

I think he raises a good point, especially regarding federalism and sovereign interests.

 

[danthewolf00]

Jurisdictional issues apply in America. In the filing, Bragg said,

“In sum, Congress lacks any valid legislative purpose to engage in a free-ranging campaign of harassment in retaliation for the District Attorney’s investigation and prosecution of Mr. Trump under the laws of New York,” the lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, states.

“That campaign is a direct threat to federalism and the sovereign interests of the State of New York. This Court should enjoin the subpoena and put an end to this constitutionally destructive fishing expedition.”

I think he raises a good point, especially regarding federalism and sovereign interests.

This is going to backfire.....because now Republican district attorneys will go after Biden hard.

 

[ATeam]

This is going to backfire.....because now Republican district attorneys will go after Biden hard.

If a local or state DA knows of crimes Biden committed in their jurisdictions, and if those crimes are not being investigated/prosecuted by other agencies that have jurisdiction, they should go after him hard.

 

[coalminer]

This is going to backfire.....because now Republican district attorneys will go after Biden hard.

For what?

 

[danthewolf00]

For what?

Oh for taking money as vice president to meet with foreign non government investors to his sons shady business deals.....and now as president.

 

[ATeam]

My first thought when I saw this was, these two guys deserve each other.

Trump sues former lawyer Michael Cohen, key witness in Manhattan DA probe, for $500 million

Cohen has become a key witness against Trump in a criminal case in Manhattan, where Trump faces 34 criminal counts.

www.cnbc.com

 

[muttly]

Manhattan D.A. Enlisted These Biden Admin Buddies To Get Trump

An NYC law firm with 'strong ties' to Democrats including Biden lent the Manhattan D.A. three lawyers to help him take down Donald Trump.

thefederalist.com

 

[muttly]

Congress has oversight responsibilities here:

Bragg's Lawsuit Against Congress Is As Meritless As His Indictment Of Trump | Gregg Jarrett

Manhattan’s witless district attorney has sued to block Congress from asking any questions about his quixotic indictment of Donald Trump. Seeking a temporary

thegreggjarrett.com

 

[ATeam]

Congress has oversight responsibilities here:

The analysis you shared that spoke against the constitutionality of reinstating the two Tennessee legislators proved to be incorrect. I'm expecting this one to prove incorrect also.

 

[danthewolf00]

The analysis you shared that spoke against the constitutionality of reinstating the two Tennessee legislators proved to be incorrect. I'm expecting this one to prove incorrect also.

State constitution......

 

[muttly]

The analysis you shared that spoke against the constitutionality of reinstating the two Tennessee legislators proved to be incorrect. I'm expecting this one to prove incorrect also.

It was correct. It’s just that the constitution is only as good as the will to abide by it and enforce it. And considering the Feds were conducting “oversight” on the Tennessee House and there was a lawsuit threatened, they decided to just move on.
I’ll bet you don’t have a problem with that oversight though right? But Trump’s case having Fed oversight, nope can’t have that, right?