HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » ACLU: Trump says Federal ...

Sun May 21, 2017, 03:10 AM

ACLU: Trump says Federal Court cannot require him to produce documents.

If Trump continues to stonewall, is THIS grounds for impeachment?

Laurence Tribe appears to think so, although of course it would take a willing Congress -- which we don't have at this point.

http://www.aclumich.org/article/aclu-michigan-statement-trumps-refusal-turn-over-giuliani-memo-ordered-court

DETROIT--The White House has refused to release a memo from a commission established by Rudolph Giuliani that was created with the express purpose of creating a legal rationale for the Muslim Ban. Under a federal court order, the memo was to be produced on Friday, but the Trump administration objected late Friday night, claiming, among other things, that a federal court cannot require the President to release documents.

The ACLU of Michigan—which challenged the ban in federal court along with the Arab American Civil Rights League—plans to return to court to compel production of the memo. The ACLU called on the White House to be transparent on the issue.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/harvard-law-prof-trumps-handling-of-immigration-order-could-be-grounds-for-impeachment/

Laurence Tribe

There is no modern example of this – Nixon turned over tapes, as ordered, leading to the introduction of articles of impeachment against him and his resignation. Deliberately disobeying the order of a federal court could amount to criminal contempt of court, which might be found by the House to be a high crime or misdemeanor.

18 replies, 9099 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 03:15 AM

1. What can the judge do?

Can he put Trump, or at least Trump's lawyer, in jail for contempt of court?

More likely he will simply rule against trump, as nothing pisses judges off more than contempt of court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #1)

Sun May 21, 2017, 02:11 PM

17. He can rule against them

It's as simple as that. No one wins a court case by refusing to cooperate with the judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 03:16 AM

2. Probably not grounds for impeachment

(unless a clear nexus shown re: obstruction,) but grounds for a penalty of some sort, if docs subpoenaed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #2)

Sun May 21, 2017, 03:19 AM

3. I'm adding something to the OP. Laurence Tribe seems to think it could,

although he was speaking to a somewhat different situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #3)

Sun May 21, 2017, 03:23 AM

5. 'Deliberately disobeying the order of a federal court could amount to criminal contempt of court,

which might be found by the House to be a high crime or misdemeanor. Likewise, if, as reported, officials utilized conference calls instead of written documents they otherwise would have, in order to implement the plan of disobedience to the court’s order, that might amount to obstruction of justice as defined by the federal statute which, again, the House might determine is a high crime or misdemeanor.'

>Obstruction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 03:21 AM

4. Sure sounds like contempt of court to me.

That's punishable by a fine or jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #4)

Sun May 21, 2017, 03:34 AM

6. So the Court tells the U.S. Marshals to seize Trump

I wonder what happens next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #6)

Sun May 21, 2017, 03:41 AM

7. Documents sought.

Penalty for contempt of court determined by the court. Marshals won't seize trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #6)

Sun May 21, 2017, 06:03 AM

14. As far as I know, not a damn thing,

As I'm under the impression that the Marshalls Service is an arm of the Justice Department, and while tasked with carrying out the instructions of Courts, their Chain of Command is the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, which means the Judiciary cannot ORDER them to do anything...the President has to. At the State Level, the County Sherrif does the same job as the Marshalls, but that's because State Constitutions have specific provisions for enforcement of Court orders BY COURT AGENTS (which the Sherrif and all his deputies are), but the US Constitution provides no such option to Federal Courts.

If I'm proceeding from incorrect information please let me know, but I'm pretty sure this is why Rove never showed up when Congress issued a subpoena for his testimony, because Bush told him it wasn't going to be enforced, and the same lack Constitutional provision applies to Congress as well as the Federal Courts...only the EXECUTIVE has the power to ENFORCE the Law; everybody else can only 'suggest'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 03:52 AM

8. Maybe he'll have to run the country from a prison cell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 04:07 AM

9. For now, they'll just be back in court after the ACLU files their motion to compel them to comply...

They mentioned that in the ACLU article.

When she ordered Trump to turn over the Rudi memo by the 19th and set a date for the rest of the discovery, the judge anticipated that the defendant would object to some or all of the requests. Her written order says:

"Of course, Defendants may object to requests as allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To handle objections, the Court adopts the following procedure to streamline the process. If Defendants object to any discovery request, they must set forth their reasoning and legal justification, with full citations and argument, in the response to Plaintiffs. If Plaintiffs file a motion to compel regarding a specific discovery request, they must include the Defendants’ full objection to that request as an exhibit, which the Court will treat as the Defendants’ brief for deciding the motion. Defendants may not file a response brief. If the Court needs additional briefing, it will request supplemental briefing."

Arab American Civil Rights League v. Trump:
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-MI-0004-0036.pdf (last page)


But now I wonder if this is more than an attempt to assert executive privilege broadly, or if there's something else in the memo that they prefer not to make public. Anything is possible with these lunatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Princess Turandot (Reply #9)

Sun May 21, 2017, 04:13 AM

10. Thanks for the additional info! Would there be some benefit to DT

to refusing to meet the deadline now, but complying later?

IOW, if he's just going to comply in the end, why the delay? My guess is this means they are going to fight it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 05:03 AM

11. tRump pattern is to litigate everything to death. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 05:12 AM

12. In the end, a contempt of court charge isn't going to help him any.

He's used to dealing with entities that are looking to settle, or don't have the funds to sustain a fight against him. Those days are gone.

The ACLU is getting another donation from me. We'll crowdsource this clown into submission if need be!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 05:54 AM

13. 1. You could have a unanimous USSC telling Trump to turn over the document and he'd still refuse.

2. He's had that sucker burned/destroyed already. Nothing to turn over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #13)

Sun May 21, 2017, 07:12 AM

15. You think there'd be a digital trail.

D/L'd to at least a thumb drive or two for "safe keeping"?

We need to keep making the R's townhalls and regional offices uncomfortable for them until they fully understand that backing Trump will backfire for them. Congress will turn on him eventually.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #13)

Sun May 21, 2017, 03:55 PM

18. Which is the bigger obstruction of justice

Refusing to turn over documents or destroying them? Let's suppose that a forensic search somehow revealed that there was a document at some point, so there is no way to deny its existence. Let's assume that search also discovered that the document was destroyed within a few days after the WH was told to hand it over. It would be obstruction of justice, but there would be no way to use the contents of the document to show the WH's ploy to bypass the Constitution.

I really do wonder about these scenarios. It seems to me that the optics don't matter so much to his base, so it is always better to destroy the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 08:08 AM

16. He will learn

Please proceed King Con

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread