Jed Shugerman Profile picture
Jun 28, 2020 7 tweets 3 min read Read on X
Trump’s tax returns just became a lot more urgent.

And the #Emoluments Clauses, too.

Does Trump have foreign debt?

And which foreign state debts may have been cancelled? (i.e, emoluments, or another kind of bounty.) nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/…
To the Judges who said these Emoluments suits & tax subpoenas were just partisan harassment:

Caring about national security and troops compromised by corruption is not partisan.

History will judge the judges.
Historians eventually will find out how deeply Trump is compromised.
3/
When Trump went banktrupt when I was a teen, I asked my dad how he stayed "rich."
My dad:
"When you owe the bank a lot of money, the bank owns you...
But when you owe the bank a TON of money, you own the bank."

But if you owe Russia a TON of money, they can kill your troops.
4/ I agree with those who say Trump's tax returns by themselves will not show crimes or scandalous debts.

But the subpoenas are not for just the returns.

They are also for the "supporting financial documents." Those would show more detail about debts - and foreign sources.
5/ This breaking-news timing might be like Census case:

Roberts was the 5th vote for the Trump admin until latesmoking gun got him to see the light.

Note for tomorrow, maybe: Manhattan DA Vance subpoena is a sideshow b/c grand jury material is secret.
It's all about Congress.
6/ @ProjectLincoln:

"When Trump tells you he stands by the troops, he's right...

Just not OUR troops."
7/
@KeitnerLaw, my law school classmate and leading National Security Law expert:
https://t.co/YKTJoBPpgh

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jed Shugerman

Jed Shugerman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jedshug

Mar 10
At @FedSoc National Student Convention, @NoahRFeldman is telling this audience that the formalist separation of powers & Scalia’s Morrison dissent are anti-originalist and dangerous…
And he’s crushing it. He is quoting Madison Federalist 47-51 and the audience is uncomfortable.
2/ You can watch it here:
@FedSoc @Harvard_Law
twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1…
@FedSoc @Harvard_Law 3/ @NoahRFeldman says the Constitution’s original structure is functionalism and “checks and balance,” not formal “separation of powers.”
I haven’t put the point this strongly, but my research shows he’s more right than wrong.
And more historically correct than Scalia.
Read 8 tweets
Mar 8
Thank you @NotreDameLRev (Vol. 100) for accepting "Venality and Functionality: A Strangely Practical History of Selling Offices, Administrative Independence, and Limited Presidential Power."
I'm deeply honored & excited to work with you!
#newlawrevarticles
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
2/ Table of Contents:
#newlawrevarticles
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Image
3/ My @SSRN draft "Freehold Offices v. Despotic Displacement" has more detail on:
The Opinions Clause;
The Ratification Debates;
Common law default rules for "good cause" removal; Charts on the Founders' Bookshelf & 18th C. English dictionaries:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Read 6 tweets
Mar 3
As long as I am admitting my errors this week:

My good friend Jeff Cohen (@BCLAW prof. former prosecutor) persuaded me that I was wrong about a criticism of the @ManhattanDA case against Trump:

These purely internal records like paystubs could count for intent to defraud.
1/
2/ Last April, I wrote in @nytimes:
"What, in practice, is the meaning of 'intent to defraud'? If a business record is internal, it is not obvious how a false filing could play a role in defrauding if other entities likely would not rely upon it and be deceived by it."
See below: Image
@nytimes 3/ The statutes 175.05 & .10 require:
"falsifying business records...with intent to defraud."

A false tax return or FEC filing would defraud the govt, but I asked how a pay stub would defraud anyone if no one ever relies on it or even looks at it:
nytimes.com/2023/04/05/opi…
Read 18 tweets
Feb 29
Unfortunately, both @rparloff & @EricColumbus are right: Image
3/ And @stevenmazie is also right, unfortunately:
Read 4 tweets
Feb 15
I know legal commentators are saying "Judge Merchan denied Trump's motions and has scheduled a trial for March 25, and this is now real and happening."

Hang on. There is a real chance that Trump's lawyers win a stay in federal court. (This gets technical about abstention). 1/
2/ I'm not revealing anything the lawyers don't already know.
They've sought these kinds of stays and injunctions in fed court before against NY prosecutors.
See Trump v. Vance on Manhattan DA subpoena for tax records. Trump lost every stage but won a 1-year delay, 2019-2020.
3/ Trump's lawyers can seek an injunction in fed district court (and a stay) on grounds of
1) no state jurisdiction
2) federal preemption
3) selective prosecution, partisan bias, violation of 14th A.

I predicted this delay problem last year in @nytimes:
nytimes.com/2023/04/05/opi…
Read 20 tweets
Feb 8
I’ll live-tweet the 14th A. Disqualification oral arguments this morning. 🧵

I think there are 5 issues. One is easy (“officers” includes presidents), 1 is a mild problem, and I have strong concerns about 3 others, especially whether Jan 6 or speech count as “insurrection”
I’m flagging this article on 1st Amendment concerns about Colorado’s specific ruling by @Thomas_A_Berry
It raises 1 of several problems specific to Colorado’s trial court basis.

@ARozenshtein & I have published a solution in future cases.
@Thomas_A_Berry @ARozenshtein 3/ I agree w/ @Thomas_A_Berry’s 1st A. analysis.
@ARozenshtein & I had similar concerns in 2022 and argued that Trump engaged in overt acts, not just speech.

“January 6, Ambiguously Inciting Speech, and the Overt-Acts Rule”
Const Commentary (2022):
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Read 53 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(