Profile picture
, 4 tweets, 1 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
Trump v. Vance is a 7-2 decision by CJ Roberts. As many of us argued, Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not contain an exclusion or higher standard for state criminal subpoenas for a sitting President.
scotusblog.com/wp-content/upl…
"A President may avail himself of the same protections available to every other citizen, including the right to challenge the subpoena on any grounds permitted by state law, which usually include bad faith and undue burden or breadth."
As I argued in the past, the President helped to create more binding precedent against future presidents with extreme constitutional claims. This bought time for Trump but at the cost of countervailing precedent. It will push the matter beyond the election but at a high cost.
There is no spin possible. This is a major and embarrassing defeat for the President who, against the advice of many of us, advanced an unsustainable claim of absolute privilege. jonathanturley.org/2019/10/07/fed…
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Keep Current with Jonathan Turley

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!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JonathanTurley see all

Profile picture
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
Jeff Toobin just said that the Stone commutation is "the most corrupt and cronyistic act in all of recent history. " He might want to review the rogue's gallery of past presidential pardons... jonathanturley.org/2017/08/31/the…
...I disagree with the President's taking this action given his long-time friendship with Stone (and the direct implications of some of the underlying allegations involving the President). This should have been left to another president or at a minimum to Attorney General Barr...
...however, Toobin stated "This is simply not done by American presidents they don’t pardon or commute sentences of people who are close to them or about to go to prison. It just does not happen until this President." That is unfortunately not true. History is replete . . .
Read 6 tweets
Profile picture
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
Judge Sullivan just asked for an appeal to the full DC Circuit court. I was surprised by the order, but the request for en banc review still only delay the inevitable for the court. The law is clear on the eventual dismissal of the charges...jonathanturley.org/2020/06/28/mak…
...Many judges would likely agree that the case should have been left to Sullivan to dismiss after a hearing. However, Sullivan undermined his case with his deeply disturbing orders to bring in a third party to argue issues that neither actual party supports and ...
...then suggesting that he might actually substitute his own criminal charge. There is a point when the improvisational becomes virtually recreational for a court. The panel was correct that the charges must clearly be dismissed in the case despite the court's obvious displeasure
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
Mazars looks like a win for Trump. Roberts writes another 7-2 (something of a trend in these final decisions). While the Court does not sign off on the Trump demands, it vacates the lower court decision. scotusblog.com/wp-content/upl…
..."The courts below did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President's information." Where Trump went too far in Trump v. Vance, the Congress may have been equally extreme in its demands here.
...Mazars finds that the lower courts were too dismissive of valid concerns over the possible intrusion of such congressional into executive areas. This will, like the New York case, go back to lower courts. This means that the cans get kicked down the road past the election.
Read 7 tweets

Embed code for your website

×
Follow Us on Twitter!

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 ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!