10AM ET Judicial Hearing before DC Appeals Court as referenced by TRMS: **Listen HERE**

[hlthe2b]

I've spent an hour trying to find links and CSPAN only shows that they are playing it on CSPAN-2 at 8 PM so unless that is a typo, don't go there to hear it live.


HERE IS THE DIRECT LINK TO NBC AUDIO LIVE STREAM (10AM ET):
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/listen-live-second-circuit-court-of-appeals-hears-trump-financial-records-case-71857733878

Here is the accompanying news article on this case with wide-reaching implications:

Appeals court to hear showdown over Trump taxes
The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing the case on a fast track, and lawyers for both sides have agreed to seek immediate review from the Supreme Court.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/appeals-court-hear-showdown-over-trump-taxes-n1070231

[hlthe2b]

1. For those planning to listen or interested, please keep this kicked for others.

[CousinIT]

2. This Supreme Court will rule in favor of Trump

I think this is going nowhere fast. I hope I'm wrong. GOP slammed those rapists & squatters (Gorsuch) onto that court to protect corrupt Republicans and that's what they'll do.

[hlthe2b]

4. I don't think so. It will hinge on Roberts, but he still has some regard for the constitution.

If you read the original ruling it is clear the Trump attorneys really overreached with all that Unitary Executive Bullshit stating the President can not even be investigated, much less held to account in any manner. That level of overreach infuriated the original judge and I believe will likewise with Roberts. Less likely with Gorsuch as his libertarian leanings will make him sympathetic to Trump's hiding financial records, but even he is somewhat sensitive to such 'overreach' and the need for checks and balances. Roberts is the real hope here, but a minimal chance of convincing one other.

[certainot]

9. republican judges are highly susceptible to public pressure and other judges to a lesser

degree can feel the howling coming from RW media. and limbaugh and sons have had a huge effect getting clarence thomas and kavenaugh on that court by attacking their critics and accusers.

in this case the con supremes have felt the general pro-trump screaming but if it happens quickly limbaugh might not be able to get it going for this in time.

and con supremes like roberts might also get republican pressure to make an easy decision on something like this to make it easier to get rid of him. take a lot of pressure of republican senators. it might have been different a few months ago.

[hlthe2b]

12. SCOTUS including Roberts have shown are relatively isolated from public pressure--not ideology

certainly. One need only look to Robert's dissent on ACA to realize it is not black and white no matter our rightful disdain for the conservative wing of the court.

[Pepsidog]

15. If Scalia were alive he would rule against Trump. Anyway you look at this issue any legitimate court

rules against Trump.

[hlthe2b]

19. I agree that Scalia would. He might likewise have brought along Thomas given that "unique"

relationship.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. The whole point of lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices

is to ensure that they will be relatively immune to public pressure. They can't be fired, even by the president who appointed them and only one justice has ever been impeached, and he was acquitted (a few lower federal court judges have been impeached and removed, but those cases involved crimes of corruption, usually bribery). I have no doubt that they are as aware of politics and public opinion as anyone else, but their decisions are influenced by their ideology, not public pressure. Since the conservative wing tend to be originalists like Scalia (Roberts seems to be a little more flexible), that view of the Constitution would probably make them more likely to rule against Trump, not less.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh don't have to make Trump happy. He can't fire them - although if they rule against him he'll probably try.

[olegramps]

10. The so-called Unitary Executive that the Reps have pursued must be cutailed by legislation.

The Republican's attempt over the last fifty years beginning with Nixon to transformed the Presidency into a virtual dictatorship along with other abuses of power, including the nonsense that a president can not be indicted, must be corrected by legislation. I am confident that if passed the Republicans will appeal to the Supreme Court. This is another issue that should be addressed: life time appointments. The Founding Fathers were honorable men and naively assumed that only men of sterling character would by appointed and believed that life time appointments would insulate the court from politics. Unfortunately, every decision is becoming highly influenced from which that they attempted to shield it. The fact is that their gross partisanship has been enabled to abuse their power since they can not be recalled except through the arduous impeachment process which again is controlled by party affiliation.

[hlthe2b]

11. It is already curtailed by the constitution if one will only read and understand it sans

RW attempts to bastardize it.

[olegramps]

20. I agree, but it is their steadily gaining acceptance of misinterpretation must be curtailed.

That is I am convinced that legislation that directly makes any attempt to provide the presidency with authoritarian powers that would jeopardize the clear intent of the Founding Fathers system of checks and balances of the three distinct branches of government must be clearly defined and made illegal. The silencing of the free press, which is also assured by the constitution and which is under assault should also be addressed as it is paramount for operation of a democracy.

[Pepsidog]

13. SCOTUS must rule against Trump if the rule of law means anything. It will be 9-0 against Trump.Or,

they refuse to hear the case and let appellate decision stand. Otherwise we are definitely a banana republic.

[hlthe2b]

17. Most constitutional scholars believe it would be 9-0

It seems rather amazing to me that several Duers accuse the likes of Neal Kayal, Laurence Tribe, Bruce Ackerman, even John Dean of being "naive" for those opinions. Why, exactly these noted scholars are not more knowledgeable, rather than "naive", in contrast to even the most "in-tune" political follower escapes me.

[Texin]

25. Welcome to my republic. Call me Chiquita.

[Pepsidog]

80. Yikes! The

[malaise]

3. Thank you very much

Will add to my thread as well

[TruckFump]

5. Thank you and kickedy, kick! EOM

[2naSalit]

6. Thank you!

[B Stieg]

7. K&R!

Thanx for posting!

[MontanaMama]

8. Thank you very much.

[hlthe2b]

14. Starting now...

[malaise]

16. Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Good morning...The Con v Cyrus A Vance

[steventh]

18. kick

nt

[Mersky]

21. K&R!!!

[hlthe2b]

22. Trump lawyer (or DOJ--not sure) is a stammering idiot

Nervous as hell as one would expect when one can't provide answers to support ones case.

Judicial panel is not going to let anything slide.

[catbyte]

23. Can't get it to connect.

Dang!

[hlthe2b]

24. It pauses for a little while before connecting. Clear cache and try again?

Make sure you don't have a pop-up blocker activated too. Try another browser?

[hlthe2b]

29. Rachel Maddow says C-span has added link. Try this

https://t.co/ls428sn7pa

[catbyte]

41. Thanks!

[dewsgirl]

30. NBC has a link on YouTube. I'm floating it.

[eShirl]

40. yep, thanks

listening there now...

[catbyte]

42. Thanks!

[dewsgirl]

44. Your welcome.

[dewsgirl]

43. Thank you.

[Takket]

26. Which case is this?

Is this the one where Dems in House requested the taxes and the law says “treasury shall provide them” and Mnuchin refused?

[hlthe2b]

27. Cyrus Vance, NYSTATE v Trump and DOJ

[solara]

28. kick-a-go-go

[dewsgirl]

31. Kick

[Mike 03]

32. Carey Dunne up now

for the DA.

[Mike 03]

34. Dunne is doing a good job.

He is arguing, basically, tax returns are audited all the time, doesn't matter if you're the president or not. Yes, the president might find it sensitive or embarrassing. The president's counsel is making up their defense... it is a defense that doesn't actually exist.

[DURHAM D]

35. Do we know who is on the bench? nt

[hlthe2b]

37. Three judge panel of US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals identified here: All appointed by Dem President

HERE:The appeals judges for Wednesday's hearing are Denny Chin, Robert Katzmann and Christopher Droney. All three were appointed to the federal bench by Democratic presidents. (CNN)


The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York is hearing the case on a fast track, and lawyers for both sides have agreed to seek immediate review from the Supreme Court.

[malaise]

38. Chief Judge Robert Katzmann, Senior Judge Christopher Droney and Judge Denny Chin

of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/21/manhattan-da-vance-trump-agree-to-further-delay-in-enforcement-of-grand-jury-subpoena/?slreturn=20190923103803

[BumRushDaShow]

39. Yes

The appeals judges for Wednesday's hearing are Denny Chin, Robert Katzmann and Christopher Droney. All three were appointed to the federal bench by Democratic presidents.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/trump-tax-return-appeal/index.html

Full court - http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.html

(6 D + 5 R + 2 vacancies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit)

[BumRushDaShow]

36. Thank you for this

Have been listening for the past 20 minutes or so...

[Mike 03]

45. Kick

[TruckFump]

46. 10 min recess...does this mean they are going to rule from the bench?

Wow...I hope so!!!!

[hlthe2b]

74. Stream has resumed with background court noise. Should start back shortly

[Mike 03]

47. Ten minute recess.

Will the Court decide this today?

[TruckFump]

48. This so interesting.

Glad we have a link to listen.

[Mike 03]

51. Yes. And the audio quality is very good.

Court audio isn't always the best.

[TruckFump]

64. I am hearing impaired and I can follow this without a problem.

Yes, excellent audio.

[Jersey Devil]

50. That is my question as well - why the recess?

Oral argument is clearly over and the only thing they could possibly come back to court for would be a ruling. i understand the case is on an 'expedited" track, but does that mean an immediate ruling? I have never heard of that before

[Mike 03]

52. I don't know either.

I'm no expert but usually a recess at the end of an argument means there will be a ruling, but I don't know if that's always the case.

[Mike 03]

54. Oh wait. I wonder if it was a court recess, not a case recess.

The Judge taking a break before hearing another case?

Hmm...

EDIT: Live stream on Cspan is over. Guess that's it for today.

[Jersey Devil]

62. I think you have the answer

They must have been recessing before hearing arguments on other cases, not a recess in the case they just heard. It is the only thing that makes sense.

[pecosbob]

49. I love the legal stategy of telling judges they don't have jurisdiction

Keep on digging Rs.

[solara]

53. Will they just come back or do we have to re connect?

seems like its been longer than 10 minutes

[hlthe2b]

55. That's how the stream started with a long period of silence, so I expect it will come back shortly

[solara]

56. Thanks! Guess I am impatient

[hlthe2b]

57. Now that I think about it, that may have been a court recess in between cases, so it is possible

the stream is over. Someone said the cspan stream had ended. So...

[BumRushDaShow]

63. The CSPANs will often cut off feeds during breaks

(when they are not actively covering Congress) and will put on some other programming with the expectation to resume if what they were originally covering, returns.

[hlthe2b]

58. Semi "live tweet" of this morning's hearing from Adam Klasfeld (Click on the tweet to see thread)

Link to tweet

[hlthe2b]

59. I think this is over. If you want to read a good summary of this morning's arguments see

Adam Klasfeld's twitter stream

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports

[BumRushDaShow]

60. NBC News still has the live feed running

(i.e., they haven't cut it off)

[BumRushDaShow]

66. As an update, the NBC News feed sent out some annoying audio tone for a couple minutes

but then resumed with the silent feed.

[hlthe2b]

67. Please let us know if it returns..

[BumRushDaShow]

70. Will do.

Have it in a separate window minimized and check it every once in awhile.

[hlthe2b]

72. Background court noise audible now. I think they are resuming soon.

[BumRushDaShow]

77. They cut it off for now. Perhaps they will come back later

so will keep an eye out if they do.

[BumRushDaShow]

75. NBC News finally put up a "This Live Stream has Concluded" notice.

So they are done for now.

[2naSalit]

68. That might be

because there has been so much silence that the booth folks are doing a sound check with what is known as "the tone". I wish they'd get back in session. I wonder why the ten minute recess is now going into 30 minutes.

[BumRushDaShow]

69. It could be that if they are ruling from the bench today

and know it could either get a request for an "en banc" decision and/or go to the SCOTUS, they may be writing up a bit more as their reasoning for their decision (with citations) knowing it will be appealed.

Otherwise maybe a lunch break too.

[2naSalit]

71. Good point...

I hope they make a good enough argument that SCOTUS refuse to grant certiorari.

[StarfishSaver]

61. Thanks for starting this thread

The comments are really interesting, insightful and thought-provoking.

My takeaways -

1. The judges were extraordinarily skeptical of the Trump lawyers' arguments and are likely to rule in favor of the state of New York.

2. The judges are also certain the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Let's hope this prompts them to write a very compelling opinion that covers all the bases.

3. If the appellate court's opinion is strong enough, the Supreme Court might actually deny cert and let the case stand rather than diving into the middle of this controversy.

4. I can't imagine five justices - or even one or two - accepting Trump's argument.

5. The state has made it difficult for the Trump team to drag this out.

[Flo Mingo]

65. k&r

[hlthe2b]

73. Stream has resumed with background court noise. Should start back shortly

[2naSalit]

78. Says the live feed has concluded now.

[hlthe2b]

76. Stream is concluded (note on the screen now)

[2naSalit]

79. Makes me wonder if

the justices are watching the news.

[malaise]

81. Rachel discussing now n/t