Trump wants Supreme Court to read Washington Post interview with Bennie Thompson

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: CNN

As the Supreme Court considers whether to take up former President Donald Trump's January 6 White House records case, Trump's attorney submitted to the court a new filing Wednesday making the court aware of a Washington Post interview with Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs the House select committee seeking the records.

In the interview, the Mississippi Democrat said that the committee's investigation into Trump's delay in calling for his supporters to end their rioting at the US Capitol could lead to a criminal referral to the Justice Department.

"That dereliction of duty causes us real concern," Thompson told the Post. "And one of those concerns is that whether or not it was intentional, and whether or not that lack of attention for that longer period of time, would warrant a referral."

-snip-

Trump's lawyers told the justices Wednesday that the comments back one of his case's key allegations: that the effort to obtain his White House records lacks a legitimate legislative purpose and thus should be blocked.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-wants-supreme-court-to-read-washington-post-interview-with-bennie-thompson/ar-AASft2Y

---

[dweller]

1. So who read this

to mango Mussolini? And did they leave out key points?




✌🏻

[monkeyman1]

10. his lawyer's are as smart as boy wonder Eric !!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Overthrowing democratic elections is not a legislative concern? . . . . nt

[Alexander Of Assyria]

16. Laughable isn't it? Kraken level legal thinking right there. Meanwhile a year has passed

and not a microscopic particle of evidence of election fraud presented.

What’s the hold up, fascists, I would say? Present your case in court….or you have none.

Think there has already been 3 judges dismissing this argument on no legislative intent, with extreme laughter.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. It's just like the trumpanzee suckers buying the "Hillary will be arrested Jan 2017" line. . nt

[Progressive Jones]

3. Stall and Delay. Rinse and Repeat. Maybe trump will die soon. nt

[monkeyman1]

11. that will happen when picked up & bracelets put on & bingo - drop dead on the spot !

[JohnnyRingo]

21. His supporters stood outside waiting...

...for Robert Kennedy, Elvis, and the Tooth Ferry to show up. Do you think they can accept that a heart attack would end their rabid goal? haha

No matter how the geezer leaves, the flood of conspiracy theories will overwhelm us from a broken fire hydrant of lunacy.

[louis-t]

4. Yes, by all means, justices should rule based on a random interview.

Reminds me of when Cheney used to leak fabricated stories to the Post, then ask interviewers "Did you see the article in the Washington Post?"

[gab13by13]

5. SC should not take up the case

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

13. If they're serious about not wanting to appear political, they shoulld deny certiorari.

And they should do it sooner rather than later. By putting off announcing their decision to deny they are accomplishing T****'s goal: delay-delay-delay. They are in essence making a political decision without making it appear political.

[ancianita]

6. Is what tfg's lawyers are referring to a House rule or a law? Pelosi must be laughing,

since the purpose of this non-standing House Select Committee isn't defined by what his lawyers claim.

What Thompson says not in committee is protected by the First Amendment; can talk about what he thinks as an interviewee as much as he wants.

[thenelm1]

7. So, if Thompson's statement has any bearing, what about all the krap...

like calls to Georgia election officials to "find votes" as a starter, and all the documentation of all the other bull hockey TFG was spewing to nullify the election? In all fairness that should all be in the record too, right Donnie? Can't have it both ways dumbass. (Why do I get the impression that TFG is "advising" or dictating to the lawyers, not him taking the advice of his lawyers? That seems to be the way he rolls.)

[Historic NY]

8. Meaning anything that incriminates him should be off limits

What a clod.

[monkeyman1]

9. trump can't ask shit & has no power what so ever -----

the whole Republican Taliban need's to get this threw there thick skull! ! he is dead weight for them !! his word & brand is complete garbage now !! everybody in the U.S. knows this !! wtf !!!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. No first or second tier lawfirm will represent TFG

No decent lawyer will represent TFG and so he as some third and fourth tier lawyers who are willing to file what every stupid argument that TFG tells them to file. No first tier lawyer would file this article and it is clear that TFG told is so-called attorneys to make this filing

[monkeyman1]

14. wonder how many think they will get paid ?? roflmfao !!

[trusty elf]

15. ...

[mahina]

27. What is that

[Botany]

17. ? for any lawyers out there.

Just because Chairman Thompson has an opinion on something how does that change
the House's Jan 6th Committee's Constitutional right to see papers that are no longer
under TFG's control but under the control of the Biden Administration and the National
Archives?


BTW be still my beating heart, "would warrant a referral." Would that be a criminal referral to the DoJ?

[onenote]

23. The Committee's power to demand documents is not unlimited.

As the DC Circuit acknowledged in its decision upholding the validity of the subpoena for Trump's documents, the power of Congress to conduct investigations is not expressly found in the Constitution but has been recognized as an inherent part of its legislative power:

"Congress’s power to conduct investigations appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution. Yet it is settled law that Congress possesses “the power of inquiry” as “an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.”"

But that power isn't unlimited. Again, from the DC Circuit (with citations to Supreme Court decisions):

"Congress’s power to investigate has limits, however. Because it is “justified solely as an adjunct to the legislative process[,]” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 197, “a congressional subpoena is valid only if it is ‘related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress[,]’” Mazars, 140 S. Ct. at 2031 (quoting Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187). That generally means it must “concern[] a subject on which ‘legislation could be had.’” Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 506 (1975) (quoting McGrain, 273 U.S. at 177)."

The DC Circuit went on to acknowledge thatt Congress may not issue a subpoena for the purpose of law enforcement:

"Relatedly, “Congress may not issue a subpoena for the purpose of ‘law enforcement,’ because ‘those powers are assigned under our Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary.’” Mazars, 140 S. Ct. at 2032 (quoting Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955)). Likewise, “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Watkins, 345 U.S. at 200."

The issue is whether the true purpose of the January 6 Committee investigation is law enforcement or legislative. I don't think the courts will hold that the two are mutually exclusive, but they will have to decide that the legislative purpose isn't a pretext or sham to get around the limitation. While the Chairman's interview isn't fatal, it also isn't helpful.

[Botany]

25. " ... the January 6 Committee investigation is law enforcement or legislative."

I thought it was neither but instead it was "fact finding" although any facts that are discovered
in the hearing might be sent along to the DoJ.

Thanx for your answers!

[kentuck]

19. Trying to play the referees...

To the very end.

[JohnnyRingo]

20. Sounds like there's a lot riding on John Robert's shoulders.

Chief Justice John Robert's court will go down in history as the most consequential panel one way or the other. We know the flacks that republicans installed, particularly the ones Trump named, so if Roberts takes it up we have a good idea how it will go. If he chooses not to hear it, it goes back to the previous court. Even if it does go to the Supreme, John Roberts holds a lot of power and sway.

We'll see how this shakes down.

[bucolic_frolic]

22. To The Supreme Court of the United States, there's no evidence like newspaper articles

Soft facts from a softer mind

[onenote]

26. Courts can and do take judicial notice of newspaper articles

Either on their own or upon request from a party. Moreover, in finding that the Committee was seeking information in pursuit of a legitimate legislative function (not law enforcement), the DC Circuit expressly stated that it relied upon, among other things, the "public statements" of members of the Committee.

That being said, I don't think a majority of the Court will conclude that the article establishes that the stated legislative purpose of the subpoena is a sham or pretext for what is really intended to be a law enforcement-oriented proceeding. But, to be honest, the article wasn't helpful either.

[Corgigal]

24. Mr. ex-man

can not request anyone actively doing any federal job, to now read or do anything.

Needs to just playing a pretend rich dude, and understand he’s just a ex-man.