#since conflict and misconduct were rare | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

serendipitous-posts · 5 years ago

Text

Pearl’s Place in the Wayfarer Au

I have actually gone mad with imaginary power, I am the make believe God of this world, and I am fixing some things.

I always hated the Rose was Pink Diamond Reveal; not only because it was really only for shock value and destroyed Rose Quartz’s character, but, more importantly, it destroyed Pearls.

So, some changes have been made for this Au

Pearl was born as Facet-4P3L Cut-2XX, and was specifically made for White Diamond after her last Pearl was shattered due to incompetence

Pearl was slightly unusual due to her colouring-usually a Diamond’s Pearl matches up with their colours exactly- like how Blue Pearl has blue skin and hair, and Yellow Pearl has yellow skin, hair and eyes. But our Pearl has white skin, blue eyes and a peachy pink hair. It wasn’t a defect; it was just odd since Pearl’s aren’t usually this colourful

White Diamond was less than pleased that Pearl didn’t look exactly like her; in the whiteness that was her court, Pearl stood out. But, as Pearl did her job well, there wasn’t really a reason to shatter her as long as she stayed out of the way

Working under White Diamond was awful. Absolute perfection was expected at all times, and punishments were common in her court for misconduct. Pearl was constantly on edge, constantly stressed and while her fellow Pearls tried to help her out, there was only so much they could do from different courts

Pearl developed an anxiety disorder from the constant, neverending paranoia, and some pretty severe OCD

Pearls who work for Diamonds are the highest rankest Pearls out there, but that’s not saying much. All that really means is that nobody will shatter or poof them for screwing up. They had no rights, no possessions, nothing, and if they ever made a mistake in a Diamonds presence . . well

Let’s just say Pearl has a very good reason to be obsessed with perfection and cleaning in the present day. There’s a reason why Pearl has so little self esteem

And then Pink Diamond broke her Pearl, and asked White if they could switch out

Pink Pearl, who was so used to the childish Pink Diamond, was clearly out of place in White’s Court. One day, she makes a joke, or screws something up, and White decides to brainwash her. An extra pair of eyes and ears, how useful! And no more annoying Pearl, chattering and flitting about her Court, a win-win really

Our Pearl, though is over the moon! Pink Diamonds Court is naturally a lot more relaxed, and though she does find that annoying at times, she can get away with a lot more now. She can finally relax a bit

She sees Spinel a couple of times, though they’re not really friends. Spinel usually stays in the garden and rarely visits Homeworld, while Pearl never really visits the garden save for a couple of rare occasions

Spinel is the only one of her kind, however, and was created after the Pearl’s swap, so to Pearl she is very memorable as she remembers the day she was first brought in

When she discovers what happened with Pink Pearl, she is horrified, but a small part of her is guiltily grateful. After all, White now has a different Pearl, she has no use for her . . . .

Unless Pink asks to swap back again

To say she panics is an understatement. She doesn’t want what happened to Pink Pearl to happen to her, so she does everything she can to make Pink Diamond happy, anything to stop her from sending her back to White Diamond. This dynamic, of Pearl giving and giving, and Pink Diamond taking it all, is incredibly toxic, but Pink Diamond doesn’t realise this, thinking Pearl just wants to be her friend

She falls back into her old ways, walking on eggshells around everyone, with panic attacks start becoming more and more common. The very real threat that Pink may send her back if she gets bored of her is very real

And a part of her tries to justify it, says that maybe Pink Pearl deserved it somehow- White had never punished her like that, after all, and she was a massive screw up, so Pink Pearl must of have done something seriously bad to get that

What she doesn’t yet realise is that the realisation that what White Diamond did to Pink Pearl was horrifying, that was the first step to freedom; the subconscious acknowledgement that what the most perfect Diamond had done was wrong, and she didn’t want it to happen to her

Before I go on, I should say the one big thing I’m changing between this AU and canon, besides the Pink Pearl and Spinel thing

In this AU, Pearl didn’t know Rose Quartz was Pink Diamond

When Pink got her colony, she was overjoyed, and visited often, but it was around this time that dissent was starting to rise up through the ranks

Pearl ignored them, of course. Her job was to serve her Diamond, not take part in a stupid war. . . . .. but she still exchanges information with Yellow and Blue Pearl, because they’re friends and she’s curious

But she doesn’t have an interest in the rebellion. She’s a Pearl, and a fairly high ranking one too. Pink Diamond has treated her very well, as well as anyone can treat a Pearl, and her diamond has never mistreated anyone

Then she finds out how Pink Pearl became cracked

It was accidental, to be honest; the simple fact that there had been another Pearl in the room when Pink Diamond slammed Pink Pearl into a wall, screaming awful things at her. It wasn’t like anyone was going to believe the word of a Pearl over a Diamond, but she wanted to warn Pearl, to let her know of the dangers of Pink Diamonds temper

And now, now Pearl is conflicted. Her Diamond slammed a Pearl into a wall. Who cares? But why would she do it? Pinkie was just standing there, she didn’t do anything! Diamond’s are perfect, I’m sure she had her reasons. I know her reasons, she got into a fight with White! Oh, so you think it’s White’s fault?

Had it been any other situation, had it been any other Pearl, things may of have gone differently. But Pearl had been coded to serve White Diamond, and then given to Pink.

Had Pink Diamond gotten into a fight with, say, Yellow, and then hurt Pink Pearl, then Pearl would of have jumped to blame Yellow Diamond. While Pearl’s are bred to adore all Diamonds, they are usually loyal to the Diamond they serve. But Pearl served both, leaving her confused

Pearl’s protect each other. They’re all they have, and the idea of Pinkie, her friend, getting attacked for no reason-

And, for the very first time, doubt solidifies in Pearl’s stomach. Were the Diamond’s flawless? Because this didn’t seem perfect

A part of her starts to . . not resent but begin to begin to resent Pink Diamond. She’s starting to realise that Pink Diamond isn’t some perfect matriarch, she’s more like a gemling, wanting to be entertained, and as long as Pearl does this, she is useful

Every Pearl is created for a specific purpose to suit their master and Pearl was created as a sort of super computer for White, to process data. She was never meant to entertain, and was never supposed to be expected to. The idea that she could be shattered because of something outside of her coding is galling- she always imagined that when she would be shattered, it would be because of her own incompetence

The doubt grows and grows and grows like a tumour, and she finally realises: none of this is her fault. Not hers or Pink Pearl’s. It’s not even arrogance, it’s simple data and facts, the very core of her being. Pinkie was created to entertain, not process and organise. The fact that she failed would be like if we humans judged a fish for not being able to climb, it’s not in their coding.

But if it’s not their fault. . . . . then aren’t the Diamond’s the one to blame?

She asks Blue and Yellow Pearl to find her a dissenter, and asks to join the rebellion

She spread information through the courts, becoming a messenger between them, all the while ignoring the blank gaze of what had once been Pink Pearl

Stories came in, describing Earth’s beauty, and the creatures living on it. But, more than that, stories of shatterings, of experiments on gems, of backstabbing, of cruelty, all of them circulating Homeworld and beyond

The idea of rebellion had been on the rise long before Rose Quartz ever showed up, but when she did, they had a figurehead, and everyone flocked to her

Rose Quartz was very surprised to see Pearl there, and tried asking about why she was here, and Pearl told her everything she had learned and seen and experienced

I think, to Pink Diamond, this would of have been an eye opening experience. She had seen Pearl, like Pink Pearl, as a friend. Sure, she was slightly awkward about it all, but she seemed so eager to help and do things for her that she just assumed-

But hearing this, this hatred in Pearl’s voice, when describing what she had done to her former Pearl- and a part of her cringed at how awful it sounded when Pearl described it to her

So, the rebellion happens as per normal, and Pearl falls for Rose, as per usual, and the rest of the show happens

Rose Quartz fakes her own death either by using a projection or just leaving some “diamond shards” and shapeshifting while sprinting away

Sometimes she wonders what happened to her fellow Pearls, and are they alright. If Blue and Yellow Diamond ever found out that their Pearls had been passing along information, if Pink Pearl was ever released-

She feels a lot of guilt over what happened with Pink Pearl, and feels even guiltier that she was relieved that it was Pink instead of her that was brainwashed. She tries to make up for it in other ways, throwing herself into battle to save others, being reckless, working herself into the ground to help others-

It’s really not healthy

Centuries later, Pearl discovers that Pink Pearl and Spinel have been on Earth since the end of the Gem War, travelling all over

The reunion is probably filled with a lot of crying, shouting and “where have you been, you clod”’s

The other gems are very confused

So there we go. Pearl was always one of my favourite characters- besides Peridot, and the brutal annihilation of her character was always really annoying to me. I’ll probably go into detail into how Pearl reacted when she discovered who Rose really was (hint; badly) but at a later date.

The Rose and Pearl ship has always had the potential to be super toxic- with how quickly Rose shifted her attention onto Greg, completely ignoring Pearl’s feelings, how Rose basically decided to die and leave the gems to figure out the corrupted gems and the threat of Homeworld and raise Steven.

In show, Pearl and Garnet episodes are usually centered around Rose or fusion/future vision respectively, so I think in this Au, we’re going to have some changes, maybe a couple actually focusing on the implications of Pearl being a slave, or Garnet refiguring out her place in the team.

And I’m really tempted to make this Au VolleySpinEarl (though her nickname will not be Volleyball)

#steven universe au #wayfarer au #pink pearl #pearl steven universe #white diamond pearl #pearl belonged to white diamond first #spinearl #volleypearl #volleyspinearl

8 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 4 years ago

Text

Headlines

Born to prevent war, UN at 75 faces deeply polarized world (AP) Born out of World War II’s devastation to save succeeding generations from the scourge of conflict, the United Nations officially marks its 75th anniversary Monday at an inflection point in history, navigating a polarized world as it faces a pandemic, regional conflicts, a shrinking economy and growing inequality. Criticized for spewing out billions of words and achieving scant results on its primary mission of ensuring global peace, the U.N. nonetheless remains the one place that its 193 member nations can meet to talk. And as frustrating as its lack of progress often is, especially when it comes to preventing and ending crises, there is also strong support for its power to bring not only nations but people of all ages from all walks of life, ethnicities and religions together to discuss critical issues. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, looking back on the U.N.’s history in an AP interview in June, said its biggest accomplishment so far is the long period during which the most powerful nations didn’t go to war and nuclear conflict was avoided. Its biggest failing, he said: its inability to prevent medium and small conflicts.

Global trade rebounding (WSJ) Global trade is rebounding much more quickly this year than it did after the 2008 financial crisis, lifting parts of the world economy and defying predictions the pandemic could send globalization into permanent retreat. When the new coronavirus hit earlier this year, international trade in goods suffered the biggest year-over-year drop since the Great Depression. Economists warned of rising protectionism, and some companies said they would reassess overseas supply chains that were vulnerable to unexpected shocks. Trade remains below pre-pandemic levels. Still, it has snapped back robustly—and had recovered about half of this year’s historic loss by June, according to calculations by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank.

Dwindling ranks, declining public support plague police (Washington Post) Police forces are suffering from diminishing ranks, slumping morale and declining public support as the nation nears the end of a long, fraught summer defined by protests against policing tactics and racial injustice. Agency leaders and experts say the months of demonstrations have left officers strained and departments struggling to both recruit officers and keep the ones they have. The Portland Police Bureau in Oregon lost 49 officers to retirement in August, more than during all of 2019. The Atlanta Police Department, which became the focus of protests after a police shooting this summer, said about 140 officers have resigned so far this year, up from 80 during the same period last year. “Our workforce in general is pretty emotionally and physically fatigued,” said William H. “Skip” Holbrook, the police chief in Columbia, S.C. Weary officers were further shaken by the Sept. 12 ambush shooting of two Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies as they sat in a police car. One is still hospitalized while the other has been released. Combined with the surge in nationwide demonstrations and calls to defund their departments, police in the United States say they feel under siege. Public opinion on policing has shifted. In a survey this summer, the Pew Research Center found that while most Americans still believe police do an excellent or a good job protecting people from crime, the percentage of people who think they use the right amount of force, treat racial groups equally and hold officers accountable for misconduct all fell by double-digit points since 2016.

Trump Expected to Name a Replacement for Ginsburg in the Coming Days (Foreign Policy) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday while undergoing treatment for cancer, leading to an outpouring of grief but instantly opening a new battleground in an already intense political fight between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden less than two months before the country’s presidential election. As Foreign Policy’s Michael Hirsh wrote, Ginsburg’s “replacement could crucially tilt the court” toward either its conservative or liberal wing. With fewer than 50 days until the election, the timing of Ginsburg’s death leaves little time to complete the often long and cumbersome nomination process. There are also questions over how Senate Republicans will handle the situation. Republicans controversially blocked former President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, Merrick Garland, arguing that a president shouldn’t have the power to appoint a new Supreme Court justice in an election year. Leading Republicans have already backtracked on the logic they used to block Garland, signaling that they will facilitate the nomination process once Trump selects a replacement. But with a small 53-47 majority in the 100-member Senate, Democrats would only need four Republicans to vote against Trump’s pick to push the appointment until after the election.

How California Became Ground Zero for Climate Disasters (NYT) California is one of America’s marvels. By moving vast quantities of water and suppressing wildfires for decades, the state has transformed its arid and mountainous landscape into the richest, most populous and bounteous place in the nation. But now, those same feats have given California a new and unwelcome category of superlatives. This year is the state’s worst wildfire season on record. That follows its hottest August on record; a punishing drought that lasted from 2011 to last year; and one of its worst flood emergencies on record three years ago, when heavy rains caused the state’s highest dam to nearly fail, forcing more than 180,000 people to flee. The same manufactured landscapes that have enabled California’s tremendous growth, building the state into a $3 trillion economy that is home to one in 10 Americans, have also left it more exposed to climate shocks, experts say. And those shocks will only get worse. “There’s sort of this sense that we can bend the world to our will,” said Kristina Dahl, a senior climate scientist in San Francisco for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Climate change is exposing the vulnerabilities in the systems that we’ve engineered.”

Tropical Storm Beta makes landfall on Texas coast (AP) Tropical Storm Beta made landfall on the upper Texas coast late Monday night. The storm made landfall about 5 miles (8 kilometers) north of Port O’Connor, Texas, with maximum winds of 45 mph (72 kph), the U.S. National Hurricane Center said. Its winds weakened as it made its way to shore over several days. Beta was the ninth named storm that made landfall in the continental U.S. this year. That tied a record set in 1916, according to Colorado State University hurricane researcher Phil Klotzbach. The biggest unknown from Beta was how much rainfall it could produce in areas that have already seen their share of damaging weather during a busy hurricane season.

Cuba’s Economy Was Hurting. The Pandemic Brought a Food Crisis. (NYT) It was a lucky day for the unemployed tourism guide in Havana. The line to get into the government-run supermarket, which can mean a wait of eight or 10 hours, was short, just two hours long. And better yet, the guide, Rainer Companioni Sánchez, scored toothpaste—a rare find—and splurged $3 on canned meat. Cuba, a police state with a strong public health care system, was able to quickly control the coronavirus, even as the pandemic threw wealthier nations into crisis. But its economy, already hurting from crippling U.S. sanctions and mismanagement, was particularly vulnerable to the economic devastation that followed. As nations closed airports and locked down borders to combat the spread of the virus, tourist travel to Cuba plummeted and the island lost an important source of hard currency, plunging it into one of the worst food shortages in nearly 25 years. What food is available is often found only in government-run stores that are stocked with imports and charge in dollars. The strategy, also used in the 1990s, during the economic depression known as the “special period,” is used by the government to gather hard currency from Cubans who have savings or get money from friends or relatives abroad. Even in these stores, goods are scarce and prices can be exorbitant: That day, Mr. Companioni couldn’t find chicken or cooking oil, but there was 17-pound ham going for $230 and a seven-pound block of manchego cheese with a $149 price tag.

Madrid asks for Spanish army's help in battling coronavirus surge (Reuters) Madrid’s regional government chief requested the army’s help on Monday in fighting the coronavirus surge in the Spanish capital where local authorities ordered a partial lockdown of some poorer districts, prompting protests. At the height of the first wave of the pandemic in March-April, Spain deployed thousands of troops to help civilian authorities contain the outbreak. A recent spike in infections, peaking at over 10,000 per day, took cumulative cases above 670,000 as of Monday, the highest in Western Europe, while the number of deaths from the COVID-19 respiratory disease in Spain stood at 30,663. Meanwhile, residents in the southern district of Vallecas, one of the areas where a partial lockdown took effect on Monday, were upset but resigned to the curbs as police stopped cars getting in and out of the neighbourhood.

Indian couple run street-side classes for poor students (AP) On a quiet road in India’s capital, tucked away on a wide, red-bricked sidewalk, kids set adrift by the country’s COVID-19 lockdown are being tutored. The children, ages 4 to 14, carry book bags more than 2 kilometers (a mile) from their thatched-roof huts on the banks of the Yamuna River to this impromptu, roadside classroom. There, they receive free lessons in math, science, English and physical education, taught by a former Indian diplomat and his wife. It all began when Veena Gupta’s maid, who lives on bank of the river, complained that with schools shut, children in her impoverished community were running amok and wasting time. Veena, a singer and grandmother of three, and her husband, Virendra Gupta, decided to go out to the street and teach the kids so they are not left behind when school reopens. “They don’t have access to internet, their schools are shut and they don’t have any means to learn,” said Veena, who bought books, pencils, notebooks and other teaching materials, and set up the small, open-air classroom under the shade of a leafy banyan tree. India’s stringent lockdown to curb the spread of COVID-19 shut schools across the country in late March. Most remain closed. The street-side classes have grown as dozens of children showed keen interest. Now the Guptas—with help from their driver, Heera—teach three different groups three times a week, morning and evening. After class, the children are treated to homemade lemonade and cookies prepared by Veena.

Salarymen (Bloomberg) Japanese companies like to recruit employees fresh out of school and then keep them for the rest of their lives. In 2018, 70 percent of open jobs went to new grads. About one out of every four workers in Japan has been at their job more than 20 years, a figure that in the States is only around one in 10. This means that companies cutting back on hiring in 2021 will be devastating for the careers of an entire graduating class, and possibly for the rest of their lives: the jobs-per-applicant ratio is lower than ever amid 122,000 fewer openings. When this same thing happened in the late 1990s, the effects were felt decades later: among that era’s college grads, 35 percent of men and 9.6 percent of women are yet to find full-time employment. This is prompting a push for more job mobility in the country.

Alone among nations, US moves to restore UN Iran sanctions (AP) The United States slapped additional sanctions on Iran on Monday after the Trump administration’s disputed unilateral weekend declaration that all United Nations penalties eased under the 2015 nuclear deal had been restored. The announcement came in defiance of nearly all U.N. members, including U.S. allies in Europe, who have rejected U..S. legal standing to impose the international sanctions. It set the stage for an ugly showdown at the annual U.N. General Assembly this week and also came as President Donald Trump seeks to portray himself as a champion for Middle East stability ahead of November’s presidential election. The sanctions include freezes on any assets those targeted may have in U.S. jurisdictions, bar Americans from doing business with them and, perhaps most importantly, open up foreign governments. companies and individuals to U.S. penalties if they engage in transactions with them.

Opposition growing in the Ivory Coast (Foreign Policy) The political crisis in the Ivory Coast is escalating as opposition leaders have called for the public to engage in acts of civil disobedience to block President Alassane Ouattara’s bid for a third term. Critics of Ouattara, who was first elected president in 2010, argue that his candidacy violates the two-term limit set in the country’s constitution. His supporters, however, contend that Ouattara’s term count was reset because the constitution was ratified in 2016, after he took office. Protests against Ouattara have gripped the country since last month, leaving more than 12 people dead and raising concerns that next month’s presidential election could plunge the country into another deadly civil war.

#headlines #news

1 note · View note

districofcolumbiaprelawland-blog · 4 years ago

Text

The Evolution Of The Fourth Amendment: From Protecting The Public To Protecting The Police

By Jacob Prince, American University Class of 2021

February 23, 2021

The Fourth Amendment details the protections that civilians have in relation to government entities. It protects them from “unreasonable searches and seizures” without a proper and valid warrant. [1] The protection from search and seizure derives from English law, prohibiting the monarchy from infringing on their subjects’ private property. The same concept was applied to the United States in the 18th century, which limited the federal government’s authority over one’s land or possession. In the present day, protection from unlawful search and seizure is most commonly applied to the power that the police have over the general public. However, the Fourth Amendment does not protect people from use of force, either reasonable or unreasonable. Meanwhile, the application of the Fourth Amendment has been weakened since its implementation in the Bill of Rights. Supreme Court rulings have given more authority to the police force to exert searches and seizures without a proper warrant. Should the court system continue to use the Fourth Amendment as the legal backbone of police use of force and misconduct?

In the case of Terry v. Ohio in 1968, the Supreme Court set the precedent of stop and frisk, the concept that police can search anyone deemed suspicious, as not unconstitutional. The practice of stop and frisk allows the police to search an individual without a warrant or probable cause for an arrest. [2] Terry v. Ohio preceded several other Supreme Court rulings in favor of expanding on police powers. In the 1983 case Michigan v. Long, the Supreme Court extended stop and frisk to traffic stops with any sense of suspicion. [3] Outside of stop and frisk policy, the courts have authorized the power to search without warrants in special cases. For instance, the case United States v. Robinson in 1973 concluded that a viable arrest nullifies the need for a warrant to search the individual under arrest. [4]

The Fourth Amendment has evolved to include the protection against unnecessary and excessive use of force by the police. However, the courts empower the police to use some degree of force and to threaten the use of force. These two principles were decided by Graham v. Connor of 1989, which created the reasonableness test for evaluating the reasons behind the actions of a police officer when using physical force. [5] Despite the fact that these court decisions grant the general public rights when interacting with the police, it also paved the way for police officers to be acquitted more commonly in cases involving police misconduct. The Supreme Court adopted the theory “totality of circumstances” to determine excessive force by police officers, but the theory is rudimentary in real practice. [6] Rhetoric constructed to outline necessary and unnecessary use of force by the police is convoluted, and only aids the police in cases of excessive physical force. [7] An example of this is the case of Clabrook v. Birchwell, brought to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Quintana Claybrook, a third party to the event, was shot during police intervention, but the Fourth Amendment was inapplicable to the case, according to the court. [8] It is evident that the Fourth Amendment is cited for misconduct and illegitimate use of force by the police, but rarely does it protect people from use of force or physical seizure.

In recent decades, government interference in personal technological devices and private data has entered the discussion pertaining to the Fourth Amendment applicability. President George W. Bush’s Patriot Act of 2001 served as the catalyst of widespread government surveillance into the general public’s private phones after the terrorist attack of 9/11. The law expanded law enforcement’s ability to tap into phones, including phone calls, text messages, and other forms of electronic data. [9] Critics of the Patriot Act argue that the law is unconstitutional, directly conflicting with the Fourth Amendment’s improper search and seizure principle. Government interference in private data is controversial since personal phones now contain sensitive information, including private conversations, financial information, private photos and videos, and other sensitive material. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Fourth Amendment in the Riley v. California case in 2014, which prohibited police from unlawful search and seizure of personal phones.[10] In addition, the court ruling of Carpenter v. United States in 2018 strengthened the Fourth Amendment to include phone locations, called cell site location information. [11]

Despite positive efforts to protect personal devices, courts have ruled in support of law enforcement around the southern border of the United States. Border Patrol agents have been given increased authority to search people’s belongings and phones without a warrant. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that searches conducted by Border Patrol agents without a proper warrant are not unconstitutional, citing the need to protect the interests of the country’s security. [12] In the decision, the court ruled that the jurisdiction of Border Patrol agents should extend from 100 miles away from the north and south borders and along the coasts. 200 million people live within 100 miles of borders and coasts, with cities like New York City and Los Angeles included in these zones. Border agents can conduct routine searches of anyone they deem necessary in these areas, with cell phones and other belongings susceptible to searches. [13]

Though the Fourth Amendment was drafted to give protections to the citizens from unlawful searches and seizures, recent history has convoluted these protections. Court interpretations of the Fourth Amendment have overwhelmingly awarded law enforcement entities more authority to search the general public’s property and to use force. The court rulings have also created more room for immunity for police officers and other law enforcement personnel. The landmark Supreme Court rulings granted law enforcement more protection to continue their use of stop and frisk tactics, physical use of force, and to search personal technological devices.

______________________________________________________________

[1] The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 4.

[2] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968)

[3] Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983)

[4] United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)

[5] Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989)

[6] Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213 (1983)

[7] Seth W. Stoughton, How the Fourth Amendment Frustrates the Regulation of Police Violence, 70 Emory L. J. 521 (2021).

[8] Clabrook v. Birchwell, 2000 FED App. 0014P (6th Cir.)

[9] Public Law 107–56: Uniting and Strenghenig America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001. (115 STAT. 272; Date: 10/26/01; enacted H.R. 3162)

[10] Riley v. California, 573 U. S. 373 (2014)

[11] Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 138 (2018)

[12] Alasaad v. Mayorkas, No. 1:17-cv-11730-DJC (D. Mass Aug. 14, 2020)

[13] ACLU, The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone, https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone.

0 notes

juniperpublisherscasestudies · 4 years ago

Text

Juniper Publishers- Open Access Journal of Case Studies

Exraspinal Teratoma-A Rare Case Report

Authored by Neema Tiwari

Abstract

Sacrococcygeal teratoma (SCT) is a well known tumor of the newborn with a male: female ratio of about 1: 3 has an excellent prognosis provided adequate surgical treatment is given to the patient. Teratoma is believed to arise from the totipotent somatic cells that originate from the primitive knot (Hensen’s node) presenting usually attached to the coccyx. We present a case report of a 1 year female who presented with midline swelling in the saccrococcygeal region since birth. The baby was operated and specimen sent for histopathology, where a diagnosis of extra spinal teratoma was made. The patient was kept on one month follow-up after 15 day post operative period and is healthy.

Introduction

Sacrococcygeal teratoma (SCT) is a well known tumor of the newborn with a male: female ratio of about 1: 3 has an excellent prognosis provided adequate surgical treatment is given to the patient 1. It has a reported incidence of approximately one in 35,000-40,000 live births [1-3]. Although generally a rare condition, it is said to be the most common tumor in the neonatal period. Historically, teratomas were attributed to demons, sexual misconduct and abnormal fertilization [4]. However scientifically there are many conflicting theories for its origin, the most commonly accepted theory being the presence of three germ cell layers giving rise to teratomas of various sizes and shapes [4,5]. Teratoma is believed to arise from the totipotent somatic cells that originate from the primitive knot (Hensen’s node) presenting usually attached to the coccyx [5,6]. Here with we present a case report of a 1 year female who presented with midline swelling in the saccro-coccyxegeal region since birth. The baby was operated and specimen sent for histopathology, where a diagnosis of extra spinal teratoma was made. The patient was kept on one month follow-up after 15 day post operative period and is healthy.

Case History

A 1 year female presented with swelling in the lumbar region with difficulty in walking. Spinal MRI revealed a heterogeneously enhancing mass lesion in the saccrococcygeal region. All other routine investigations were within normal limits.

Gross findings: A globular soft tissue piece with attached skin measuring 6x5x3cms was received. The growth measured 4x2cms while the skin ellipse measured 2x3 cms. Outer surface of growth had mucosal rugosities while inner surface had fibrofatty tissue and cartilaginous areas. Specimen was fixed in 10% formalin after giving multiple incisions for the formalin to penetrate.

Microscopic examination: Section from tissue show stratified squamous epithelial lining. Underlying fibrocollagenous stroma show glands lined by mucin containing columnar cells. Section also showed smooth muscle fibres, adipocytes, gastrointestinal epithelium, nerve fibres, lymphoid tissue and cartilage and mild chronic inflammatory infiltrate was also seen. A diagnosis of extra spinal teratoma was made (Figure 1-5).

Discussion

Immature malignant sacrococcygeal teratoma (SCT) is a rare tumor occurring in the neonates with a female predilection. The most frequent site of tumor occurrence is the lumbar region and the child usually presents with a lumbar region growth. The most common theory accepted for its development is that it is a benign tumor that has been derived from the three germinal layers in the sacrococcygeal region [3]. The incidence of this tumor type is one in 35,000 to 40,000 live births .The most common diagnostic modality available for its diagnosis is the prenatal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Due to lack of study data in the field of Sacrococcygeal and cervical teratomas, they are being considered an interesting field for research [7].

Human tails and pseudotails are rare sacrococcygeal lesions that are associated with a wide variety of anomalies and syndromes. These tails and pseudotails occur in common conjunction with Anorectal malformations. These malformations are relatively uncommon congenital defects that often occur in with syndromes or other congenital abnormalities [8]. The anomalies associated with both disorders determine the timing and approach to surgical correction. Presence of both imperforate anus and a pseudo tail in the absence of a syndrome or other associated anomalies is an unusual phenomenon necessitating the need of a thorough preoperative evaluation. A true tail is defined as the remnant of the embryonic tail, which usually regresses during the seventh and eighth weeks of gestation. A pseudo tail is a protrusion from the lumbosacrococcygeal area that may be composed of normal or abnormal tissues but is not derived from the embryologic tail [7].

In contrast to the newborn with SCT, the fetus in utero with SCT remains at high risk of perinatal complications and death [9]. Fetuses with SCT detected antenatally have three times mortality rate compared with postnatally diagnosed neonates [10]. The cause of in utero fetal death can be maternal obstetric complications of tumor rupture, preterm labor, or dystocia [9]. The typical presentation of SCT as a skin-covered lumbosacral masses in the newborns leads to an array of possible diagnoses, ranging from benign hamartomas to aggressive malignancies and meningoceles [9].

A neonate with sacrococcygeal teratoma (SCT) has an excellent prognosis depending on the timing of diagnosis, the ease of surgical resection and malignant potential of the tumor [10].

Conclusion

Anorectal malformations and skin-covered midline growths present as a challenging diagnostic and therapeutic entities because of the extensive differential diagnoses ranging from benign hamartomas to aggressive malignancies and meningocoele and the array of associated anomalies. Hence extensive discussion and research is needed to improve the neonatal morbidity and mortality due to extra spinal teratomas.

For more articles in Open Access Journal of Case Studies please click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/jojcs/index.php

#More About Juniper Publishers #about juniper journals #Juniper Publishers #Surgical case reports #Emergency Medicine #Gastrointestinal Surgery #Hospice and Palliative Medicine

0 notes

peakwealth · 4 years ago

Text

WHEN CONSTABULARY DUTY TO BE DONE (and paid for)

Defund the police?

A slow day in the heart of Bogotá, Colombia (2013)

I've been meaning to return to the tantalizing issue of 'defunding' the police. It has lingered in the news all summer, tracking the Black Lives Matter movement as it spread around much of the world.

When you stop to think about it, the drive to defund the police must seem, to many people, a non-starter. Not a smart idea, too impulsive and ideological. For others it is long overdue. They recognize it as a revolutionary spark, a signal that the time has come not only to rein in the security forces but to rethink the social order, the structure of authority and its implementation.

Let's look at the first reaction, the one of prudent disbelief.

In essence, it says: don't mess with the cops. We live in an increasingly disorderly, embittered world where things will get out of hand sooner or later, or, as they say in French, they will overflow. Who would want to fiddle with emergency services, least of all the constabulary, in such unstable times? Who would want to begrudge them their rights and privileges when things go wrong and they are actually needed.

Even at times when nothing goes wrong, our fraying social fabric, the growing insecurity and belligerence in many corners of society will bring about situations where security forces are called for. Short of sending in the army, the police then act as circuit breakers of last resort. At least, that's the theory.

But that has little to do with police brutality.

Let me say that I sometimes feel a touch of sympathy for individual cops who face prosecution after a public outcry over acts of police violence. What the victims perceive as 'misconduct' or unwarranted force may seem nothing more than appropriate to the police officers applying it. Even when the police ‘cross the line', it probably is, in their own frame of reference, what society condones and what the victims deserve. A random correction in real time. Criminal charges can therefore appear a little unfair since the use of force is part of the playbook of policing. It can easily be argued that the offending officers were only doing what was expected from them, implicitly or even explicitly.

What this also means is that police brutality cannot be dismissed as a rotten-apple issue, it is systemic. Nor is it essentially an American problem, it exists to varying degrees all over the world. I'm not thinking here of countries where 'institutions are weak' (to use that most diplomatic phrase), where police brutality is taken for granted, where torture and extrajudicial killings have become a form of de facto law enforcement (like in Mexico, the Philippines, Honduras, Egypt, Brazil, Syria...).

I'm not even thinking of, say, Belarus or of India where a father and his son both died recently while in police custody. Their offence was not to have observed coronavirus restrictions. Nor am I thinking of the unforgettable footage of an American psychopath cop itching to blow away an unarmed suspect who was lying on the floor of a hotel corridor, in no position to resist arrest. And then he pulled the trigger.

A lot of similarly dramatic footage has accumulated over the years since body cams and dash cams were introduced, notably in the USA. They show both overt racism and the errors of judgment made by nervous cops who did what came naturally to them when the option of lethal force was available.

Pop, pop, pop and another 'offender' goes down. It can look and sound quite anticlimactic in the videos, cursory, except that death is irreversible.

Gun violence is so common in the USA it should be no surprise that police officers make use of the weapons put at their disposal when confronted with threats, real or imagined. Some opt to open fire to be on the safe side. In most instances, they act with a reasonable degree of assurance that they will remain immune if not from prosecution itself, then from serious sanction. They are, after all, doing their job and everyone knows that police work is not for the faint of heart (*).

No, I am thinking of countries where guns are rarely drawn and where some of the trust between the public and the police has survived. Even there, the essential bond between the citizens and police, based on consent by the former, and on the impartiality and accountability by the latter, is fraying.

Too often the police are out of step when citizens are treated not as beneficiaries of a public service but as an underclass of dissidents who haven't figured out what the police are for and whom they ultimately serve. The same cops who one moment have nothing more urgent to do than redirect traffic, can quickly turn into warriors in black combat gear, robocops at the command of an unchanging social order.

Fatal misunderstandings between police and the victims of police brutality typically occur after the 'offenders' fail to obey a mundane order (to disperse, not to move, to step out of the car, whatever). The same basic issue of authority and legitimacy is also at the heart of confrontations between police and demonstrators who feel they have done nothing wrong, yet risk arrest or worse for refusing to obey a 'lawful' order that, to them, lacked legitimacy.

In some parts of the world the distrust has spiraled into a state of animosity where the police are no longer perceived as civil servants but as public militias with an open mandate to confront and to repress. They are estranged from the communities they're supposed to serve, especially minorities, meaning non-white and non-middle-class. The rubbery meaning of the word 'minorities' is well known, equated with those on the wrong side of the track because of origin, poverty, race, gender or political ideas - the usual barriers of discrimination and the triggers of police bias.

On the other hand it is true that brutality is not a one-way street and that the police encounter violence that is not of their choosing, in crisis situations, when trying to contain mobs of hooligans or rioting drunks craving violence.

Whatever the cause, things are made worse by the creeping militarization of many police forces, something that started in the US but has had a ripple effect elsewhere. It has led to a one-sided arms race, ratcheting up the drama of routine police work while devouring ever more public funds.

Which brings us to...(de)funding.

Money is one of the basic requisites of armed conflict. Without financing, there is no war. As the relationship between police and citizenry turns more conflictual, would it make sense to de-escalate the conflict through that most effective of administrative means, cutting the budget, or redirecting some of it to social services?

To figure out if the police are overfunded, or if there are simply too many of them, it is necessary to rethink what the police are for. Have their attributions drifted too far from simply safeguarding the peace and maintaining 'order'? What should be on the police to-do list in an open, democratic society?

- 1 Application of the rule of law.

- 2 Peacekeeping, public order and safety

- 3 Prevention and repression of crime

- 4 Dealing with public disturbances

- 5 Assistance in emergencies

Items 1, 2 and 5 do not, in principle, require weapons, body armour or anxiogenic tactics. These functions are either administrative in nature or deal with everyday control and assistance (e.g. traffic and road safety, neighbourhood patrols, social problems, drug overdoses...). They can safely be defanged, demilitarized and thus defunded. Indeed, several countries retain unarmed policing for routine duties (most of the UK, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Fiji...). It does take the drama and the testosterone down a notch or two.

But that is the easy part, the non-confrontational side of things. Too often the police operate on a logic that is adversarial, not based on consent but on confrontation. Violence can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy and guns make it worse. The more body armour and weapons are routinely on display (beltfuls of guns, tasers, pepper sprays; water cannon; tear gas...), the greater the assumption of violence. The stakes are raised. The message is not engagement, de-escalation or even deterrence, but enforcement. In the end violence is expected, it is part of the show.

* * *

We live in a world full of worry and obsessed with 'security'. The police are part of that obsession. An expensive part. Defunding them may work as a shock therapy but clearly more can and should be done to reform the whole security apparatus.

If the current modus operandi of the police is no longer acceptable, then policy makers must re-imagine what the cops are for and how much legal latitude they should enjoy while discharging their duties.

Beyond changing the laws and regulations that define and govern policing, the job itself could be dedramatized through a number of measures, including disarming where feasible, stricter rules of engagement, extended training and much higher recruiting standards for what is a demanding and often delicate job. In many instances that would mean fewer socially conservative macho men in uniform.

That would be a start. But it will take more than that, more than a bit of defunding to bring police behaviour in line with the legitimate expectations of the communities they are supposed to serve. The whole playbook of policing needs a fundamental rewrite. Too many cops have demonstated they need messing with.

___________________________________

(*) 554 fatal shootings by American police officers were registered by the US Centers for Disease Control in 2017. Other statistics, such as the number of deaths in police custody, vary.

0 notes

daveliuz · 4 years ago

Text

0 notes

news-monda · 4 years ago

Text

0 notes

theliberaltony · 7 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

In the nearly seven months since Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate possible collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia, he has already obtained two indictments and two guilty pleas. Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, the indictees, are back in court Monday, when their trial date could be set, and more charges could well be coming for other people in Trump’s orbit. But even as the investigation gathers steam — or perhaps because of it — there are increasing concerns about just how long Mueller will be able to keep his job.

The prosecutor serves under the authority of the deputy attorney general and could be asked to leave at any time.1 And external opposition could help grease the wheels for his departure. A growing drumbeat to this effect seems to be building on the right. Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board wrote for the second time that Mueller is too “conflicted” to run the investigation and called on him to step down in favor of someone more “credible.” Fox News host Sean Hannity recently condemned Mueller’s investigators as “an extremely biased team of liberal crusaders,” and Newt Gingrich, who called Mueller a “superb choice” to run the investigation when he was appointed in May, is now attacking him as “corrupt.”

Then there’s the possibility that the president could simply lose patience with Mueller and order Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to fire him. Mueller reportedly subpoenaed information this fall on accounts held by the Trump family at Deutsche Bank — after Trump implied earlier this year that investigating his finances could spur him to consider dismissing Mueller.2

Democrats, for their part, have been arguing for months that Congress needs to act to pass additional protections for Mueller. But our review of the history of special prosecutor investigations suggests that Mueller’s investigation is more secure than it might seem — and that more protections don’t necessarily produce more effective prosecutions.

Robert Mueller in 2013 while serving as director of the FBI. Mueller was appointed special prosecutor in May.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Since the late 19th century, when a special prosecutor was used for the first time, public pressure alone has been sufficient to keep an investigation going, even when the president tried to intervene. Our analysis of the 30 investigations since 1875 shows that at first, special prosecutors were relatively rare and appointed only in response to very serious scandals. They were called on to examine diverse allegations involving government officials, all spurred by the perception that a conflict of interest would have kept ordinary prosecutors from conducting a fair investigation or might have driven someone powerful to intervene. In cases where the White House interfered anyway, public outcry saved the investigation.

It was only in the late 20th century that Congress decided that special prosecutors needed more protections from the executive branch and created the position of an independent counsel, which reported to a three-judge panel rather than the president or the attorney general. But the results of these enhanced protections for independence were so mixed that these legal safeguards were allowed to lapse after only 20 years.

“The system we have actually seems to work pretty well,” Josh Chafetz, a professor of law at Cornell Law School, said of the return to special prosecutors appointed by the attorney general. “In the few cases where a prosecutor has been fired, the blowback was so intense that a new one was appointed very quickly.”

The first special prosecutor, John B. Henderson, was asked by Ulysses S. Grant to investigate the Whiskey Ring scandal.

In fact, the very first use of a special prosecutor demonstrates the limits of a president trying to stop an investigation. Ulysses S. Grant appointed John B. Henderson in 1875, just five years after the Department of Justice was founded, to look into what became known as the Whiskey Ring. This group of whiskey distillers, employees of the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service, and Grant’s friends and cronies were defrauding the government of millions of dollars in liquor tax revenues.

Embarrassed by negative press coverage of the scandal, Grant tapped Henderson to lead an investigation into the ring with the hope of deflecting criticism. But he ended up firing Henderson after Grant’s personal secretary was indicted and — even worse — Henderson raised questions about Grant’s own connection to the scandal. But the move was quickly condemned — one treasury official called it “a fatal blow” to the investigation — and the attorney general replaced Henderson with another prosecutor. Eventually, more than 100 people were convicted of tax fraud (although not Grant’s secretary, who was acquitted after Grant took the unusual step of serving as a defense witness on his behalf).

Over the next half-century, a handful of presidents appointed special prosecutors to deal with a select number of high-profile scandals. As with Grant, most were responding to public pressure. “It was a way to ease the heat coming usually from the media or from Congress,” said Katy Harriger, a professor of political science at Wake Forest University who authored a book on special prosecutors.

Francis J. Heney was appointed special prosecutor in 1903 by Theodore Roosevelt’s attorney general.

And those investigations were effective in taking down congressmen and Cabinet secretaries. For example, in 1903, Theodore Roosevelt’s attorney general named a special prosecutor who ended up convicting two members of Congress for helping timber investors illegally obtain government land in Oregon. (The Supreme Court eventually overturned one of the convictions.) In the 1920s Teapot Dome scandal, Warren Harding’s secretary of the interior became the first official convicted of a crime while serving in the Cabinet after special prosecutors discovered that he had been bribed to lease public land to oil companies.

With the exception of Henderson, none of the special prosecutors through the mid-20th century was dismissed by a president,3 but during that time, the special prosecutor was always theoretically vulnerable to the whims of the president.

This danger was cast into sharp relief in 1973, when Archibald Cox was appointed to be the special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation. Richard Nixon then ordered the attorney general to fire Cox after Cox tried to force Nixon to turn over secret recordings of Oval Office conversations. In that case, too, Nixon was forced to replace Cox with a new special prosecutor within a matter of weeks — and the firing did not slow the Watergate investigation’s progress.

Special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox on Oct. 19, 1973 — one day before he was dismissed.

AP PHOTO

But the upheaval was deeply disturbing to legislators. Four years after Nixon resigned, Congress passed a law that created the office of the independent counsel, which reported to a panel of judges and required the attorney general to recommend the appointment of an independent counsel whenever there were “reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted” on misconduct charges against government officials.

The result was that the number of special prosecutors ballooned in the 1980s and 1990s. From 1875 through 1978, there were seven special prosecutor investigations; under the independent counsel law, which lapsed in 1999, there were 20.

John Q. Barrett, a St. John’s University law professor who worked on the Iran-Contra investigation in the 1980s, said that many of these inquiries didn’t merit an independent prosecutor — for example, an investigation into allegations that two of Jimmy Carter’s White House aides had snorted cocaine at a New York club. In that case, in which no charges were brought, there was no reason to think the president would intervene. “They could have put four New York City cops on the case,” Barrett said.

“This big, noble statute turned into an overbuilt machine for investigating allegations that were pretty small fry,” he said.

During the next two decades, 12 of the 20 investigations under the independent counsel law did not result in any criminal charges — a sharp contrast with the earlier special prosecutor probes, which all resulted in indictments or large-scale resignations.

There were, of course, major political scandals investigated by independent counsels, but even these high-level inquiries were often criticized for their length and expense. Most special prosecutor investigations ended up costing taxpayers millions of dollars, often without appearing to justify their rapidly mounting price tag.4

Special prosecutor investigation costs and results

From January 1979 through Sept. 30, 2017

PRESIDENCY INVESTIGATION COST INDIVIDUALS CHARGED PLEAS AND CONVICTIONS PARDONS Trump Russia collusion (ongoing) $3.2m 4 2 0 W. Bush Valerie Plame leaks 2.6 1 1 0 Clinton Waco raid 15.5 0 0 0 Alexis Herman, influence-peddling 6.0 1 0 0 Bruce Babbitt, casino application 7.2 0 0 0 Eli Segal, conflict of interest 0.6 0 0 0 Ron Brown, selling plane seats 3.9 0 0 0 Henry Cisneros, perjury 24.4 6 4 2 Mike Espy, accepting gifts 25.2 13 8 7 Whitewater, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky 79.7 20 14 4 Search of Bill Clinton’s passport files 3.1 0 0 0 H.W. Bush Sealed < 0.1 0 0 0 Samuel Pierce, influence-peddling 29.4 18 16 1 Sealed 0.0 0 0 0 Reagan Lyn Nofziger, improper lobbying 2.8 2 1 0 Iran-Contra 47.9 14 11 6 Sealed 0.1 0 0 0 Michael Deaver, perjury 1.6 1 1 0 Ted Olson, obstruction of justice 2.1 0 0 0 Edwin Meese, financial improprieties 0.3 0 0 0 Raymond Donovan, mob ties 0.3 0 0 0 Carter Tim Kraft, cocaine use < 0.1 0 0 0 Hamilton Jordan, cocaine use 0.2 0 0 0

Showing presidencies during which the investigations began. Some defendants were indicted and later pleaded guilty, and some defendants were initially charged with one set of crimes and then indicted again on other charges. In both cases, only the first set of indictments and charges are included. Indictments of businesses are excluded.

Two figures in the Iran-Contra scandal — Oliver North and John Poindexter — saw their convictions overturned on appeal. Lyn Nofziger’s conviction was also reversed on appeal, as was the conviction of Lance Wilson, who was part of the influence-peddling scandal under Samuel Pierce.

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence was commuted by George W. Bush, although he still had to pay a $250,000 fine.

Sources: Congressional Research Service, various news sources

Special counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s investment in a real estate entity called the Whitewater Development Company fell squarely into this category. The investigation officially launched in August 1994 to look at Bill Clinton’s dealings while he was a state official, and it resulted in charges for a wide range of Clinton associates, including the sitting governor of Arkansas. But Starr then expanded his inquiry to include a probe of White House aide Vince Foster’s death (after three years, Starr reaffirmed the conclusion that Foster had committed suicide), claims that the Clintons had fired aides in the presidential travel office to give jobs to their friends (no intentional wrongdoing was found), and an investigation of allegations that Clinton had encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie about their affair under oath, which ultimately led to Clinton’s impeachment.

“It was becoming clear that when you freed the independent counsel from all checks — political and budgetary — they could keep expanding their purview kind of indefinitely,” Chafetz said. “There was a real sense that he (Starr) had lost perspective of what this investigation was supposed to be for and was pursuing Clinton personally.”

With the office of the independent counsel under fire — even Starr eventually turned on it, calling it “constitutionally dubious” — Congress chose not to renew it in 1999. The Department of Justice issued regulations instead providing for the appointment of a special prosecutor by the attorney general — a functional return to the pre-1978 status quo.

Independent counsel Kenneth Starr is sworn in on Nov. 19, 1998, prior to testifying before the House Judiciary Committee during a hearing on the impeachment of President Clinton.

Doug Mills / AP PHOTO

Since then, the regulations have been invoked only three times: in 1999, to investigate the FBI’s actions in the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas (the special prosecutor criticized the way the raid was handled, but no charges were brought); in 2003, to investigate the leak of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name by the George W. Bush administration (Bush aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was convicted); and the Russia investigation this year.5

Despite Democrats’ anxiety, Barrett said he’s confident that even if Trump did direct the deputy attorney general to fire Mueller — an order that Justice Department officials might be unwilling to carry out — the special prosecutor position wouldn’t stay vacant for long.

“Robert Mueller is widely perceived as a competent and credible law enforcement official,” Barrett said. “As long as he doesn’t do something to jeopardize that, Trump would have no justification for dismissing him. And if he did, he’d have to appoint an equally credible replacement, or there would be really catastrophic political consequences.”

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux

4 notes · View notes

zenruption · 7 years ago

Text

The Daily Disaster-6/9

Add to Flipboard Magazine.

AN UNDER-APPRECIATED PROBLEM WITH THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY IS HOW HE AND HIS STAFF CONTINUOUSLY NORMALIZE DISASTER. BECAUSE WE WITNESS NEW SCANDALS, GAFFES, COVERUPS, HYPOCRISY, MISDIRECTION, INCOMPETENCE, ATROCITY, CRONYISM, IGNORANCE, RACISM, XENOPHOBIA, TREASON, EMBARRASSMENT, LIES, DYSFUNCTION, POWER GRABS, WAR ESCALATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSAULTS, MISOGYNY AND MORE ON A DAILY BASIS, THE MAGNITUDE OF EACH IS DIMINISHED IN OUR CONSCIOUSNESS BY THE SIMPLE VIRTUE THAT WE HAVE BECOME SATURATED. BECAUSE OF THIS, WE AT ZENRUPTION WILL BE PUBLISHING A DAILY CURATION OF THE EVENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTED, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, INCLUDING LEAKS WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE, SO THAT WE CAN FULLY EXPERIENCE THE LEVEL OF DISASTER OUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS BECOME AND THE IMPLICATIONS IT HAS ON ALL OF US. TODAY, JUNE 9, 2017

Check back often

and contribute!

By Jerry Mooney

From The Horse's Mouth (Trump tweets, then leaker tweets, then published reports)

Congratulations to Jeb Hensarling & Republicans on successful House vote to repeal major parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law. GROWTH!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2017

Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication...and WOW, Comey is a leaker!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2017

Great reporting by @foxandfriends and so many others. Thank you!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2017

.@RealDonaldTrump says "Comey's a leaker." A private citizen giving a friend private, non-classified documents isn't leaking

— West Wing Reports (@WestWingReport) June 9, 2017

If only Comey did something innocent, like blurt out Israeli intel to the Russians. https://t.co/XH1zu91bRg

— Matt Parthasarthy (@Matt4CT) June 9, 2017

Dear MSM, I am leaking a personal recollection of my visit to the WH last December. #ComeyLeaks pic.twitter.com/T8Jn8ABICG

— Matt Parthasarthy (@Matt4CT) June 9, 2017

Good for Trump there's no very clear and topical evidence of him using "hope" as a threat. Wait. https://t.co/Jx1xLgDYnO

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) June 8, 2017

GOP using Comey hearing/Russia as shell game. Dodd-Frank repeal is real focus & has been "close to #1" on list of priorities since election.

— Rogue WH Snr Advisor (@RogueSNRadvisor) June 8, 2017

So far during Comey hearing staff have taken 4 cellphones and 1 iPad away from Pres; he just can't help himself, he has to tweet.

— Rogue WH Snr Advisor (@RogueSNRadvisor) June 8, 2017

After Comey hearing Pres "doesn't want to hear another word about Russia - from anyone." Don't think that's gonna happen, Donnie.

— Rogue WH Snr Advisor (@RogueSNRadvisor) June 8, 2017

Pres says the result of the Comey hearing "means I'll be president for at least the next 8 years."

— Rogue WH Snr Advisor (@RogueSNRadvisor) June 9, 2017

"And by total and complete vindication, I mean publicly shamed." https://t.co/z2gpynw0Ms

— Rogue WH Snr Advisor (@RogueSNRadvisor) June 9, 2017

It rhymes with Crussia https://t.co/iHDJzdSAwg

— Rogue WH Snr Advisor (@RogueSNRadvisor) June 9, 2017

After Comey hearing Pres wants to "double down" on Obama, says "we need to make clear who the real enemy is." Oh we know who it is, Donald.

— Rogue WH Snr Advisor (@RogueSNRadvisor) June 9, 2017

TRUMP: "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse" REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS: See, Trump was only making an "offer"; he didn't demand anything

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) June 9, 2017

His tax returns (twice) Preemptive NK attack bluff Location of US submarines Israeli intel on ISIS Privileged comms w/ Comey#LeakedByTrump

— Rogue POTUS Staff (@RoguePOTUSStaff) June 9, 2017

POTUS says everyone should move on after yesterday, but his top objective today is to find more ways to make Comey look bad.

— Rogue POTUS Staff (@RoguePOTUSStaff) June 9, 2017

People leaking their own words to a free press is so elitist compared to a gold plated penthouse. https://t.co/wPNqX6OJyu

— Rogue POTUS Staff (@RoguePOTUSStaff) June 8, 2017

Quite the story from Nancy Pelosi about her first meeting with Trump—and his insistence that he won the popular vote. (via @Morning_Joe) pic.twitter.com/xvmCmJA6el

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 9, 2017

Pelosi: Sessions must resign https://t.co/uiRszvGqqV pic.twitter.com/LmVkRHCpMm

— The Hill (@thehill) June 9, 2017

"Total and complete vindication"? More like total and complete incrimination. My take on Comey testimony: https://t.co/lUkDMSn0QM

— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) June 9, 2017

Do you think Trump understands what "vindication" means? It's not clear to me that he does. pic.twitter.com/ybh0rcNMh8

— Claude Taylor (@TrueFactsStated) June 9, 2017

TRUMP: "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse" REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS: See, Trump was only making an "offer"; he didn't demand anything

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) June 9, 2017

Jobs where "I'm New At This" is acceptable... - Server - Retail - Entry level programmer - Cook Job it's not... - President Of The USA

— Tony Posnanski (@tonyposnanski) June 9, 2017

McInnis involved. I "hope" he "falls" down some stairs soon.https://t.co/6He8hstBCj

— Pesach 'Pace' Lattin (@pacelattin) June 9, 2017

If you believe Trump's lawyer, Comey must have secretly made up a fake story & then told witnesses & wrote memos about it contemporaneously. https://t.co/aXcecVqbTd

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) June 9, 2017

Let's not forget DAG Rosenstein wrote an entire memo used to mislead American people that Trump fired Comey b/c he treated Hillary unfairly.

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) June 9, 2017

Even the Tronc-owned right-leaning @LATimes - not part of the "liberal" media -- says you are unmatched for lying pic.twitter.com/78JrUdGS6L

— Jack Schofield (@jackschofield) June 9, 2017

Nixon was not personally under investigation for Watergate...until he was.

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) June 9, 2017

GREAT ANALYSIS for 2018. To retake the House, Dems don't need to convince Trump voters who would support Trump shooting someone on 5th Ave. https://t.co/BR8EqueVAn

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) June 9, 2017

I don't understand why local television & newspaper reporters aren't up in Senators /staffers faces & writing scathing stories every day @AP https://t.co/oeyPIqdqd7

— RiotWomenn (@riotwomennn) June 9, 2017

The grab-them-by-the-pussy video comes out. Trump: "This shows how much I love women. I'm vindicated."

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) June 9, 2017

Full Grassley letter, which is a must-read: https://t.co/5DSh7cTzcr

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) June 9, 2017

Grassley: "Every member of Congress is a Constitutional officer ... all members need accurate information from the Executive Branch." pic.twitter.com/R28QUX1Sgw

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) June 9, 2017

Wow. Big deal. Very important vis-a-vis Mueller, but also as to the court and things Dreeben could be conflicted out from going forward. https://t.co/YjfcSC90a0

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) June 9, 2017

Former GOP congressman who called on Bill Clinton to resign and voted to impeach him --> https://t.co/dsKl9yCdfL

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) June 9, 2017

To help infrastructure firms navigate the federal bureaucracy, President is adding to it by forming an agency to help cut thru red tape

— West Wing Reports (@WestWingReport) June 9, 2017

My best Cap Hill source: (long time senior staffer). GOP not sure Trump will survive this. "We're preparing for all contingencies".

— Claude Taylor (@TrueFactsStated) June 9, 2017

Trump "didn't know" we have troops in Qatar. He should know what countries we have our military in. Important for countless reasons. #resist https://t.co/QbgvMz9b8I

— Scott Dworkin (@funder) June 9, 2017

More importantly, Michael Dreeben is careful, meticulous, non-partisan, and fair-minded. His loyalty is to the Constitution alone. https://t.co/9a7jwHVH1K

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) June 9, 2017

YES! We went there & saw the Taj Mahal. Ppl were all saying it looked exactly like Kremlin.It came out he was laundering Russian mob money! pic.twitter.com/6MyIXmhabf

— Wendy Marcinkiewicz (@WendyMarcinkie1) June 8, 2017

In past year Trump has threatened to sue everyone, it seems, but the Girl Scouts (perhaps WWR missed that one) - but never follows through: pic.twitter.com/AyrLUr6ra3

— West Wing Reports (@WestWingReport) June 9, 2017

The point of Comey's testimony wasn't to convict Trump-it was to aid and assist Mueller's case. He accomplished that.

— Claude Taylor (@TrueFactsStated) June 9, 2017

Fun fact: Article II of Impeachment for Nixon was Abuse of Power. My #FridayFeeling is that @realDonaldTrump is in bigly trouble. https://t.co/d1VXUZwcvL

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) June 9, 2017

pic.twitter.com/M4CAXvwVWW

— Sarah Burgess (@sunkist111) June 9, 2017

.@RealDonaldTrump, who threatens to sue everyone (sexual misconduct accusers, NYTimes, etc.), but rarely does, now threatens to sue Comey

— West Wing Reports (@WestWingReport) June 9, 2017

Trump's lawyer threatens to file complaints against Comey. But they're both already DOA. By @christinawilkie https://t.co/TJQornwHTr

— Christina Wilkie (@christinawilkie) June 9, 2017

For Trump, the ‘Cloud’ Just Grew That Much Darker https://t.co/xU2K9pHX7f

— Nada Bakos (@nadabakos) June 9, 2017

Charm. Bully. Abandon. Sue. That's how @realDonaldTrump deals with problems. It's on full display with his actions toward Comey.

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) June 9, 2017

Dreeben is 1 of the top legal & appellate minds at DOJ in modern times (My admiration goes far beyond his 8-0 insider trading win in Salman) https://t.co/o1sGMwoZEQ

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) June 9, 2017

It's true. https://t.co/dsicCwan8V

— Pesach 'Pace' Lattin (@pacelattin) June 9, 2017

medianet_width = "728"; medianet_height = "90"; medianet_crid = "728762653"; medianet_versionId = "111299"; (function() { var isSSL = 'https:' == document.location.protocol; var mnSrc = (isSSL ? 'https:' : 'http:') + '//contextual.media.net/nmedianet.js?cid=8CUTI81HQ' + (isSSL ? '&https=1' : ''); document.write('<scr' + 'ipt type="text/javascript" id="mNSC" src="' + mnSrc + '">' + 'ipt>'); })();

Also founder of Jerry Mooney Books

#45 #President of the United States #Trump

0 notes

marymosley · 4 years ago

Text

“Irreparable Harms”: How The Flynn Case Became A Dangerous Game Of Legal Improvisation

Below is my column in USA Today on the D.C. Circuit ordering Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. After this column ran, new evidence emerged that further undermined the FBI and the targeting of Flynn, as discussed in another recent column. Notes from fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok show that former FBI Director James Comey told President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden that Flynn’s call to the Russian diplomat “appear legit.” Nevertheless, Biden (who denied having anything to do with the case) is noted as raising the idea of a charge under the facially unconstitutional Logan Act, a law that has never been used successfully to charge a single person since the beginning of this Republic. Comey of course was the one who later bragged that he “probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it” in other administrations, but he sent “a couple guys over” to question Flynn, who was settling into his new office as national security adviser. We now know that, when Comey broke protocols and sent the agents, he thought the calls were legitimate ant that agents wanted to dismiss the investigation in December for lack of evidence. They were prevented from doing so as Strzok, Biden, and others discussed other crimes, any crime, to nail Flynn just before the start of the Trump Administration.

If all of that seems “illegitimate” and “irregular,” it pales in comparison to how two judges on the D.C. panel reviewed the handling of the Flynn case by Judge Emmet Sullivan. It seems that everyone from the President to the Vice President to the FBI Director to ultimately the federal judge have engaged in a dangerous form of improvisational law when it came to Michael Flynn. That will now hopefully end though many questions still remain.

It is possible for Judge Sullivan to appeal, though the upcoming hearing on Flynn has been removed from the docket.

Here is the column:

The dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn sent shock waves across Washington, including Congress which was hours away from a hearing addressing the case. Any appellate decision taking unprecedented measures to stop “irreparable harms” and “irregular” conduct is newsworthy. However, those admonishments were not describing Flynn’s conduct but that of his trial judge, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan. The D.C. Circuit panel took the exceptionally rare step of ordering Sullivan to stop further proceedings and dismiss the case to avoid further damage caused by his prior orders.

The case should have been dismissed

One month ago, I wrote a column criticizing the handling of the Flynn case by Judge Sullivan after the government moved to dismiss its own prosecution.

The law in this case is clear and the case should have been dismissed. Instead, Sullivan took the extraordinary action of appointing a retired judge, John Gleeson, to argue positions that neither of the actual parties supported. Gleeson not only had publicly denounced the administration over its handling of the case but, as a judge, was reversed for “irregular” conduct in usurping the authority of prosecutors. In addition, Sullivan suggested that he might charge Flynn with perjury for alleging that he was wrongly charged despite the support of the Justice Department in finding abuses in his case.

Criticizing Sullivan, who I have appeared before for years as counsel and previously complimented for his demeanor, was not popular. Legal analysts in The Washington Post, CNN and other outlets insisted that his actions were entirely appropriate and justified. Yet, another letter from “former prosecutors” was given unquestioning media coverage to show that Sullivan should deny the motion in the case.

In an opinion piece, UCLA Law Professor and former U.S. Attorney under Bill Clinton, Harry Litman even explained how Sullivan could “make trouble” for the Trump administration in these hearings. Litman insisted that I was “a very lonely voice in the wilderness” of academia in contesting the use of an outside lawyer to make arguments in a criminal trial case that neither the defense nor the prosecution supported.

The wilderness now appears to include at least two other voices from the D.C. Circuit. The panel specifically denounced the “irregular” use of Gleeson and his hyperbolic arguments in the case. Gleeson suggested that the court should actually send Flynn to jail despite prosecutors raising evidence of misconduct and abuse as the basis for dismissal. He also argued that, rather than give Flynn a trial on a new charge from Sullivan of perjury, Flynn should just be sentenced in light of such perjury as part of his prior non-perjury charge.

Even for those of us who believed that Sullivan was operating well outside of the navigational beacons for a court in such case, the decision was breathtaking. Most of us expected that the appellate court would remand the case to allow Sullivan a face-saving hearing with an inevitable order to dismiss. The panel, however, clearly had little trust in the plans for this hearing or any true judicial purpose. Indeed, it may have been convinced that the primary purpose was indeed to “make trouble” for the administration.

As some of us wrote previously, the appellate court was particularly alarmed by the implications of Sullivan’s orders, including noting that the “invitation to members of the general public to appear as amici…” The panel said that such an invitation by Sullivan “suggests anything but a circumscribed review.” Moreover, it noted that the Justice Department had submitted troubling evidence of possible misconduct. And that “each of our three coequal branches should be encouraged to self-correct when it errs.”

Gleeson, wrong appointment

The greatest irony is that Sullivan’s unwise decision to appoint Gleeson to make the case was perhaps too successful. Gleeson ultimately proved not the case against Flynn but against Sullivan. In reviewing Gleeson’s brief, the panel declared “we need not guess if this irregular and searching scrutiny will continue; it already has.” The panel noted that Sullivan’s appointed counsel “relied on news stories, tweets, and other facts outside the record to contrast the government’s grounds for dismissal here with its rationales for prosecution in other cases.”

The panel was also aware of past concerns raised in the case, including the rather bizarre first sentencing hearing held in December 2018. In that hearing, Sullivan suggested that Flynn might be guilty of treason in a case involving comparatively minor charges of false statements to federal investigators. Sullivan dramatically used the flag in the courtroom as a prop and accused Flynn of being “an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States. Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out.” (He later apologized for his comments.)

The irony, however, is that Sullivan proved the best thing that could have happened to Flynn. After that unnerving exchange, Sullivan asked if Flynn still wanted him to sentence him or wait. He indicated that he might go substantially beyond what Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team had demanded. Flynn wisely decided to wait. The resulting delay allowed the damaging evidence from his case to be review and released. Had Sullivan simply sentenced Flynn last December, it would have been much more difficult for Flynn to have raised these issues.

Sullivan then handed down his novel orders including appointing his own counsel to argue for prosecution against the actual prosecutors.

This record proved too much for the appellate court. Rather than order Sullivan off the case, it decided to order Sullivan to dismiss the case. Short of an order of actual recusal of a judge, a mandamus order is the most stinging indictment of the handling of a case that can come from an appellate court.

The ruling in this case is unlikely to force any real circumspection by legal analysts or the media in the prior coverage. Nuanced legal questions quickly evaporate in this age of rage. Conflicting case law is dismissed in favor of the clarity demanded by echo journalism. The law however brings its own clarity and the message of this opinion could not be clearer. Sullivan’s actions in the case did not spell “trouble” for the Trump administration, but rather, they spelled trouble for the administration of justice in our court system.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

“Irreparable Harms”: How The Flynn Case Became A Dangerous Game Of Legal Improvisation published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

frankmwilliams25 · 5 years ago

Text

The incredible tale of fraud and abuse that is Donald J. Trump’s accounting accomplices

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

On May 12, after a six-week delay caused by the pandemic, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the epic battle by congressional committees and New York prosecutors to pry loose eight years of President Donald Trump’s tax returns.

Much about the case is without precedent. Oral arguments will be publicly broadcast on live audio. The nine justices and opposing lawyers will debate the issues remotely, from their offices and homes. And the central question is extraordinary: Is the president of the United States immune from congressional — and even criminal — investigation?

Next week’s arguments concern whether Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, must hand over his tax returns and other records to a House committee and the Manhattan district attorney, which have separately subpoenaed them. (There will also be arguments on congressional subpoenas to two of Trump’s banks.) Trump, who promised while running for president to make his tax returns public, has sued to block the documents’ release. The questions apply beyond this case. Trump has repeatedly resisted congressional scrutiny, most recently by vowing to ignore oversight requirements included in the trillion-dollar pandemic-bailout legislation. “I’ll be the oversight,” he declared.

The president’s accounting firm has found itself at the center of this high-stakes fight. The American arm of a global firm, Mazars has portrayed itself as an innocent bystander in the war between Trump and his pursuers, dragged into the conflict merely for possessing the trove of subpoenaed records. It’s the firm’s first burst into the media glare apart from an unfortunate moment of tabloid coverage in 2016 after one of its New York partners stabbed his wife to death in the shower of their suburban home. (He pleaded guilty to manslaughter.) Mazars has said it will abide by whatever decision the court makes in the Trump matter.

But Trump’s accountants are far from bystanders in the matters under scrutiny — or in the rise of Trump. Over a span of decades, they have played two critical, but discordant, roles for Trump. One is common for an accounting firm: to help him pay the smallest amount of taxes possible. The second is not common at all: to help him appear to the world to be rich beyond imagining. That sometimes requires creating precisely the opposite impression of what’s in his tax filings.

Time and again, from press interviews in the 1980s to the launch of his 2016 campaign, Trump has trotted out evermore outsized claims of his wealth, frequently brandishing papers prepared by members of his accounting team, who have sometimes been called on to appear in person when they were presented, offering a sort of mute testimony in support of the findings. The accountants’ written disclaimers — that the calculations rely on Trump’s own numbers, rendering them essentially meaningless — are rarely mentioned.

Trump’s accountants have been crucial enablers in his remarkable rise. And like their marquee client, they have a surprisingly colorful and tangled story of their own. It’s dramatically at odds with the image Trump has presented of his accountants as “one of the most highly respected” big firms, solemnly confirming his numbers after months of careful scrutiny. For starters, it’s only technically true to say Trump’s accounting work is handled by a large firm.

In fact, Trump entrusts his taxes and planning to a tiny, secretive team of CPAs who have operated at various times from humble quarters in Queens and two Long Island office parks. That team, which has had two leaders with back-to-back multidecade terms, has been working for the Trumps since Fred Trump began using the firm back in the 1950s. It was eventually subsumed into Mazars USA, the American arm of a large international firm, through a series of mergers over decades.

One theme has been consistent: partners and sometimes the firm itself have faced accusations of fraud, misconduct and malpractice on multiple occasions, an investigation by ProPublica and WNYC has found.

That pattern dates to the 30 years during which the Trump accounting team was led by Jack Mitnick, whose pugnaciousness was exceeded only by his aversion to his clients paying the IRS. He was the architect of the notorious schemes, revealed by The New York Times, to dodge more than $500 million in gift and inheritance taxes and funnel hundreds of millions from Fred Trump to his children, helping keep Donald Trump afloat through four of his business bankruptcies. Mitnick was known as an accounting star — at least until 1996, when his partners threw him out of the firm amid accusations of fraud and malpractice.

Years of turmoil followed. The firm operated without malpractice insurance for a period and was dogged by feuds — with current and former partners suing each other — and financial problems.

And it ran afoul of regulators. In January of 2004 — one week after “The Apprentice” premiered on NBC — the Securities and Exchange Commission formally censured the firm for willfully aiding and abetting misconduct. The SEC suspended one partner from practicing before it for four years for what the agency called “highly unreasonable” and “improper professional conduct.”

Since Trump’s accountants merged their practice into Mazars in 2010, they have been present for Trump’s scandals, too. Mazars accountants prepared the tax returns for the Donald J. Trump Foundation, forced to shut down and ordered to pay more than $2 million in damages after a New York attorney general’s investigation exposed a history of illegal self-dealing. And the Manhattan DA’s office, which is investigating whether the Trump Organization falsified its business records to cover up hush-money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, subpoenaed not only Trump’s tax returns but also various internal records and assessments prepared by Mazars.

Today, the CEO of Mazars USA is the same partner who was suspended by the SEC for four years for improper conduct. (Mazars defends its CEO, saying he meets all ethical and professional standards, and asserts that the firm has encountered no more sanctions or litigation than other comparable firms.)

The choice of a formerly suspended accountant as CEO surprised former SEC Chief Accountant Lynn Turner, now a senior adviser at the Hemming Morse financial consulting firm. “In my opinion,” said Turner, “that speaks loudly with the respect to the confidence one would have in that firm — better yet, the total lack of confidence one would have in that firm. And it would certainly make me wonder about the culture of that firm and whether or not that firm acts with integrity.”

Whether by design, or perhaps just coincidence, Trump’s accountants have occasionally displayed the sort of audacity often associated with their client. Consider this example involving New York City taxes back in the 1980s. Mitnick claimed that Trump was exempt from paying tax on profit he made by flipping a Trump Tower condo. He had acquired the unit at cost, $634,648, ostensibly for providing “consulting services” to his development partnership, then sold it 19 days later for $3 million.

At an administrative court hearing, Mitnick defended deductions that he’d claimed offset any profits from Trump’s consulting business, even as he failed to provide any documentation or explanation for those expenses, according to the 15-page court opinion in the case. He went so far as to deny that he’d prepared the federal tax return for Trump that also claimed the deductions, even though his signature was on the document.

The accountant evidently protested vociferously in the New York case, leading the administrative law judge to scoff, “The problem at issue is not one of double taxation, but of no taxation.” The total amount at stake was relatively modest — $87,693.57, including penalties and interest — but Mitnick, on Trump’s behalf, contested it for more than a decade before a city appeals panel finally put an end to the case, ordering Trump to pay up.

Decades after he left the Trump account, Mitnick briefly surfaced in the press in 2016, after the Times reported that Trump’s 1995 tax return reported a $916 million loss. Mitnick, then 80, dismissed Trump’s boast that he was a tax genius for using the loss to avoid paying taxes for as much as a decade. “I did all the tax preparation,” the dour accountant told TV interviewers. “He never saw the product until it was presented to him for signature.” Mitnick added, with apparent pride: “Those returns were entirely created by us.”

When ProPublica first sought to speak with Mitnick late last year, he asked, “What’s in it for me?” and said he’d discuss Trump only if he were paid for his time. (In a longer second call, where he also asked to be paid, he eventually offered brief responses to some questions.)

An accountant and attorney, Mitnick first arrived at Spahr Lacher & Berk, the tiny firm later merged into Mazars, in 1963, at age 27. Mitnick soon took charge of the Trumps’ accounts. He would oversee them for the next 30 years.

In its early years, Spahr was located in Jamaica, Queens, and employed just a handful of CPAs. The firm had been working with the Trump family, whose five-bedroom Tudor home was in tonier Jamaica Estates, at least since 1951, when Fred Trump cemented the relationship by hiring a Spahr partner as controller for his growing real estate business.

Fred Trump was far and away Spahr’s biggest client. His cash-spewing rental apartment empire in Brooklyn and Queens required lots of accounting work, and Fred paid his bills in full and on time. By 1979, Spahr Lacher had moved into a nondescript suburban office park in Lake Success, Long Island, just beyond the Queens border and the reach of New York City taxes.

By then Donald Trump had begun pursuing his big, risky and expensive ambitions: glitzy towers and hotels in Manhattan; three over-the-top Atlantic City casinos; his own airline; a massive yacht and a professional football team. In 1987, as his father had done, Donald hired his company’s controller from the ranks of his accounting firm.

Trump’s accountants played a critical role in Donald’s survival through the 1980s and early ʼ90s, a period when many of his projects crashed and burned, requiring massive infusions of cash from his father. With Mitnick in charge, Spahr hatched the strategies that minimized both gift and estate taxes on the transfer of Fred’s wealth to Donald and his siblings.

A 2018 Times investigation found that Fred Trump had funneled at least $413 million in current dollars to his son and that the Trumps’ tax-avoidance tactics, all told, had slashed their tax bill by about $500 million. The article described some of the tax moves as “outright fraud.” (Trump’s lawyer called that conclusion “100% false” and said the relevant authorities “fully approved all of the tax filings.”)

A lynchpin of the strategy was the 1992 creation of a corporation, All County Building Supply & Maintenance, through which Fred Trump’s children charged their father’s business grossly inflated prices, then split the markup, allowing them to avoid gift taxes even as they reeled in millions from their father.

The strategy was viewed as a major success inside the accounting firm. “I wish I could take credit for it,” Mitchell Zachary, a former Spahr partner who worked on the Trumps’ accounts for more than a decade, told ProPublica and WNYC. “It was brilliant, but it wasn’t mine,” Zachary said. “It was a team of accountants, partners at Spahr.” Zachary defended the firm’s practices for the Trumps as “aggressive” but “within the letter of the law.”

Mitnick was viewed as “a tax god” inside the firm, said Zachary, who worked at Spahr Lacher from 1986 to 2002 and teamed with Mitnick on the Trumps’ accounts. The family “wouldn’t make a move” without checking with Mitnick, he said. Mitnick even made a cameo appearance (albeit with his name misspelled) in the first chapter of Trump’s 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal.”

Mitnick pressed for every advantage on Trump’s behalf, ever urging Zachary to be bolder. A fundamental Mitnick principle: “If you can’t find me where the law says you can’t do it, you can do it.” Said Zachary: “He always took these very aggressive positions and would never back down. Never. He always felt, ‘I’ll just keep appealing.’”

Mitnick’s team developed virtually all the Trumps’ tax-avoidance maneuvers, Zachary said. “I mean, it was all for their benefit in so many ways,” he said. “It’s not like they were going to question it.”

Donald Trump’s accounting work was much more complex than that of his father. His business operated scores of separate entities, each requiring its own tax filings. Just preparing his annual personal return took three to four months.

Diving into Trump’s personal finances, as Zachary did in the late 1980s, proved bewildering. Warned that his work for Trump was sure to face an audit, Zachary said he took special care to trace every asset, expense and receipt. When he finally finished, he was mystified. Zachary couldn’t find evidence that Trump, in fact, possessed any cash beyond a recent payment in a casino deal.

“I went to Jack Mitnick, and I said, ‘Look, I must be missing something: There’s nothing here!’… I thought for sure I screwed up. I thought for sure I missed something big.”

Zachary recalled Mitnick’s reply. “He just laughed and went: ‘Well, you just figured it out!’”

Spahr took unusual steps to safeguard the confidentiality of Donald Trump’s returns. No work papers or documents could be left on a CPA’s desk overnight; everything had to be carefully locked up.

The secrecy was imposed to hide the chasm between Trump’s public claims and reality, according to Zachary: “He bragged a lot. … More than any other individual that I’ve ever seen, he was very big at promoting that he’s this super-rich billionaire.”

Trump was a difficult client. He demanded discounts on fees and took forever to pay his bills. “Collecting from Trump was awful,” Zachary said. Eventually Spahr agreed to give Trump a 50% discount and allow him 12 months to pay. Zachary said: “Donald always made it clear: ‘You get the privilege of saying you’re Donald Trump’s accountants, so you have to pay the price.’”

Trump’s nearly $1 billion write-off for 1995 represented an aggregation of the enormous losses his business blunders had run up — and Spahr skillfully exploited them on Trump’s behalf. Trump paid no federal income tax in nine of the 11 years from 1984 through 1994, according to tax materials obtained by the Times and publicly released documents.

It is true that the Trumps’ aggressive tactics drew virtually nonstop scrutiny from tax authorities. Indeed, they spent so much time examining the Trumps’ books, Zachary said, that Spahr Lacher had a special room permanently set aside for the IRS’s Trump auditors. (Zachary also cites this scrutiny, and the relatively modest resulting adjustments, as evidence that Spahr’s tactics didn’t cross the line.)

Spahr’s focus on wealth-transfer strategies intensified in the early 1990s, after Fred Trump, a detail-minded workaholic, began suffering from poor health and dementia. One tactic was to divide legal ownership of Fred’s properties into separate family partnerships, so Fred lacked complete control. That helped justify lowball appraisals for tax purposes. “There was an appraiser out there that the IRS hated … because he was so aggressive. And that’s the guy we used,” Zachary said. That appraiser, he said, reduced the claimed values of Fred Trump’s properties by 35% to 40% — and occasionally dramatically more.

By the time Fred Trump died in 1999, Mitnick was gone from the firm. His departure followed a series of troubling lawsuits and other setbacks relating to work for non-Trump clients. In one case brought over Mitnick’s administration of a tax-shelter investment involving coal mine leases, a federal appeals court wrote in 1985: “The record amply demonstrates that he committed fraud.”

In a second case, longtime Spahr clients charged Mitnick and the firm with “a long-term coverup of Mitnick’s malpractice” on their family’s estate and audit work, accusing them of missing filing deadlines and making false statements to the IRS, which they claimed cost the family millions in taxes and penalties. They asserted that Mitnick and his team neglected them and “devoted most of their professional time to other clients, including Donald Trump and his enterprises.” After the trial judge found that Mitnick was “the primary wrongdoer,” the matter was eventually settled for about $500,000, according to Mitnick’s deposition testimony in yet another malpractice suit against both him and the firm.

Mitnick, meanwhile, had his own problems with the IRS. He had filed three federal tax court cases between 1987 and 1990 challenging IRS levies against him and his wife on their personal taxes.

He became an enigma to his Spahr partners. Mitnick often seemed oblivious to important deadlines. One partner recalls finding Mitnick, just hours before a critical tax filing was due, in the firm’s staff room with a hammer and screwdriver, fixing a broken chair.

By the mid-1990s, the litigation had left Spahr Lacher unable to obtain insurance, threatening the firm’s continued existence. Partners, including Zachary, shifted their assets into their spouses’ names. Records show the Mitnicks’ home, located 2 miles from the firm’s office, was held in his wife’s name.

In September 1996, the partners expelled Mitnick. They told clients that Mitnick, then 60, was retiring. Less than a year later, he became a tax counsel with a Long Island law firm, where he remained until 2014.

Asked about these events, Mitnick, now 84, repeatedly declined to comment, saying he couldn’t discuss “confidential communications between myself and the client.” He added, “You’re going back to the dark ages.”

Mitnick eventually fell on hard times. In 2007, after Citibank filed a foreclosure action on an unpaid $500,000 mortgage loan, Mitnick and his wife sold their $1.4 million Long Island home. Three years later the IRS slapped him with a lien for more than $155,000 in unpaid federal tax debts dating back to 2003. Mitnick and his wife relocated to a modest house in Palm Beach County, Florida.

In May 2017 Mitnick and his wife were evicted after failing to pay $11,331 in assessments and penalties to their homeowners association. Their possessions were placed out on the street. Less than two years later, in March 2019, they were ejected again, this time evicted from an apartment for unpaid rent and, according to a court filing, “physically removed from the premises.”

At the time Mitnick left the firm, partners feared his departure might cost them the Trump business, which Zachary estimates represented about a third of the firm’s total billings. But Trump agreed to stick with Spahr.

Still, the firm’s existence was precarious. Unable to obtain malpractice coverage, Spahr’s eight partners, after being hit by another lawsuit settlement, learned they would have to dig into their own pockets to pay it.

So they happily welcomed an acquirer: M.R. Weiser & Co., a midsize Manhattan accounting firm eager to establish a big presence on Long Island. Spahr’s leaders signed off on the deal only after again seeking Trump’s personal blessing. He gave it, Zachary said, after being assured his fees wouldn’t increase.

As it turned out, Weiser had problems of its own. The firm had engaged in a disastrous buying binge aimed at transforming the firm into a regional powerhouse. The deals instead triggered what partners later described as a “crisis of finances and morale.” Just a year after swallowing Spahr, Weiser’s partners ousted the firm’s chairman, Stanley Nasberg, who then sued, demanding $5 million in damages and sending the dispute to an arbitration panel. (In an interview, Nasberg maintained he was “instrumental” in the rapid growth of the firm and recruitment of major clients. He blamed his ouster on the “greed” of his then-partners.)

The 24-page report from the arbitration panel detailed a litany of “recriminations and factual and legal disputes.” The firm had suffered such “acute cash shortages” that some senior partners had delayed depositing their year-end paychecks in 1999; partner draws had been withheld altogether in early 2000.

For years Weiser was roiled by factional conflicts, cash-flow problems and bitter litigation. “It became just a disjointed mess,” said Jeff Coopersmith, a partner who arrived in 1999 as the result of one merger and was frog-marched out six years later after the firm discovered his plans to start his own firm with two other partners (and take clients with him).

Amid all this turmoil, the Trump group remained a constant. With Mitnick’s departure, the firm handed its leadership to a CPA who seemed even more single-mindedly dedicated to the mogul: Donald Bender.

Bespectacled, bald and bookish, Bender had arrived at Spahr in 1981, shortly after earning his accounting degree at Queens College. He’s been there ever since. (Through a firm spokesman, Bender declined requests for an interview.)

Bender had a monkish devotion to his work, and to Trump, who became his sole client. Bender remained single well into middle age, when he married a woman who’d worked at Weiser. Now 62, he still runs the Trump account and lives with his family in a drab townhouse, six minutes’ drive from his office.

Bender’s dedication won Trump’s respect, said Zachary, who worked closely with Bender until leaving the firm in 2002. “He really devoted his life to Donald Trump,” Zachary said, enough to earn him an invitation to Trump’s wedding to Melania Knauss at Mar-a-Lago in 2005.

Operating from offices at one end of the accounting firm’s floor, Bender and his small Trump team kept to themselves. It had long been standard practice to maintain extraordinary security provisions for all of Trump’s electronic files, including barring anyone from viewing them without a special password.

Bender’s group had a mystique within the firm. In a 2017 essay published on a literary website, a former junior accountant at Weiser, Henry Kogan, recounted meeting Bender — whom he referred to as “the other Donald” — in the firm’s cafeteria. “After I introduced myself and the small talk subsided he said, ‘Everything you say will be repeated.’… In my two years at Weiser LLP, I learned the other Donald didn’t talk much but when he did it was worth listening to.”

Kogan described the knowledge of Trump’s financial world as “passed down from one generation to the next through a single, chosen accountant, orally.” As he put it, “You could sense the weight of this knowledge in the way [Bender] walked, the way he carried himself, carefully and with precision. Sometimes it seemed as if he were moving across a tightrope, invisible across the thickly carpeted office floor.” Bender’s “entire professional existence,” he wrote, “revolved around one client, that client’s organization, and the hundreds of entities represented inside an IRS form.”

As Trump banked evermore on his image for breathtaking wealth, he enlisted his accountants to back his dubious claims. For example, struggling to avoid personal bankruptcy in 1994, Trump cooperated with a cover story in Vanity Fair promoting his “comeback.”

“Piece by piece, deal by deal, a beautiful story is starting to emerge about me,” Trump declared, after picking up writer Edward Klein in his stretch limo. As they were driven to a black-tie dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel honoring Trump as “Humanitarian of the Year,” Klein wrote, “he handed me a folder containing his personal financial statement, which had been prepared by the accounting firm of Spahr, Lacher & Sperber.” It showed $139,326,000 in cash and equivalents.” That figure seemed unlikely given that four of Trump’s companies had gone bankrupt during the early 1990s.

Similar documents surfaced in 2006, after Trump was stung by a book written by Tim O’Brien that ridiculed his boasts of being worth as much as $6 billion. The book, “TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald,” cited three confidential sources “with direct knowledge of Donald’s finances” who said the number was actually between $150 million and $250 million.

Looking to rehabilitate the image of his net worth — on Forbes’ annual list of billionaires — Trump enlisted his accountants. He summoned two Forbes reporters, according to one of them, Stephane Fitch. They arrived at his Trump Tower conference room to find a table piled with leather-bound volumes and stacks of manila folders, supposedly documenting how much Trump was worth. Also present, to help make the case: Bender and his Weiser partner Gerald Rosenblum. The two accountants sat silently as Trump and his deputies touted his wealth. Forbes ultimately pegged it at $2.9 billion — about half of what Trump claimed — but far higher than O’Brien’s assessment.

Trump sued O’Brien for defamation, and in the litigation, too, the accountants and their work played a supporting role. A 25-page document, on Weiser letterhead, titled “Accountants Compilation Report” was produced during discovery. (“I do keep one actually on my desk, hidden,” Trump testified during the case.) A two-page disclaimer explained that the report (which claimed a net worth of $3.5 billion) was based entirely on “the representation of the individual whose financial statements are presented.” In other words, all the numbers came from Trump.

Trump made clear just how unreliable that was, at one point testifying during his deposition: “My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings.” Asked if he’d ever exaggerated in statements about his properties, Trump replied: “I think everyone does.”

The disclaimer on the “compilation” noted that Weiser had done nothing to confirm the unaudited numbers, which included wholesale departures from generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). In particular, the statement acknowledged counting future income streams that were in doubt; excluding much of Trump’s debt; failing to reflect whether Trump actually owned only a portion of the assets he listed; and ignoring both repayment obligations and whatever taxes he owed.

Weiser did sometimes prepare GAAP-compliant audited financial statements for Trump, when required by some lenders and regulators. These statements revealed a lower net worth. So Trump shared the “compilation” documents with reporters instead.

O’Brien’s lawyers deposed the two Weiser partners who worked on the Trump document. Asked to explain a memo he’d written calling Trump’s valuations on properties “subjective,” Bender demurred: “I don’t have the professional expertise to discuss valuations.” Rosenblum, who said he had been preparing such statements for Trump since the early 1980s, was more direct. “In the compilation process, it is not the role of the accountant to assess the values,” he testified. “The role is to accept those values and move them forward.” He acknowledged he made no attempt to corroborate any of the figures. (A judge granted O’Brien a summary judgment, later upheld by an appeals court, in Trump’s libel suit.)

Trump continued to offer selective financial statements. If anything, the list of recipients seemed to grow, to include banks and insurance companies, according to congressional testimony last year by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, shortly before he went to prison. Cohen released copies of Trump’s financial statements for 2011, 2012 and 2013 and testified: “It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes, such as trying to be listed among the wealthiest people in Forbes, and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes.”

By this point, Mazars had become his accountants of record (the Weiser merger occurred in 2010) and the disclaimers in the financial statements had grown to exclude anything involving the finances of Trump’s large hotels in Las Vegas and Chicago. The 2011 and 2012 statements placed Trump’s net worth at $4,261,590,000 and $4,558,680,000, respectively.

They included multiple false claims. As The Washington Post reported last year, the 2011 statement claimed Trump Tower was 68 stories tall (it’s 58); exaggerated the size of Trump’s Virginia vineyard (it’s 1,200 acres, not 2,000); inflated the number of lots approved for sale at his golf course in southern California (it was 31, not 55); and claimed a 212-acre Westchester County estate he’d bought in 1996 for $7.5 million was already “zoned for 9 luxurious homes” and thus worth $291 million. Local officials said the property was really worth about $20 million, and the project, which faced years of opposition from area residents, was never built. Trump took a tax write-off on the property instead. These false statements alone appear to have inflated Trump’s claimed wealth by hundreds of millions.

Once again, when Trump announced his campaign for the presidency in gala fashion in 2015, he waved a financial statement that he said his accountants had prepared. This time the tally was $8,737,540,000.

“To pay an auditor to say ‘we have not checked the numbers, and the numbers don’t follow any rules’ — you just don’t see that,” said George Washington University assistant accountancy professor Kyle Welch. “This is not a real financial statement. This is a promotional document.” Welch said the sweeping disclaimer protects the accountants from legal liability or industry sanctions.

He doubts a larger firm would have been willing to affix its name to such statements. “I don’t think any of the Big Four would put their name on those financial statements,” Welch said. “I don’t think they could have been paid enough to get it done.”

Not long after it acquired Trump’s accounting firm, Weiser came under investigation by the SEC. The matter was resolved in 2004, with an agreed settlement order: Two Weiser CPAs were suspended from practicing before the commission for “highly unreasonable” and “improper professional conduct.” The SEC also censured Weiser, ordering it to disgorge $39,679 and hire an outside consultant to review its policies and compliance procedures.

According to the SEC, Weiser had failed to properly monitor its client, a financial advisory firm called Sagam Capital Management, that was already operating under a cease-and-desist order for securities fraud and thus, as Weiser knew, warranted “heightened scrutiny.” These failures, the SEC found, had “willfully aided and abetted” more misconduct. (Sagam’s CEO later went to prison for stealing millions from his customers.)

Victor Wahba, the Weiser partner in charge of the assignment, was barred from SEC practice for a minimum of four years. (He didn’t admit or deny wrongdoing.) But Wahba remained at the firm, and was promoted, just one year later, to run its New York office. In 2012, 15 months after being reinstated by the SEC, Wahba was named co-CEO of Mazars. He became chairman and CEO of Mazars USA in 2015.

Wahba declined requests for an interview, but Mazars provided a statement that read, in part: “Under Victor Wahba’s leadership, Mazars USA has become a national leader in tax, accounting and consulting. He is well recognized as a thoughtful and charitable CEO.” It noted that Wahba now “remains in good standing” with various industry and government regulators, including the SEC.

Trump’s accounting firm faced other issues. In 2009, a partner received a three-year SEC suspension for secretly negotiating for a high-level job with a client he was then auditing. The SEC called the partner’s conduct “at a minimum, reckless.” He eventually left the firm.

In separate, more recent cases, the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan prosecuted two other CPAs who worked at the firm for their involvement in illegal tax shelters.

Ronald Katz, a partner at Weiser for five years starting in 2004, received a nine-month prison sentence in 2017 after pleading guilty to conspiring with a New York tax attorney in what federal prosecutors described as a “corrupt multi-year tax evasion scheme.” Katz had been indicted, among other offenses, on charges of failing to pay taxes on $1.2 million in fee income while at the firm. Internal firm financial documents show that for 2004, Katz billed $6.6 million in fees, far more than any other partner in the firm. Katz declined to comment.

In August 2019, New York federal prosecutors settled a civil complaint against former Mazars senior manager Michael Schwartz. In legal filings, prosecutors said he had arranged for more than 100 taxpayers to claim “large phony tax losses,” cheating the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. (The shelters dated back to 2002, but were already under court challenge by the government when Mazars hired Schwartz in 2008.) In 2010, a federal appeals court found that one of Schwartz’s transactions, which allowed a tech executive to shelter $60 million in stock gains with an investment of less than $1 million, was “specifically designed to create a massive tax loss devoid of economic reality.”

Despite this, Schwartz remained at the accounting firm until 2015, just weeks before the IRS assessed him for $35.4 million for promoting unregistered fraudulent tax shelters. After filing for bankruptcy, Schwartz settled the IRS claim by agreeing to pay $650,000. (“This had nothing to do with WeiserMazar,” Schwartz said. “This was all activities done way before I joined the firm. They knew about it. But they hired me for my international tax expertise.”)

In its statement, Mazars dismissed the notion that it had a troubling record. “Any suggestion that Mazars USA is an industry outlier with regard to its business practices or litigation history is false and misleading. Even a cursory review of the history of any large accounting firm or business will reveal the inevitability of litigation. Our history is no different than any other similarly situated firm.”

Mazars declined to respond to a long list of questions regarding its work for the Trumps, citing the need to protect client confidentiality. Its statement noted, “Mazars USA prides itself on providing professional accounting, audit and consulting services in accordance with all professional and ethical standards, rules, and regulations.”

Because it handles virtually all the tax and accounting needs for Donald Trump, Mazars has inevitably found itself immersed in more recent controversies surrounding its famous client.

This extends to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, whose annual tax returns Bender has regularly prepared and signed. For 2016 and 2017, before the foundation’s dissolution, Mazars also audited its financial statements, filed with the New York attorney general’s office. Among these documents, there is no indication the firm did anything to spotlight or curtail the financial abuses that eventually forced the charity’s shutdown.

The Mazars accountants were complicit in the foundation’s illegal practices, according to Marcus Owens, an attorney and expert in nonprofit law who ran the IRS’ exempt-organizations division for a decade. “I cannot fathom how they would not know,” he said. Owens called the firm’s role in the foundation’s misconduct “extraordinary. … I’ve been practicing charity law for 45 years, including 25 at the IRS, and I’ve never seen anything like it.” Added Owens: “This is aiding and abetting someone doing something that is in clear violation of federal tax law. It really calls into question what’s going on with every other tax return that firm prepared.”

Mazars’ role, if any, in the Stormy Daniels hush money scandal remains unclear. As ProPublica has reported, the Manhattan DA’s office is investigating whether the Trump Organization’s payments, falsely reimbursed to Michael Cohen as a “legal retainer,” represented an illegal falsification of the company’s books and records. It is not evident what Mazars, in preparing its tax filings and auditing its books, knew — or should have known — about this.

But it is clear that the investigation by Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance extends far beyond the scope of that 2016 episode. Vance’s grand jury subpoena seeks tax returns, work papers, financial statements and communications dating back to 2011. If the Supreme Court affirms two federal lower court rulings that he should get them, Vance’s investigators will be free to look for evidence of other potential crimes.

For all the anticipation about the documents being sought by both the criminal prosecutors and Congress, it is possible that the public may never see them even if the Supreme Court orders Mazars to turn over the records.

In Vance’s investigation, requirements for grand jury secrecy will prevail unless the documents lead to criminal prosecutions. It’s also not clear whether the congressional committees would make public any Trump records.

The greatest revelations also may not be contained in the tax returns themselves, which will lack detail about Trump and his businesses, but in the thousands of pages of other materials that Congress and the DA have also subpoenaed. These include the hundreds of corporate returns, also prepared by Mazars, detailing Trump’s investments, his debts, his sources of income and his partners. Equally important, the accountants’ work papers and communications with the Trump Organization could reveal unguarded internal assessments and exchanges about his finances.

The Supreme Court fight may end with a whimper. On April 27, the court hinted that it may be looking for a way to punt at least part of the three cases involving Trump’s tax records: It asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs to answer effectively whether the court should even be trying to resolve the two cases in which Congress has subpoenaed the records. (This would not affect the third case, involving the Manhattan DA). The question, as Scotusblog characterized it, is “whether courts should stay out of the fight over the subpoenas because it is fundamentally a political dispute between the branches of government. If the justices were to conclude that the doctrine applies, they could dismiss the cases without ruling on the merits of the dispute — which might be a particularly appealing outcome for some justices in the lead-up to the presidential election.”

Such a decision would clear the way for Mazars and Trump’s banks to comply with the congressional subpoenas if they chose to do so — but would provide no judicial means of enforcement, according to University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, a Supreme Court expert. (Asked about such a Supreme Court outcome, a Mazars spokesman said the firm stands by its previous statement that it will “respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations.”) That would provide for a much less stirring conclusion than, say, a unanimous high-court opinion declaring that the president is not above the law.

But the court could still affirm the third case, in which federal courts ordered Mazars to turn over the returns to the Manhattan DA. If Mazars then complies with that subpoena, that will leave the firm in good graces with the court — but likely facing the wrath of its client of many decades, the president of the United States.

more news https://northdenvernews.com Read More

0 notes

michaelgmoore35 · 5 years ago