hardincap Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Mark Warner @MarkWarner More I'm voting NO on Steve Mnuchin for @USTreasury. He is not the right candidate to help Americans succeed in this economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Mark Warner @MarkWarner More I'm voting NO on Steve Mnuchin for @USTreasury. He is not the right candidate to help Americans succeed in this economy. He must be thinking what we are thinking in regards to Mnunchin. Good thing Republicans hold a majority in the committee and senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 http://dailysignal.com/2017/01/29/13-of-trumps-cabinet-nominees-await-senate-approval-leaving-agencies-without-a-leader/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 so the plaintiff lawyers will now see 50 documents soon. what has to happen to see the other 11000? do they have to be looked at by a judge? thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 isnt this somewhat a subjective judgment? frankly, i dont trust the appellate judges to get this right without adequate time to gain a full understanding of the nws. sweeney has spent 3 years on this so far and unequivocally concluded these documents matter. this almost seems like a cop out excuse the court just didnt say that the executive privilege applied, game over for those 6 docs, it went on to analyze generically what was in those 6 docs, and found that nothing in docs was relevant to Ps claims, 3rd A, DTAs etc. so while i am sure Ps would have loved to read docs, the court is saying that the Ps needed to show real need to overcome executive privilege, and these docs just didnt have smoking gun type material that Ps would have really needed. i think the appellate court should have affirmed sweeney because abuse of discretion is much more than "we disagree with court below", it's more like, "it's really outrageous that court below thought that" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Mark Warner @MarkWarner More I'm voting NO on Steve Mnuchin for @USTreasury. He is not the right candidate to help Americans succeed in this economy. cause mnuchin wouldnt guarantee that he would not go administratively i assume that hatch can count to 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Twitter saying the vote delayed to tomorrow morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Twitter saying the vote delayed to tomorrow morning. apparently at dems request https://twitter.com/peteschroeder/status/826177232792125440 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Twitter saying the vote delayed to tomorrow morning. apparently at dems request https://twitter.com/peteschroeder/status/826177232792125440 You don't call timeouts at the end of a football (American) game unless you're going to lose and need more time. Likely the same situation here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrider Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Chris (and the other legal minds here): You indicated at some point that the standard/process was one of a review for a clear error in law (as is indeed noted in the order) and not a de-novo review. Reading this, in many ways it feels exactly like the judges looked at the documents and formed their own opinion on how relevant they are to the case before Sweeney - without the background and, it would appear, on fairly rough-and-ready rules such as 'does it mention the PSPA or the sweep?'. If a doctor were to diagnose patients in this way, she would be sued for malpractice. - What recourse does one have in a case like this? - Sweeney appeared to be annoyed with government delays before, so one would presume the 50 documents get released quickly. What then? Do the plaintiffs have to ask her to rule on release of the remaining 10,944? On what basis, given that an in-camera is clearly not feasible and given the fact that the sample proved (in a statistic sense) that the government is applying the privileges too broadly? Thank you. C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 i am guessing that Ps will walk into court and seek all 11,000 docs which werent subject to an executive privilege claim. DOJ under new leadership may contest. and sweeney will do what she decides to do. more than this i know not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Twitter saying the vote delayed to tomorrow morning. apparently at dems request https://twitter.com/peteschroeder/status/826177232792125440 You don't call timeouts at the end of a football (American) game unless you're going to lose and need more time. Likely the same situation here. Apparently Democrats asked to delay the vote because they're having a candlelight vigil tonight in response to Trump's executive order on refugees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Gretchen Morgenson's latest... Court Orders Justice Dept. to Release Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Documents https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/business/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-fairholme-appeal.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 “This is a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs and, more broadly, for the rule of law and transparency in our government,” Charles J. Cooper, chairman of Cooper & Kirk, which is representing Fairholme Funds, said in a statement. “It is clear from the Court of Appeals’ unanimous ruling that the vast bulk of the 11,000 documents withheld by the government will now have to be disclosed to the plaintiffs and the courts, and we are confident that these documents will further discredit the government’s defense narrative.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Hopefully, the Ds are going to get some spine soon. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/constituent_power_is_real_just_ask_chuck_schumer.html#comments Thankfully, Mnuchin is far from the worst of the lot, so he may have chance to squeak by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTShine Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 If anyone lives in Miami and sees Bruce B. out celebrating tonight in his guayabera shirt please post a picture! Ideally we could photoshop him in with the Mnuchin & Icahn pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainforesthiker Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Hopefully, the Ds are going to get some spine soon. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/constituent_power_is_real_just_ask_chuck_schumer.html#comments Thankfully, Mnuchin is far from the worst of the lot, so he may have chance to squeak by. Geez if you want to go political do it on a political thread; we don't need this on investing threads . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Well, if The Donald does what he wants to do re destroying globalization, I think investors will have some remorse for not seeing it coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I had posted a while back inquiring about the idea that until Sessions is confirmed, could we have Obama personnel still in place at DOJ, who would be making decisions regarding FnF cases. It seemed that there wasn't a concern. Given the episode with Yates, I would ask again if this actually is a concern until Sessions is confirmed? For example, could we have a hold over from Obama admin that could make the decision to request en banc regarding the mandamus decision or is this not an available option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Well, if The Donald does what he wants to do re destroying globalization, I think investors will have some remorse for not seeing it coming. Stick to FnF. No one gives a shit about your political views. As a GSE investor, you should be thanking your lucky stars that HRC, Sperling, Perrot and co are NOT in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Well, if The Donald does what he wants to do re destroying globalization, I think investors will have some remorse for not seeing it coming. You're not wrong - the thesis largely relies on a rational administration (ex- legal cases) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 reversal seems basically out as an option in perry. chuck cooper's letter to the court explicitly asks for remand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalfMeasure Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 reversal seems basically out as an option in perry. chuck cooper's letter to the court explicitly asks for remand. I don't think outright reversal was much of a possibility to begin with due to the fact the court would want such a significant ruling against the US Gov't to be made in the most prudent manner possible. But with the writ ruling and impending document release, isn't remand almost 100%? Hard to say there was a complete administrative record when there is buried evidence that just got uncovered floating around the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 What Cooper letter are you guys referring to? Also, why would he explicitly ask for remand and not reversal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 reversal seems basically out as an option in perry. chuck cooper's letter to the court explicitly asks for remand. I don't think outright reversal was much of a possibility to begin with due to the fact the court would want such a significant ruling against the US Gov't to be made in the most prudent manner possible. But with the writ ruling and impending document release, isn't remand almost 100%? Hard to say there was a complete administrative record when there is buried evidence that just got uncovered floating around the system. + 1 A remand with full admin record put's P's in a terrific position regarding settlement discussions as a reversal has the possibility of simply being appealed IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 https://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/open-executive-session-to-consider-the-nomination-of-steven-terner-mnuchin-to-be-secretary-of-the-treasury-the-nomination-of-thomas-price-to-be-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-and-to-organize-for-the-115th-congress Can watch the hearing on Mnunchin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now