Read on Twitter
1. Interesting:
ORDER: In accordance with the July 9, 2020 decision of the United States Supreme Court, See Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635, slip op. at 21-22 (July 9, 2020), and the July 10, 2020 Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanding the
ORDER: In accordance with the July 9, 2020 decision of the United States Supreme Court, See Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635, slip op. at 21-22 (July 9, 2020), and the July 10, 2020 Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanding the
2. case to this Court (See Dkt. No. 46), the parties are hereby ordered to jointly inform the Court by the morning of July 15, 2020 whether further proceedings will be necessary in light of the dispositions by the Courts above.
3. The parties' joint submission should outline potential areas for further argument. A telephone conference to discuss the parties' positions on further proceedings, and a proposed schedule for further briefing, if necessary, is hereby scheduled for July 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.
4. The parties are directed to use the dial-in number . . . . So Ordered. (Telephone Conference set for 7/16/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Victor Marrero.) (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 7/10/2020) (js)
5. My guess is the Trump people will try to drag it on but Judge Marrero is likely to put on a fast-track briefing that will have the case ready to be decided by early Aug. My understanding of the docket is consistent with what I'm seeing from this order and that is, without
6. the injunction (Trump lost on that in SCOTUS) and with the voluntary stay having terminated (see letter) there really isn't much that a normal litigant could do in a NY state grand jury at this point. @DB and @MazarsGroup should be looking at contempt sanctions in state court
7. if they don't comply. IMO CJ Roberts opinion lacked what I saw as a fundamental working understanding of how a grand jury works. Fun fact: Roberts has presided over one trial as far as I can see and it was the Impeachment Trial. In any event, in federal court you don't have
8. a right to know that a bank like @DeutscheBank has received a subpoena for your records. See Bank Secrecy Act 12 USC 3409. I wouldn't be surprised expect DB to be charged as a co-conspirator if they balk. As for @MazarsGroup they may bump along in this as it plays out.
9. But to restate, without a stay, @ManhattanDA can indict the Trump crime-family today. @FLOTUS @IvankaTrump @DonaldJTrumpJr @EricTrump
