Here are all of the 35 pages of the well-grounded opinion -- with a short stay (see below), for the Trump lawyers to ask the Supremes (and lose, there):
. . . .We find that the claim of overbreadth is not plausibly alleged for two interrelated reasons. First, the President’s bare assertion that the scope of the grand jury’s investigation is limited only to certain payments made by Michael Cohen in 2016 amounts to nothing more than implausible speculation. Second, without the benefit of this linchpin assumption, all other allegations of overbreadth -- based on the types of documents sought, the types of entities covered, and the time period covered by the subpoena, as well as the subpoena’s near identity to a prior Congressional subpoena -- fall short of meeting the plausibility standard. Similarly, the President’s allegations of bad faith fail to raise a plausible inference that the subpoena was issued out of malice or an intent to harass. . . .
The parties have previously agreed that, should the President seek interim relief from the Supreme Court after our instant affirmance of the district court’s judgment, the District Attorney would “forbear enforcement of the Mazars subpoena until a decision is issued by the Supreme Court denying such a request for interim relief. . . provided [the President] complies with” a briefing schedule agreed to by the parties. . . .
Onward -- we will vote this crook from office in under 30 days, now. Out.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment