Anonymous ID: a92e03 May 24, 2019, 1:55 p.m. No.6580591   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0601 >>0712 >>0929 >>0963 >>1059

Utah Judge Suspended for 6 Months After Making Anti-Trump Comments

 

A judge has been suspended for six months without pay after the Utah Supreme Court upheld a decision to discipline the judicial officer for his politically-charged and anti-Trump comments. Judge Michael Kwan admitted that he had violated the Utah Code of Judicial Conduct on a number of occasions when he made “shirty and politically charged comments to a defendant in his courtroom,” lost his temper with a member of the court’s staff, and criticized then-presidential candidate Donald Trump on social media, according to the court’s decision.

 

In an opinion handed down on May 24, the Supreme Court ruled that Kwan’s conduct “diminishes the reputation of our entire judiciary.” “Judge Kwan’s behavior denigrates his reputation as an impartial, independent, dignified, and courteous jurist who takes no advantage of the office in which he serves,” the court wrote. They added that the Taylorsville Justice Court judge had previously been disciplined for other violations of the code including a “crass in-court reference to sexual conduct and a former president of the United States,” the opinion said. The Judicial Conduct Commission subsequently handed down the suspension, before the judge challenged it at the state’s highest court.

 

He argued that the six months suspension is an unconstitutional attempt to regulate his protected speech and that a lesser penalty like probation is more appropriate. But the court said, “the problem here is not primarily a concern that Judge Kwan has voiced his views on a range of political issues via his criticisms of Donald Trump” instead it was because his conduct was inconsistent to the public’s expectation that a judge “decide[s] issues with utmost fairness, independence, and impartiality.” “[A] judge must at times set aside the power of his or her voice—which becomes inextricably tied to his or her position—as a tool to publicly influence the results of a local, regional, or national election,” the opinion stated.

 

Kwan faced investigations for an exchange with a defendant he made in 2017 in his courtroom, where he appeared to demean the defendant as well as Trump’s immigration and tax policies.

 

Judge: So, what happened with your fine payments? Defendant: So, I, just, live paycheck to paycheck . . . . Judge: Ok. So, when you set up the pay plan you were hoping you would have the money and it didn’t pan out that way? Defendant: And I did not call, but I plan on when I get my taxes to just pay off all my court fines, because I cannot end up in jail again for not complying. Judge: You do realize that we have a new president, and you think we are getting any money back? Defendant: I hope. Judge: You hope? Defendant: I pray and I cross my fingers. Judge: Ok. Prayer might be the answer. ‘Cause, he just signed an order to start building the wall and he has no money to do that, and so if you think you are going to get taxes back this year, uh-yeah, maybe, maybe not. But don’t worry[,] there is a tax cut for the wealthy so if you make over $500,000 you’re getting a tax cut. You’re right[] there[,] right? Pretty close? All[]right, so do you have a plan? Other than just get the tax cut and pay it off?

 

Kwan’s suspension also related to his 2016 comments and shared articles on his Facebook and LinkedIn accounts. He also continued to make similar comments about Trump following the presidential election, which the court described as comments “laden with blunt, and sometimes indelicate, criticism [about Trump].”

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/utah-judge-suspended-for-6-months-after-making-anti-trump-comments_2935739.html

Anonymous ID: a92e03 May 24, 2019, 2:13 p.m. No.6580696   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0734 >>0735

Obama-Appointed Judge Who Upheld Committee’s Subpoena of Trump Donated to Democrats on Committee

 

A federal judge in New York who ruled that banks must comply with subpoenas from House Democrats has a history of donating to Democrats, including Congressmen and women who sit on the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees.

 

U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, said in his ruling on May 22 that the subpoenas, which seek records about Trump, his three oldest children, and their spouses, have “a legitimate legislative purpose.” Ramos, who like all judges had an opportunity to recuse himself if there was an appearance of bias, has donated to Democratic officials, including two that sit on the committees seeking information about Trump. Federal election records show that Ramos donated $350 in 2008 to Jim Himes for Congress. Rep. Himes (D-Conn.) currently sits on the Intelligence and Financial Services Committees. Ramos donated $500 in 2010 to the re-election campaign for Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.). He had also donated $250 to her 2005 campaign. Velazquez currently sits on the Financial Services. Ramos also donated $4,025 to Obama’s first campaign for president in addition to donating $1,000 to the 2007 campaign of Hillary Clinton, who was running against Obama at the time. Trump beat Clinton in 2016. Committee. His other donations include $1,000 to the Senate campaign of Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), a $500 donation to Friends of Chris Dodd, a former Democratic Senator, and additional money to Obama’s campaign for re-election. Ramos halted donations after being appointed by Obama to the federal court in 2011. Federal judges are supposed to be impartial but many have ruled against Trump only to see their rulings overturned by higher courts. The donations came to light after another recent ruling against Trump.

 

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said in a 41-page opinion on May 20 that Mazars USA, Trump’s former accounting firm, must comply with a subpoena from Congress and turn over financial records from as far back as 2011. The subpoena asked for records relating to Trump and various associated businesses and entities, citing Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who claimed that Trump would regularly inflate financial statements submitted to banks while deflating the value of certain assets in other cases. Congress essentially has free reign to investigate the president, Mehta wrote in his opinion. Mehta was appointed by Obama to the court in 2014. Federal election records show that Mehta donated to Obama’s first campaign in 2007 and added several thousand dollars in 2012 to Obama’s campaign for re-election. Mehta also appeared to halt political donations after being appointed as a federal judge.

 

Trump has noted the background of some judges ruling against him, hitting at Mehta specifically after the ruling. “Well, we disagree with that ruling. It’s crazy—because you look at it; this never happened to any other President. They’re trying to get a redo,” he said, referring to special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, which ultimately found no evidence of collusion between the Trump 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. Throughout the nearly two-year investigation, Democrats leaned heavily on an expectation that Mueller would find collusion. “They’re trying to get what we used to call in school: a deal—a ‘do-over.’ And if you look, you know, we had no collusion, we had no obstruction. We had no nothing. The Democrats were very upset with the Mueller report, as perhaps they should be,” he said in Washington before departing for a rally in Pennsylvania. “But, I mean, the country is very happy about it because there was never anything like that. And they’re trying to get a redo, or a do-over, and you can’t do that. As far as the financials are concerned, we think it’s totally the wrong decision by, obviously, an Obama-appointed judge. He was a recent Obama-appointed judge.”

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/obama-appointed-judge-who-upheld-committees-subpoena-of-trump-donated-to-democrats-on-committee_2935592.html

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Case 1:19-cv-01136-APM Document 35 Filed 05/20/19

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/20/mehta.opinion.in.trump.subpoena.case.pdf

Anonymous ID: a92e03 May 24, 2019, 2:21 p.m. No.6580735   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Trump Appeals Ruling Which Upheld Subpoenas for His Bank Records

 

President Donald Trump filed an appeal on May 24 seeking to overturn a federal judge’s ruling which upheld two Democrat-issued subpoenas seeking the president’s financial records from two banks. The president’s attorneys filed the appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf Trump, his children—Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump—and several of their companies.

 

On May 22, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said that Trump and his company’s argument that the subpoenas were unconstitutional would unlikely succeed and that the subpoenas have “a legitimate legislative purpose.” The appeal is the second test of congressional subpoena power sent to the circuit courts this week. On May 20, Trump appealed a federal judge’s ruling which upheld a subpoena seeking the president’s financial records from account firm Mazars LLC. The decision to uphold the subpoena was also issued by an Obama appointee, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta. “It’s totally the wrong decision by obviously an Obama-appointed judge,” Trump said after Mehta upheld the Mazars subpoena.

 

The Democrats on the House Financial Services and Intelligence committees say they need the president’s financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One Bank in order to investigate possible “foreign influence in the U.S. political process,” among other matters. Trump argues that the Democrats are insisting on a “do-over” of the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, who concluded that there is not enough evidence to establish that Trump or anyone on his campaign colluded with Russia. In addition to Mueller, three separate investigations in the House and Senate concluded there is no evidence of collusion.

 

The House lawyers argued in a written submission prior to the hearing on May 22 that the president’s effort to block the subpoenas was “flatly inconsistent with nearly a century of Supreme Court precedent.” Trump’s attorneys responded that accepting the House committee’s arguments would mean “Congress can issue a subpoena on any matter, at any time, for any reason, to any person, and there is basically nothing a federal court can do about it.”

 

Late last month, the president pledged to fight all subpoenas from the Democrats. In the month that followed his comments, Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin defied a subpoena for the president’s tax returns and Attorney General William Barr defied a subpoena seeking a fully unredacted version of the Mueller report. When the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee moved to start the procedure to hold Barr in contempt for defying the subpoena, the White House, at Barr’s request, asserted executive privilege over the entire Mueller report. The White House also instructed former White House counsel Don McGahn to not testify before the committee. The Democrats are also attempting to negotiate testimony by Mueller, but talks have stalled because Mueller has demanded to testify only in private. “I don’t know why the Radical Left Democrats want Bob Mueller to testify when he just issued a 40 Million Dollar Report that states, loud & clear & for all to hear, No Collusion and No Obstruction (how do you Obstruct a NO crime?) Dems are just looking for trouble and a Do-Over!” Trump wrote on Twitter.

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-appeals-ruling-which-upheld-subpoenas-for-his-bank-records_2935625.html

 

>>6580696