Judge in Roger Stone case orders Trump administration to turn over Ukraine emails
Source: The Hill
A federal judge overseeing the trial of President Trump's former confidante, Roger Stone, has ordered that the federal government turn over at least 20 emails related to the White House's order to halt military aid to Ukraine, which sparked impeachment proceedings against the president on Capitol Hill.
Law and Crime reported that Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled in favor of a motion for summary judgement filed by The New York Times and ordered the White House to provide her with emails that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously refused to turn over, citing executive privilege.
"Specifically, the documents in this category are emails that reflect communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President's immediate advisors regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine," OMB Deputy General Counsel Heather Walsh said of the emails in court filings.
Berman Jackson reportedly said in her ruling that she would personally determine if the emails are protected by executive privilege, directing the Justice Department's attorneys to provide the documents before May 20.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-in-roger-stone-case-orders-trump-administration-to-turn-over-ukraine-emails/ar-BB144H6G?li=BBnb7Kz
Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)
outasync This message was self-deleted by its author.
leftieNanner
(15,149 posts)You know Trumpy wants to hide everything. He will appeal the order up to Beer Boy, as he has with everything.
Botany
(70,581 posts)... will not have to turn over anything.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)three branches in its ruling. The constitutional imperative to preserve the equal powers of those 3 branches becomes apparent to SCOTUS with each new case before it. Or what's a SCOTUS or any judiciary for, it will ask itself.
Botany
(70,581 posts)of the three branches isn't really there as per Congressional oversight of the executive branch.
Even though it is right there in the Constitution. And sadly I am willing to bet at least 5 of the
Justices will go along with that unAmerican crap.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)They can't afford to if they want to be a viable legal entity.
Hang tough. Let's see.
Botany
(70,581 posts)Last edited Fri May 15, 2020, 07:55 AM - Edit history (1)
... of the vote in a Presidential Election (bush v Gore) is illegal then speaking of the integrity
of the US Constitution is moot.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)austerity economics and rigged constitution insurgency. So can we.
Don't forget. We didn't "allow." We've suffered stealth insurgency in its various forms since FL 2000. Finding out the enablers of that insurgency has taken awhile, but we're working through the judiciary to corral them through rule of law.
Nothing concentrates citizens like politics, and nothing concentrates their politics -- learning to distinguish signal from noise -- like death and destruction. The stakes now are broader and higher, life and death.
Justice and progress are slow but steady; voters can allow themselves to do their part to vote for anti-class-war representatives who'll follow Biden's & past Democratic presidents' vision to end the machinery of austerity economics; once they do, we'll see it go faster.
Botany
(70,581 posts)n/t
ancianita
(36,133 posts)iluvtennis
(19,871 posts)unitedwethrive
(1,997 posts)destroyed any perceived evidence against them?