Judge who upheld Trump subpoena donated to Dems on committee seeking the records

Fox News ^ | May 23 2019 | Gregg Re

[knighthawk]

The New York federal judge who ruled on Wednesday that the Trump administration must comply with two subpoenas from the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees has donated in the past to a slew of big-name Democrats -- including two who currently sit on those committees, according to federal election filings.

After an hour of oral arguments, Barack Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos ruled the subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One have "a legitimate legislative purpose," and that Trump was unlikely to prevail in a lawsuit to quash the requests. Judges have the option to recuse themselves if there is an appearance of bias.

Federal election records show that, when he was a partner at the law firm Day Pitney LLP and before he was appointed to the bench in 2011, Ramos sent $350 to Connecticut Democrat Rep. Jim Himes from 2007 to 2008, as well as $500 to elect New York Rep. Nydia Velazquez in 2010.

[DarthVader]

Thanks for this!!

[northislander]

Edgardo Ramos? No more third world immigration...ever

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks knighthawk.

[kiryandil]

He should be beaten and hanged.

[nopardons]

BTTT

[VTenigma]

Claude, Claude Rains, your services are required!

[Hyman Roth]

So sick of liberals

[Saltmeat]

The Deep State owns this judge. He will do whatever they need for him to do.

[New Jersey Realist]

Impeach the turd. He has no business on the bench.

[knighthawk]

At your service!

[Phlap]

... to recuse themselves if there is an appearance of bias.

Of course there is no appearance here, he is overtly bias.

[BenLurkin]

bttt

[bk1000]

[JGPhila]

I wonder why the lawyers representing the President, or representing the bank, did not raise this issue in the trial court? Under federal law, if a judge has an interest in the particular litigation, or has a relationship with one of the parties, it raises a question as to the judge’s impartiality. Even though the judge will be the one to make the initial decision on impartiality, and will generally conclude there is no conflict of interest, by raising the issue the court is put on notice that its’ potential bias will not go unchallenged. Clearly, while arguing that a court cannot be impartial is a decision not to be undertaken lightly by a lawyer, sometimes there is no choice. I wonder if this was one of those occasions?

[liberalh8ter]

Vacate the ruling on the basis of conflict of interest and impeach the judge. He essentially threw the case! He knows darn well he was conflicted.

[GOPJ]

Thanks Civ...

[SunkenCiv]

My pleasure!