Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2151  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:01 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Is Ginsberg going to personally go to the Whitehouse and kick Trump in the nards?
I rather doubt her eyesight is quite that good..
  #2152  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:10 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,755
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...to-boost-trump

Senate Intelligence Committee releases report that concludes Russia intervened in 2016 to aid Trump. Which is not a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention.
  #2153  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:21 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
I think it's a slightly different ploy. There's been so much criticism of the Republicans just following the party line, that they will agree with whatever outrageous behavior the president gets up to, no matter what. Republicans have come out vociferously calling the president out on his bad decision in regards to Syria. Now Trump can point to them and say, see, they disagree with me when I do something wrong. They didn't disagree with my conduct in the Ukraine matter. Therefore it couldn't have possibly been wrong.
Absolutely!

As you say, it's them demonstrating that, 'yes, there are checks and balances, and yes, the system is working no matter what the socialists/leftists/baby-killers/Democrats claim'. But it's also a tactic to preemptively dismiss anything that might be found or has been found that demonstrates Trump's criminal and unAmerican behaviour.
  #2154  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:22 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Why? What can Congress do if they don't? What will Congress do if they don't?
Admonish them?
Shake a finger at them?
Throw more paperwork at them?
File a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena?
  #2155  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:24 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
Jim Jordan said:
Jim Jordan is one of the most corrupt, self-serving, brown-nosing lying assholes that I have ever seen elected to any political body. He's sort of a one-man icon for everything wrong with the Republican party, particularly the complete disregard for truth or fairness and the tendency of its more militant members to live in a fictitious alternate reality that they themselves have fabricated. Their sole constituency, without which they couldn't exist, is the ignorant voter, on whom they prey like vultures.
  #2156  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:26 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I rather doubt her eyesight is quite that good..
In her defense, no one's is.
  #2157  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:31 PM
Skypist's Avatar
Skypist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 529
The New York tax return case isn’t expected to go to SCOTUS? I’m really surprised. I figured trump could keep the case going until he is out of office and then it would be dropped, or else it would make it to SCOTUS, where the ruling would likely be in his favor since he has it stuffed with toadies.

It just feels like these slow crawls through the courts will either never end or be decided in trump’s favor months down the line since the SCOTUS is not the only place he’s got packed full of toadies. Now this latest refusal to testify feels like simply one more case going on the heap. Argh.

Last edited by Skypist; 10-08-2019 at 01:32 PM. Reason: Typo dammit
  #2158  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:40 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
The House committees started the process long ago. There are numerous cases making their way through the appeals process. The appeals process just takes time, and that's what the Trump crowd has been playing for. I compiled a list of articles in my Post #1276 that gives you an idea of where some of these cases are in the pipeline. One of them, the Mazars case, was ruled on yesterday and further appealed.

It was a glorious ruling yesterday that Trump can't stop his accountants, Mazars, from turning over his tax returns in response to a grand jury subpoena. (Bloomberg) The judge's ruling is scathing in its criticism of Trump's efforts to defy the rule of law. Even though this ruling is briefly stayed, the appeals court will take up the matter on an expedited basis and is expected to rule within 3 weeks. It's unlikely the SCOTUS will hear it, so that will be the end of the tax records obstruction efforts -- at least so far as the courts are concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
File a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skypist View Post
The New York tax return case isn’t expected to go to SCOTUS? I’m really surprised. I figured trump could keep the case going until he is out of office and then it would be dropped, or else it would make it to SCOTUS, where the ruling would likely be in his favor since he has it stuffed with toadies.

It just feels like these slow crawls through the courts will either never end or be decided in trump’s favor months down the line since the SCOTUS is not the only place he’s got packed full of toadies. Now this latest refusal to testify feels like simply one more case going on the heap. Argh.
Please fight my ignorance. In the aftermath of the 2000 election, Bush v Gore somehow got in front of the SCOTUS and was ruled on within days. (Apologies if I have this wrong -- my memory is hazy.) How did that happen, and why can't it happen now? How does Pelosi v Trump skip the preliminaries and get right to the main event?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #2159  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:47 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,615
Schiff has issued a sternly worded tweet about today's obstruction.
https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/st...ews|twgr^tweet

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/st...148353/video/1
OK man, so what are you going to DO about it??

Last edited by bobot; 10-08-2019 at 01:49 PM.
  #2160  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:50 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
File a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena?
Try to understand this: If it doesn't take away his money or effect him physically he just doesn't give a flying fuck. File that lawsuit-he won't show up and you can't make him. Demand to see documents-he won't hand them over and you can't make him. Demand his cronies appear-he won't let them and you can't force them.
  #2161  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:57 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Please fight my ignorance. In the aftermath of the 2000 election, Bush v Gore somehow got in front of the SCOTUS and was ruled on within days. (Apologies if I have this wrong -- my memory is hazy.) How did that happen, and why can't it happen now? How does Pelosi v Trump skip the preliminaries and get right to the main event?
The Supreme Court has the power to expedite cases when they feel that timeliness requires it. They can essentially say "This case needs our decision within a short time period in order for the decision to matter so we're bypassing the normal route through the appeals system."
  #2162  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:59 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The Supreme Court has the power to expedite cases when they feel that timeliness requires it. They can essentially say "This case needs our decision within a short time period in order for the decision to matter so we're bypassing the normal route through the appeals system."
Thanks for the explanation. Doesn't the White House defying House subpeonas during an impeachment inquiry merit that kind of intervention?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #2163  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:07 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Thanks for the explanation. Doesn't the White House defying House subpeonas during an impeachment inquiry merit that kind of intervention?
One would think they would. Perhaps they need to be formally asked.
  #2164  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:07 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,674
"The one text message that I saw.... I don't even know most of these ambassadors. I didn't even know their names. But the text message, the text message that I saw, from Ambassador Sondland, who is highly respected, was, there's no quid pro quo. He said that." Trump, four days ago.

It is now coming out that Sondland was on the phone with Trump just before sending that text message. Trump wrote one bogus press release on Air Force One, did he dictate that text to Sondland?

Shit, I wouldn't testify today either if I was as crooked as Sondland. I'd be getting a lawyer.

https://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/w...xt-70859333924
  #2165  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:08 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Try to understand this: If it doesn't take away his money or effect him physically he just doesn't give a flying fuck. File that lawsuit-he won't show up and you can't make him. Demand to see documents-he won't hand them over and you can't make him. Demand his cronies appear-he won't let them and you can't force them.
I just reread this story from about a week before the 2016 election...

Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders

It's worth a read because he is currently employing a number of shady tactics that have worked for him in the past. Here's the concluding paragraph...

Quote:
This review of Trump's many decades of abusing the judicial system, ignoring judges, disregarding rules, destroying documents and lying about it is not simply a sordid history lesson. Rather, it helps explain his behavior since he declared his candidacy. He promised to turn over his tax returns and his health records—just as he promised to comply with document discovery requirements in so many lawsuits—then reneged. As a result, he has left a sparse evidentiary trail that can be used to assess his wealth, his qualifications for the presidency or even his fitness. Should voters choose him to be the next U.S. president, he will enter the Oval Office as a mystery, a man who has repeatedly flouted the rules. He has solemnly told the country to trust him while refusing to produce any records to prove whether he speaks the truth or has utter contempt for it.
  #2166  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:13 PM
Skypist's Avatar
Skypist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Please fight my ignorance. In the aftermath of the 2000 election, Bush v Gore somehow got in front of the SCOTUS and was ruled on within days. (Apologies if I have this wrong -- my memory is hazy.) How did that happen, and why can't it happen now? How does Pelosi v Trump skip the preliminaries and get right to the main event?
IANAL but I assume that went on the ultra fast track since it was actually an election decision. This is probably not deemed as much of an emergency. To me it needs timelier resolution but I’m a nobody!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Schiff has issued a sternly worded tweet about today's obstruction.
https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/st...ews|twgr^tweet

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/st...148353/video/1
OK man, so what are you going to DO about it??
Seriously.
  #2167  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:24 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
You said nothing about the most important part of what I just wrote.
..."important" is subjective.

Quote:
I was and am interested in why specifically some people think Trump is being blackmailed.
I was and am interested in pointing out to you that you didn't understand what the word "evidence" meant, and to point out that despite your assertion that no evidence was posted, evidence actually was posted.

Quote:
Someone posting a link and saying, literally "this", is not an answer.
Incorrect.

Quote:
There is a long precedent, obviously, of people being asked to defend what they link to here and in Great Debates.
That precedent applies when the link that is requested is directly applicable to the OP. You yourself acknowledge that it really wasn't, so much so you created a new thread to address it.

Quote:
"Debate" being the key word. No one wanted to do that here. Fine. That's why I started a specific thread on the matter.
Exactly.
  #2168  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:38 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Thanks for the explanation. Doesn't the White House defying House subpeonas during an impeachment inquiry merit that kind of intervention?
I have a sneaking suspicion that such a lawsuit would be dismissed as a political question. This contradicts my earlier support for a lawsuit, but as I read more about how the Supreme Court has handled congressional-executive disputes in the past, the more I feel that such a suit will be dismissed.

~Max
  #2169  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:01 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
One would think they would. Perhaps they need to be formally asked.
Is it even judicable? I would think it is a political question solved by contempt of Congress.
  #2170  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:05 PM
gytalf2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 3,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
The House committees started the process long ago. There are numerous cases making their way through the appeals process. The appeals process just takes time, and that's what the Trump crowd has been playing for. I compiled a list of articles in my Post #1276 that gives you an idea of where some of these cases are in the pipeline. One of them, the Mazars case, was ruled on yesterday and further appealed.

It was a glorious ruling yesterday that Trump can't stop his accountants, Mazars, from turning over his tax returns in response to a grand jury subpoena. (Bloomberg) The judge's ruling is scathing in its criticism of Trump's efforts to defy the rule of law. Even though this ruling is briefly stayed, the appeals court will take up the matter on an expedited basis and is expected to rule within 3 weeks. It's unlikely the SCOTUS will hear it, so that will be the end of the tax records obstruction efforts -- at least so far as the courts are concerned.

From the Bloomberg article:

Excellent news!
  #2171  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:07 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I have a sneaking suspicion that such a lawsuit would be dismissed as a political question. This contradicts my earlier support for a lawsuit, but as I read more about how the Supreme Court has handled congressional-executive disputes in the past, the more I feel that such a suit will be dismissed.

~Max
This isn't a policy dispute. If the SCOTUS won't intervene when one branch openly defies the 100% legal and proper procedures of another, how can a rogue executive ever be held accountable?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #2172  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:09 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Is it even judicable? I would think it is a political question solved by contempt of Congress.
Contempt of Congress, great. Then what? Are there consequences, or will it just "look bad" on Trump's next report card?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #2173  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:23 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Contempt of Congress, great. Then what? Are there consequences, or will it just "look bad" on Trump's next report card?
My (probably flawed) understanding is that Congress could seek criminal enforcement if they find that someone has ignored their legally-filed requests and subpoenas, through the Department of Justice (so, yes, in theory, there can and should be consequences). However, given that the DoJ is run by AG William Barr, who has shown absolutely no inclination to do anything even remotely against the wishes of Trump, I would imagine that any requests from Congress to the DoJ to enforce this would be met with a yawn, at best.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 10-08-2019 at 03:24 PM.
  #2174  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:30 PM
Elusive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
My (probably flawed) understanding is that Congress could seek criminal enforcement if they find that someone has ignored their legally-filed requests and subpoenas, through the Department of Justice (so, yes, in theory, there can and should be consequences). However, given that the DoJ is run by AG William Barr, who has shown absolutely no inclination to do anything even remotely against the wishes of Trump, I would imagine that any requests from Congress to the DoJ to enforce this would be met with a yawn, at best.
What, if anything, can be done about Barr? What recourse is there if our DOJ has turned against us?
  #2175  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:32 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skypist View Post
The New York tax return case isn’t expected to go to SCOTUS? I’m really surprised. I figured trump could keep the case going until he is out of office and then it would be dropped, or else it would make it to SCOTUS, where the ruling would likely be in his favor since he has it stuffed with toadies.

It just feels like these slow crawls through the courts will either never end or be decided in trump’s favor months down the line since the SCOTUS is not the only place he’s got packed full of toadies. Now this latest refusal to testify feels like simply one more case going on the heap. Argh.
I'll be surprised if SCOTUS takes it up. They generally don't get involved in cases where the law is well settled, as it is in this case. There are just no real issues for them to decide. MAGA Hats may not understand it, but the Constitution makes crystal clear in Article 1 that Congress has powers of oversight over the Executive Branch. Trump's arguments in opposition have zero basis. Unless SCOTUS is prepared to just literally shit all over the Constitution, they have no reason to elevate this case.

You are absolutely right about the slow crawls through the courts. No one up until this "president" has weaponized our institutions as he has been willing to do. He politicizes everything. No doubt you've noticed his practice of defining any ruling adverse to his interests as being done by "Democrats!"

Courts don't rule on the basis of their political views. At least, they're not supposed to. Impartiality is their highest ethical duty. But this asshole has no problem calling this into question from every possible angle in a bid to save his own worthless skin. He doesn't care how much damage he does to our institutions by politicizing them and politicizing judicial process.

He also weaponizes the deliberative (usually slow) process of the courts as much as he can. Some of the courts have recognized this tactic and have expedited their rulings in an effort to counter it. Still, it is slow. Trump and his henchmen count on it.

Trump is 100% the most dangerous thing that has ever happened to our country.

Last edited by Aspenglow; 10-08-2019 at 03:35 PM.
  #2176  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:34 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Is it even judicable? I would think it is a political question solved by contempt of Congress.
The Supremes told Nixon he had to turn over the tapes. If they can order that a president produce physical evidence why could they not order a president to allow material witnesses?
  #2177  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:34 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,785
Man, if Lincoln was alive he'd be rolling in his grave.
  #2178  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:40 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Contempt of Congress
Quote:
Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).
  #2179  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:40 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elusive View Post
What, if anything, can be done about Barr? What recourse is there if our DOJ has turned against us?
From what I can gather from the last couple of hours of this thread, it goes like this:

House: Here's a subpoena.
White House: Fuck off.
House: We're asking DOJ to enforce the subpoena.
DOJ: Nah. (licks Trump's asshole one more time)
House: We'll take it to the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS: We don't intervene in interbranch issues.
White House: The witch hunt is over!
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #2180  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:44 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
That's nobody's business but the Turks.
Yeah. After all, even old New Yorkshit was once New Amsterdamshit.
  #2181  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:45 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,349
So far has anyone actually defied a subpoena? I know many people are saying they INTEND to defy them, but so far all issued seem to give a reasonable length of time to comply. Have any subpoenas gone unanswered AND past the deadline?
  #2182  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:48 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,615
"...the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, ..."
This would be spectacular. But dammit, I just don't see it happening.
  #2183  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:54 PM
aruvqan is online now
Embracing the Suck
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 17,103
Quote:
Sondland attorney Robert Luskin says that as the sitting U.S. ambassador to the European Union and an employee of the State Department, Sondland is required to follow the department's direction. No reason for the direction was cited, he said.

Honestly, if I were Sondland and serious about wanting to testify, the easy response to that order would be for me to hand them my resignation on the way into court.
  #2184  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:56 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,615
That is if he actually (cough, cough) wanted to testify.

But I guess it is nice of the Trump so-called administration to set the precedent that nobody has to do any fucking thing that they don't feel like doing.

Last edited by bobot; 10-08-2019 at 03:57 PM.
  #2185  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:58 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
So far has anyone actually defied a subpoena? I know many people are saying they INTEND to defy them, but so far all issued seem to give a reasonable length of time to comply. Have any subpoenas gone unanswered AND past the deadline?
Not sure about the most recent ones, but Steve Mnuchin (Treasury secretary) simply ignored the ones that were issued for the IRS to provide Trump's tax records back in the spring -- when he did not provide them by the date on the subpoenas, it led to the legal procedings that are now going through the appeals process.

Edit: on reflection, I'm not sure if those were, technically speaking, subpoenas.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 10-08-2019 at 04:01 PM.
  #2186  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:01 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
So far has anyone actually defied a subpoena? I know many people are saying they INTEND to defy them, but so far all issued seem to give a reasonable length of time to comply. Have any subpoenas gone unanswered AND past the deadline?
Don McGahn defied a subpoena of the House Judiciary Committee to come testify. That case is before the DC District Court. In late August, Democrats asked for an expedited ruling in that case to occur before the end of this year. (The Hill)

It's all games. The court's ruling is a foregone conclusion unless they are prepared to overturn the historic understanding of executive privilege. I doubt they will.

McGahn has said he will comply with the court's order to testify if that is the ruling. (It will be.)
  #2187  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:05 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Contempt of Congress, great. Then what? Are there consequences, or will it just "look bad" on Trump's next report card?
I believe Contempt of Congress is impeachable. As a historic note, the charge that the House felt was guarantied a conviction in Andrew Johnson's impeachment was disparaging Congress by saying laws were improperly passed since not every state was represented** (although his words were not quite politic). If talking mean about Congress can bring you up on charges then clearly a criminal contempt can. It was THAT charge losing by one vote that pretty much ensured that Johnson would be acquitted. The famous "violating the Tenure of Office Act" charge (article I) was questionable since there was a question of whose term Stanton was approved for and was not even voted on.

I'm honestly shocked the Republicans never tried to impeach Eric Holder on Contempt of Congress but the day he was held in contempt, SCOTUS upheld Obamacare so to say the priorities of Republican congressmen shifted is an understatement.


**
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARTICLE 11
That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and his oath of office, and in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, did, heretofore, to wit: On the 18th day of August, 1866, at the city of Washington, and in the District of Columbia, by public speech, declare and affirm in substance, that the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same, but on the contrary, was a Congress of only part of the States, thereby denying and intending to deny, that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby denying the power of the said Thirty-ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. And in pursuance of said declaration, the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, afterwards, to wit: On the 21st day of February 1868, at the city of Washington, D.C., did, unlawfully and in disregard of the requirements of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising and contriving and attempting to devise and contrive means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension theretofore made by the said Andrew Johnson of said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of War; and also by further unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive means then and there to prevent the execution of an act entitled “An act making appropriations for the support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 30,1868, and for other purposes,” approved March 20, 1867. And also to prevent the execution of an act entitled “An act to provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel States,” passed March 2, 1867. Whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then, to wit, on the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss

Last edited by Saint Cad; 10-08-2019 at 04:08 PM.
  #2188  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:13 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Try to understand this: If it doesn't take away his money or effect him physically he just doesn't give a flying fuck. File that lawsuit-he won't show up and you can't make him. Demand to see documents-he won't hand them over and you can't make him. Demand his cronies appear-he won't let them and you can't force them.
So hold those failing to show up in inherent contempt and jail them. If the Republicans are going to such extraordinary lengths to violate laws and norms, then the Dems should use the full extent of their powers. It's time for Congress to start flexing it's fricking powers.
  #2189  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:28 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
"...the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, ..."
This would be spectacular. But dammit, I just don't see it happening.
Does the SaA of the House have an enforcement arm? I mean, literally, how does this happen? Does the SaA walk over to the DOJ with a couple of goons and slap the cuffs on Barr? Does he/she wear a spiffy uniform with epaulets and everything?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #2190  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:36 PM
jsc1953 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I believe Contempt of Congress is impeachable.
Yeah. The Sergean-at-Arms is not going to arrest anyone. If someone directs their minions to willfully ignore a lawfully executed subpoena, then that someone would be impeached.

Now, if the Senate declines to convict on such a charge: then the concepts of Congressional oversight and separation of powers are defunct.
  #2191  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:45 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
The Supremes told Nixon he had to turn over the tapes. If they can order that a president produce physical evidence why could they not order a president to allow material witnesses?
And what if Nixon had simply said "fuck you, I won't". And his entire party and a television network backed him up?

And what if Elliot Richardson had said "Archibald Cox is a partisan hack, and I fired him. So what?"

And what if Barry Goldwater, instead of urging Nixon to resign, instead swore that Nixon was the best president in history, the Democrats were engaging in a witch hunt, and he would support Nixon no matter what?
  #2192  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:46 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
So hold those failing to show up in inherent contempt and jail them. If the Republicans are going to such extraordinary lengths to violate laws and norms, then the Dems should use the full extent of their powers. It's time for Congress to start flexing it's fricking powers.
They'll send them a sternly worded email and that will be the end of it.

Republicans are saying "fuck you" to the norms and to the legal processes. And getting away with it. So why would they not continue?
  #2193  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:59 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,183
The House does have a nuclear option. It can shut down the government on 21 Nov when the current CR runs out. The government is not functioning because the President is violating the law. The House can shut down the government until Trump complies with all Constitutionally mandated oversight issues.
  #2194  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:02 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
One would think they would. Perhaps they need to be formally asked.
Yes, the Supreme Court (or other appellate courts) need to be asked to take a case on an expedited basis, or to skip intervening levels of appeal.

During Watergate, Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski struggled with bypassing the appellate court to take United States v. Nixon directly to SCOTUS; he worried that the Supremes would reject the appeal and tell him that it wasn't really all that urgent (which would certainly have been a public relations disaster, if nothing else). In the end, however, both he and Nixon went directly to SCOTUS, where the court delivered a unanimous verdict upholding the district court's order for Nixon to turn over tapes in response to Jaworski's subpoena. (Nixon resigned 16 days after that verdict was handed down.)
  #2195  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:08 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
The House does have a nuclear option. It can shut down the government on 21 Nov when the current CR runs out. The government is not functioning because the President is violating the law. The House can shut down the government until Trump complies with all Constitutionally mandated oversight issues.
That sounds like a terrible idea. Shutting down the govt. puts people out of work and threatens their pocketbooks. Why do that just because Republicans are behaving like criminals trying to hide something? Let Trump the Imbicile shut the govt. down unnecessarily should he feel like it again. In the meantime, I'd like to (and better, I might add) see these house Democrats rise to this occasion with the urgency and gravity it demands.
  #2196  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:19 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
And what if Nixon had simply said "fuck you, I won't". And his entire party and a television network backed him up?
"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury." -Lindsey Graham, Dec 1998

That didn't age well.
  #2197  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:19 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,349
Well, there it is officially: "We simply will not cooperate in your impeachment."
  #2198  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:28 PM
Skypist's Avatar
Skypist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 529
This is an older Reuters article from earlier this year (I think) discussing what could be done if trump continues to ignore subpoenas from the House.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKCN1S02K8

Quote:
For this reason, in modern times Congress has opted for a third and final approach to enforcing a contempt finding: getting its lawyers to bring a civil lawsuit asking a judge to rule that compliance is required.

Failure to comply with such an order can trigger a "contempt of court" finding, enforced through daily fines and even imprisonment, Griffin said.
Not sure if this is applicable. Would this mean civil fines against trump himself? He’d just refuse to pay them. I doubt anyone is going to actually try to arrest a sitting president even though this one richly deserves such.
  #2199  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:32 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
Well, there it is officially: "We simply will not cooperate in your impeachment."
Is it true that the letter from Trump's lawyers ended with the words "Now go home and get your fucking shine box?"
  #2200  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:32 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skypist View Post
Would this mean civil fines against trump himself? He’d just refuse to pay them. I doubt anyone is going to actually try to arrest a sitting president even though this one richly deserves such.
Fine. Arrest everyone else. Whoever is left will get the message and start talking.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017