Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3301  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:23 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You’re not seriously arguing there’s a deficiency with the congressional subpoenas that allows for non-compliance, are you?
I am, and have been since October 9 if not earlier. See posts #2296 and #3299.

~Max
  #3302  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:25 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Well, he is arguing that Rudy... a personal lawyer... can make a "charge" of some sort, which somehow legitimizes the asking of Ukraine which Max is so, so confused about.

But now, Max seems to be arguing, the fact this "charge" came out, literally, of Rudy's ass and has zero corroboration is irrelevant- Rudy, somehow, "charged" Hunter and now the entire thing is legit! Puppies and cupcakes!
No, you misunderstand me. I don't think Mr. Giuliani has the authority to make a charge. It would be the Department of Justice making the charge, and Mr. Giuliani just knows what it is. I'm speculating here, but there's a good chance that Mr. Giuliani had a hand in establishing probable cause for the investigation(s).

~Max
  #3303  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:34 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I am, and have been since October 9 if not earlier. See posts #2296 and #3299.
The House voted to authorize committees to issue subpoenas on January 3, 2019.
  #3304  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:55 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The House voted to authorize committees to issue subpoenas on January 3, 2019.
The rules carried over with H.Res.6, passed January 9, authorized committees to issue subpoenas "for the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties" under Rules X and XI.

With regard to the October 4 subpoena served to Mr. Mulvaney, and subsequently rejected by Mr. Cipollone, my assertion is that the oversight committee (which issued the subpoena) doesn't have jurisdiction (the right functions and duties) under rules X and XI.

~Max
  #3305  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:59 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The House voted to authorize committees to issue subpoenas on January 3, 2019.
Doesn't today's court ruling (RE: releasing the Mueller report) give the impeachment inquiry judicial and legal legitimacy? The ruling was "the impeachment inquiry is underway," shutting down the defense that "the House has not invoked their full impeachment power." Apparently, legally, they have. Right?

BTW, what's the "reason" the GOP has for refusing to allow Congress to view the entire Mueller report? It's supposedly so exonerating, why did it take a court legally compelling them to release it?
  #3306  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:01 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
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?
Through impeachment and conviction.

~Max
  #3307  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:02 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The rules carried over with H.Res.6, passed January 9, authorized committees to issue subpoenas "for the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties" under Rules X and XI.

With regard to the October 4 subpoena served to Mr. Mulvaney, and subsequently rejected by Mr. Cipollone, my assertion is that the oversight committee (which issued the subpoena) doesn't have jurisdiction (the right functions and duties) under rules X and XI.
I take your argument as seriously as if the White House Counsel argued that the House used the wrong size paper, because the subpoena was only a “letter” and not “legal” in any way.
  #3308  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:03 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
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?
AG Barr may also be impeached, even before the President if Congress so wishes.

~Max
  #3309  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:04 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I take your argument as seriously as if the White House Counsel argued that the House used the wrong size paper, because the subpoena was only a “letter” and not “legal” in any way.
I mean, you're free to do that, we could agree to disagree.

~Max
  #3310  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:07 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I disagree, a vote or at least a formal referral is required to grant the committees jurisdiction. See my post #2296. The relevant section is reproduced in the spoiler for convenience. As far as I can tell, Ms. Pelosi's September 24 "formal declaration" was not in fact a formal referral, as it was given during a news conference and was not entered into the Congressional Record. Besides, even a formal referral under Rule XII has to be based on existing jurisdiction, and both precedent and my own reading indicates to me that the proper jurisdiction is in the Judiciary Committee.
If only the courts agreed with you.

From Judge Beryl Howell's ruling today:

Quote:
"Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry," Howell determined, dismissing GOP arguments as unsupported.

Republicans had claimed that the House Judiciary Committee cannot begin impeachment proceedings without a formal vote of the House — and that even if it could, Pelosi is not empowered to simply grant that authority to the Judiciary Committee. But Howell rejected the arguments out of hand.
(Emphasis mine.)

.pdf text of full ruling

That pretty much invalidates your arguments.

<snip>

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
We also have a judicial branch, specifically designed to resolve questions of law between the other two branches. It's not like Mr. Barr is flagrantly violating a court ruling. He is interpreting the law one way, and certain committees and members of the House of Representatives are interpreting it another way. The branches are co-equal, but both defer to the judicial branch when it comes to interpreting the law.

Perhaps you are a cynic and believe Mr. Barr will defy a court ruling. He seems very much like a rule of law guy to me, even if you don't agree with his interpretation of the law you should see that. But we haven't reached that crisis yet, have we?

~Max
I think your operative word is, "yet." Bill Barr is a terrible AG, has repeatedly demonstrated that he is exactly the opposite of a "rule of law guy," and his arguments in the case before Judge Howell were contrary to virtually any understanding of legal precedent. They were supported by, well... not much of anything except his wish that his world view be accommodated, prompting the judge to comment, "Wow."

I can tell you from experience, that's not a common response from a judge to a party's arguments -- unless those arguments are so specious, they deserve such a response. DC Judge Questions DOJ's Extraordinary Stance on Mueller Grand Jury Information (National Law Journal)

ETA: IANAL.

Last edited by Aspenglow; 10-25-2019 at 08:08 PM.
  #3311  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:17 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The rules carried over with H.Res.6, passed January 9, authorized committees to issue subpoenas "for the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties" under Rules X and XI.

With regard to the October 4 subpoena served to Mr. Mulvaney, and subsequently rejected by Mr. Cipollone, my assertion is that the oversight committee (which issued the subpoena) doesn't have jurisdiction (the right functions and duties) under rules X and XI.

~Max
So you are saying Oversight doesn't have jurisdiction. Wow. What source are you using to determine the House Oversight Committee's jurisdiction?

Because this is what they say is their jurisdiction, right on their website:
Quote:
The Committee on Oversight and Reform is the main investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has authority to investigate the subjects within the Committee’s legislative jurisdiction as well as “any matter” within the jurisdiction of the other standing House Committees.
How does that not cover it?

Last edited by eschrodinger; 10-25-2019 at 08:17 PM.
  #3312  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:17 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
If only the courts agreed with you.

From Judge Beryl Howell's ruling today:

(Emphasis mine.)

.pdf text of full ruling

That pretty much invalidates your arguments.
I'll read the full decision tonight, but notably that case involved the House Judiciary Committee, which is the committee I said did have jurisdiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I think your operative word is, "yet." Bill Barr is a terrible AG, has repeatedly demonstrated that he is exactly the opposite of a "rule of law guy," and his arguments in the case before Judge Howell were contrary to virtually any understanding of legal precedent. They were supported by, well... not much of anything except his wish that his world view be accommodated, prompting the judge to comment, "Wow."

I can tell you from experience, that's not a common response from a judge to a party's arguments -- unless those arguments are so specious, they deserve such a response. DC Judge Questions DOJ's Extraordinary Stance on Mueller Grand Jury Information (National Law Journal)

ETA: IANAL.
I haven't been following this case, but if Mr. Barr is filing ridiculous briefs to try and protect the president, contrary to reason and law, I might join you in disparaging him. At the present instant though, I don't think the Attorney General has gone so far as to flat out defy a court order.

~Max
  #3313  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:24 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
So you are saying Oversight doesn't have jurisdiction. Wow. What source are you using to determine the House Oversight Committee's jurisdiction?

Because this is what they say is their jurisdiction, right on their website:


How does that not cover it?
Wow indeed, I'm 100% wrong.

I was going by the house rules (http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf) but apparently I didn't read rule X through and stopped after clause 1.

What a fool I make of myself here.

~Max
  #3314  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:26 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 286
And there is no right to ignore a subpoena. If you don't think it was properly issued, you can point this out to the issuer, and if they don't agree, you can seek to quash it.

That there could be some conceivable case where the person or persons seeking to enforce the subpoena don't have standing has zero to do with the duty to obey it. It just means you might get away with contempt of Congress because of a litigation error. It would not mean that you were in the right all along. Those quotes you posted talking about votes of the House to authorize the litigation to enforce the subpoena, are about an entirely different issue.
  #3315  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:32 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,170
I’m pretty sure the Administration is just making noise about the “invalid” subpoenas just to feed Trump supporters another load of BS.

Call me when the White House asks a court to prevent any Executive Branch official from voluntarily testifying.
  #3316  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:32 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
And there is no right to ignore a subpoena. If you don't think it was properly issued, you can point this out to the issuer, and if they don't agree, you can seek to quash it.

That there could be some conceivable case where the person or persons seeking to enforce the subpoena don't have standing has zero to do with the duty to obey it. It just means you might get away with contempt of Congress because of a litigation error. It would not mean that you were in the right all along. Those quotes you posted talking about votes of the House to authorize the litigation to enforce the subpoena, are about an entirely different issue.
I mean, it's the DoJ who actually enforces subpoenas. So when it's the executive branch being subpoenaed, there's no threat of penalty unless and until a court rules that it must be enforced. Functionally, ignoring the subpoena then arguing about it in court is the same as just asking the court to quash it.

Congress does have an inherent contempt power, but I don't think that applies outside of the actual Capitol.

~Max
  #3317  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:45 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 286
No, DOJ doesn't enforce Congressional subpoenas. I've seen sources discussing that too, but it turns out that in practice, they don't do it. So there's Congress's inherent authority, which would allow certain kinds of sanctions, but, they are somewhat limited and haven't been used in a long long time, and then there's the third option, which is what is used. Congress goes to court and asks the court to require compliance with the subpoena. If the court agrees, then it issues an order requiring compliance. Then, if the person still fails to comply, all of the normal processes connected to defying a court order come into play.
  #3318  
Old 10-25-2019, 09:01 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 286
Max, do you notice how all of this discussion has nothing to do with any wrongdoing by the administration? And how, once you actually look into it, the administration's arguments about the process keep falling apart? Can you see how those two things might be connected?

There is nothing wrong with the process. But focusing on bogus arguments about it can keep people from talking or thinking about the evidence of wrongdoing that keeps coming out of that process.

Like Fiona Hill's testimony that after a weird meeting with John Bolton and Sondland et. al., Bolton, who was taken aback at the direction the meeting went in, told Hill to go see White House lawyers to establish that "I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up," referring to the plan to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...imony.amp.html

Last edited by eschrodinger; 10-25-2019 at 09:02 PM.
  #3319  
Old 10-26-2019, 12:08 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
No, DOJ doesn't enforce Congressional subpoenas. I've seen sources discussing that too, but it turns out that in practice, they don't do it. So there's Congress's inherent authority, which would allow certain kinds of sanctions, but, they are somewhat limited and haven't been used in a long long time, and then there's the third option, which is what is used. Congress goes to court and asks the court to require compliance with the subpoena.
I'll have to stop you there, because a court doesn't issue a final order without first hearing objections from the other side.

~Max
  #3320  
Old 10-26-2019, 12:22 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
Max, do you notice how all of this discussion has nothing to do with any wrongdoing by the administration? And how, once you actually look into it, the administration's arguments about the process keep falling apart? Can you see how those two things might be connected?
Hmm. I would say the administration wants to put out the narrative that it hasn't done anything wrong and the process is unfair/illegitimate. I would say the connection is that both narratives are favorable to the administration.

I think you want me to recognize that both narratives are demonstrably false. I'm not there yet. I think it's likely that the administration is guilty of wrongdoing, but "likely" isn't the burden I want to meet. And I am personally for closed-door investigations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
There is nothing wrong with the process. But focusing on bogus arguments about it can keep people from talking or thinking about the evidence of wrongdoing that keeps coming out of that process.
That's true, but until today I didn't even know my argument was a bogus argument. It came from the White House, yes, but I don't think the hour or two I put into researching house rules and court cases were wasted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
Like Fiona Hill's testimony that after a weird meeting with John Bolton and Sondland et. al., Bolton, who was taken aback at the direction the meeting went in, told Hill to go see White House lawyers to establish that "I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up," referring to the plan to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...imony.amp.html
We'll have to wait and see what that is evidence of, won't we?

~Max
  #3321  
Old 10-26-2019, 09:17 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,464
I concur that what was found did appear to be a large mound of fecal matter, and yes, a large bull was observed by multiple credible witnesses to be walking away from the pile with a satisfied look on his face. However, we cannot yet rule out the argument, put forth from the bull and his spokescattle, that a rogue gang of squirrels stacked their own turds in an effort to discredit the bull because they hate bovines and want to destroy everything the bull has accomplished— which, by the way, is more than any other bull has ever done, despite what the fake farm reports claim. #BrahmanHoax #NoExcretion
  #3322  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:21 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
That's true, but until today I didn't even know my argument was a bogus argument. It came from the White House, yes, but I don't think the hour or two I put into researching house rules and court cases were wasted.


We'll have to wait and see what that is evidence of, won't we?

~Max
Why on earth do you think any reasonable person is still willing to "wait and see"? Why are you still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt?

In addition to the executive failings I outlined in post #3140, we can now add a new one - - fails to understand the most basic function of the house oversight committee and embarks on a misguided legal strategy because of it. There are 7th graders who understand civics better than this guy. How much longer do we need to let this example in Dunning Kruger play out?
  #3323  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:52 AM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Why are you still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt?
Most of the framers of the Constitution would be horrified to see that someone like Trump has gotten as far as he has.
  #3324  
Old 10-26-2019, 11:24 AM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
What a fool I make of myself here.
Presenting evidence/data you found and making conclusions based on that is not making a fool out of yourself.

[science]Arguing about this stuff is how we learn.[/science]
  #3325  
Old 10-26-2019, 11:31 AM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot View Post
Most of the framers of the Constitution would be horrified to see that someone like Trump has gotten as far as he has.
Most? The founding fathers were the best-educated minds available. They had honor and courtly-behavior codes ingrained in them as befitted the elghteenth-century elite. Trump would have been seen as a boor of the first order whether he had power of any kind or not.
  #3326  
Old 10-26-2019, 01:16 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Most? The founding fathers were the best-educated minds available. They had honor and courtly-behavior codes ingrained in them as befitted the elghteenth-century elite. Trump would have been seen as a boor of the first order whether he had power of any kind or not.
These "best-educated minds" would have had more of a problem with Obama as president most likely and that would have nothing to do with his temperament. Who knows how a bunch of racists would have reacted to that? Wait, we do know how a country of racists acted after a black president served eight years: They elected Trump so he could erase it all and make America great again. And some of them were not uneducated.

Sorry for the high-jack but I think we need to keep in mind that our framers had a lot of blind spots and who knows if one of them would have been big enough to drive a Trump through.
  #3327  
Old 10-26-2019, 01:19 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,312
An aid with first hand knowledge of the Ukraine call has filed a lawsuit to determine which branch he has to obey-congress or the president.
  #3328  
Old 10-26-2019, 01:20 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
These "best-educated minds" would have had more of a problem with Obama as president most likely and that would have nothing to do with his temperament. Who knows how a bunch of racists would have reacted to that? Wait, we do know how a country of racists acted after a black president served eight years: They elected Trump so he could erase it all and make America great again. And some of them were not uneducated.

Sorry for the high-jack but I think we need to keep in mind that our framers had a lot of blind spots and who knows if one of them would have been big enough to drive a Trump through.
Oh, I agree about Obama, especially considering how many slave-owners were founders.
  #3329  
Old 10-26-2019, 02:35 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think that's a good analogy but if they claimed they were just testing the bank's security, I would want to check with the bank if the alleged robbers were in fact hired to test bank security.


I'm not even aware of the supposed crimes, much less the existence or nonexistence of an investigation. Are you?

This recent Giuliani butt-dial has him claiming the younger Biden illegally laundered $3 million. That's a charge. For impeachment purposes, I don't care if Hunter Biden actually broke the law. I only care whether the President and DoJ had probable cause to start an investigation and a reasonable basis to ask Ukraine for legal assistance.

~Max
The DOJ makes the determination whether to prosecute, pending the result of an investigation. The FBI takes in allegations of criminal activities and performs the investigation.

The DOJ is the end point not the start point. If the FBI needs assistance from Ukraine, I would expect that they already have Ukrainian contacts and simply go talk to them directly.

If political pressure seems necessary, that might go up to the DOJ but, from there, I would expect it to go to State. But, even if the AG himself becomes involved in this effort and directly goes out to try his hand at being a diplomat directly with a foreign state, this would always be at the request of the FBI.

The DOJ is always at a much higher risk of politicization than the FBI, so it makes sense to ensure that laws have actually been broken before weighing whether to take someone to court. You can't be charged that you're simply executing a political hatchet job if a non-partisan organization has already vetted and ensured that there was in fact illegal activity, before it gets to that point.

(I suspect that it also allows the conscionable members of the DOJ a way to take clearly politicized requests like Benghazi and the Kavanaugh investigation, chuck them into the non-partisan FBI, and then be able to apologize to the boss that their hands are tied if the result comes back different than they want.)

Overall, it seems unlikely that Barr should be involved with this at all and specifically not in terms of going to Ukraine or acting as a diplomat. And if he is, as said, it should only be as the result of a clear request from the FBI. Nothing that I have seen has given me the sense that it was. That I can tell, the investigation until Hunter has been an investigation run by and within the DOJ itself in hand with the President's personal lawyer. The DOJ is not an investigative force and there's zilch reason for them to work alongside the President's personal lawyer.

Unless I am drastically missing something, there is no explanation for this particular set of activities by the people involved for the reasons that they state that could be considered "non-corrupt".

The cover story of having a high interest in fighting Ukrainian corruption is also not particularly plausible.

For one, the President appointed Elliott Broidy and Michael Cohen to the RNC finance committee. Broidy has a previous conviction for bribing politicians, paid off his mistress during the election so that she'd abort their baby during the 2016 election, he has since had his home searched by the FBI under warrant and seems likely to end up in jail for either funneling foreign money into the Trump Inauguration party, having a party in the 1MDB money laundering scandal, and/or bribing American officials to give him a defense contract working with Romania. Michael Cohen has similarly had his home searched by the FBI under warrant and has already gone to jail for a variety of financial crimes and campaign finance crimes - the latter of which he did with Trump at his order.

Secondly, Trump has explicitly stated that he thinks American anti-corruption law is bad. (Google "Trump fcpa")

Third, it's very circumspect that his focus on corruption should just happen to be a place where his political opponent might have a weak spot and he should just happen to use only that matter as an example when talking about the subject and, in fact, completely refrain from speaking of it as being an example or even mentioning the general concept of "corruption" at all - regardless of whatever he might say after the fact.
  #3330  
Old 10-26-2019, 04:06 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 95
Help fight my ignorance, please. What is constitutional immunity? I've tried to look up what it means, but with little luck.

From an article discussing the Administration's plans to claim conditional immunity for Kupperman, they merely say:

"Executive privilege can excuse people from discussing specific occurrences within the White House. But constitutional immunity can excuse those same people from having to testify at all."

It doesn't say what constitutional immunity actually is, or means, or to whom or to what situations it might apply. A Google search didn't clear things up for me.
  #3331  
Old 10-26-2019, 04:39 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
Help fight my ignorance, please. What is constitutional immunity? I've tried to look up what it means, but with little luck.

From an article discussing the Administration's plans to claim conditional immunity for Kupperman, they merely say:

"Executive privilege can excuse people from discussing specific occurrences within the White House. But constitutional immunity can excuse those same people from having to testify at all."

It doesn't say what constitutional immunity actually is, or means, or to whom or to what situations it might apply. A Google search didn't clear things up for me.
It would be helpful if you cited the article that used the phrase.

My belief is it's another made-up privilege that Trump claims for himself and exists nowhere except his brain and those of his low-information followers, but I'd like to read the article and see the context they're using.

ETA: They've been using a phrase, "blanket immunity," and that's another made-up thing. It doesn't exist within a constitutional context. This is probably a different way to refer to the same made-up privilege.

Last edited by Aspenglow; 10-26-2019 at 04:41 PM.
  #3332  
Old 10-26-2019, 05:32 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
It would be helpful if you cited the article that used the phrase.

My belief is it's another made-up privilege that Trump claims for himself and exists nowhere except his brain and those of his low-information followers, but I'd like to read the article and see the context they're using.

ETA: They've been using a phrase, "blanket immunity," and that's another made-up thing. It doesn't exist within a constitutional context. This is probably a different way to refer to the same made-up privilege.

This is one of the articles that mentions it today:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...deral-judge-to
  #3333  
Old 10-26-2019, 06:00 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
This is one of the articles that mentions it today:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...deral-judge-to
Thanks for the cite.

LOL, I love how The Hill makes the statement about "constitutional immunity" as if it is an established legal precedent. So far as I can tell, it isn't.

I skimmed the pleading and, subject as always to opinions of actual lawyers who enjoy a far better understanding of these matters than I do, it looks to me like Trump's usual attempt to bootstrap "executive privilege" into a new, never-seen-before privilege of "constitutional immunity."

Trump can certainly make valid claims of executive privilege, but they would attach only to matters involving national security (which discussions of extortion surely are not) and not for a corrupt purpose (which discussions of extortion surely are). Executive privilege is not a blanket privilege. It is reviewed on a document-by-document basis or a question-by-question basis in the case of testimony.

At least, that's how things have been done up to now. If this reaches the SCOTUS, I guess we'll learn exactly how activist they are willing to be on Trump's behalf.
  #3334  
Old 10-26-2019, 06:01 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly has spoken about Trump:
Quote:
“I said, whatever you do — and we were still in the process of trying to find someone to take my place — I said whatever you do, don’t hire a ‘yes man,’ someone who won’t tell you the truth — don’t do that. Because if you do, I believe you will be impeached,” Kelly recalled in an interview at the Sea Island Summit, a political conference hosted by the Washington Examiner.

“That was almost 11 months ago, and I have an awful lot of, to say the least, second thoughts about leaving,” Kelly said. “It pains me to see what’s going on because I believe if I was still there or someone like me was there, he would not be kind of, all over the place.”
...
“Someone has got to be a guide that tells [the president] that you either have the authority or you don’t, or Mr. President, don’t do it,” Kelly said. “Don’t hire someone that will just nod and say, ‘That’s a great idea Mr. President.’ Because you will be impeached.”

Kelly added, “The system that should be in place, clearly — the system of advising, bringing in experts in, having these discussions with the president so he can make an informed decision, that clearly is not in place. And I feel bad that I left.”
The White House has responded to Kelly's comments, via White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham:
Quote:
“I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President.”
  #3335  
Old 10-26-2019, 06:15 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly has spoken about Trump:

The White House has responded to Kelly's comments, via White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham:
If Kelly believes this (from previous post):
Quote:
... Kelly said. “It pains me to see what’s going on because I believe if I was still there or someone like me was there, he would not be kind of, all over the place.”...
then he is almost as delusional as FPT*. NOTHING that has happened in the past three years supports the premise that DJT is capable of taking advice, PARTICULARLY when that advice tells him he is wrong.
__________________
“Master, I’ve discovered the answer! Knock and the door will be opened to you.” The master replied, “Who said the door was closed?”

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 10-26-2019 at 06:15 PM.
  #3336  
Old 10-26-2019, 06:21 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,231
As a follow on, if Kelly believes this

Quote:
And I feel bad that I left.
He wants Trump in office/would have protected him. History will record him as just a henchman.
  #3337  
Old 10-26-2019, 06:23 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Thanks for the cite.

LOL, I love how The Hill makes the statement about "constitutional immunity" as if it is an established legal precedent. So far as I can tell, it isn't.

I skimmed the pleading and, subject as always to opinions of actual lawyers who enjoy a far better understanding of these matters than I do, it looks to me like Trump's usual attempt to bootstrap "executive privilege" into a new, never-seen-before privilege of "constitutional immunity."

Trump can certainly make valid claims of executive privilege, but they would attach only to matters involving national security (which discussions of extortion surely are not) and not for a corrupt purpose (which discussions of extortion surely are). Executive privilege is not a blanket privilege. It is reviewed on a document-by-document basis or a question-by-question basis in the case of testimony.

At least, that's how things have been done up to now. If this reaches the SCOTUS, I guess we'll learn exactly how activist they are willing to be on Trump's behalf.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I couldn't find any information about constitutional immunity because he pulled the concept out of his ass. I should have realized that before I asked you good people. This is the original article I read:


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/25/pol...com%2Fpolitics

Neither of these articles explains constitutional immunity, or clears up that it isn't even a real thing. I hope whatever judge hears the suit asks the lawyers what the Sam Hill they are even talking about.
  #3338  
Old 10-26-2019, 06:29 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
NOTHING that has happened in the past three years supports the premise that DJT is capable of taking advice, PARTICULARLY when that advice tells him he is wrong.
Trump responds to Kelly's claim that he advised Trump not to hire a "yes man", and shows that he takes being given advice he doesn't like badly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Trump
“John Kelly never said that, he never said anything like that. If he would have said that I would have thrown him out the office. He just wants to come back into the action like everybody else does.”
  #3339  
Old 10-26-2019, 06:43 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
That's a revealing sentiment: “If someone advised me not to hire a "yes man", I would have thrown them out of the office.”
  #3340  
Old 10-26-2019, 06:49 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
If Kelly believes this (from previous post):
then he is almost as delusional as FPT*. NOTHING that has happened in the past three years supports the premise that DJT is capable of taking advice, PARTICULARLY when that advice tells him he is wrong.
I think that the key to it is telling him that it's illegal and not doing it.
  #3341  
Old 10-26-2019, 07:19 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly has spoken about Trump:

The White House has responded to Kelly's comments, via White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham: "“I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President.”
All this talk of Trump's genius recently as his administration seeks to equate the Executive with the Law, is reminiscent of the Fuhrer Principle (Führerprinzip). Believing in Hitler's unique genius made it easier for Germans to accept his word as supreme in all cases.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 10-26-2019 at 07:20 PM.
  #3342  
Old 10-26-2019, 07:20 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I couldn't find any information about constitutional immunity because he pulled the concept out of his ass. I should have realized that before I asked you good people. This is the original article I read:


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/25/pol...com%2Fpolitics

Neither of these articles explains constitutional immunity, or clears up that it isn't even a real thing. I hope whatever judge hears the suit asks the lawyers what the Sam Hill they are even talking about.
Well, I suppose to be fair to the press, it's not their job to offer opinions on the law or its validity. But the reason a Google search doesn't yield pages and pages of references to constitutional immunity is because... it hasn't been asserted until now.

The court of jurisdiction is (naturally) the same court that issued the ruling I noted yesterday in Post #3310, before Judge Beryl Howell, who sits as the Chief Judge in that district court. It doesn't necessarily mean she will hear this matter. I'm not sure how they assign cases, but reading through a list of the current judges, I recognize a lot of names who have issued predictable rulings within the norms of traditional justice. I note there are 4 Trump appointees on that bench at present on a bench of 25. And even if one of them is drawn to hear this case, it doesn't mean they will feel beholden to rule in Trump's favor just because he appointed them. That's not how judicial appointments are meant to work.

It's also worth noting that in their prayer for relief in the pleading, Kupperman's lawyers asked for very specific things:

1. A ruling as to whether the subpoena issued is valid;

2. A ruling as to whether Trump's assertion of immunity is valid; (emphasis mine) and

3. An expedited ruling.

The Defendants' responses should be a fun read, and I look forward to the court's expedited ruling.

Last edited by Aspenglow; 10-26-2019 at 07:22 PM.
  #3343  
Old 10-26-2019, 07:31 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,193
All I can think of, in terms of "Constitutional Immunity" that isn't "executive privilege" is the right against self-incrimination - if we extend the Executive to cover all of its employees.
  #3344  
Old 10-26-2019, 07:34 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
All I can think of, in terms of "Constitutional Immunity" that isn't "executive privilege" is the right against self-incrimination - if we extend the Executive to cover all of its employees.
Yup. Which means comply with the subpoena and appear, then plead the Fifth.
  #3345  
Old 10-26-2019, 08:09 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Yup. Which means comply with the subpoena and appear, then plead the Fifth.
But can the Executive order his employees to do that? (Safe bet is 'No. Teh lolz.')
  #3346  
Old 10-26-2019, 08:20 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
But can the Executive order his employees to do that? (Safe bet is 'No. Teh lolz.')
That's a safe bet. It's the right against self-incrimination. The so-called Executive doesn't get to assert it on anyone's behalf.
  #3347  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:23 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Yup. Which means comply with the subpoena and appear, then plead the Fifth.
Can't they just give immunity to the one they think might have the most to spill, eliminating the possibility of self-incrimination?
  #3348  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:49 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
Breaking via WSJ:
Quote:
Gordon Sondland told House committees last week that efforts by Trump and his allies to press Kyiv to open investigations in exchange for a White House meeting with Ukraine's president amounted to a quid pro quo, his lawyer said.
Josh Barro, NYMag:
Quote:
Area Ambassador Did Not Pay a Million Dollars to Go to Prison
  #3349  
Old 10-26-2019, 11:30 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Can't they just give immunity to the one they think might have the most to spill, eliminating the possibility of self-incrimination?
This is one of many things I despise about this "administration." They use terms that people recognize but don't really understand and try to create some alternative interpretation of the term favorable to Trump.

Yes, there is such a thing as blanket immunity that works in a way like you describe. It can be granted by a law enforcement agency such as the FBI, when they work to build a case to ensnare a bigger fish. Also referred to as Queen for a Day, such as when the FBI offered blanket immunity to Trump's accountant, Allen Weisselberg, in order to obtain more information about Trump, Michael Cohen and National Enquirer's David Pecker and their catch and kill activities. "Tell us everything you know about criminal activity you committed with Trump, Cohen and Pecker, leaving nothing out, and we will grant you blanket immunity for your own criminal activity in this matter in exchange for your testimony against Trump, Cohen and Pecker."

But Trump can't claim "blanket immunity" or "constitutional immunity" or whatever else he wants to call it in an effort to prohibit the House committees from carrying out their lawful oversight responsibilities and protect himself.

The House committees aren't acting as a law enforcement agency -- at least, I don't believe they are. They're conducting an investigation into whether impeachable offenses were committed by one corrupt person who currently occupies the Oval Office. If they learn crimes were committed by other involved persons who are summoned to testify, in ordinary circumstances they would refer those matters to DOJ for formal charges. I don't know what happens as things stand now. The US Attorney's Office in DC is headed up by a Trump appointee.

Again, Trump is trying to claim "blanket immunity" for himself and all within his administration. It doesn't work like that.

What he can claim is executive privilege -- but as I said previously, it's not a blanket privilege and never has been. He can't use it to hide his crimes.

He and his Republican buddies are using these terms in an effort to muddy up the understanding about what he is allowed to do, so he can create narratives his followers will swallow. Congressional Republicans know this. It is the height of hypocrisy and abuse of their offices to perpetuate such misrepresentations. They make me sick.
  #3350  
Old 10-27-2019, 12:15 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
I concur that what was found did appear to be a large mound of fecal matter, and yes, a large bull was observed by multiple credible witnesses to be walking away from the pile with a satisfied look on his face. However, we cannot yet rule out the argument, put forth from the bull and his spokescattle, that a rogue gang of squirrels stacked their own turds in an effort to discredit the bull because they hate bovines and want to destroy everything the bull has accomplished— which, by the way, is more than any other bull has ever done, despite what the fake farm reports claim. #BrahmanHoax #NoExcretion
Posts like this make me wish I had the authority to bestow MacArthur genius grants.
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 09:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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