|
Tibalt posted:You're right, I'm mixing things up. It was Kupperman being subpoenaed and challenging it in court, Bolton just said he'd follow the same path as Kupperman. you are right that this is just further grift from bolton, who would like people to buy his book and keep talking about him
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
It's astonishing that we don't have mechanisms in impeachment proceedings to say "YES compel the fuckers to speak"
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Could the House call him to testify if the Senate refuses?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
It is very frustrating that the House has seemingly allowed it's subpoena power to be nullified. Why will anyone comply with a house request ever again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:It is very frustrating that the House has seemingly allowed it's subpoena power to be nullified. Why will anyone comply with a house request ever again? not really, they just argued at the DC Circuit in the McGahn case last week they just got a lovely old man judge in Kupperman and there was a 0% chance it could possibly have been resolved before Trump is out of office, so McGahn is the proxy for that legal battle because it is months farther along which, again, is actively happening
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
eke out posted:not really, they just argued at the DC Circuit in the McGahn case last week If they use the subpoena and and then don't enforce it, with or without the consent of the courts, it is essentially useless. The House's subpoena power shouldn't be able to be held up in court cases for years on end, as it essentially nullifies the power in the first place. When McGhan comes back and the result is " yes you must testify, but lol the election already took place and impeachment is over" whats the loving point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:It is very frustrating that the House has seemingly allowed it's subpoena power to be nullified. Why will anyone comply with a house request ever again? Due process takes time. Even nonsensical arguments get to have their day in court. The subpoenas weren't nullified, there just wasn't time to fool with them before the actual impeachment vote. There was plenty of other evidence from people who honored their subpoenas. A fair system is a slow system. If you don't care about weeding out unjust outcomes, you can move very fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Due process takes time. Even nonsensical arguments get to have their day in court. This is the tough pill to swallow, I was complaining about this same thing a couple of pages ago. I think one issue is that there is always some nuance that can drive the belief/need for the specific details and argument to be considered so that precedent can be determined, but where is the line where an accelerated process or approach could be made? Like how can the nuances of these arguments substantially or meaningfully cause a distinction between what was determined under Nixon’s impeachment re: complying with subpoenas? I mean I think this administration exposed that there is at least a flaw in the system being exploited and it may not be significant overhaul that is needed, but possibly some focused solutions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:When McGhan comes back and the result is " yes you must testify, but lol the election already took place and impeachment is over" whats the loving point? The point would be that in a few administrations when this sort of thing happens again, they can immediately point to the McGhan case instead of having to spend even more months in appeals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Crazyweasel posted:This is the tough pill to swallow, I was complaining about this same thing a couple of pages ago. Or how about you can't loving ignore or get out of a congressional subpoena, period, without spending time in the capital jail cell until the time of your testimony/deposition/hearing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The point would be that in a few administrations when this sort of thing happens again, they can immediately point to the McGhan case instead of having to spend even more months in appeals. How is the precedent not already set and clear. The next time this happens, the same thing will occur. The courts argue about it for years, the people who did the bad thing get off, and a new "precedent" is set that can be ignored next time too!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Or how about you can't loving ignore or get out of a congressional subpoena, period, without spending time in the capital jail cell until the time of your testimony/deposition/hearing. This is America, we don't lock up people without just cause unless they're either indigent or non-white!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:How is the precedent not already set and clear. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Or how about you can't loving ignore or get out of a congressional subpoena, period, without spending time in the capital jail cell until the time of your testimony/deposition/hearing. it's not; "capital jail" doesn't exist just because you don't seem interested in understanding the specifics that're making this take so long doesn't mean that they don't exist and everyone is acting totally irrationally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
Congress already has inherent contempt powers. It's a political decision not to use them. The problem isn't the system, per-se. There are tons of checks in place we won't use. The problem is that there is a party that is fervently focused on winning at all costs and doesn't care about cheating and a party made up of everyone else. The "everyone else" party could win if they took the attitude of the first party, but the majority of them just want this to all go away so they can go back to not paying attention to any of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
KillHour posted:The "everyone else" party could win if they took the attitude of the first party, but the majority of them just want this to all go away so they can go back to not paying attention to any of it. Perhaps its also a case of not wanting to become what you're fighting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
eke out posted:it's not; "capital jail" doesn't exist I am aware of the nuanced legal opinions being debated and why that matters to people that still have faith in the justice system. You don't have to be a condescending dick. Whats frustrating is that from a normal person's perspective, this is all farce. Regular people do not get to defy a subpoena. Regular people do not get to tell a court that they would "prefer" not to testify when compelled to do so. A regular person, whether committing a crime or not, will get hauled of to a holding cell until authorities figure poo poo out. they eventually get to talk to a lawyer, and eventually get let out on bond/bail/without being charged. that doesn't seem to happen with anyone but regular people. Bolton should have been held in contempt and perp walked to a holding cell until he testified. He wasn't an acting member of the government at that time. He had no basis for executive protection, and his blatant flouting of congressional authority only undermines future efforts to old a president to account. If and when the mcghan decision comes back saying the testimony is compelled, I will laugh when he never actually testifies. Same with Bolton. I want to have faith in the system, but how can you at this point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Perhaps its also a case of not wanting to become what you're fighting. It's more that the "everyone else" party is not a single party. They just caucus together because the insane party exists. AOC said it best when she said in any other country, her and Biden wouldn't be in the same political party. The whole "we must tolerate intolerance" thing has been thoroughly put to bed by now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Bolton should have been held in contempt and perp walked to a holding cell until he testified. He wasn't an acting member of the government at that time. He had no basis for executive protection, and his blatant flouting of congressional authority only undermines future efforts to old a president to account. the only possible outcome is that Bolton immediately would immediately request emergency relief, the contempt order would be stayed, and the next two years would be spent litigating it. he WAS a member of the government at the relevant time, there ARE reasons that some things he might testify about could be privileged, and just loudly declaring that THIS SUCKS HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL doesn't make you right regardless of how many righteously angry posts you do here. btw the last time the power was used was a hundred years ago and they were "jailed" in a hotel across from Congress. your fantasy about Congress having the power to "perp walk to a holding cell" is just that, fantasy. eke out fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jan 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
eke out posted:literally not possible, the only possible outcome is that Bolton immediately would immediately request emergency relief, the contempt order would be stayed, and the next two years would be spent litigating it I am aware, but you missed the point. If you or I were subpoenaed by congress or a judge in general, and told them no, what do you think would happen? Do you think it would be the same thing that happened to John Bolton or any of the others that defied a subpoena? The issue is the difference between how people see the justice system treats them, vs how it treats people like John Bolton. that disparity is why people see this as a farce. Do you at least agree that the subpoena is powerless at this point as a tool to address legal crisis in our government if there is no tool of enforcement that can't be derailed for literally years? If you agree, do you feel like that should be fixed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:00
|
|
|
eke out posted:btw the last time the power was used was a hundred years ago and they were "jailed" in a hotel across from Congress. This is super dishonest without also mentioning why it hasn't been used in a hundred years (Congress created for themselves the option to delegate the power on a case by case basis to the department of justice). This is the first time inherent contempt has been needed in a hundred years, since its the first time the DoJ has refused to do it for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I am aware, but you missed the point. are you a top advisor to the president of the united states who was ordered by the president to not testify? because it turns out compulsory process is a little more complicated when you are one, compared to if you're a witness to some random crime. you can make the apples to oranges comparison as much as you want but it just doesn't apply here. congressional subpoenas compelled like a dozen+ people to testify. neither bolton nor any of his people defied a subpoena, they went to court over whether the President of the United States' order that they not testify was valid. that same order is the subject of McGahn, which will be ruled on by the DC Circuit soon and then we'll see if SCOTUS picks it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
In a 5-4 decision...
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This is super dishonest without also mentioning why it hasn't been used in a hundred years (Congress created for themselves the option to delegate the power on a case by case basis to the department of justice). This is the first time inherent contempt has been needed in a hundred years, since its the first time the DoJ has refused to do it for them. lol you roll in to call me dishonest and just post outright bullshit like the bolded portion above
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:A fair system is a slow system. If you don't care about weeding out unjust outcomes, you can move very fast. It's important to have process and its important process be followed, but a slow system has all sorts of terribly unjust outcomes solely by virtue of being slow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
I’m also sad to report that US v Nixon is specific to subpoena in a criminal investigation. It likes like Mcghan may set the precedent for Congressional subpoenas?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
eke out posted:are you a top advisor to the president of the united states who was ordered by the president to not testify? because it turns out compulsory process is a little more complicated when you are one, compared to if you're a witness to some random crime. you can make the apples to oranges comparison as much as you want but it just doesn't apply here. they went to court over whether the President of the United States' order that they not testify was valid. How is this even a loving question. We're so far up our assholes that poo poo like this is even being debated. Why the gently caress, especially during an impeachment should a president get to have a say on who testifies before an equal branch of government. the concept is so farcical in concept that there is no defense other than "well that just the way it is, things will always be the saaaaaame." indignance is all I have at this point because the basic arguments at this point far so far outside of normal or reasonable. For a nation that didn't want a king, we sure as hell made a king like position and that's frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:It's astonishing that we don't have mechanisms in impeachment proceedings to say "YES compel the fuckers to speak"
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Funny, the constitution says the exact opposite. Most legal precedent agrees. Swiftness is vital to actual justice. While it is true that justice delayed is justice denied, it's also true that judgment in haste leads to later regrets. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
Crazyweasel posted:I’m also sad to report that US v Nixon is specific to subpoena in a criminal investigation. It likes like Mcghan may set the precedent for Congressional subpoenas? with regards to the "absolute immunity" claim, yeah. it's completely true that between Nixon and Clinton we have plenty of guidance that makes it clear what the law should be and i think it's an absolute no-brainer, but it's also true that there is no DC Circuit or supreme court precedent specifically about this point (although there have been a few DC district court rulings about it, district courts don't make precedents, their reasoning is just persuasive)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:While it is true that justice delayed is justice denied, it's also true that judgment in haste leads to later regrets. https://twitter.com/arr/status/1012397416429940736?lang=en
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
You really can't imagine a time when the president holds the moral high ground and congress is the one making up bullshit investigations just to obstruct and waste everyone's time? I know we joke about Trump Time but the previous administration really wasn't that long ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
haveblue posted:You really can't imagine a time when the president holds the moral high ground and congress is the one making up bullshit investigations just to obstruct and waste everyone's time? I know we joke about Trump Time but the previous administration really wasn't that long ago. the cowards in the Paul Ryan-led Congress should've perp walked Eric Holder straight to a jail cell for his failures in document production in the "Fast and Furious" scandal! they have the inherent contempt authority, why didn't they use it?? after all, the Obama DOJ wouldn't do anything about his blatant lawlessness
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
haveblue posted:You really can't imagine a time when the president holds the moral high ground and congress is the one making up bullshit legal maneuvers just to obstruct and waste everyone's time? I know we joke about Trump Time but it really wasn't that long ago. Does it matter? The house has the right of oversight, and all presidents should be beholden to that. I know hearings can be weaponized, but i think we have to live with that reality as opposed to just allowing hearings to be ignored entirely. eke out posted:the cowards in the Paul Ryan-led Congress should've perp walked Eric Holder straight to a jail cell for his failures in document production in the "Fast and Furious" scandal! If the house was interested in an actual investigation, it could have and should have been able to do that. We've ceded way to much power to the executive, and it is time the house starts clawing some of it back. Partisan fights be damned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
eke out posted:the cowards in the Paul Ryan-led Congress should've perp walked Eric Holder straight to a jail cell for his failures in document production in the "Fast and Furious" scandal! They should have been allowed to. Obviously they shouldn't have done it, but the whole thing was bullshit so they shouldn't even have done what they did. But yes, they should have been able to compel testimony and documents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
So when do we start getting some traction on submitting the articles of Impeachment to Congress? I get why they haven't done it, but Congress can't stall on this forever, especially since you need a 2/3rds majority to make any sort of change to the Impeachment trial process which flat isn't happening. Can they sit on this or have a stalemate all the way till November? Is there really no way to counter this dragged-out process? I feel if Republicans try to attempt something like that it will definitely end up biting them in the rear end more than just holding a regular trial followed by a speedy acquittal. I dunno, we're in uncharted waters here and I was too young to comprehend what was going on during the Clinton impeachment years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:In a 5-4 decision... That would precipitate a constitutional crisis and Roberts is concerned enough for his reputation and legacy that he doesn’t want to give a potential court stacking dem president any more than they already have. As it stands the Supreme Court has completely deteriorated as an institution under him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:So when do we start getting some traction on submitting the articles of Impeachment to Congress? I've already heard Very Reasonable Centrist (and Center-Leftist) commentators grumble about how bad it is to drag the process out like that, on the assumption that the conclusion is forgone which makes all the posturing pointless, so it might not be popular enough to hold out too much longer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:That would precipitate a constitutional crisis and Roberts is concerned enough for his reputation and legacy that he doesn’t want to give a potential court stacking dem president any more than they already have. Says increasingly nervous man to nobody but himself in a futile attempt to soothe the building anxiety in his soul. Roberts does not give a poo poo about legacy, and will make the politically expedient decision.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Says increasingly nervous man to nobody but himself in a futile attempt to soothe the building anxiety in his soul. Says legal experts familiar with the court, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Lol the Supreme Court isn’t going to cancel the election. Calm down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 21:15
|
|