What's the legal reasoning (if there's any) to keep her locked up and ruin her financially while not being able to swing the same punishment at all those people who refused to testify in the recent impeachment?
The reasoning is that the DOJ under Barr (and the administration in general) has no interest in cooperating with Congress or fulfilling their constitutional/legal obligations.
If the Congress really wants it can enforce its own subpoenas by putting anyone who refuses to testify in their own jail, without asking the DOJ for help. This is a power that hasn’t been used since 1934, and the current Congress has opted to work through the courts / make appeals to the electorate instead of applying it.
Actually the way to settle differences between the branches is to use the third branch, the Judicial branch. Congress takes them to supreme/federal court, which decides if the subpoenas are valid and would then enforce the subpoenas and the executive branch then has to comply. Basic checks and balances.
Honestly though, I think the impeachment just pointed out the Ukraine stuff about as much as it pointed out Trump's phone call shenanigans, it wasn't good for them politically to keep at it, his approval rating was going up and he was raising tons of money during it. It was backfiring politically for them, the majority of the public wasn't interested (especially after the Russia thing coming up empty, you can only cry wolf so many times) and it brought their own misdealing to light so they didn't push it as they would if they really cared.
The Ukraine "stuff" was a conspiracy theory. The Russian "thing" was an actual collaboration between our enemies and our presidents flunkys that nobody seriously denied happened.
Nobody seriously found any evidence of collaboration between Trump and his "flunkys". That's the result of the Mueller Report.
Meanwhile... it's public knowledge that Democrats and the DNC paid foreigners for information from a discredited source to get an unproven Dossier to affect an American Election.
They are both conspiracy theories spread by the side that has proven evidence of worse crimes (IE: Email Servers, Joe's quid quo pro, children of elected officials getting kick backs from Burisma, etc)
The Mueller investigation turned up no evidence, that's pretty much proof the media and Congress chased a conspiracy theory for 2 years with no real evidence. There's hard evidence that Hunter was getting paid lots of money for a do nothing job he wasn't qualified for, and that Joe Biden did interfere at some point (for whatever reason, he did use his political power and got involved). That much isn't a conspiracy, his son got paid for a job everyone questions why he got it.
The real estate deals Trump Jr does now gets a fair pass because its the same thing, same as the $250k paid speaking engagements for Wall Street and corporations the Clinton's and Obama's get post Presidency. It's pretty obvious the pay off just comes afterwards.
People act sanctimonious about Trump, but they fail to realize Trump is a symptom, the cancer started from within.
I don't think so. The American meddling in Ukraine before Trump even was in office is highly suspicious. You could argue that it was a justified reaction to the Crimean invasion, but saying there wasn't any stuff is completely dishonest. Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a public defender. He was even praised for doing so. This hypocrisy seriously damages any credibility of those accusing Trump of meddling in Ukraine.
Of course you should ask yourself what Russia and America are even doing in Ukraine in the first place, but that is probably a lot more comprehensive.
Some news papers argue Biden didn't pressure the public defender out of office, but that would be clearly fake news. As I said, there are people on record praising him for doing so.
In your post you said several things about "Biden". Could you clarify just who that is? I believe there is an intentional rhetorical trick being used to conflate to people with that surname. I can't say whether your use of it was intentional, but it would help if you clarified who you were talking about.
Both of those things were hoaxes by the Democrats. Pathetic power struggles to distract the public's eye from the real problems that ordinary people face. Who cares if some Russian hackers got some access to the DNC servers? That didn't affect the actual election results, not one whit.
I have heard reports that US officials, including Senator McCain and Asst. SoS Victoria Nuland, supported the 2014 protests and transition of power in Ukraine, which culminated in Russia's annexation of Crimea and the Donbas war. While there is another conspiracy theory out there floating around about some contracts with a small Ukrainian gas company, a reasonable person might feel more negatively about Obama's foreign policy after learning of this risky bet that went bust. This is relevant to the current election since Joe Biden, Trump's likely opponent, was VP and was involved in policymaking in Ukraine.
>Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in balloting that international observers considered reasonably free and fair—about the best standard one can hope for outside the mature Western democracies. A decent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016.
>Neither the domestic opposition nor Washington and its European Union allies behaved in that fashion. Instead, Western leaders made it clear that they supported the efforts of demonstrators to force Yanukovych to reverse course and approve the EU agreement or, if he would not do so, to remove the president before his term expired. Sen. John McCain (R‑AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to show solidarity with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right‐ wing Svoboda Party, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.
It seems like the Republican strategy both with Ukraine and Libya has been to talk about some obscure and distorted side-issue (Burisma and Benghazi respectively) which deprives the Democrats of a chance to respond substantively to the real issue, which was the foreign policy decisionmaking at the top that led to the greater situation becoming so dire in the first place.
In a way, it's a form of propaganda that uses disinformation to target well-informed people. It's kind of fun to think about when it's not pointed at you. (Republicans are hypocrites here -- nearly all of them supported Ukraine intervention at the time. But that didn't stop Democrats from running against the Iraq War in 2004 :p)
The whole affair with Biden's son in a board position and Biden interfering in the investigation of the company according to testimony in a Ukrainian court. It's what Trump was discussing on the phone call he was impeached over. People try and call it a conspiracy now, but unless you want to say the NYT deals in conspiracies (they do actually, but in this case):
Even if Biden didn't do anything wrong, in the public's eyes they see his son with no experience in that industry in a cushy, do nothing board position that pays in a month what the average American makes in a year. It smells like day old seafood.
The problem wasn't about the conduct of the Biden's, it was Trump (allegedly) telling the Ukrainian President the Ukraine would only receive already allocated military aid if the Ukraine started investigating the Bidens, supposedly to get Joe Biden into at least political if not legal trouble that Trump could then capitalize on in a re-election bid. Whether or not the Biden's did anything wrong (and so far the have been cleared at least legally, tho I have to admit there is a stink of nepotism in my opinion) wasn't the issue, the problem was if Trump, the sitting president, abused the power of his office for personal gain by threatening to withhold public aid money allocated by congress.
- His son was never accused nor suspected of any crimes
- The prosecutor he asked to be removed had been in his position for 18 months and had made no progress pursuing burisma nor would he like his predecessor he was in bed with monied interests in the Ukraine. He as corrupt and everyone knew it.
If his son was guilty of anything beyond trading on his father's rep shaking up the status qou would be to his sons disadvantage.
- The president asked for a public announcement of an investigation on TV purely and only to solicit help to smear a political rival. There is no other narrative that makes any sense whatsoever.
The question was “what was the Ukraine stuff.” Whether “the Ukraine stuff” was proof of wrongdoing, I think the post you responded to did a good job of summarizing it.
1) So what, America has a responsibility for interfering in the Ukrainian justice system because it is known to be corrupt? American politics is known to be quite corrupt, do foreign powers have a moral justification for interfering?
Biden being involved in moving Ukrainian prosecutors around is evidence on the face of it of corruption at the highest levels.
2)
> There is no other narrative that makes any sense whatsoever.
There is a very sensible narrative - maybe the Biden family was getting borderline-legal kickbacks. Even if not true it is fundamentally plausible. It is definitely worth asking about for people who aren't Democrat aligned.
There was a broad multinational support for removing the corrupt prosecutor and no reason not to.
There exists no evidence of any kick backs nor any reason to suppose that burisma gained anything other than hunter Bidens services for their money despite this already being investigated and America having the most formidable intelligence service on earth. It was asked and answered. You are holding on to a conspiracy theory.
> There was a broad multinational support for removing the corrupt prosecutor and no reason not to.
So if there is broad multinational agreement that a US judge is bad can China have him/her removed? That isn't how this stuff is meant to work.
> There exists no evidence of any kick backs nor any reason to suppose that burisma gained anything other than hunter Bidens services ...
You've just listed evidence and said you want to ignore it. That isn't a strong argument.
> ... despite this already being investigated and America having the most formidable intelligence service on earth.
And that is evidence that there was a reasonable alternative narrative of why there might be a problem.
And as almost an aside, maybe the circumstances should be investigated again when Biden isn't the nominal 2nd in the chain of command controlling the intelligence services? When he is being accused of essentially corruption? The situation seems a bit problematic.
You can disagree, but to pretend that there is no reasonable alternative where Biden is doing things that suggest corruption is an impressive work of mental gymnastics. If you are saying there already was an investigation then there is clearly enough here to justify an investigation, because someone justified it.
Congress did that and an appeals court decided they didn't want to get involved [0]. The checks and balances are clearly no longer functioning. It's unclear to me what we're supposed to do about that.
The checks and balances don't work as designed, and haven't for a long time. Any time there's a government shutdown that lasts for more than a couple of days, that's proof that this is simply a system too flawed to keep.
A better system is a parliamentary system: in those, you don't have conflicts often between the branches, because the executive is chosen by parliament itself. And in the rare case there is a conflict, you can dissolve parliament, have a new election, then the new parliament can choose a new PM and life continues.
There's a reason every stable, advanced, democratic republic in the world has a parliamentary system instead of one like the US's. The US's system is more similar to those in Russia and Turkey.
Did you even watch the impeachment trail from the Democrats congress? It is a disgrace. It is like you get sued but not allow to defend yourself. Law scholar Jonathan Turley testified under Democrats' criteria for impeachment, no one is unimpeachable, even George Washington himself would be impeached.
I think they also rightly recognize that Congress exercising its extremely rarely used right to use force could be the first step into either civil conflict (escalating to war) between the Executive branch and Congress or the further neutralizing of congress leading to one-man-rule of President as Emperor.
There are many who hear me talk about such things and think I'm absolutely crazy, but I think people have such faith that things will always end up fine (because America has been stable for so long) that they will ignore every sign until it is all but complete. History may see this week as one of a select number or crises that lead to ... something.
I fully believe that Barr actually in his heart and mind wants and is acting to further it. Trump as well. The cowardice of the House and the politeness of the Senate are just as culpable.
The Democrats meanwhile now have a choice between an out of touch old man who was the conservative VP to make Obama a little more palatable and a near communist who promotes himself with plans which don't represent the interests, philosophies, or desires of a large majority of America and could never, ever pass into law.
If we are lucky, the current pandemic will infect the three of them before the election. If we are unlucky, I believe we are very close the American Republic on the path to fall within 40 years into... something.
The pendulum has never been as far left as Bernie talks in this country.
And as for near communist, am example among many:
>Sanders has recalled feeling “very excited” by Castro’s 1959 revolution, which played out during his teens. “It just seemed right and appropriate that poor people were rising up against rather ugly rich people,” he said in 1986.
He has a history of visiting and praising USSR and satellites with little open criticism of their atrocities.
"Batista [..] Facing certain electoral defeat, he led a military coup [..] Back in power, and receiving financial, military, and logistical support from the United States government [..] suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations [..]"
Anyway, the discussion should be about the policies to implement. Those are hardly communist policies.
A two man conspiracy is probably not going to topple America. The White House doesn't even have a bad relationship with Congress at the moment; Trump and the Senate are getting along like a house on fire.
It hasn't been just two men. Damn near half the politically interested country do not care what Trump does.
"You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible,"
It's the party, it's the newly installed judges, it's his family and associates.
Trump won't topple the Republic. He will test every weakness of it and teach future iterations how to do it better. He is teaching adversaries how to manipulate and control this country better.
Rome didn't fall in a day. Neither the republic nor the empire.
The two men are figureheads for a whole system, some known, some not, which is dealing a serious blow to the institutions of the republic; damage that won't just be undone by a "good" election.
We need to elect a president that actively wants to limit the power of the presidency (not of the government, of the office and branch) and a Congress which is more interested in the individual representitives and their views than the parties. We have to have a voting republic that values these things instead of the mixture of team sport and religious crusade which American politics has become.
Unless you are about to accuse Trump of shooting someone on Fifth Avenue it isn't really that worrying. The man has been known to say things that he doesn't actually believe.
> Trump won't topple the Republic. He will test every weakness of it ...
Impeachment is pretty literally testing a weakness of the Republic, you know. There are lots of tests of the Republic; they happen regularly. America has passed an ungodly number of tests.
I think trying to bribe the president of Ukraine with aid money for political favors is the presidential equivalent and indeed it seems so far that party loyalty has indeed done the deed.
I looked at all of the replies, but none of them mentioned the basic difference between a court proceeding (with lots of legal precedent) and a congressional impeachment (where they decide upon the rules they'll use, and are not bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). (I'm trying very hard to keep this comment non-partisan. I think I did it.)
The concrete thing I can't find anywhere is the actual, on-paper set of rules this people set up, ideally grafted to some kind of explanation on why this ruleset made any sense in context.
IANAL but I believe the normal protection against self-incrimination, the 5th Amendement, was not applicable due to the plea agreement she entered and thus was held in contempt of court for remaining silent.
Since Manning had already been tried for crimes related to this investigation (and found guilty, and served time), she could not be given further jail time. And because she could not be given further jail time, the courts had decided that making her testify to the grand jury about Assange wasn’t covered by the fifth amendment right to remain silent (which really only covers compelled self incrimination).
The rights are not necessarily waived but are subordinate to military regulations (UCMJ) in order to promote "good order and discipline". Discipline is a critical factor in the effectiveness of military units. The courts have typically trusted rulings of military courts since civilian courts are not necessarily well equipped to understand how a ruling would impact the military.
The US armed forces are not run as a democracy; it is an oligarchical tiered serfdom as near as I can peg it. When you sign up, nearly everything you agree to is in a binding legal contract with the US government, and if you breach contract, it is very different than breaching a normal contract. Part of that contract is that normal courts of law and their rules are secondary to military courts and all of their very, very power imbalanced rules.
Source: myself, a decade in the Marine Corps, witness in several Non Judicial Punishment cases, and one Courts Martial case.
here's James Mattis's take on the difference between civilian courts and military courts:
> ...remember that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is established under the U.S. Constitution, because our framers knew that those we give weapons to in this country have to be governed by a different set of regulations than the population at large.
> And under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which was the latest in a history of these rules that came out in the late 1940s and modified often since then, the defense is actually stronger. The defendants' rights are actually stronger in a military court than in a civilian court. Just read F. Lee Bailey's book, "The Defense Never Rests." And as one of the most aggressive defense counsels in our history, he said he would rather a court--defend--defend in a military court than a civilian court in his book.
> And the reason is you have more rights in order to prevent the military court system becoming what you and I would call a "kangaroo court." So, you give the defense more rights. And when that court acts, you--for most of us in the military who have an intimate knowledge of it, we have a great deal of confidence that justice has been adhered to, in the true sense of what justice is all about toward a person accused of a crime by the government.
This was a grand jury proceeding. While this was about a matter that happened while she was in the military, anyone that is granted immunity but refuses to testify could be held in contempt by the court.
Speaking in the most general sense possible, having your armed forces firmly under control is traditionally a core part of staying in power; it's also very generally true that no person making the rules is going to actively hinder their own ability to keep doing so.
That's why it's super important to keep them aware that the little people are watching and taking notes; that's literally the only trump card we all have.
Chelsea Manning was not jailed or fined for refusing to testify in and of itself. I also refuse to testify, for example, but I'm pretty sure no cop will come arrest me and put me in jail and no court will fine me.
Presidents being impeached (and their administrations) have always refused Congress's requests for testimony and documentation.
Congress can take the President to court and compel documents and testimony (or else face contempt of court and imprisonment like Manning). The House did exactly that for Nixon and Cliton.
For Trump, the House chose not to do that, because (I believe) it would slow them down, and that wasn't acceptable to them.
From this point forward: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/p... the DOJ has allowed the WH to refuse to comply with a bunch of subpoenas, and there's no amount of partisan rhetoric that can hide that fact.
It's simply not up for debate, sorry.
That said, I don't know what are they standing on to be able to do that without any court just sending them all to jail.
"The right of the president of the United States to withhold information from Congress or the courts."
The article you mentioned cites executive privilege multiple times, and describes how it is unclear what the boundaries are. Simply saying "The House issued a subpoena and therefore the executive branch must comply" is just as invalid as "The executive branch can ignore all subpoenas".
Not sure what memo you're seeking or what game you're declining.
You said you didn't know what the DOJ/Trump administration was standing on to not comply with the congressional subpoenas. I explained they were standing on executive privilege.
As the article you linked described, the Trump administration was asserting executive privilege, and conflicts between congressional demands and executive privilege assertions need to be mediated by the courts ("But each of the emerging fights raises somewhat different legal questions that courts would have to sort through."). When the administration asserted privilege and declined to comply with House demands, the House chose proceed without court rulings, though courts probably would have compelled testimony about information previously revealed in the Mueller investigation.
For more authoritative sources than your NY Times article provides, executive privilege has been recognized in various supreme court decisions, particularly in military and diplomatic issues, even in cases where the court decided the privilege did not cover the material demanded (like U.S. v. Nixon https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/683/#tab-opi...).
The impeachment inquiry started exactly because of an allegation of perjury.
The ratified Articles of Impeachment were in fact (1) Perjury and (2) Obstruction of Justice (witness/evidence tampering).
I may have mistakenly characterized Clinton as explicitly withholding information by invoking executive privilege like Nixon and Trump, rather than deceptively doing so.
Congress was explicitly told they could not do this by the DOJ, but news weren't clear on the legal reasoning, relaying instead the handwavy explanation by Barr on the popelike infallibility of the president's office.
I'm really curious about the actual legal reasoning behind this, it's got to be a fascinating read.
> For Trump, the House chose not to do that, because (I believe) it would slow them down, and that wasn't acceptable to them.
The full House has to authorize a committee to to conduct an impeachment investigation and to vest it with the proper authority before the subpoenas become enforceable. The Democrats never did this because in that case, the Republicans in the House would have been able to send out their own subpoenas.
