(12-23-2019 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Man. is this ever silly. Talk about divisiveness. Cuomo vetoes bill
The Resistance gets stupider and stupider.
Good news is legislature can override with 2/3 vote in both houses, and votes appear to be there.
(12-23-2019 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Man. is this ever silly. Talk about divisiveness. Cuomo vetoes bill
The Resistance gets stupider and stupider.
Good news is legislature can override with 2/3 vote in both houses, and votes appear to be there.
I don't care whether judges can perform weddings or not. But what is the rationale behind this veto? Is he afraid Trump judges will refuse to perform weddings for minorities?
(12-23-2019 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Man. is this ever silly. Talk about divisiveness. Cuomo vetoes bill
The Resistance gets stupider and stupider.
Good news is legislature can override with 2/3 vote in both houses, and votes appear to be there.
I don't care whether judges can perform weddings or not. But what is the rationale behind this veto? Is he afraid Trump judges will refuse to perform weddings for minorities?
(12-23-2019 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Man. is this ever silly. Talk about divisiveness. Cuomo vetoes bill
The Resistance gets stupider and stupider.
Good news is legislature can override with 2/3 vote in both houses, and votes appear to be there.
I don't care whether judges can perform weddings or not. But what is the rationale behind this veto? Is he afraid Trump judges will refuse to perform weddings for minorities?
That would mean that the veto is based on at least a sliver of reason, which I think gives Cuomo too much credit.
(12-23-2019 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Man. is this ever silly. Talk about divisiveness. Cuomo vetoes bill
The Resistance gets stupider and stupider.
Good news is legislature can override with 2/3 vote in both houses, and votes appear to be there.
I don't care whether judges can perform weddings or not. But what is the rationale behind this veto? Is he afraid Trump judges will refuse to perform weddings for minorities?
That would mean that the veto is based on at least a sliver of reason, which I think gives Cuomo too much credit.
Is this The Onion or real life?? I can't imagine being that brand of stupid.
(12-23-2019 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Man. is this ever silly. Talk about divisiveness. Cuomo vetoes bill
The Resistance gets stupider and stupider.
Good news is legislature can override with 2/3 vote in both houses, and votes appear to be there.
I don't care whether judges can perform weddings or not. But what is the rationale behind this veto? Is he afraid Trump judges will refuse to perform weddings for minorities?
That would mean that the veto is based on at least a sliver of reason, which I think gives Cuomo too much credit.
Is this The Onion or real life?? I can't imagine being that brand of stupid.
Well....
"I cannot in good conscience support legislation that would authorize such actions by federal judges who are appointed by this federal administration," Cuomo's veto message stated, the New York Post reported.
I thought this was done by the Babylon Bee at the outset, but this is Babylon Bee stupid in real life.
(12-23-2019 08:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Good news is legislature can override with 2/3 vote in both houses, and votes appear to be there.
I don't care whether judges can perform weddings or not. But what is the rationale behind this veto? Is he afraid Trump judges will refuse to perform weddings for minorities?
That would mean that the veto is based on at least a sliver of reason, which I think gives Cuomo too much credit.
Is this The Onion or real life?? I can't imagine being that brand of stupid.
Well....
"I cannot in good conscience support legislation that would authorize such actions by federal judges who are appointed by this federal administration," Cuomo's veto message stated, the New York Post reported.
I thought this was done by the Babylon Bee at the outset, but this is Babylon Bee stupid in real life.
The fact that Cuomo has unwittingly positioned himself as a spiritual heir to John C. Calhoun is delicious.
The fact that the entire liberal anti-ICE movement has positioned themselves as the spiritual heirs to the state's rights and anti-Federalist movement of the antebellum South is also just as delicious.
And the Democrats in Va. are 'up in arms' (pun, ha ha) over the copycat usage of the sanctuary theology of the counties and their law enforcement over 2nd Amendment issues.
(12-21-2019 03:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting post regarding fiscal spending under Trump:
Quote: Let’s Make a Deal
Federal government fiscal policy worked as a drag on economic growth for about half of Barack Obama's presidency. Republican lawmakers enacted $889 billion in net spending cuts during the final six years of his administration, according to the Manhattan Institute. Under President Trump, tax cuts and spending increases have helped goose growth during all but the first quarter of 2017. That doesn't look set to change. Democrats and Republicans on Monday released a nearly $1.4 trillion budget agreement. The spending deal lasts through the rest of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2020. It permanently repeals a number of health-care-related taxes and raises discretionary federal spending by about $50 billion compared with last fiscal year, Andrew Duehren and Richard Rubin report.
(12-20-2019 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Unsurprisingly, I disagree with you both. The problem with the administration's use is that they are using it in a blanket matter. The proper way to use executive privilege (or really most privileges) is to testify (or turn over most of the documents) and only assert the privilege as to specific items. You can't just not show up at all to the hearing or not turn over any documents. It makes a nice sound bite, but that is now how the privilege works.
Sounds to me like a legal argument. Obviously the Trump administration disagrees.
Lawyers fairly frequently challenge things that 'others' think are obvious.
But it isn't a sound legal argument. None of the privileges I have ever dealt with (including deliberative process, which is under the gambit of different privileges unique to the executive branch) let you turn over nothing or stop the witness from appearing. The witness appears and answers non-privileged questions. Like their name, job title, description of duties, etc. And there are certainly non-privileged substantive questions that they can answer as well. Same thing with documents. Its pretty rare that the entire document is privileged, and even if it is, you typically produce a privilege log that has a brief description of the document and assertion of privilege. The privilege itself is real, but the way the privileged is being employed is ridiculous.
(12-20-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]But you're talking about a trial, and this wasn't a trial. It was a hearing. It was more like a grand jury/indictment phase as you said... but it isn't even really that.
As I said, take away the political biases and I think most people in this country would agree that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and the defendant doesn't have to testify. If almost literally, the biggest crime you've uncovered is the failure to participate in the investigation of the lack of a crime... they're almost ADMITTING its a witch hunt.... which makes point 2 a distinction without a difference.
What I find silly is that Pelosi charged Trump with obstruction for failing to appear, and I'm sure Trump would say he didn't because he knows he couldn't get a fair 'trial', which is precisely what Pelosi is now arguing for herself... that she won't present the case to the Senate because she can't get a fair trial
I read stuff like this and I need to force myself to take a few deep breaths and remember that I genuinely like the people that I am interacting with.
First (burden of proof) - I agree the burden of proof rests with the prosecution (in this case most of the Democrats + Amash). But that burden is much lower at the impeachment stage (House) than the conviction stage (Senate). If you want to use criminal prosecutions as an analogy, the grand jury burden of proof is "probable cause" while the trial jury burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Probable cause is pretty easy, beyond a reasonable doubt is quite difficult. So the only burden of proof that has applied so far is very low (using the analogy).
Second (defendant testify) - only Trump is getting impeached. So the idea that Trump doesn't have to testify is correct ... but doesn't have anything to do with Mulvaney, Bolton, or Perry testifying.
Third (If almost literally, the biggest crime you've uncovered is the failure to participate in the investigation of the lack of a crime... they're almost ADMITTING its a witch hunt) - this is the one that really drives me crazy. Let's use another analogy. Let's say you have probable cause that that a crime was committed, possibly murder. There is a lot of evidence that John went to Sara's house and a lot of evidence that he never came out. Sara was the only one home when John went over there, but her house cleaner Ronald has been there a few times since John disappeared. There is a lot of evidence and good reason that John really didn't plan or want to stay at Sara's house for very long. But John has disappeared and it has been 3 weeks now and John's family is worried about him. All the evidence is at Sara's house. Sara refuses to talk to police. Sara refuses to open her door to allow a search. Sara refuses to allow police on her property to look in her backyard for fresh graves. Sara refuses to allow searches of her email or text messages. Sara tells Ronald not to testify or speak to the police, so he doesn't. Now the obvious flaw in the example is that Sara is just Sara, not POTUS, and obviously the crime is different. But Sara is certainly obstructing justice (which is similar to obstruction of Congress when Congress is the investigator). So no, no one is "admitting its a witch hunt". And if it is a witch hunt, Trump is a witch and the witch hunt is actually legitimate. But that is probably not what he (or you) mean.
She want's the specter of impeachment to hang over Trump (and the ability to accuse Republicans of bias) without giving Trump the right to a trial (and the probability of an acquittal).
Seriously....
How is this NOT party before country and an obstruction of Justice?
Read 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505 and explain to me how the elements for obstruction are met by Pelosi's decision to temporarily delay handing off the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Explain to me how your analysis changes if she hands them over after 10 days as opposed to 25 days as opposed to 50 days. Why and how does the difference in timing change your analysis under the relevant federal statutes?
(12-26-2019 11:23 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Third (If almost literally, the biggest crime you've uncovered is the failure to participate in the investigation of the lack of a crime... they're almost ADMITTING its a witch hunt) - this is the one that really drives me crazy. Let's use another analogy. Let's say you have probable cause that that a crime was committed, possibly murder. There is a lot of evidence that John went to Sara's house and a lot of evidence that he never came out. Sara was the only one home when John went over there, but her house cleaner Ronald has been there a few times since John disappeared. There is a lot of evidence and good reason that John really didn't plan or want to stay at Sara's house for very long. But John has disappeared and it has been 3 weeks now and John's family is worried about him. All the evidence is at Sara's house. Sara refuses to talk to police (which is not unusual in a case like this, but is her right and is not a crime). Sara refuses to open her door to allow a search when presented with a search warrant. Sara refuses to allow police on her property to look in her backyard for fresh graves (ditto). Sara refuses to allow searches of her email or text messages (ditto). Sara tells Ronald not to testify or speak to the police and threatens to retaliate if he does, so he doesn't. Now the obvious flaw in the example is that Sara is just Sara, not POTUS, and obviously the crime is different. But Sara is certainly obstructing justice (which is similar to obstruction of Congress when Congress is the investigator). So no, no one is "admitting its a witch hunt". And if it is a witch hunt, Trump is a witch and the witch hunt is actually legitimate. But that is probably not what he (or you) mean.
I assume the bolded parts I inserted were meant by you to be implied, otherwise this does not meet the criteria for obstruction.
(12-26-2019 11:23 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Third (If almost literally, the biggest crime you've uncovered is the failure to participate in the investigation of the lack of a crime... they're almost ADMITTING its a witch hunt) - this is the one that really drives me crazy. Let's use another analogy. Let's say you have probable cause that that a crime was committed, possibly murder. There is a lot of evidence that John went to Sara's house and a lot of evidence that he never came out. Sara was the only one home when John went over there, but her house cleaner Ronald has been there a few times since John disappeared. There is a lot of evidence and good reason that John really didn't plan or want to stay at Sara's house for very long. But John has disappeared and it has been 3 weeks now and John's family is worried about him. All the evidence is at Sara's house. Sara refuses to talk to police (which is not unusual in a case like this, but is her right and is not a crime). Sara refuses to open her door to allow a search when presented with a search warrant. Sara refuses to allow police on her property to look in her backyard for fresh graves (ditto). Sara refuses to allow searches of her email or text messages (ditto). Sara tells Ronald not to testify or speak to the police and threatens to retaliate if he does, so he doesn't. Now the obvious flaw in the example is that Sara is just Sara, not POTUS, and obviously the crime is different. But Sara is certainly obstructing justice (which is similar to obstruction of Congress when Congress is the investigator). So no, no one is "admitting its a witch hunt". And if it is a witch hunt, Trump is a witch and the witch hunt is actually legitimate. But that is probably not what he (or you) mean.
I assume the bolded parts I inserted were meant by you to be implied, otherwise this does not meet the criteria for obstruction.
Yes on the warrants, and the analogy works better if there are multiple witnesses since I obviously agree that Sara doesn't have to speak to authorities under these circumstances. Again, the biggest flaw to me in the impeachment process was the lack of subpoenas issued for witness testimony by the intelligence committee. Even if they didn't want to litigate the subpoenas after they were refused, they should have still issued the subpoeans. It makes me scratch my head from both a legal and public relations and political standpoint.
(12-26-2019 11:23 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Third (If almost literally, the biggest crime you've uncovered is the failure to participate in the investigation of the lack of a crime... they're almost ADMITTING its a witch hunt) - this is the one that really drives me crazy. Let's use another analogy. Let's say you have probable cause that that a crime was committed, possibly murder. There is a lot of evidence that John went to Sara's house and a lot of evidence that he never came out. Sara was the only one home when John went over there, but her house cleaner Ronald has been there a few times since John disappeared. There is a lot of evidence and good reason that John really didn't plan or want to stay at Sara's house for very long. But John has disappeared and it has been 3 weeks now and John's family is worried about him. All the evidence is at Sara's house. Sara refuses to talk to police (which is not unusual in a case like this, but is her right and is not a crime). Sara refuses to open her door to allow a search when presented with a search warrant. Sara refuses to allow police on her property to look in her backyard for fresh graves (ditto). Sara refuses to allow searches of her email or text messages (ditto). Sara tells Ronald not to testify or speak to the police and threatens to retaliate if he does, so he doesn't. Now the obvious flaw in the example is that Sara is just Sara, not POTUS, and obviously the crime is different. But Sara is certainly obstructing justice (which is similar to obstruction of Congress when Congress is the investigator). So no, no one is "admitting its a witch hunt". And if it is a witch hunt, Trump is a witch and the witch hunt is actually legitimate. But that is probably not what he (or you) mean.
I assume the bolded parts I inserted were meant by you to be implied, otherwise this does not meet the criteria for obstruction.
Yes on the warrants, and the analogy works better if there are multiple witnesses since I obviously agree that Sara doesn't have to speak to authorities under these circumstances. Again, the biggest flaw to me in the impeachment process was the lack of subpoenas issued for witness testimony by the intelligence committee. Even if they didn't want to litigate the subpoenas after they were refused, they should have still issued the subpoeans. It makes me scratch my head from both a legal and public relations and political standpoint.
The subpoena issue is key, and in your analogy Ronald would be guilty of obstruction if he refused to appear before a grand jury after being issued a subpoena. Ronald is not obligated to speak to the police or the prosecutor. In criminal cases witness testimony cannot be compelled until either a subpoena is issued or the witness voluntarily takes the stand. Testimony before Congress is less clear-cut, but if Congress really wanted something to hang on the Trump administration, refusal to answer a subpoena is black-letter-law obstruction.
(12-20-2019 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Unsurprisingly, I disagree with you both. The problem with the administration's use is that they are using it in a blanket matter. The proper way to use executive privilege (or really most privileges) is to testify (or turn over most of the documents) and only assert the privilege as to specific items. You can't just not show up at all to the hearing or not turn over any documents. It makes a nice sound bite, but that is now how the privilege works.
Sounds to me like a legal argument. Obviously the Trump administration disagrees.
Lawyers fairly frequently challenge things that 'others' think are obvious.
But it isn't a sound legal argument. None of the privileges I have ever dealt with (including deliberative process, which is under the gambit of different privileges unique to the executive branch) let you turn over nothing or stop the witness from appearing.
Yet somehow the entire branch of law dealing with the question of absolute and qualified immunity appears lockstep in every executive privilege case that is out there.
Not only that, but there is a fundamental difference between a subpoena emanating from the courts during a proceeding involving real parties, and a subpoena emanating from Congress.
Just ask Eric Holder about the above two.
I would agree that the process you outlined is common in civil and criminal contexts. From what I gather, the ambit of qualified and absolute immunity for witnesses isnt an issue in those procedures you talk of.
Those are the heart and soul of the age long battle between Executive power and Congressional power. I dont think your first hand experiences with the privileges you talk of is really on point, with all due respect.
Quote:
(12-20-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]But you're talking about a trial, and this wasn't a trial. It was a hearing. It was more like a grand jury/indictment phase as you said... but it isn't even really that.
As I said, take away the political biases and I think most people in this country would agree that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and the defendant doesn't have to testify. If almost literally, the biggest crime you've uncovered is the failure to participate in the investigation of the lack of a crime... they're almost ADMITTING its a witch hunt.... which makes point 2 a distinction without a difference.
What I find silly is that Pelosi charged Trump with obstruction for failing to appear, and I'm sure Trump would say he didn't because he knows he couldn't get a fair 'trial', which is precisely what Pelosi is now arguing for herself... that she won't present the case to the Senate because she can't get a fair trial
I read stuff like this and I need to force myself to take a few deep breaths and remember that I genuinely like the people that I am interacting with.
First (burden of proof) - I agree the burden of proof rests with the prosecution (in this case most of the Democrats + Amash). But that burden is much lower at the impeachment stage (House) than the conviction stage (Senate).
Actually there really is not legal concept of a 'burden of proof' either for an impeachment or any Senate trial. It is a fundamental political act, not a judicial acts that requires attention to the liberties protected by the 'burden' issues.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with having an attendant burden of proof attaching to each situation -- it is kind of ingrained to a sense of 'fair play' for something that surficially is a judicial-type process.analogy).
Quote:Second (defendant testify) - only Trump is getting impeached. So the idea that Trump doesn't have to testify is correct ... but doesn't have anything to do with Mulvaney, Bolton, or Perry testifying.
But whether the Congress ahs the power to subpoena them to testify is germane to them. The immunities that accompany the Executive privilege absolutely have a role in the the process which is borne *solely* out of the Legislative branch.
(12-26-2019 01:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]officials still were planning “when that next phase of harassment is going to occur,” but it could start as early as Friday.