We’re finding out that we have the exact same problem in the UK. Well, we’ve had it for a bit longer than 200 years, but the same thing applies: the rules governing those at the top are simply suggestions and dependent on following precedent. For everyone else, the law applies and prison can be the result if you don’t follow the straight and narrow.
5 Likes
Isn’t there some way they can speed up the process?
Especially since, as pointed out, they’re going to just repeat with some other crazy thing. If each new different and just as ridiculous defense requires weeks or months to get through the courts, they’ll never get to the end. We’ll still be having this discussion in a decade about why is it taking so long for the courts to say crossing your fingers when you say something doesn’t mean it must be legal.
I imagine that it will get to this point somewhere in the year 2075…
3 Likes
Honestly the more I look at it the more it looks like his pre-politics corporate lawyering approach. Kill time with endless legally dodgy filings till the other side goes broke or gives up.
But Congress and NY State won’t be running out of money to pay lawyers. And no one seems particularly interested in giving up. Especially now. So its like they’re trying to run out the clock until norms collapse entirely or they hit an insane judge.
Not really? Outside of stepping outside of the law and norms as much or more so than Trump does.
Formalizing impeachment should speed it up because it limits things like privlege and negates several of Trump’s legal arguments. But it doesn’t really prevent him from creating new more fucked up ones.
Even the much wished for inherent contempt. They’re just gonna file suit over it making the same arguments that will still have to be argued down.
There should be a point where the courts stop accepting new arguments or appeals, or even new filings because the issues have already been decided. But unfortunately there isn’t a lot of news coverage on these cases, we basically get an update every time a ruling goes against Trump and they throw another round at it. And I can’t tell you the non-Trump parties have been as agressive as they could be. Like at this point I figure you could argue to cut off Trump’s ability to switch horses or appeal because of how spurious all their arguments have been.
ETA: oh and this is kind of why the whistleblowers are important. The formal whistleblower process is intended to shield the blower from reprisals and legal consequences. Even if the authorities they reported to dead end, and they move on to other authorities or eventually the press. It sort of end rounds a lot of Trump’s stalling because you can’t assert privlege over a whistleblower, or claim to be immune to that whistleblower’s voluntary testimony, or prosecute them for not backing down.
However many of then there are, their existence should let Ukraine inquiries move faster.
5 Likes
That’s because Congress is an extrajudicial body with limited enforcement powers, and we’re seeing just how toothless they really are – especially when combined with a DOJ that’s been transformed from an independent body working in the best interest of the country to becoming little more than a taxpayer-funded defense and investigation team working for Trump.
Fucking this. Even if he lost his job he’s a wealthy hotelier and will be just fine. If there’s anybody that can make a principled stance, it’s him.
3 Likes
I’m not saying anything about giving in, just what I expect might happen. I’m sure the Speaker is a better judge of that than I am, though.
That’s what I don’t get. At this point, shouldn’t congress be working on having a federal court that just hears these cases in rapid succession with quick rulings? One where they don’t give each side weeks between each step.
That’s the part that’s killing us. Issue a request a week (or more) out, they don’t comply, few days later issue the challenge with a deadline a week (or more) out, after that, then one side sues, more weeks (or months) go by before the court rules. All on stuff that should be super clear and simple to begin with. There’s got to be a way to reduce those times from weeks to days, and months to weeks (or days) too.
This worked when people felt shame and didn’t want to look bad. Without that, the entire system is failing faster than it can respond. Which is scary as hell. Who guessed that the entire government was possible because people didn’t want to be shamed by congress.
2 Likes
But, why would you make a principled stand when you know what you did was illegal?
He was probably going to not recall any details at all.
Believing the illegal thing you did isn’t illegal so strongly that you’ll take a principled stand to say it wasn’t illegal seems like an internal conflict that’s not likely to happen.
That’s a really big root for the problem there. The normal pathway for enforcing this shit is to ask/order the DOJ to. Which… Isn’t gonna do shit right now. The other normal way of doing it is to ask the courts to do it, but you have to convince a court, in court that that’s appropriate. And we’re currently watching that move at a snail’s pace. Inherent contempt still exists, but we kind of discarded it because it was expensive, unreliable, and time consuming due to court challenges. So snail’s pace and a bunch of practical problems.
Congress just can’t create a new court unilaterally. What are they gonna do pass a law, get it through the Senate and the President’s gonna sign it?
I think you could use a grand jury that way. But you need a federal prosecutor, ie the DOJ for that. And that’s an issue.
I’m not a lawyer so this is definitely arm chair territory. But I think there’s a way for them to bundle existing suits that overlap into a single one in a higher court.
But the issue is not that each individual subpoena or contempt charge needs court approval. Its that the general ideas that congress has to power to do this, and that they apply in this situation need to pass through the courts once. And Trump keeps coming up with new challenges on that front, so it keeps getting argued over and over.
You’ve got a situation where Trump is literally arguing in court that congress does not have powers that are clearly laid out in the constitution. Or that those powers do not apply to him because presidents are magic. And when that fails, cause its wrong on its face, he comes up with a slightly different arguement to assert it again. Or asks a higher court to stay things while they re-argue.
Part of the issue here is we discarded the tools created to prevent this shit after Nixon when the GOP abused it to go after Clinton. So we’ve sort of backtracked away from independent oversight.
4 Likes
3 Likes
It’s an old meme but, if Obama was doing this there would be tanks on the White House lawn right now.
Time for Dems to fucking grow a pair. You too Nancy.
2 Likes
So, apparently Trump wants to have things both ways. He can talk about how he has absolute immunity on the one hand, and whine about wanting due process on the other.
7 Likes
Conversely, his base sees: “Sticking it to the Libs!”
Sad
3 Likes
The letter reads like Trump was screaming obscenities at his lawyer, and his lawyer was hastily translating it into political terminology.
I’m surprised Trump hasn’t yet put out a tweet that just says “FUCK YOU!” or punched someone yet. We’re at that level of discourse. And I’m not really sure what the Democrats can do about it.
7 Likes
He did tweet the word bullshit in caps a couple days ago
5 Likes
Not a new court. But, whatever normal process the existing court uses to schedule items and work through them. A way within that process to make these a priority vs other court items. Along with a way to deal with the rinse and repeat of difference excuse after different excuse.
Still, informative and appreciated posts. Even if they tend to leave us depressed by the state of affairs afterwards.
1 Like
Well like i said I’m pretty sure you can combine cases when they jump up to higher courts if they cover the same question. But that doesn’t neccisarily make anything faster.
Pretty sure that they can request a final judgement, or file to block arguments based on them already having been decided or that they’re basically trolling. But the Administration still gets to argue against that, and they still have the ability to appeal any decision. Cause due process, everyone has a right to a full hearing on this shit. A chance to answer arguments and so forth. And guys like Trump exploit that to avoid consequences. As far as I know we don’t really have a clear apparatus for stopping that.
And its hard to tell if anything is being done to even try. Like I said no one seems to really be covering these cases. Cause the news sucks. And the story still isn’t that the President violated the law and is using every tactic he can to avoid the consequences. Its a bullshit horse race story about who will “win” a cynical political spat where facts and information aren’t as important as who comes out the other side.
For all the navel gazing from journalists about how they contributed to 2016, they’re still doing the same shit. I figured I’d try a new political podcast the other day, as I like some of the other stuff the hosts produce and hey impeachment should be a great fodder. Their entire take on the subject that it was another meaningless media driven scandal that would have no impact. That it was a waste of time and by focusing on it the media was ignoring real news. Smart, progressive people who were otherwise politely debating whether Bernie or Warren would be a better pick. People who are otherwise know for true crime material. That sort of response is absolutely a result of the shitty way all of this has been covered.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
