General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA modest request: Please do your research
It’s not a new thing here but it seems to be more prevalent lately that people are throwing around terms and concepts that they’ve read about somewhere on the internet but haven’t taken the time to actually learn about. As a lawyer, I notice it more when it deals with legal issues, but it’s certainly broader than that.
For example, lately some folk are complaining about (and actually mocking) the Democrats’ “strongly worded letters,” not realizing they are a legal necessity and demanding that Congress exercise its “inherent contempt” authority to throw people in jail immediately, without understanding exactly how this authority works and that it doesn’t permit immediate arrest and jail.
Such misconceptions wouldn’t be a big deal ordinarily, but when people who DO understand these issues try to explain it to them, some folk double down, argue and even get snarky - all the while further demonstrating their lack of knowledge about or even a cursory effort to research the topic.
This discussion board is a great place to engage and learn from each other. I’m constantly learning here. But it’s not helpful if people refuse to make any effort to learn what they’re talking about before they start talking about it, spread misinformation, and then argue and attack when anyone who knows the topic tries to help them better understand it.
I know I’ll likely take some incoming for having the temerity to say this - probably from some of the same folk who are doing what I’m talking about - but I hope people will seriously consider it and take some time to learn more about what they’re discussing, either by researching it before they bring it up or jump into a discussion, or by showing more respect to DUers who have more knowledge about a topic than they do. We all have something to learn about something from someone else.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
elleng
(130,895 posts)which is too bad but predictable.
watoos
(7,142 posts)
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Last edited Mon May 20, 2019, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)
...explained last night in a local constituency meeting, the investigations going on and the subpoenas being issued are no different than an impeachment hearing.
The only difference is in the name. That is the only difference. He said this repeatedly.
He says if an impeachment is mounted it will fail because the Senate is a cult and will not vote for that.
Then you end up with the Dems looking weak and ineffective and Trump will go around strweeching "Innocent!" "With hunt!". Just like he screech-tweeted "Exonerated!" after the Mueller report. A failed impeachment will help Trump.
That said, I really do think the Dems need to do a hell of a lot more than create the legal paper trail, and scoldy letters. They need to do high-profile teach-ins in each of the red states explaining exactly what has happened and what's at stake. They need to do sit-in vigils on the floor of Congress in the name of every subpoena that is blown off so the American people become educated. That kind of thing.
They need to go waaay outside the box in these most abnormal of times. They need to get fierce.
The legal filings approach, by itself, is making them look weak in another way.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Also interesting that some people want to start impeachment proceedings because they think the legal filings approach makes them look weak - without seeming to realize that that an impeachment panel would have to use the same approach to compel testimony and documents and would have no stronger substantive case for them than they do now. As Adam Schiff said, "a subpoena's a subpoena."
But I am glad that someone has heard and reported that Nadler said virtually the same thing I've been saying! 
NYMinute
(3,256 posts)I suppose people will understand that even in a small claims court, if the plaintiff doesn't send a demand letter to the defendant, the case will be thrown out - no matter what the evidence is.
Paper trail and process are extremely important and the Democrats on the various committees, many of whom are lawyers themselves and assisted by $1500/hr lawyers, are making sure that the legal process is perfected.
It may be too slow or appear too weak for some but they need to read up on it.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)....need to do both. As Nadler said, except in certain courts, Trump is running out the clock. Then where will we be?
On so many levels, we are running out of time.
Nadler also said most Americans do not understand what the Dems are doing. Therefore, in my mind the Dems need to do things outside of legal procedure that grabs headlines and teaches the country what is happening and why.
He said the Dems "fell asleep" in 2010<<--(his words) and lost to Repug voter suppression via gerrymandering.
And then in 2016---the damn electoral college in those three critical states that the DNC was not ready for.
Let's get more pro-active because the usual system is broken.
WinstonSmith4740
(3,056 posts)I agree completely. I understand & agree with EffieBlack's point. BUT, once the research has been done, the filings recorded, the letters sent...after they've dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, they have to do more than stand around, wring their hands and cop the claim that they can't impeach because, as you said
This is classroom management 101. You don't reward or ignore negative behavior, because it will only get worse.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)At least five members of Pelosi’s leadership team — four of whom also sit on the House Judiciary Committee, with jurisdiction over impeachment — pressed Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a closed-door leadership meeting to allow the panel to start an inquiry, which they argued would help investigators attain documents and testimony that Trump has blocked. Several hours later, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler met with Pelosi as well and made the case to start the inquiry, he later told his panel member on a call.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosis-leadership-team-rebels-on-impeachment-presses-her-to-begin-an-inquiry/2019/05/20/263c11de-7b5b-11e9-a66c-d36e482aa873_story.html?utm_term=.52cd039b4afb
zentrum
(9,865 posts)...on Sunday. As he was at pains to explain at the time. "Investigation" such as they are already doing and "Impeachment" are the same thing. All that changes is the name, he said.
Therefore I take his "beseachment" to mean he wants to expand investigations. A good investigation will lead to impeachment without ever having to invoke the word.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Impeachment investigation hearings are by law judiciary proceedings, entitling the committee to secret grand jury information, i.e. all of Mueller's grand jury info, transcripts, etc.
Oversight hearings are not exempt from the rule of grand jury secrecy.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Mueller has produced an extensive report rich with details about Trump’s misdeeds. It contains multiple examples of the president’s repeated efforts to obstruct justice. This is a key issue being pursued by the current House Judiciary Committee — just as obstruction of justice was a central element in the Nixon impeachment proceeding.
In Watergate, the Senate did the investigation. With Trump, Mueller did the investigation. Mueller is now done. We are at the point in the process where the House in Watergate started formal impeachment invesitgation proceedings. We need to do the same.
Calling for a formal impeachment investigation hearing is not bashing Pelosi.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)by people who don't seem ever to have read the rulebook. It's sometimes kind of like, "There was a foot fault on the 30-yard line, so why the hell didn't the stupid ref invoke the infield fly rule??"
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)PERFECT analogy!
sprinkleeninow
(20,245 posts)😍
Yea-yes, Effie is spot on.
Folks blowing off steam, getting their frustrations out, letting them be known.
I'm quilty of 'Impeach Now'!11!1
[Remember Tom the Bugman DeLay? When found quilty, reported as such by the residents of Freeperville. Oh noes!! 😝]
I first signed up on chere in 2001. With another username. 'Twas all good. Now no speculatin' anyone...😁
watoos
(7,142 posts)sprinkleeninow
(20,245 posts)by Tom Steyer that I was referring to.
The cry for impeachment proceedings to be commenced 'now' by us who are up to here with frustration and enormous stress. That's all I meant.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)You definitely speak for me on this!
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)Preach. Teach.
Good to be back, SheShe! (I think)
I know.
Missed ya!
defacto7
(13,485 posts)and I'll seriously do my best to follow it.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)...I gave Effie's post a 1.000 rec's in my "Comment Title"! ...And then I saw your post & saw we both were thinking same thing!
...Effie's post is SOOO important across everything in politics & LIFE to be honest! I served in the US Military straight out of HS in late 80s through to early/mid 90's. I joined being from a military family & I had no direction in life at that point! At that age I had no true concept of the horrors of war prior to joining BUT later after I had been in & the first Iraq War broke out, especially then when America had not been in a big conflict since Vietnam & I can't speak for everyone but it didn't scare my young 10 foot tall ignorant dumb male ass at the time but it woke my non-inquisitive 20yr old ass up to want to learn about the world & why things happen!! So, thankfully I was not exposed to the horrors of combat at the time but without a doubt serving during that time in close support of the mission in Iraq changed me! After getting out of the military I burning desire to understand US/Geo politics which was a good thing! What was NOT A GOOD THING & at the time I was an ignorant 22yr old kid & didn't know any better was it was the dawn of Right Wing talk radio! I was quickly sucked into Sean Hannity who was at the time just starting here in Atlanta & of course Rush Limbaugh!
...It makes me truly sick to admit it but it was true & the indoctrination was REAL!
THANK-FULLY...What saved me, and I'm not kidding, was I had always been an Atheist deep down since I was a child & realized my pantheon childhood gods Santa, Easter Bunny & Tooth Fairy were all make believe! So my child thinking at the time was "So the adult "God" has to be make believe as wel!"!! No adult influencing at all went into me thinking that & I always wonder why I stuck to thinking that even after being chastised for telling other kids! LOL! And being from the DEEP SOUTH there was quite a bit of adult influence to shake the HEATHEN out of me!
Anyway, I began to know, again DEEP DOWN, talk radio was misleading me about certain things especially all the lies they had me believing about Bill Clinton & the Media! However, over time things would play out & their lie would be exposed & they would never address it or give the typical BS excuse of LIBERAL MEDIA Conspiracy! But this was wearing thin over time along with the focus on religion, anti-gay & their obvious racist slant on things! However, I was having an internal battle with myself to admit my entire political worldview was wrong & that was really hard to overcome!
...I finally did & after I did IT FELT SO GOOD! What made it easy was reading Carl Sagan talking about how its OK to be wrong but once you see the overwhelming evidence then you change your mind & follow the evidence!! I TRY to do that now with everything & having that fling with talk radio earlier in life has made it so easy for me to try & seek out the facts from respectable sources even if it is not what I want hear & go where they take me!
Sorry for the long post...Can't sleep & Effie's post is so important & means a lot to me I thought I would share my story.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)For your life changes due to experience.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts) pnwmom
(108,977 posts)to see how someone like you could go through that evolution in thought -- you're the proof that it is possible.
And never apologize for a long, positive, interesting post -- we need them to keep up morale.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts) 
applegrove
(118,640 posts)dyslexic and have aha moments. Mostly they are hypothesis I can't test out immediately as I am online and in Canada. Do I put up the hypothesis or not? My role as a dyslexic is to take a wide scope in life and slowly, over minutes-hours-weeks-months and years get to a big picture in real life. That is my job. In the meantime I had a hypothesis. So I post my idea knowing it will be taken with a grain of salt and that the DU needs those of us to perceive things differently. I'm not always right. Sometimes i reinvent the wheel. But so are the real pundits on the tv. But sometimes I am right and novel.
certainot
(9,090 posts)their reps for not sticking their heads out but let their local rw radio station take free pot shots at them all day.
it's really fucking stupid.
like all those uni students complaining about obama not closing down gitmo and not voting because of it. fuck you. limbaugh was selling 'club gitmo' coffee mugs and bumper stickers on radio stations that their own universities were broadcasting sports on! how fucking stupid is that when it comes to doing your own research?
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)
in2herbs
(2,945 posts)your post and pose this question to you: In addition to defending Roe based on medical privacy rights, has there ever been a challenge to a red state legislature's constitutional authority to enact such state laws? I have been reading the Alabama Constitution and there appears to be several applicable provisions that prohibit Alabama from enacting laws that do not benefit/affect everyone in Alabama. (Art. 1, Sec. 15) The abortion restriction law just passed by the Alabama legislature is silent as to the law’s benefit/affect on the population in Alabama that are men. Additionally, Art. 1, Sec. 35 states "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."
How does this recent abortion restriction passed by the Alabama legislature not function as usurpation and oppression of women?
How does this recent abortion restriction passed by the Alabama legislature comply with Sec. 35 of their Constitution?
By my reading there are several other provisions in the Alabama constitution that work to prohibit the Alabama legislature from making any challenge to Roe.
I am tired of asking permission from the males on the USSC about what I can and cannot do with my body. I am frustrated that the tables aren't being turned and these red state legislatures aren't being legally challenged to have to first justify their state constitutional authority to make any challenge to Roe.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)I'm going to take advantage of this new knowledge just the one time, here and now. (I promise to do my best not to take advantage of your professional knowledge in the future.)
I've considered making an OP about this numerous times since the Mueller report came out but felt I would probably get mixed messages from others with as little knowledge as myself so I decided against it.
Regarding impeachment - and I'll change my Avatar if you think I should. When the House decides to impeach I understood it to mean they would begin with an investigation and questioning for as long as it was deemed necessary to make the decision to impeach or not. (From there the Senate would take over with their own hearings.)
I believed the House would gain significant power (super powers?) to hold public hearings, question witnesses and targets and issue subpeonas once it fell under an impeachment investigation.
It seemed to me that because of the power they would gain through impeachment investigations the House would bring more of the truth to the American people through public hearings.
Please, tell me where I'm wrong and how this actually works.
I would be so grateful to know the truth and not just my assumptions based on reading the internet.
Thank you in advance!
C-Z
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)As does Hillary Clinton. Both say we need to start impeachment investigation hearings. Tribe explains that, per case law, they are considered judicial proceedings that entitle the investigators to grand jury info. Mueller grand jury info is the bulk of the evidence Barr is refusing to turn over, citing grand jury secrecy requirements But judicial proceedings, like impeachment investigation proceedings, are an exception to that.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)and that grand jury materials CAN be released to them.
But there is no REQUIREMENT that such materials be disclosed to an impeachment panel and, without Barr's cooperation, it will be difficult for any congressional panel to obtain them, whether it's for impeachment or a proceeding preliminary to it.
In short, opening an impeachment inquiry could possibly make it easier for Congress to obtain grand jury materials, but it won't guarantee it.
watoos
(7,142 posts)it's what I have been saying for months, impeachment hearings carry more clout with the courts than regular hearings.
I also remember Barr stating that he would release grand jury information for an impeachment hearing. Do I trust Barr? Hell no, but he said it. All of the good dirt is in the grand jury documents.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)First, I'm not "coming around." I've been saying the same thing all along.
But don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say "impeachment hearings carry more clout with the courts than regular hearings" because I don't believe that to be true. "Clout" is not a legal term. It just means that something might have more influence with judge. And whether something has clout or not is a purely subjective assumption based on the discretion of an individual judge. It can't be predicted or mandated and, as such, carries little meaning. The fact that something COULD have more clout is a consideration, but it would be foolish to base a legal or legislative strategic decision based primarily on a belief that a particular action COULD have more clout.
As I said, Barr saying something means less than nothing, so it's ridiculous to give it any time or oxygen.
And since you haven't seen the grand jury materials, you have no idea whether "all of the good dirt" is in them or whether "all of the good dirt" is available only through them and not obtainable through any other means.
Nuggets
(525 posts)I’m sick of being told how we need to shut up about Mueller possibly not being such a straight arrow
The same ppl who said Coney was a straight arrow along with Rosenstein and McCabe two pthets who turned out to not be straight arrows.
So to hear from all of the ‘legal experts ‘ here who have decided to be condescending to others who see it differently, how Mueller is just following rules blah blah is straight up stupid. They were wrong about them and there’s a darn good chance they’re wrong about Mueller too.
Heaven forbid we discuss real possibilities, it shatters the sweet narrative so many wish to believe in.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)We need those materials to prove Trump's impeachable offenses. Are you say we don't need those materials?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And no, I'm not saying we don't need them. I'm saying - AGAIN- that:
1) an impeachment inquiry won't guarantee Congress will get the materials
2) it may be possible to obtain the same information in other ways (for example by subpoenaing the grand jury witnesses to testify before Congress)
3) there are other issues besides the grand jury materials that must be considered when determining when to launch impeachment proceedings
I'm also saying that you are not an expert on any of this (and I'm not an expert on all of it, but I do know more than most laypeople) and you don't have all of the information, while the people who are making the decisions ARE either experts themselves or are being advised by the foremost experts on the topic, they know volumes more information than you do, so your continued insistence that you know better than they do and your persistent attempts to lecture those of us who clearly know more than you do simply highlights the fallacy of your arguments.
As Effie said, please go do some research before trying to explain the law to legal experts.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)You have been unable to cite any authority for your claim that regular oversight hearings carry the same ability to obtain secret grand jury information as formal impeachment investigation hearings.
I wish you were right, but all authority I have seen indicates you are not. Regular oversight hearings are not adjudicatory in nature, so they simply do not fall into that exception to the rule requiring grand jury testimony be kept secret.
Yes, people who are experts are advising Congress, like Lawrence Tribe and Hillary Clinton via their respective Op Eds. Hillary was actually an impeachment counsel. She is calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings. I hope they listen to her.
I have done my research. Yet when I cite it to you, you mock me for "posting excerpts." You don't distinguish any authority I (via Lawrence Tribe) cite. It seems to me you are the one who has not done their research.
You should know there are a LOT of lawyers on DU, and they don't go around telling people they're lawyers. The good lawyers don't brag about their backgrounds, or lord it over folks and derisively tell people they don't know what they're talking about. They let their posts speak for themselves, and are able to clearly and concisely discuss the law, not resort to insults.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)her of bragging.
And you clearly don’t know as much as she does about the law - if you did, you’d at the very least understand how ridiculous it is to keep asking for a cite when the cite is the very rule you’re talking about but don’t seem to realize.
As I said, you need to just let it go before you dig yourself any deeper. I can’t imagine anyone reading your posts on this topic would take anything you have to say about any of this seriously.
I’m sure there are topics you’re very well-versed and even expert in that many people here know little about. Perhaps you could switch to one of those so we can benefit from your knowledge in another area. But your beating a dead horse trying to argue your uninformed version of the law with a legal expert is painful to watch.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)StarfishSaver has not contradicted any of it. If her background is as she ckaims, it is striking that she could not cite me a singke case or statute to support her argument. She brags that she has more expertise than me and insults me by claiming that I don't know what I am talking about, but that is not a legal argument. It certainly doesn't work in front of a judge.
All I am saying is what Lawrence Tribe is saying and what Hillary is saying. Instead of directly addressing the law I cite, StarfishSaver and now you insult me. Unlike StarfishSaver, you've been here long enough to know I am not a troll and I don't post bullshit. And yet you are piling on, as if StarfishSaver needs rescuing. What is painful is folks who claim to be lawyers ignoring the law and resorting to personal attacks.
And lost in all this is the wisdom Hillary tried to impart on us in her WaPo Op Ed last month. Too bad nobody wanted to talk about that. I did my reasearch, weeks ago, and laid it all out in this thread. Seems to me I did exactly what you asked for.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)wryter2000
(46,039 posts)There's plenty in the redacted report to incriminate Trump. Of course, Congress should be able to get the unredacted report, but I doubt they need it to build a case.
My problem with impeachment now is that it seems as if it should have a conclusion. I'm afraid we'd finish it before all the evidence of malfeasance is out. We haven't even begun to look into emoluments and money laundering.
If we impeach now and don't convict in the Senate, Trump can claim all the investigations are over and he was exonerated. We need to keep up the pressure until the 2020 election.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)We have one shot and it has to be a big one. And Pelosi is no doubt determined to make sure that the day the impeachment inquiry is launched is the best day of the process and after that, everything goes downhill and ends with no conviction and no removal and only a small fraction of the evidence against Trump revealed, a public and media with no patience for more investigations (too late - you should have brought that up as part of the imeachment?) and demanding we move on - a year before the 2020 election.
Timing is everything.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Yes, there are no guarantees about anything. No doubt it will lead to litigation, even when we are clearly in the right under black letter law, like with the House demand for Trump's tax returns. And you never know what judge we'll get, or what SCOTUS will do. But shouldn't we place ourselves on firm legal footing in the inevitable court fight for these grand jury materials?
I agree with Hillary (and Lawrence Tribe, and Elizabeth Warren), we need to start formal impeachment investigation hearings.
Nuggets
(525 posts)President Trump’s former 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton warned Democrats against immediately starting to talk about impeachment after the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.
Clinton wrote in the opinion piece in the Washington Post: “Our election was corrupted, our democracy assaulted, our sovereignty and security violated.”
But she said that lawmakers shouldn’t just jump to impeachment but should rather hold “substantive hearings” that build on the Mueller report and look to “fill in its gaps.”
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday backed Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for her comment that impeaching President Trump "isn't worth it," saying the California lawmaker was chiefly concerned with putting "some points on the board" because of the "do-nothing" Republican-controlled Senate.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/440258-hillary-clinton-do-nothing-senate-has-become-a-hotbed-of-cynicism
Hillary Clinton says Nancy Pelosi is 'right to be cautious' on impeaching Trump
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-donald-trump-bit-concerned-impeachment/story?id=62554307
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)You appear to be confusing impeachment investigation hearings with a vote on articles of impeachment. I am not calling for a vote on articles of impeachment right now, nor did I say that is what Hillary is calling for. Hillary is calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings:
During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If today’s House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.108a5648959e
Hillary should know, she was there. The process started with a formal House Resolution: "An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal....The Judiciary Committee set up a staff, the Impeachment Inquiry staff, to handle looking into the charges, that was separate from its regular Permanent staff. Based upon the recommendations of many in the legal community, John Doar, a well-known civil rights attorney in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who was a long-time Republican turned Independent, was hired by Rodino in December 1973 to be the lead special counsel for the Impeachment Inquiry staff. Doar shared with Rodino a view that the Senate hearings had gone overboard with leaked revelations and witnesses compelled to testify under immunity grants; they were determined to do things in a more thorough and objective process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon
That is what we need to do now.
I am sure Hillary knows regular oversight hearings do not give authority to Congress to obtain Mueller's grand jury info, only formal impeachment proceedings can do that.
As Lawrence Tribe stated in the Washington Post:
In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no “inherent power” to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.
In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trump’s former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.
In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is “not worth it.” That decision may hamstring Nadler’s quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government “oversight” to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.
For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee — and the public — about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trump’s selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense — unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful in a regular oversight hearing, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it in light of case law. But not if it is a formal impeachment investigation hearing. That is why we must go this route, and do it immediately.
So, you don't have to believe me, just listen to Hillary Clinton and Lawrence Tribe.
Nuggets
(525 posts)with links provided. They are from the end of April 2019, and she didn’t say start impeachment hearings, she stated Pelosi was right to wait.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)She said Pelosi has a right to be cautious, but not that she should "wait." I suggest you reread Hill article you cited, despite it's misleading headline. What Hillary is actually quoted as saying is that we "need" to go to the process employed against Nixon, namely impeachment investigation hearings:
...
So, the House needs to put some points on the board, and that happened during Watergate," Clinton said, referring to the buildup of impeachment proceedings against Nixon in 1973 and 1974.
Agsin, did you read Hillary's WaPo Op Ed?
Nuggets
(525 posts)Clinton, who is also a former senator, said Pelosi is “right to be cautious” about impeaching Trump, saying impeachment “shouldn’t be a preordained conclusion” based on “partisan political purposes.”
But she said that lawmakers shouldn’t just jump to impeachment but should rather hold “substantive hearings” that build on the Mueller report and look to “fill in its gaps.”
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday backed Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for her comment that impeaching President Trump "isn't worth it," saying the California lawmaker was chiefly concerned with putting "some points on the board" because of the "do-nothing" Republican-controlled Senate.
From the links I posted.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Especially considering what Hillary explicitly said in her Op Ed.
OF COURSE impeachment should not be a pre-ordained conclusion. We should not go straight to a vote on articles of impeachment, like the GOP did with Clinton. That is why we should do a formal impeachment investigation hearing FIRST, like we did in Watergate, as Hillary calls for in her Op Ed. You are ignoring Hillary's Op Ed and relying on out of context snippets. And in NONE of those snippets is the word "wait."
Pelosi has the right to be cautious is NOT the same as saying Pelosi should wait.”
Neat editing...
She also said...
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she agrees with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 's methodic approach to some Democrats' calls to impeach President Donald Trump following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report
Which means the exact same thing as Pelosi should wait. You want to play games with meaning now?
And again this:
But she said that lawmakers shouldn’t just jump to impeachment but should rather hold “substantive hearings” that build on the Mueller report and look to “fill in its gaps.”
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday backed Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for her comment that impeaching President Trump "isn't worth it," saying the California lawmaker was chiefly concerned with putting "some points on the board" because of the "do-nothing" Republican-controlled Senate.
Her exact quotes the entire quote not your cherry picked parts.
Can you read? Maybe you’re too tired to grasp her quote?
I don’t know, but she clearly said she agrees Pelosi and to wait. If she agrees with Pelosi then she does not agree that Dems should start the impeachment process. Pelosi explained why she didn’t want to start the process.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I can read even better than you can insult.
You essentially admit Hillary never actually stated "Pelosi should wait." Instead, you argue that is what she "meant." No she didn't.
The substantive hearings she is referring to as needing to be held are formal impeachment investigation hearings. She is obviously not referring to regular oversight hearings, since those are already being held.
Read Hillary's Op Ed. It explains the hearings she would like the House Committee to hold:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.108a5648959e
The "Watergate precedent" Hillary is referring to is a process started with a formal House Resolution. An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal.
We need an impeachment inquiry, i.e. a formal resolution setting up impeachment investigation hearings, like the one we had in Watergate. That is what Hillary is saying, that is what I am saying.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)That process occurred in the Senate in May 1973. There were weeks of public hearings that included John Dean's testimony and revelation of the White House tapes. This led to the Saturday Night Massacre in October and other activities that turned the country against Richard Nixon. The House had nothing to do with any of this.
In February 1974, the House passed a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The first hearing was held in May of that year, nearly a year after the Senate hearings began and several months after they wrapped up.
Now, with those facts in mind (facts that you could have easily obtained yourself), reread the quote from Hillary that you cited and you will see that she was NOT talking about the House impeachment hearings or impeachment inquiry, but she was expressly describing the hearings and proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on Watergate (and not just because she said "public hearings conducted by a Senate select committee".)
As Effie said, you should do some research before posting. It would help keep you from consistently posting false information, which I assume you don't want to do.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)You and your friend Effie just disagree with me. That is no reason to be disagreeable.
There were certainly differences with how the investigation of the facts started with Watergate. They had the Senate investigation. We had the Mueller Report.
But it is now time to get a formal impeachment inquiry started in the House, like Pelosi's leadership and Nadler are urging her to do.
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I watched her interview with Rachel. She never said that.
Nuggets
(525 posts)“The substantive hearings she is referring to as needing to be held are formal impeachment investigation hearings. She is obviously not referring to regular oversight hearings, since those are already being held. “
No they are not. That’s not what she’s saying.
In 1974 the House passed a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry.
A top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has filed a "resolution of inquiry" into President Donald J. Trump. It can be considered a step toward the impeachment process because of the information sought in this case. The last time a resolution of inquiry was considered on the House floor was in 1995, against then-President Bill Clinton related to financial aid for Mexico.
What's a resolution of inquiry?
According to official rules, the Judiciary Committee must respond to the resolution of inquiry within 14 legislative days, or Congressional workdays. The committee can either report the resolution favorably, reject it, or revise it. If it chooses not to act within that time period, Congressman Nadler could request that the resolution be discharged (meaning it gets pulled out of committee) so that the House as a whole can then vote on it.
Is Trump being impeached?
No. The resolution of inquiry only seeks information from the executive branch. Depending on the information uncovered by the inquiry, it could lead to broader calls for impeachment. Nadler is seeking information related to investigations of Trump, his associates, his foreign business interests, and conflict of interest laws such as the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
https://www.countable.us/articles/237-preliminary-impeachment-inquiry-filed-president-trump
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)to explain what HC is talking about. Learning by looking at another example.
It is irrelevant if Nadler is pushing for impeachment today.
The premise was that HC called for formal impeachment investigation. Inquiry =an official investigation.
Resolution of inquiry is a step towards the impeachment process. It isn’t initiating the impeachment process it’s looking into whether we should.
And again,
Pelosi said: “While our views Range from proceeding to investigate the finding of the Mueller report we’re proceeding directly to impeachment we all firmly agree that we should proceed down a path of finding the truth.”
AND
Hillary Clinton said:
“I think what Nancy means, and I agree with what she means, is that it shouldn’t be a pre-ordained conclusion....
“Nonetheless. Congress must investigate and examine evidence as objectively as possible before deciding to move ahead with impeachment” I think Nancy is right to be cautious about making sure whatever is done in this Congress is in more accord in the very careful approach of 1973 and 74.”
Obviously then, Pelosi is doing what Hillary Clinton thinks should be done. Thus the agreement with Pelosi’s approach.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)As Hillary said in her Op Ed, the options are not just a vote on articles of impeachment or nothing:
"The debate about how to respond to Russia's sweeping and systematic" attack--and how to hold President Trump accountable for obstructing the investigation and possibly breaking the law--has been reduced to a false choice: immediate impeachment or nothing. History suggests there's a better way to think about the choices ahead." https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?outputType=amp
Then she describes that history, namely the Watergate impeachment inquiry process of holding formal impeachment investigation hearings, managed expertly by Doar. That is the "better way." She is talking about. If she was fine with the way we are handling things now (regular oversight hearings), she would not have written that Op Ed.
We are obviously not ready to vote on articles impeachment, which is what "impeachment" is generally understood to be. But impeachment is actually a process. It starts with an impeachment inquiry that may or may not lead to impeachment, depending on what is found in the inquiry. Of course it should not be a "pre-ordained conclusion." Only after an impeachment inquiry should the House then move on to impeachment. That is what Hillary was talking about.
Hillary talks about it in a way to sound supportive of Pelosi, while still urging a new course of action. In other words, she was disagreeing without being disagreeable. That appears to be a foreign concept to you.
Nuggets
(525 posts)She never says formal impeachment hearings. Its been explained to you by me and another poster. They even gave you dates.
She said she agreed with Pelosi.
Is that really that difficult to comprehend?
You made this up:
“Hillary talks about it in a way to sound supportive of Pelosi, while still urging a new course of action. In other words, she was disagreeing without being disagreeable.”
That appears to be a foreign concept to you.
She said she agreed with Pelosi, I’ll take her word for it, not your interpretive spin.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Those were formal impeachment investigation hearings.
Nuggets
(525 posts)Looks like I did confuse terms...but I’m correct about the process and what HC has said.
Please stop spreading the rumor that initiating impeachment process is what HC wants.
If it were she wouldn’t say she agrees with what Pelosi is doing.
No. The "Watergate precedent" Hillary is referring to DID NOT start with a House resolution
That process occurred in the Senate in May 1973. There were weeks of public hearings that included John Dean's testimony and revelation of the White House tapes. This led to the Saturday Night Massacre in October and other activities that turned the country against Richard Nixon. The House had nothing to do with any of this.
In February 1974, the House passed a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The first hearing was held in May of that year, nearly a year after the Senate hearings began and several months after they wrapped up.
Now, with those facts in mind (facts that you could have easily obtained yourself), reread the quote from Hillary that you cited and you will see that she was NOT talking about the House impeachment hearings or impeachment inquiry, but she was expressly describing the hearings and proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on Watergate (and not just because she said "public hearings conducted by a Senate select committee".)
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)And responded to it (Post 165).
There were certainly differences with how the investigation of the facts started with Watergate. They had the Senate investigation. We had the Mueller Report.
I am not spreading a "rumor," I am quoting Hillary's Op Ed, which I highly recommend you read. https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?outputType=amp
It is now time to get a formal impeachment inquiry started in the House, like Pelosi's leadership and Nadler are urging her to do.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosis-leadership-team-rebels-on-impeachment-presses-her-to-begin-an-inquiry/2019/05/20/263c11de-7b5b-11e9-a66c-d36e482aa873_story.html?utm_term=.52cd039b4afb
That is the "better way" Hillary said in her Op Ed that "history shows."
If you want StarfishSaver to be your proxy, that is up to you. I guess our conversation here is done.
Nuggets
(525 posts)She’s not asking for starting the impeachment process. She has stated she agrees with Pelosi.
That’s all I need. You interpreted it the way you wanted and say she’s just putting up a front but really wants the opposite action. HCs words explicitly say she’s behind Pelosi, as am I.
I seriously doubt she meant just the opposite of what she said. She’s never been afraid to go against the grain.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I am not "interpreting" anything.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Please see Nugget’s comprehensive takedown of your false claim: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212111035#post55
It’s bad enough that you consistently make up the law, but now you’re making up your own facts.
Fortunately, I and several other people here know better and won’t let you get away with such sloppy and irresponsible tactics.
But your off-base posts do serve a valuable purpose: You are Exhibit A of the point of my OP
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)
Thanks for the OP, Effie.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Hillary is calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings:
During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If today’s House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.108a5648959e
Hillary should know, she was there. The process started with a formal House Resolution: "An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal....The Judiciary Committee set up a staff, the Impeachment Inquiry staff, to handle looking into the charges, that was separate from its regular Permanent staff. Based upon the recommendations of many in the legal community, John Doar, a well-known civil rights attorney in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who was a long-time Republican turned Independent, was hired by Rodino in December 1973 to be the lead special counsel for the Impeachment Inquiry staff. Doar shared with Rodino a view that the Senate hearings had gone overboard with leaked revelations and witnesses compelled to testify under immunity grants; they were determined to do things in a more thorough and objective process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon
That is what we need to do now.
I am sure Hillary knows regular oversight hearings do not give authority to Congress to obtain Mueller's grand jury info, only formal impeachment proceedings can do that.
As Lawrence Tribe stated in the Washington Post:
In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no “inherent power” to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.
In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trump’s former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.
In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is “not worth it.” That decision may hamstring Nadler’s quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government “oversight” to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.
For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee — and the public — about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trump’s selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense — unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful in a regular oversight hearing, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it in light of case law. But not if it is a formal impeachment investigation hearing. That is why we must go this route, and do it immediately.
So, you don't have to believe me, just listen to Hillary Clinton and Lawrence Tribe.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)much Hillary did or did not call for necessary investigation before proceeding than anything substantive.
Let's face it, DU currently has one group hostile to the decisions of our Democratic congressional leaders and one supportive. (And of course big numbers refusing to "get into it" with either.)
It started with someone whose name is associated with the first faction calling for factual posting, some from the other leaped in, both produced transcript, and how it's degenerated into squabbling over how to interpret or spin it.
Moving on.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)What Hillary actually said is important. We should be following her advice.
Instead, I am being insulted for my troubles, being accused of "advocating for Barr" and not knowing what I'm talking about. SMH
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)her op-ed with a fine-tooth comb trying to find out if her lengthy explanation of the situation itself somehow benefits one "school of thought" or the other.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Hillary is calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings:
During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If today’s House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.108a5648959e
Hillary should know, she was there. The process started with a formal House Resolution: "An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal....The Judiciary Committee set up a staff, the Impeachment Inquiry staff, to handle looking into the charges, that was separate from its regular Permanent staff. Based upon the recommendations of many in the legal community, John Doar, a well-known civil rights attorney in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who was a long-time Republican turned Independent, was hired by Rodino in December 1973 to be the lead special counsel for the Impeachment Inquiry staff. Doar shared with Rodino a view that the Senate hearings had gone overboard with leaked revelations and witnesses compelled to testify under immunity grants; they were determined to do things in a more thorough and objective process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon
That is what we need to do now.
I am sure Hillary knows regular oversight hearings do not give authority to Congress to obtain Mueller's grand jury info, only formal impeachment proceedings can do that.
As Lawrence Tribe stated in the Washington Post:
In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no “inherent power” to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.
In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trump’s former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.
In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is “not worth it.” That decision may hamstring Nadler’s quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government “oversight” to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.
For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee — and the public — about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trump’s selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense — unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful in a regular oversight hearing, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it in light of case law. But not if it is a formal impeachment investigation hearing. That is why we must go this route, and do it immediately.
So, you don't have to believe me, just listen to Hillary Clinton and Lawrence Tribe.
RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)
Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... any other investigative powers that could include looking for reasons to impeach.
I ... REALLY ... wish dem pols would get out in front of this and outline for us the steps they're going to take to jail the 5th avenue shooter.
Right now we're depending on punditry and online posters
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Regular oversight hearings do not give authority to Congress to obtain Mueller's grand jury info, only formal impeachment proceedings can do that.
As Lawrence Tribe stated in the Washington Post:
In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no “inherent power” to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.
In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trump’s former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.
In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is “not worth it.” That decision may hamstring Nadler’s quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government “oversight” to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.
For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee — and the public — about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trump’s selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense — unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful in a regular oversight hearing, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it in light of case law. But not if it is a formal impeachment investigation hearing. That is why we must go this route, and do it immediately.
So, you don't have to believe me, just listen to Lawrence Tribe.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)and read and understand the law and rules it refers to, you would know that it doesn't contradict Uponit at all.
The provisions and cases that Tribe is discussing don't in any way require the release of grand jury materials to an impeachment panel, nor do make it easier to release such materials to an impeachment panel than to any of oversight proceeding in advance of impeachment (hence the "preliminarily to or in connection with a judiciary proceeding" language).
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I did read it. As Tribe states:
You have done nothing to distinguish the case law cited by Tribe in that excerpt, counsel.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Last edited Mon May 20, 2019, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)
No one is questioning Tribe's assertion that an impeachment inquiry is the equivalent of a judiciary proceeding and, this, Rule 6(e) applies to it. That's not the point.
The point is that the Rule 6(e) allows the release of grand jury materials to impeachment inquiries. But it doesn't require it. Moreover, the rule doesn't limit the release of such materials to only impeachment inquiries. It can also be released in other instances, including for proceedings preliminary to impeachment, which would include oversight investigations being conducted as a precursor to impeachment.
It's not enough to just cut and paste statutes and rules. You have to also understand them and how they apply to various cases and controversies. It also helps if you actually read what the commentators you're quoting are saying and what they're interpreting. That would help you know that, in this case, Prof. Tribe contradicted what I'm trying to explain to you.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)A formal impeachment investigation hearing is a hearing "preliminary to impeachment."
That is why Tribe is saying we need to start formal impeachment investigation hearings. I understand Prof. Tribe just fine, counsel. Cite me a case that says a regular oversight hearing amounts to a judiciary proceeding.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Sad part is you don't seem to know what you don't know or even care.
Just as Effie observed
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)If you did, you'd cite me a case, instead of resorting to insulting me. If you have no legal authority, the presumption is your conclusory arguments are without merit, counsel. Ask any judge.
What sort of law do you, or did you, practice?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)In response to your question, I was a litigator and taught Constitutional Law and Criminal and Civil Procedure - including the rule that we're discussing - and was a counsel on the Judiciary Committee, among other things.
What is your legal background?
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I was not discussing the FRCP with you. You seem to have me mixed up with someone else. What FRCP rule do you contend allows an exception to regular oversight hearings to grand jury secrecy?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)If you had read Tribe's article that you cited, you would know that you were indeed discussing a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure with me since that rule forms the very basis of his argument - The cases he was discussing were court opinions interpreting that very rule
You seem quite confident in your ability to interpret the law. I'm sure that nothing I cite to you will change your mind, so I'm certainly not going to waste my time doing legal research upon your demand and for your benefit.
I suggest you follow Effie's advice and go do some research.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)It’s not going like you seem to think it is.
It’s more obvious with every post that you’re way out of your league. And Starfish is going easy on you.
Just let it go.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Hillary has called for formal impeachment investigation hearings. So has Elizabeth Warren. I think they are right. Same with Lawrence Tribe. StarfishSaver, whatever "league" she happens to be in, has not presented any authorities to contradict those cited by Hillary and Tribe.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)It doesn't.
This misconception seems to be based largely on a misreading of section 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which strictly limit the availability of grand jury materials, but authorizes a judge to release such materials upon the request of a government attorney (e.g., the Attorney General) "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." An impeachment inquiry has been held to be the equivalent of a judicial proceeding, so a judge can rule to release grand jury materials to an impeachment panel.
However, while a court can order the release of grand jury materials to an impeachment inquiry, an impeachment inquiry is not the only way Congress can get them. A court can also order their release to proceedings preliminarily to an impeachment inquiry, such as oversight hearings leading up to impeachment proceedings.
BUT the request must be made by the federal attorney - in this case, the AG. A court doesn't have the authority to release the materials upon the request of Congress without the assent the AG. (Barr did say that he'd release the materials to an impeachment panel, but he's proven that his word means nothing, so that's not worth hanging anyone's hat on.)
But a judge is not required to order a release of these materials to any proceeding, be it an impeachment hearing or something else. He or she can deny the request, so there's no guarantee that opening an impeachment inquiry will automatically give Congress access to the materials.
And, unfortunately, a recent ruling by a DC federal court seems likely to restrict this access even more. https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-dc-circuit-rules-grand-jury-secrecy-mckeever-v-barr
And, aside from Rule 6(e)'s potential, but not certain, impact on grand jury materials, an impeachment inquiry confers no additional powers or authority on Congress to hold hearings, summon witnesses, obtain documents that it does not already have under its oversight jurisdiction.
I know you directed this question to Effie, so I hope you (and Effie) don't mind that I stepped in to answer it and hope my answer was helpful.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)You explained it beautifully, as usual.
watoos
(7,142 posts)an impeachment hearing shouldn't give more powers than a regular hearing. That assumption is being made with the idea that requests for documents and requests to testify and requests to honor subpoenas are being followed under regular investigative hearings. One small point of correction, subpoenas and requests for documents are being ignored, and sure if we just follow the normal procedure eventually Republicans will have to comply with the subpoenas, which most likely will be after the election which makes your arguments moot.
Trump's strategy isn't to win court cases, it's to delay court cases, and I'm no lawyer but if I use this argument under an impeachment hearing, that time is of importance because of an upcoming election, correct me if I'm wrong, but a judge should give more weight to my argument under impeachment.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)You can say it all you like, but that won't make it so. An impeachment inquiry does not give any more access to documents and testimony than any other oversight process. In fact, some materials are easier to obtain OUTSIDE of the impeachment process because of various laws and rules related to their production. One example is the tax returns, which the Chair of Ways and Means is entitled to obtain upon request, a power not accorded to the Judiciary Committee or impeachment panel (they can try to subpoena them, but they're not entitled to them as a matter of law as are those covered by the IRS stature)
You noted that the requests for testimony and documents are being ignored and you're correct. But what you don't seem to understand is that the procedures for compelling them are EXACTLY the same in an impeachment inquiry as they are in the current oversight process. And the Trump people are just as likely to ignore them in an impeachment inquiry as they are now (probably more so, given the higher stakes).
watoos
(7,142 posts)I'm talking about getting the courts to expedite decisions. It is common sense to me that judges will give more weight to an impeachment hearing.
What is the main reason for waiting on having an impeachment hearing? It can't be that Trump didn't commit crimes? Mueller named Trump as a co-conspirator in a felony. 800 federal judges and prosecutors, who I assume are also lawyers, all claim that Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice from 4 to 10 instances.
There are certainly numerous examples that Trump committed misdemeanors. The argument for waiting cannot be that we don't have enough evidence on Trump, what is it? Our Constitution demands that when a president commits high crimes and misdemeanors that he be impeached.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The reason for waiting is to gather additional evidence and build support for an impeachment inquiry. As a layperson who has probably never had to gather evidence and develop strategy for a trial or build the foundation for congressional investigations and hearings, you're not expected to fully understand how that works, why it's necessary and what it takes to do it correctly, but trust me - it requires more, much more, than just saying "well, from what I see here, I'm convinced he's guilty, so let's just fo for it now with what we've got. We don't have time to pull together or coordinate any more information or map out a strategy. Let's just start anyway and figure the rest out as we go along."
It doesn't work that way. Thank God.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)wryter2000
(46,039 posts)Two voices of reason against a background of noise.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts) 
Maeve
(42,282 posts)Thank you, Effie--I don't follow a lot of arguments here on DU, but I always appreciate your posts!
wendyb-NC
(3,325 posts)Very important.
mcar
(42,307 posts)narrative here. Actually knowing how the process works helps.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But when people who clearly don’t know the law or process keep misstating both and keep arguing with people who do know it, that’s when it gets really annoying. And for some reason, ithe ones who know the least seem to be the most obnoxious about it.
watoos
(7,142 posts)under regular hearings that subpoenas will be honored, that documents will be turned over before the election? If you can't your explanation falls apart because all that Trump wants to do is to delay everything not win everything.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)subpoenas would be complied with in an impeachment proceeding, which operates under the exact same rules, procedures and authorities as regular oversight hearings.
As I've tried to explain to you repeatedly, there is nothing special about an impeachment inquiry that gives Congress any additional powers that they don't already have to compel testimony or production of documents.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)... it's called the Dunning Kruger effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Obnoxious indeed.
CatMor
(6,212 posts)I wish everyone would read the original post by Effie.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)Last edited Mon May 20, 2019, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)
With every word you say. Democrats are following legal procedure. That takes time.
Trump is scared, why do you think he is screeching so loud? Mobster tactics.
watoos
(7,142 posts)You said, "that takes time." That is exactly Trump's game plan.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)He's trying to get this all out of the way so it's virtually forgotten long before next November. The sooner impeachment proceedings start, the sooner they can be dispatched with and he can move on to the next thing.
And he wants the Democrats to throw him in the briar patch and jump in with him before the country is ready so that he can battle them on his terms and his timing (and he loves to fight one boogeyman on one front) and win, and walk away claiming victory while we end up with nothing to show for the effort except an eventual asterisk next to his name in the history books.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)And avoid discussion of his lack of accomplishments. Pelosi didn't give him that option in 2018 and she won't do it in 2020 unless there's a political change among Republicans.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)With help by Barr.
Isn’t it strange Nixon and Mitchell did the same thing? Worked for a time until the evidence was so explosive it could not be ignored. Where did John Mitchell wind up? Nixon resigned.
Democrat are laying out the ground work, piece by careful piece. That is what you do when you are making a case.
Democrats have well trained Prosecutors and Attorneys on this case.
paleotn
(17,912 posts)of talking out of my ass, I agree with you. I sometimes think of how angry I get when someone starts stomping all over my area of expertise by spouting BS. The same applies to me.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)Occasionally i fail, but , like everyone, I'm a work in progress.
Ninga
(8,275 posts) 
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Most won't, though. Not even on DU. So, it's easy to imagine that the average person has no clue about any of those things.
Here on DU, someone will probably take the time to explain such terms and concepts, which often requires a rather lengthy post. Unfortunately, most people see long posts and just scroll on.
It's frustrating, but there are always some DUers who do take the time to read those long, explanatory posts. That makes it worthwhile writing them, even if they are mostly ignored.
Thanks for all you do here, Effie!
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)I see an expert, I read. How else do we learn?
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)take every opportunity to do so. Others won't. More's the pity.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)I spend so much of my internet time here. I actually learn things I do not know and can share my info with others without all the flotsam I read on most Political sites.
Wounded Bear
(58,648 posts)
Seriously, though, it's not just the RW echo chamber that is guilty of this. We all should take a breath and consider things before posting our emotionally charged opinions and "facts" that generally change over time. It's why I seldom post on shooting threads the first few hours, and like to wait until more real facts surface.
CaptainTruth
(6,589 posts)... is rampant on the right, we shouldn't engage in it too.
Nuggets
(525 posts)you are talking about?
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)Not legal. Many of us find those arguments to be unsatisfactory and are reacting accordingly. As for legal backup, there is no shortage of esteemed legal minds who line up on the impeachment hearings now side of the argument.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And saying the American people don't support impeachment or that it's divisive isn't a "political" argument any more than saying that Trump is divisive and is tearing down the country's reputation or that Obamacare shouldn't be done away with because most Americans support and depend on it aren't a "political" statements.
When have Pelosi, Nadler or Schiff said they're not moving forward with impeachment right now because of electoral politics and what exactly did they say?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)"make political arguments against impeachment" that are "not legal."
All I have ever heard any of them say is that there is a process, and it is not the right time at the moment -- but they're always leaving the door open.
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)The Senate won’t convict? The way to get rid of Trump is at the ballot box? And my personal favorite, “he’s not worth it,” which is neither political nor legal, meaning it doesn’t even rise to the level of an argument.
You need links? Please.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)rule out impeachment in the future.
Adam Schiff just said yesterday that impeachment might be the only way to get the documents they've been demanding.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/444464-schiff-impeachment-proceedings-could-be-tool-to-get-information-evidence
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) suggested in an interview that aired Sunday that impeachment proceeding against President Trump could be used as an oversight tool to gain information that the House has been seeking.
Schiff said on CBS's Face the Nation that what could drive impeachment is not the president's conduct in special counsel Robert Mueller's report, but rather how the administration "is engaging in a maximum obstructionism campaign against Congress."
"I think that we are seeing more members that recognize that the administration is acting in a lawless fashion, essentially having obstructed justice, is now obstructing Congress and our lawful function.," he said. "And if we conclude that there's no other way to do our jobs, no other way to do the oversight, no other way to show the American people what this president has done, his- his unethical and illegal acts as outlined in the Mueller Report, then we may get there."
Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #67)
pnwmom This message was self-deleted by its author.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
stillcool
(32,626 posts)intellectually lazy. Not caring enough to find out what is true. So many times in politics, a lot of reading needs to be done to get any kind of a picture. It's not easy navigating different accounts of an event. And the consequences of the most noble of intentions can be catastrophic. It's not surprising that democracy is dying when there is so much an ordinary citizen doesn't know...and can't know. The mis-information age.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Years ago my Sensei explained:
First, if you want to learn, go to the source.
Second, among those at the source, consensus equals truth.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Hekate
(90,670 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)differently. In case people haven't woken up to it, we are in a real crisis.
I remember hearing the story of someone the Republicans subpoenaed not showing up and they sent the capitol police to bring them. It wasn't a matter of letters flying back and forth and "outrage". They JUST DID IT. If it can't be done, how did they do it?
I think you should to back and look in history, maybe it would inform your thinking.
Last edited Mon May 20, 2019, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)
The issue is not the "sending strongly worded letters" - which, ok, makes sense as procedure etc.
The issues is if we except the game to be the "same as it's been" or a "reasonable honorable opponent".
The nature of information, perception, and "trusted institutions" have been irrevocably changed: in a blindingly fast and thorough way.
Name one "institution" that is as trusted and looked upon as stable as it was in the past. 30 years ago? 10? 5?
* Medical, pharmaceutical industry, health care crisis - what's the first thing you do after you visit the doctor (and before): google medical info.
* Education - for profit college, decline of primary education (due to funding etc), college admissions scandals, cheating, for profit college.
* Sports - Kapernick(sp), abuse, concussions, cheating, doping.
* Religion - massive fleeing of organized religion due to education, facts on line, etc. Not to mention the revelation of horrendous abuses of power.
* Politics - cheating, criminal offences, look forward not backward, war for oil, corporate lobbing, no representation.
I could go on and on... They're all been challenged (some for good reason, some for not) by the nature of new media / internet whatever you want to call it. To be sure, it started in the 70s/80s with alternative media challenging the status quo, but it took the internet, with its ability to collect information historically (infinite memory) and immediately retrieve it. Yes that means good and bad information.
The discourse is not one way anymore. The "back and forth" of social media etc is the new norm and that does not play by the same rules of control that the one way communication of old did. That gives rise to all sorts of good things (DU) as well as bad QAnon, 4CHan, Infowars, etc
My belabored point is that it's a whole new ballgame. It's historical and moving faster than any time in history. People of all walks of life *do not trust* or abide by the categories of old. We can call that a problem of not understanding the "system" but that misses the point of the "system" not being in control of what's happening anymore.
So send the letters. Do all the correct legal stuff. But understand that the battle is (as it always has been) in the public discourse and that it's a whole new way of waging war to win hearts and minds.
And *that* is where we need to learn how to win.
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)I think part of the problem is that Democrats often thrive in more formal, process-driven environments; ie government, the courts, education. These sectors have been both the slowest to adapt to disruptive technologies and arguably most undermined by them.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)Great qualities to be sure - but it's like tanks vs horses, guerrilla warfare vs straight on battles etc.
"Shock and awe" and disaster capitalism are disruptive, fast moving blitzkrieg systems.
So is the new world of internet / media/ and other social organizing entities.
>>These sectors have been both the slowest to adapt to disruptive technologies and arguably most undermined by them.
Indeed.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Because you remembered hearing a story once, that makes it legal precedent? Can you provide any backup other than your recollection of hearing it? Context is important...
You consider something you remember hearing about once "history" and you call someone else "uninformed in their thinking?"
onenote
(42,700 posts)Instead of doing any research, a poster says they "remember hearing" the story of "someone the Republicans subpoenaed" being arrested with no preliminaries.
When? What circumstances? How was it resolved? No information. No information from which anyone could glean such information.
Inherent contempt authority has not been used that often and not at all since 1935. The last time it was used, by the way, couldn't have been the example described, since in 1935, the Democrats had a 69-25 majority in the Senate (which is the body that asserted inherent contempt authority).
You can rest assured that the Democrats are not going to dust off the abandoned practice of inherent authority. It would make no sense to do so since the moment they did, the target's lawyers would be filing a habeas corpus petition and the matter would move to the courts, with the target released on his or her own recognizance pending a determination by the courts as to whether the "arrest" was lawful. It makes more sense for the Democrats to dot all their i's, cross all their t's, and then be the ones seeking injunctive relief in court.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)She's saying people should do some research and get their facts straight before trying to argue about it.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Poor misguided souls.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)Caliman73
(11,736 posts)It seems to come down to this concept:
Emotional activation shuts down critical thinking processes, or more bluntly, Emotions trump logic.
A great many of us are angry and scared, which ironically tends to be the state of mind of conservative most of the time.
People want to see definitive action. They want the threat gone and they are lashing out at who it is safe to lash out against.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am familiar with how long the process takes, (referring to the grievance process), and how frustrating it can be for people in the process.
I dealt with the law insofar as it related to my own job. My job required a knowledge of our National Agreement. It also required a knowledge of how long the grievance process could take.
Recommended.
Hekate
(90,670 posts)I think there are others who must enjoy the sensation of rage and panic when things don't happen right the eff now!.
I've been a believer in "process" as long as I can remember, both in Labor Relations/Personnel and on the County Affirmative Action Commission (now defunct) and the Civil Service Commission. Unless the system you are working with has been so badly broken and corrupted that it needs to be scrapped altogether, the rules are there to protect all people, not just management people. If something goes awry, there should be a mechanism built in to fix it. Nothing is perfect.
Scrapping US law and the Constitution is not called for. (Someone demanded to see proof that some DUers are mocking "strongly worded letters." How could anyone have missed them-- they've been all over the board.) No one is sorrier than I am that it takes time in this instance -- somewhere deep in my hindbrain is a desire to see Orange Mussolini meet the fate of Benito Mussolini in the public square. But if we as a nation go down that path, our country will really be lost.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And I agree with them all.
Dealing with any administrative process can be a lengthy journey. I dealt with grievances from the investigatory through the arbitration process, and it was not uncommon for that process to take 1-2 years.
At times, I would ask for information, and after not receiving the requested information, I would file separately on the issue of non-compliance.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)never went to law school. But they do their homework, something that's often sorely lacking in online discussions where some people just post whatever they assume or what they heard or what they read somewhere. And then they repeat it over and over, even after facts have been given to them.
H2O Man
(73,537 posts)THE SKY IS FALLING!
Recommended.
dawn5651
(603 posts)i read a lot everyday is full of reading to become familiar we should all be reading because we are going to have to have this knowledge so we can fight the orange menace and his minions.
wryter2000
(46,039 posts)Can you give us a brief description of the procedures when someone ignores a subpoena? What recourse do we have when Barr refuses to show up and testify when he's been subpoenaed to appear? Similar for Mnuchin and Trump's tax returns?
Personally, I'd like to see them both subject to impeachment.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)wryter2000
(46,039 posts)So is my sister
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)with a whole lot of un-thought-through arguments based on assumptions, conjecture and "I heard it somewhere and I'll be damned if some lawyer is going to tell me I got the law wrong" certainty.
It's kind of funny in a not ha-ha kind of way.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Any reasonable person should know it's unlikely to happen, but the fantasy is endearing. It's easy to get pissed at the flagrant abuse of power by someone who believes they are above the law. It's why many spout off about it, but we also need to take a step back and let the process work, even if it doesn't turn out the way we'd like.
dlk
(11,561 posts)Too often now people like to double down on it. Different times..
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Now, legal training and expertise is dismissed as "getting bogged down in legalese" and political experience is sneered at as "inside the Beltway thinking."
dlk
(11,561 posts)Slick political operatives have found a way to capitalize on it and feed it. “I’m ignorant and proud of it” is no longer the pejorative it used to be. I believe much of it is rooted in the decades-long assault on public education by Republicans
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)His administration was big on anti-intellectualism and intentional ignorance as acceptable in the pursuit of goals.
It's gone downhill from there.
cp
(6,626 posts)Nuffer
(40 posts)Thank you! I just learned something new at 70 years old...now I understand !
bonkers221
(8 posts)Adroit observation of how to use information more effectively.
Indykatie
(3,696 posts)We probably even have a couple of 400 pound Russians creating chaos from Moscow.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)I understand the frustration; we'd all like Trump and his minions out ASAP. But we're still a country of laws, however much Trump wants to change that.
Most people are simply frustrated, and as you say, don't understand the legalities. Sadly, though, some simply use that frustration as an excuse to bash the Democratic Party and good, solid Democrats.
betsuni
(25,478 posts)corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)I assure all D.U.ers that no one is more impatient for impeachment to begin than I. However, thanks to you, Effie, I know what I need to know to bite my tongue a little longer.
brer cat
(24,562 posts)mia
(8,360 posts)Excellent post.
If I might make a modest request....
Please apply your principles when you present issues related to what white people think, especially women.
I would appreciate that.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Unbelievable.
malaise
(268,967 posts)Rec
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)Thank you for telling it as you see it. I may not always agree. I will always give you the respect you have earned. (Does anyone see my long fingers signaling "bring it on"?) Difference of opinions is available only on Democratic forums, imo, thank you)
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I appreciate that, but it doesn’t take much courage to opine on an anonymous online discussion board...
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)all this simplesimon has to offer. "To dream the impossible dream."
bitterross
(4,066 posts)Last edited Mon May 20, 2019, 10:46 PM - Edit history (3)
I mean, if people had done their research on Northam's verifiable actions and history; how those were all pretty darned in line with being a person who supports the African American community, they might not have been so willing to throw him under the bus during a probably GOP rat-fuck operation. Don't you agree?
Glad you thought of this.
Response to EffieBlack (Original post)
Drew Christ Spam deleted by MIR Team
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)It's becoming clear to me that some DUers' insistence on posting false information, even when corrected over and over, isn't the result of laziness or obtuseness, but it's part of an effort to troll, sow division, confusion and frustration among Democrats.
These people aren't as stupid and uninformed as they want us to believe.
CDerekGo
(507 posts)literally since January 2017, WHY won't they do anything? Even when I explain that all legal issues have avenues that have to be taken, and explain each and every single one of them, they still can't believe it won't happen overnight.
Seems with advent of Wireless Internet, the accessibility of practically anything, overnight shipping, hell, same day shipping, NO ONE wants to wait any longer. To me, I'm certainly glad this is taking as long as it is. If anything, I would not want to be accused of a crime, tried for a crime, sentenced for a crime, and possibly executed for a crime, all in the same day!
No one seems to understand this any longer. Most just don't have the patience
