• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One thing people have missed in the recent court rulings.

apdst said:
What this means, is that Congress not a special prosecutor, can dig into any personal papers it wants, without probable cause, or reasonable grounds. I know you all are cool with it, now, because "Trump...bad", but wait until someone you like is under the same microscope.
Click to expand...

Congressional investigations aren't criminal prosecutions, and so they aren't subject to the same legal standards. However, that's not say that there are no legal standards involved. According to Wilkinson v. US, 365 US 399 (1961), the three standards for meeting "legal sufficiency" in issuing a subpoena are as follows:

1) The Committee must be authorized to investigate the subject.
2) The investigation must pursue a "valid legislative purpose".
3) The subpoena must be pertinent to the authorized investigative subject matter.

So long as these criteria are met, I don't see the problem.
 
Cordelier said:
Congressional investigations aren't criminal prosecutions, and so they aren't subject to the same legal standards. However, that's not say that there are no legal standards involved. According to Wilkinson v. US, 365 US 399 (1961), the three standards for meeting "legal sufficiency" in issuing a subpoena are as follows:

1) The Committee must be authorized to investigate the subject.
2) The investigation must pursue a "valid legislative purpose".
3) The subpoena must be pertinent to the authorized investigative subject matter.

So long as these criteria are met, I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

The 4th Amendment only applies to criminal investigations?
 
apdst said:
What's being missed, is how the tables will get turned on the Democrats, one day.
Click to expand...

They sure will. During the next election, Democrats will have to release their own tax returns.

Oh wait, they already do that.
 
nekrodev said:
I've said from the beginning that the place to really nail Trump was in his finances. The Russia investigation did bring that more into focus, though, so now they're moving on to the main course - plus there's the SDNY investigation as well.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put much stock in any Federal investigations of Trump anymore.
 
Cardinal said:
They sure will. During the next election, Democrats will have to release their own tax returns.

Oh wait, they already do that.
Click to expand...


Bank records, too?
 
Cardinal said:
I wouldn't put much stock in any Federal investigations of Trump anymore.
Click to expand...

I mean, he won't be impeached or indicted while he's still in office - that's just a given. I still think the House should move forward with it, regardless, and let the Republicans in the Senate shoot themselves in the foot by siding with Trump.

Once he's no longer President, though, all bets are off.
 
apdst said:
Bank records, too?
Click to expand...

I guess they might if they really want to, but what's the point? They already release their tax returns and they don't own businesses that put them at odds with the Emoluments Clause.
 
Cardinal said:
I guess they might if they really want to, but what's the point? They already release their tax returns and they don't own businesses that put them at odds with the Emoluments Clause.
Click to expand...

It don't matter. Now, Congress can go back 30 years, looking at returns, financial records, you name it. Nothing is off limits, now.
 
apdst said:
So, how'ed that Mueller investigation turn out? Find much? :lamo
Click to expand...

Mueller, eventually, will be revealed. And Barr’s coverup with it, it’s already happening. :)
 
nekrodev said:
I mean, he won't be impeached or indicted while he's still in office - that's just a given. I still think the House should move forward with it, regardless, and let the Republicans in the Senate shoot themselves in the foot by siding with Trump.

Once he's no longer President, though, all bets are off.
Click to expand...

My point is that Barr overseas Federal investigations of the President. Those things will be shut down, one at a time. The last of our democratic institutions are in the hands of the House and the courts, and that's assuming that Trump doesn't decide to flat-out ignore the courts.

Spoiler alert: Trump is absolutely going to try to ignore the courts.

norms.jpg
 
apdst said:
It don't matter. Now, Congress can go back 30 years, looking at returns, financial records, you name it. Nothing is off limits, now.
Click to expand...

A threat is pretty flat if you were already doing it and were going to do it anyway.
 
apdst said:
The 4th Amendment only applies to criminal investigations?
Click to expand...

Depends on the circumstances.... once Congress meets the standards for issuing a subpoena, an individual may invoke the Fourth Amendment to quash a contempt charge - but unless the Congressional subpoena was overly excessive and not shown to be narrowly tailored to the pertinent subject matter, it's not too likely such a defense would hold water. (See Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 US 186, 209).
 
Cardinal said:
My point is that Barr overseas Federal investigations of the President. Those things will be shut down, one at a time. The last of our democratic institutions are in the hands of the House and the courts, and that's assuming that Trump doesn't decide to flat-out ignore the courts.

Spoiler alert: Trump is absolutely going to try to ignore the courts.

View attachment 67257125
Click to expand...

I get that, but Barr has nothing to do with investigations being handled in the House for now - and until the investigation proceeds, he'll have next to no authority over the SDNY investigation either. I imagine those will go on well into 2020 and after Trump and Barr are out, then things can be settled.

I disagree somewhat with your image, although I also wonder exactly what is meant by some of that. I feel like the adults in the room have prevailed, largely, and that the institutions have worked as well as they can given the situation (Trump appointed lackeys running some of them). Some of that is likely to change in the near future as the responsible adults have all resigned or been fired now, and Trump has an AG lackey now.

It's hard to say on the courts and elections, but it's a mixed bag for both. Non-Trump appointed judges have been doing very well, and even the Trump SC appointments haven't been too bad so far - though maybe that's just to make us let our guard down. As for the elections, the powers that be will push for an establishment Dem (likely Biden, though they may throw more weight behind Harris or something later), which is not a great strategy, imo, but after the experience of 4 years of Trump, most people will want him gone, regardless. And if the 2020 election follows the 2018 mid-terms, there will be larger turnouts and younger voters, which will massively skew Democrat.
 
Cordelier said:
Depends on the circumstances.... once Congress meets the standards for issuing a subpoena, an individual may invoke the Fourth Amendment to quash a contempt charge - but unless the Congressional subpoena was overly excessive and not shown to be narrowly tailored to the pertinent subject matter, it's not too likely such a defense would hold water. (See Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 US 186, 209).
Click to expand...

Depends, huh?...lol.

The 4th Amendment only applies sometimes? :lamo
 
Irwin Corey said:
Mueller, eventually, will be revealed. And Barr’s coverup with it, it’s already happening. :)
Click to expand...

Revealed that he didn't find anything? That's already happened.

Why do you think Mueller doesn't want to testify in an open setting?
 
apdst said:
Like I said: Mueller didn't find jack****. That's why you can't show us what he found.
Click to expand...

Like myself and many others have said, you didn't read it. There is more in that report than what brought down Nixon.

You claiming otherwise just proves you are a partisan propagandist who has no interest in facts...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom