• 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!

Chelsea Manning Sent Back To Jail For Refusing To Testify Before Grand Jury

Moon said:
Case law? Like the US Constitution? Why don’t you start there and then tell us what you learn about separation of powers.
Click to expand...

So you're saying what? The various rulings by the USSC over the centuries will be ignored and reversed? Precedent means nothing? All judges are political hacks? The judges are only following the Constitution when you agree with their decision? What is it you're saying?
 
What if...? said:
Well doesn't the one being done by the body that decides what is criminal by MAKING laws superior in our system to the branch that enforces their legislation?
Click to expand...

Obviously not.
 
She just needs to take the fifth.

Problem solved.
 
justabubba said:
they are both legal requirements
no reason one should be ignored while the other is fulfilled
Click to expand...

I never said it should be ignored, but it certainly can be. Trying to equate the two circumstances is pretty ridiculous.
 
NWRatCon said:
This comment shows three things: 1) a complete ignorance of subpoena authority, 2) a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional structure, and 3) an overriding partisan bias.
Click to expand...

None of the above is true.

Tell me, how much time did Eric Holder spend in jail for ignoring a congressional subpoena? How much time is Barr likely to serve? Those were examples of separation of powers where one branch has limited authority over another. Wouldn’t be a very effective form of government if the three branches were throwing each other in jail over political issues.

Now let’s take Chelsea Manning. How much jail time is she looking at for ignoring a criminal judge’s subpoena? More than, less than or the same as Holder and Barr?

There’s a difference in how subpoenas are treated based on who issued them and why. It’s pretty obvious and to claim otherwise is the height of ignorance.

Nothing I’ve posted regarding this topic has been partisan, so your claim is just silly.
 
gdgyva said:
you need a CRIME....show me the CRIME

i know...you all are still looking......
Click to expand...

Unfolding right before your eyes...
 
Moon said:
None of the above is true.

Tell me, how much time did Eric Holder spend in jail for ignoring a congressional subpoena? How much time is Barr likely to serve? Those were examples of separation of powers where one branch has limited authority over another. Wouldn’t be a very effective form of government if the three branches were throwing each other in jail over political issues.

Now let’s take Chelsea Manning. How much jail time is she looking at for ignoring a criminal judge’s subpoena? More than, less than or the same as Holder and Barr?

There’s a difference in how subpoenas are treated based on who issued them and why. It’s pretty obvious and to claim otherwise is the height of ignorance.

Nothing I’ve posted regarding this topic has been partisan, so your claim is just silly.
Click to expand...

I don't know where to begin in explaining the errors in the analysis, but I'm afraid I'll take the thread too far off topic to do so, so I'll just say, we disagree on these points, and leave it on a friendly note.
 
Moon said:
I never said it should be ignored, but it certainly can be. Trying to equate the two circumstances is pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...

you say that while also being unable to distinguish why one subpoena should be ignored and the other answered
 
Moon said:
Already explained.
Click to expand...

never explained. consistently avoided. why don't you change that and tell us the difference between the two subpoenas
 
Moon said:
Already explained.
Click to expand...

I'm going to take back some of what I said earlier, as I posted in haste. (Actually thought I was replying to someone else, trying to follow too many threads at once.) 1) A subpoena is a subpoena (literally means "under penalty"), but 2) the enforcement process is somewhat different, and yet, strangely the same. Chelsea Manning is resisting a subpoena in a court (Grand jury) proceeding, directly under the court's authority. The judge, then, can initiate contempt proceedings on his/her own. She's in civil contempt, meaning the court's authority is limited, and the "jail" time is limited to the length of resistance, while the grand jury sits. It's coercive, rather than punitive (criminal contempt).

Barr's contempt is of a congressional subpoena (he's actually not yet been held in contempt, just being contemptuous). Enforcement of a congressional contempt process is more convoluted, and gets to the court differently. First the committee has to refer it, then the House has to vote it (which has not yet happened). THEN, under current procedures, it is referred to the US Attorney for D.C. for enforcement. This is where Moon's point comes in. In the Holder case, and presumably in Barr's, since the US Attorney is under the Executive, Congress cannot directly force action. In Holder's case, an enforcement action was not pursued (by Obama), but a court did eventually rule that Holder had not violated the subpoena. That's the "Separation of powers" issue. What I objected to was the implication that I perceived that the argument was Congress didn't have the authority to issue the subpoena as a "separation" issue, rather than the difficulty of enforcing it. The enforcement mechanisms themselves (civil and criminal) are actually the same (jail or fines), but Congress cannot directly pursue them under current procedures (although they do have inherent procedures they no longer employ), so it falls to the Executive to pursue or or not. (By the way, that can change if Congress passed a law to do so.)

For my previous error/perception, I apologize.
 
Last edited:
Moon said:
This case is a criminal proceeding, the other isn’t.
Click to expand...

But you can bet your bottom dollar that's exactly the purpose to try to turn it into a criminal event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom