A Deeply Fractured US

[GR66]

Special counsel goes directly to Supreme Court to resolve whether Trump has immunity from prosecution​

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/special-counsel-trump-jack-smith/index.html

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Special counsel goes directly to Supreme Court to resolve whether Trump has immunity from prosecution​

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/special-counsel-trump-jack-smith/index.html

And SCOTUS has agreed to hear the petition by the Special Consul. Trump has nine days to respond.

SCOTUS responds to Jack Smith's motion to speed up Trump presidential immunity petition

The Supreme Court agreed to consider Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution — and wants a response from the former president in nine days, reported CBS News' Scott MacFarlane.According to the court's statement, Trump is directed...

www.rawstory.com

 

[brihard]

Special counsel goes directly to Supreme Court to resolve whether Trump has immunity from prosecution​

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/special-counsel-trump-jack-smith/index.html

And SCOTUS has agreed to hear the petition by the Special Consul. Trump has nine days to respond.

SCOTUS responds to Jack Smith's motion to speed up Trump presidential immunity petition

The Supreme Court agreed to consider Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution — and wants a response from the former president in nine days, reported CBS News' Scott MacFarlane.According to the court's statement, Trump is directed...

www.rawstory.com

Excellent. Although this should be a simple decision, it’s nonetheless a pivotal one for the case to be able to move to trial in a timely manner.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

They agreed to take it up. They haven't placed a timeline on their decision. EIt's clear though, Smith wants a decision quickly, in order to start the trial at a time that'll conflict with the start of the campaign. This in order to keep Trump off the circuit and tied up in court so he can't campaign at a critical time. Whether or not Trump is found guilty is immaterial, as long as they can keep him off the stump. Of course, there are people, that are giddy with glee. However, given Trump’s numbers right now, a huge number of Americans will consider this nothing more than blatant election interference. That could backfire on the democrats and bolster Trump’s numbers even higher. The US of A is starting to distrust their government and turn against them. Their lies are being exposed more everyday. If they make Trump a martyr, the dems can kiss the WH goodbye. Hopefully the house and senate also. By going to SCOTUS first, if he can get a favorable ruling, it will nullify Trump's opportunity to go to the appellate court and asking for a ruling on immunity. Going to the appellate court will throw Smith’s time lines off to get him tied up in court for the first two months of the official campaign start. It would be nice to see the SCOTUS slap Smith for his push for a speedy trial. That is a constitutional right of the accused not the prosecution.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

They've moved the goal posts again. Now it's "my father was never FINANCIALLY involved in my business."

Hunter Biden defies House Republicans' subpoena for closed-door testimony

Hunter Biden appeared outside the U.S. Capitol to deliver a brief statement and slammed GOP lawmakers for targeting him and his father.

www.cbsnews.com

As well he defied his subpoena and didn't show this morning. He made a grand speech condemning the GOP for picking on him, reiterating he'll testify, but only in public. So we'll see if they go after him for contempt, more importantly, we'll see if the DOJ takes action like they did when Navaro and others were charged for ignoring their subpoenas. He also has no say in determining how he will meet, whether in public or in private. The supoena wording determines that. Hemwants to be questioned in public so the dems on the committee can filibuster and cause chaos in the hearings. The GOP wants it in private so they can question him without interference and shenanigans from the left. He'll likely plead the fifth anyway.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Hemwants to be questioned in public so the dems on the committee can filibuster and cause chaos in the hearings. The GOP wants it in private so they can question him without interference and shenanigans from the left. He'll likely plead the fifth anyway.

So, uh, what's keeping the Democratic members of the comittees from filibustering, causing chaos, interfering, and shenaniganing behind closed doors?

Hint: The answer is nothing, and that justification is pure bs. Why else wouldnt they want it public?

 

[brihard]

They agreed to take it up. They haven't placed a timeline on their decision. EIt's clear though, Smith wants a decision quickly, in order to start the trial at a time that'll conflict with the start of the campaign. This in order to keep Trump off the circuit and tied up in court so he can't campaign at a critical time. Whether or not Trump is found guilty is immaterial, as long as they can keep him off the stump. Of course, there are people, that are giddy with glee. However, given Trump’s numbers right now, a huge number of Americans will consider this nothing more than blatant election interference. That could backfire on the democrats and bolster Trump’s numbers even higher. The US of A is starting to distrust their government and turn against them. Their lies are being exposed more everyday. If they make Trump a martyr, the dems can kiss the WH goodbye. Hopefully the house and senate also. By going to SCOTUS first, if he can get a favorable ruling, it will nullify Trump's opportunity to go to the appellate court and asking for a ruling on immunity. Going to the appellate court will throw Smith’s time lines off to get him tied up in court for the first two months of the official campaign start. It would be nice to see the SCOTUS slap Smith for his push for a speedy trial. That is a constitutional right of the accused not the prosecution.

Getting a writ of cert from the SCOTUS wouldn’t impact Trump’s appellate rights, it just fast tracks it to the final appeals court where it’s inevitably heading anyway. Any argument Trump’s counsel would make at USCA(DC) they can make at SCOTUS.

Trump is still an indicted criminal defendant like any other. He’s entitled to due process and he’s getting it. Would you have any plausible potential presidential candidate be immune from criminal procedure? I suspect if the shoe were on the other foot and Biden were running for office while not currently serving you would be fine with criminal prosecutions against him continuing to move forward.

 

[FSTO]

Hollywood getting ready for 2025?

 

[kkwd]

So, uh, what's keeping the Democratic members of the comittees from filibustering, causing chaos, interfering, and shenaniganing behind closed doors?

Hint: The answer is nothing, and that justification is pure bs. Why else wouldnt they want it public?

The behind doors session is a deposition, a legal proceeding. The hearings are out in public where members get to ask questions. In the deposition only the lawyers, from both sides, get to ask questions. Both are done under oath so consequences for the interviewee are the same for each. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The behind doors session is a deposition, a legal proceeding. The hearings are out in public where members get to ask questions. In the deposition only the lawyers, from both sides, get to ask questions. Both are done under oath so consequences for the interviewee are the same for each. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a congressional deposition

Congressional Committee Depositions: A Deposition Unlike Any Other | JD Supra

The summer of 2022 is turning out to be the summer of legislative investigations and their own special kind of deposition. These depositions are...

www.jdsupra.com

 

[kkwd]

It's a congressional deposition

Congressional Committee Depositions: A Deposition Unlike Any Other | JD Supra

The summer of 2022 is turning out to be the summer of legislative investigations and their own special kind of deposition. These depositions are...

www.jdsupra.com

From the article you posted. I see no committee member filibustering in this process.

Limited Role for Attorneys, Limited Rights to Appeal​

In the House of Representatives, House Resolution 8, adopted Jan. 4, 2021, gives the chair of each standing committee the authority to order the taking of depositions after consultation with the ranking minority member. “Consultation” isn’t the same thing as negotiation, however. It’s more like notice — regulations spelling out the details of congressional committee depositions make clear that the consultation requirement can be met by giving the ranking minority member three days’ notice of the deposition. See 117th Congress Regulations for Use of Deposition Authority, published in the Congressional Record for Jan.4, 2021, at p. H41.


These regulations describe a deposition process markedly different from the freewheeling (but judicially supervised) depositions conducted by courtroom litigators. For example:

• Depositions are taken by committee staff lawyers, and there is no need for committee members to be present during the deposition.
• Deposition witnesses have the right to have their lawyer present during the deposition “to advise them of their rights.”
• Objections raised during the deposition are ruled upon by the committee chair.
• Witnesses are questioned in alternating 60-minute rounds for majority and minority staff lawyers, with no more than two lawyers conducting the questioning for each side at any one time.
• The grounds for objecting to particular questions are limited. The regulations provide that “[a] witness’s counsel may not instruct a witness to refuse to answer a question, except to preserve a privilege” and “[t]he witness may refuse to answer a question only to preserve a privilege.”
• Objections must be made in a “non-argumentative and non-suggestive” manner. (A good practice for pretrial discovery depositions too.)

According to the Congressional Research Service’s Congressional Oversight Manual, committee depositions enable congressional investigators to efficiently collect and verify information in a manner that preserves the rights of witnesses and third parties. The manual states:


Staff depositions afford a number of significant advantages for committees engaged in complex investigations, including the ability to obtain sworn testimony quickly and confidentially without the necessity of Members devoting time to lengthy hearings that may be unproductive because witnesses do not have the facts needed by the committee or refuse to cooperate. Depositions also occur in private, which may be more conducive to candid responses than public hearings. Depositions also provide committees with an opportunity to verify witness statements that might defame or tend to incriminate third parties before they are repeated publicly and prepare for hearings by screening witness testimony in advance, which may obviate the need to call other witnesses.


Witnesses who testify at congressional depositions are placed under oath. False statements made during a committee deposition can be prosecuted under the federal False Statements Accountability Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001, which criminalizes false statements made during “any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.”

 

[IKnowNothing]

From the article you posted. I see no committee member filibustering in this process.

You're quite right

Edit- my understanding was that he was called to stand in front of the committee itself.

 

[kkwd]

You're quite right

Edit- my understanding was that he was called to stand in front of the committee itself.

Here is the letter sent to Hunter's lawyer in November. He didn't do himself any favours going to Capitol Hill and thumbing his nose at the Congress. He was safe though, he went to the Senate side to make his speech. If his lawyer advised him to make this speech, well, I just don't know what to say.
Hunter Biden Cover Letter

Dear Mr. Lowell:
The Committee on Oversight and Accountability (“Oversight Committee”) and the
Committee on the Judiciary (“Judiciary Committee,” collectively “the Committees”) are
subpoenaing Mr. Robert Hunter Biden to appear for a deposition. These subpoenas are being
issued pursuant to Rule XI.2(m)(1)(B) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule 12(g)
of the Oversight Committee’s rules, and Rule IV(a) of the Judiciary Committee’s
rules. Attached to this letter is the Oversight Committee’s subpoena; the Judiciary Committee’s
subpoena will be transmitted to you separately.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Getting a writ of cert from the SCOTUS wouldn’t impact Trump’s appellate rights, it just fast tracks it to the final appeals court where it’s inevitably heading anyway. Any argument Trump’s counsel would make at USCA(DC) they can make at SCOTUS.

Trump is still an indicted criminal defendant like any other. He’s entitled to due process and he’s getting it. Would you have any plausible potential presidential candidate be immune from criminal procedure? I suspect if the shoe were on the other foot and Biden were running for office while not currently serving you would be fine with criminal prosecutions against him continuing to move forward.

Read what I wrote again.

"By going to SCOTUS first, if he can get a favorable ruling, it will nullify Trump's opportunity to go to the appellate court and asking for a ruling on immunity. Going to the appellate court will throw Smith’s time lines off to get him tied up in court for the first two months of the official campaign start."

Where in there did I say anything about his rights to appeal being violated?

You spend a lot of time, saying in public, what you think I think. Spend your time critiquing what I actually write instead of trying to paint me with your fortune telling.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So, uh, what's keeping the Democratic members of the comittees from filibustering, causing chaos, interfering, and shenaniganing behind closed doors?

Hint: The answer is nothing, and that justification is pure bs. Why else wouldnt they want it public?

Nothing, but the point of public hearings seems to be to allow committee members to make long speeches as if they were preambles to questions and make insulting comments towards witnesses, and then "reclaim their time" if the witness attempts to respond. I can guess that less of that happens in private where there's no real audience to appreciate the performance.

 

[brihard]

Read what I wrote again.

"By going to SCOTUS first, if he can get a favorable ruling, it will nullify Trump's opportunity to go to the appellate court and asking for a ruling on immunity. Going to the appellate court will throw Smith’s time lines off to get him tied up in court for the first two months of the official campaign start."

Where in there did I say anything about his rights to appeal being violated?

You spend a lot of time, saying in public, what you think I think. Spend your time critiquing what I actually write instead of trying to paint me with your fortune telling.

Yes, I read and understood that. I was not directly arguing what you said, simply offering my opinion that what is going on is still procedurally fair. I note you didn’t reply to the second part of my post- if the shoe were on the other foot, would you take issue with that?

At least we both seem to agree, at least tacitly, that Trump’s game here is to try to run the clock long enough to delay trials and hopefully see himself elected and protected from prosecution by presidential immunity. He’s been openly trying to get trials pushed back til after the election right from the start. Every legal tactic he uses needs to be understood at least in part through that lens. Personally I see no reason the justice system shouldn’t move these cases expeditiously so that questions of criminal guilt can be resolved before Americans are asked to vote for president. Judge Chutkan in DC has put a stay on proceedings at trial level until the presidential immunity interlocutors challenge is resolved. It’s important that whether at the Court of Appeals, or SCOTUS, this moves fast.it also effects the scheduling of several other trials.

I won’t try to tell you what you think, but I will ask you what you think: should a criminal defendant be immune from prosecution simply because they stand a chance at winning a party’s primaries and ending up on the ballot for president?

 

[KevinB]

Hollywood getting ready for 2025?

Well that's not dark at all...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yes, I read and understood that. I was not directly arguing what you said, simply offering my opinion that what is going on is still procedurally fair. I note you didn’t reply to the second part of my post- if the shoe were on the other foot, would you take issue with that?

At least we both seem to agree, at least tacitly, that Trump’s game here is to try to run the clock long enough to delay trials and hopefully see himself elected and protected from prosecution by presidential immunity. He’s been openly trying to get trials pushed back til after the election right from the start. Every legal tactic he uses needs to be understood at least in part through that lens. Personally I see no reason the justice system shouldn’t move these cases expeditiously so that questions of criminal guilt can be resolved before Americans are asked to vote for president. Judge Chutkan in DC has put a stay on proceedings at trial level until the presidential immunity interlocutors challenge is resolved. It’s important that whether at the Court of Appeals, or SCOTUS, this moves fast.it also effects the scheduling of several other trials.

I won’t try to tell you what you think, but I will ask you what you think: should a criminal defendant be immune from prosecution simply because they stand a chance at winning a party’s primaries and ending up on the ballot for president?

No, but they should be entitled to use every legal procedural tactic available in their defence.

 

[dimsum]

Well that's not dark at all...

But is it possible/realistic?

Before Jan 6, 2021 I would have laughed and said “hell no - that’s crazy talk”.

Now?

 

[brihard]

No, but they should be entitled to use every legal procedural tactic available in their defence.

Ok, we’re in agreement here, and that’s what’s happening. Both sides are making legal submissions in the applicable courts, and it’s all shaking out at the judges rule.

Right now there are two tracks on the immunity ruling; first the application to SCOTUS, which I don’t think has been ruled on by that court as to whether they’ll hear it or not. Second, the USCA(DC), who I think just yesterday have set expedited dates for briefs on speeding it up- Trump’s brief is do on the 23rd, DOJ on the 30th. I think that will simply be to determine if in fact the Court of Appeal will expedite it.

SCOTUS may decide to let CA handle it first or they may accept DOJ’s application and take it directly, bypassing CA. Either way it should go faster than a normal appeal on a preliminary matter, given that the substantive file is on pause.