6 ms·

The reasoning is that the DOJ under Barr (and the administration in general) has no interest in cooperating with Congress or fulfilling their constitutional/leg

The reasoning is that the DOJ under Barr (and the administration in general) has no interest in cooperating with Congress or fulfilling their constitutional/legal obligations. If the Congress really wants it can enforce its own subpoenas by putting anyone who refuses to testify in their own jail, without asking the DOJ for help. This is a power that hasn’t been used since 1934, and the current Congress has opted to work through the courts / make appeals to the electorate instead of applying it.

surge 7y ago
Actually the way to settle differences between the branches is to use the third branch, the Judicial branch. Congress takes them to supreme/federal court, which decides if the subpoenas are valid and would then enforce the subpoenas and the executive branch then has to comply. Basic checks and balances. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/house-democrats-need-better-subpoena-strategy/602782/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/house-demo... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/democrats-should-appeal-directly-roberts/605413/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/democrats-...
- servercobra 7y ago
  Congress already had the judicial branch confirm they have the power to hold people in contempt, but they didn't use that power in this case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken
  - surge 7y ago
    So do it again. Honestly though, I think the impeachment just pointed out the Ukraine stuff about as much as it pointed out Trump's phone call shenanigans, it wasn't good for them politically to keep at it, his approval rating was going up and he was raising tons of money during it. It was backfiring politically for them, the majority of the public wasn't interested (especially after the Russia thing coming up empty, you can only cry wolf so many times) and it brought their own misdealing to light so they didn't push it as they would if they really cared.
    - dboreham 7y ago
      >Ukraine stuff ?
      - surge 7y ago
        The whole affair with Biden's son in a board position and Biden interfering in the investigation of the company according to testimony in a Ukrainian court. It's what Trump was discussing on the phone call he was impeached over. People try and call it a conspiracy now, but unless you want to say the NYT deals in conspiracies (they do actually, but in this case): https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-u... Even if Biden didn't do anything wrong, in the public's eyes they see his son with no experience in that industry in a cushy, do nothing board position that pays in a month what the average American makes in a year. It smells like day old seafood.
        lonelappde 7y ago
        You're not wrong, but it's amazing that on the one side you have one VP son's enjoying some sweet nepotism and on the other you have an entire family, but somehow Biden is worse because everyone just expects and excepts that the Trumps are corrupt so it doesn't matter. And of course the electorate can't find a third alternative.
        michaelmrose 7y ago
        Biden did not interfere with any investigation. - His son was never accused nor suspected of any crimes - The prosecutor he asked to be removed had been in his position for 18 months and had made no progress pursuing burisma nor would he like his predecessor he was in bed with monied interests in the Ukraine. He as corrupt and everyone knew it. If his son was guilty of anything beyond trading on his father's rep shaking up the status qou would be to his sons disadvantage. - The president asked for a public announcement of an investigation on TV purely and only to solicit help to smear a political rival. There is no other narrative that makes any sense whatsoever.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  Congress did that and an appeals court decided they didn't want to get involved [0]. The checks and balances are clearly no longer functioning. It's unclear to me what we're supposed to do about that. [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/mcgahn-testimony-ruling/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/mcgahn-testimony-rul...
- magduf 7y ago
  The checks and balances don't work as designed, and haven't for a long time. Any time there's a government shutdown that lasts for more than a couple of days, that's proof that this is simply a system too flawed to keep. A better system is a parliamentary system: in those, you don't have conflicts often between the branches, because the executive is chosen by parliament itself. And in the rare case there is a conflict, you can dissolve parliament, have a new election, then the new parliament can choose a new PM and life continues. There's a reason every stable, advanced, democratic republic in the world has a parliamentary system instead of one like the US's. The US's system is more similar to those in Russia and Turkey.
colechristensen 7y ago
I think they also rightly recognize that Congress exercising its extremely rarely used right to use force could be the first step into either civil conflict (escalating to war) between the Executive branch and Congress or the further neutralizing of congress leading to one-man-rule of President as Emperor. There are many who hear me talk about such things and think I'm absolutely crazy, but I think people have such faith that things will always end up fine (because America has been stable for so long) that they will ignore every sign until it is all but complete. History may see this week as one of a select number or crises that lead to ... something. I fully believe that Barr actually in his heart and mind wants and is acting to further it. Trump as well. The cowardice of the House and the politeness of the Senate are just as culpable. The Democrats meanwhile now have a choice between an out of touch old man who was the conservative VP to make Obama a little more palatable and a near communist who promotes himself with plans which don't represent the interests, philosophies, or desires of a large majority of America and could never, ever pass into law. If we are lucky, the current pandemic will infect the three of them before the election. If we are unlucky, I believe we are very close the American Republic on the path to fall within 40 years into... something.
- roenxi 7y ago
  A two man conspiracy is probably not going to topple America. The White House doesn't even have a bad relationship with Congress at the moment; Trump and the Senate are getting along like a house on fire.
  - colechristensen 7y ago
    It hasn't been just two men. Damn near half the politically interested country do not care what Trump does. "You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible," It's the party, it's the newly installed judges, it's his family and associates. Trump won't topple the Republic. He will test every weakness of it and teach future iterations how to do it better. He is teaching adversaries how to manipulate and control this country better. Rome didn't fall in a day. Neither the republic nor the empire. The two men are figureheads for a whole system, some known, some not, which is dealing a serious blow to the institutions of the republic; damage that won't just be undone by a "good" election. We need to elect a president that actively wants to limit the power of the presidency (not of the government, of the office and branch) and a Congress which is more interested in the individual representitives and their views than the parties. We have to have a voting republic that values these things instead of the mixture of team sport and religious crusade which American politics has become.
StreamBright 7y ago
The US is an amazing place.
wdn 7y ago
Did you even watch the impeachment trail from the Democrats congress? It is a disgrace. It is like you get sued but not allow to defend yourself. Law scholar Jonathan Turley testified under Democrats' criteria for impeachment, no one is unimpeachable, even George Washington himself would be impeached.

surge 7y ago

Actually the way to settle differences between the branches is to use the third branch, the Judicial branch. Congress takes them to supreme/federal court, which decides if the subpoenas are valid and would then enforce the subpoenas and the executive branch then has to comply. Basic checks and balances. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/house-democrats-need-better-subpoena-strategy/602782/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/house-demo... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/democrats-should-appeal-directly-roberts/605413/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/democrats-...

servercobra 7y ago
Congress already had the judicial branch confirm they have the power to hold people in contempt, but they didn't use that power in this case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken
- surge 7y ago
  So do it again. Honestly though, I think the impeachment just pointed out the Ukraine stuff about as much as it pointed out Trump's phone call shenanigans, it wasn't good for them politically to keep at it, his approval rating was going up and he was raising tons of money during it. It was backfiring politically for them, the majority of the public wasn't interested (especially after the Russia thing coming up empty, you can only cry wolf so many times) and it brought their own misdealing to light so they didn't push it as they would if they really cared.
  - dboreham 7y ago
    >Ukraine stuff ?
    - surge 7y ago
      The whole affair with Biden's son in a board position and Biden interfering in the investigation of the company according to testimony in a Ukrainian court. It's what Trump was discussing on the phone call he was impeached over. People try and call it a conspiracy now, but unless you want to say the NYT deals in conspiracies (they do actually, but in this case): https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-u... Even if Biden didn't do anything wrong, in the public's eyes they see his son with no experience in that industry in a cushy, do nothing board position that pays in a month what the average American makes in a year. It smells like day old seafood.
      - lonelappde 7y ago
        You're not wrong, but it's amazing that on the one side you have one VP son's enjoying some sweet nepotism and on the other you have an entire family, but somehow Biden is worse because everyone just expects and excepts that the Trumps are corrupt so it doesn't matter. And of course the electorate can't find a third alternative.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        Biden did not interfere with any investigation. - His son was never accused nor suspected of any crimes - The prosecutor he asked to be removed had been in his position for 18 months and had made no progress pursuing burisma nor would he like his predecessor he was in bed with monied interests in the Ukraine. He as corrupt and everyone knew it. If his son was guilty of anything beyond trading on his father's rep shaking up the status qou would be to his sons disadvantage. - The president asked for a public announcement of an investigation on TV purely and only to solicit help to smear a political rival. There is no other narrative that makes any sense whatsoever.
0xffff2 7y ago
Congress did that and an appeals court decided they didn't want to get involved [0]. The checks and balances are clearly no longer functioning. It's unclear to me what we're supposed to do about that. [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/mcgahn-testimony-ruling/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/mcgahn-testimony-rul...
magduf 7y ago
The checks and balances don't work as designed, and haven't for a long time. Any time there's a government shutdown that lasts for more than a couple of days, that's proof that this is simply a system too flawed to keep. A better system is a parliamentary system: in those, you don't have conflicts often between the branches, because the executive is chosen by parliament itself. And in the rare case there is a conflict, you can dissolve parliament, have a new election, then the new parliament can choose a new PM and life continues. There's a reason every stable, advanced, democratic republic in the world has a parliamentary system instead of one like the US's. The US's system is more similar to those in Russia and Turkey.

colechristensen 7y ago

I think they also rightly recognize that Congress exercising its extremely rarely used right to use force could be the first step into either civil conflict (escalating to war) between the Executive branch and Congress or the further neutralizing of congress leading to one-man-rule of President as Emperor. There are many who hear me talk about such things and think I'm absolutely crazy, but I think people have such faith that things will always end up fine (because America has been stable for so long) that they will ignore every sign until it is all but complete. History may see this week as one of a select number or crises that lead to ... something. I fully believe that Barr actually in his heart and mind wants and is acting to further it. Trump as well. The cowardice of the House and the politeness of the Senate are just as culpable. The Democrats meanwhile now have a choice between an out of touch old man who was the conservative VP to make Obama a little more palatable and a near communist who promotes himself with plans which don't represent the interests, philosophies, or desires of a large majority of America and could never, ever pass into law. If we are lucky, the current pandemic will infect the three of them before the election. If we are unlucky, I believe we are very close the American Republic on the path to fall within 40 years into... something.

roenxi 7y ago
A two man conspiracy is probably not going to topple America. The White House doesn't even have a bad relationship with Congress at the moment; Trump and the Senate are getting along like a house on fire.
- colechristensen 7y ago
  It hasn't been just two men. Damn near half the politically interested country do not care what Trump does. "You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible," It's the party, it's the newly installed judges, it's his family and associates. Trump won't topple the Republic. He will test every weakness of it and teach future iterations how to do it better. He is teaching adversaries how to manipulate and control this country better. Rome didn't fall in a day. Neither the republic nor the empire. The two men are figureheads for a whole system, some known, some not, which is dealing a serious blow to the institutions of the republic; damage that won't just be undone by a "good" election. We need to elect a president that actively wants to limit the power of the presidency (not of the government, of the office and branch) and a Congress which is more interested in the individual representitives and their views than the parties. We have to have a voting republic that values these things instead of the mixture of team sport and religious crusade which American politics has become.

StreamBright 7y ago

The US is an amazing place.

wdn 7y ago

Did you even watch the impeachment trail from the Democrats congress? It is a disgrace. It is like you get sued but not allow to defend yourself. Law scholar Jonathan Turley testified under Democrats' criteria for impeachment, no one is unimpeachable, even George Washington himself would be impeached.