If Chief Justice Roberts and the SC interfere with the Mueller investigation

[Eliot Rosewater]

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2018, 05:30 PM - Edit history (3)

This entire country should LOSE their collective MINDS and hit the streets.

Agreed?

I originally didnt bother with the link, assumed you all knew

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/23/politics/john-roberts-supreme-court-pause-mystery-company-subpoena/index.html

I shouldn't even say IF, he HAS interfered already.

[RHMerriman]

1. Agreed.

Aye.

[jalan48]

2. Agreed.

[barbtries]

3. yep.

general strike.

[ffr]

4. That would be the patriotic thing to do.

[yonder]

6. And that eventuality would be absolutely patriotic, I might add. Borne by necessity.

[lastlib]

5. NO interference should be tolerated!

ESPECIALLY from Individual 1 !!!

[Honeycombe8]

7. I would consider traveling somewhere to participate.

But here in TrumpLand, there is almost no one to hit the streets, and it would do no good. It would make Trumpers happy to see five non-Trumpers upset about something. That means they're "winning!" That's all they care about.

[Chakaconcarne]

8. Are there forecasts that this is going to happen?

[flibbitygiblets]

13. Same question! Is this speculation or based on something concrete?

[0rganism]

9. *should* happen but i kind of doubt that it *would* happen

there would be some unrest, to be sure, possibly even something as widespread and long-lasting as the Iraq Invasion protests, but as a society we've become extremely "skilled" at adapting to outrageous actions by Republican-led governments. just don't let the Democrats try to give you subsidized healthcare (oh wait - i'm supposed to say "force it down our throats", right?)

what happens then is the house proceeds with its own slate of investigations and public hearings, the Mueller report leaks in its entirety, and then the country loses our collective minds when we find out how thoroughly Putin has beaten us.

[orangecrush]

11. THIS!!!

[at140]

25. Sounds realistic!

Most people don't follow political news.

[edhopper]

10. Should

but won't.

We are a nation of frogs in a slowly boiling pot.

[mountain grammy]

14. Sad but true.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. In what context or under what pretense would SCOTUS get involved in Meuller's investigation?

I can see a slim thread for getting involved in appeals or pardons, but the actual investigation?

I don't think so. Same for congressional investigations - separation of powers, and all that.

[BadgerMom]

15. I had the same thought.

What inspires this particular frightening suggestion? Am I missing something?

[Auggie]

18. Yeah -- this is a useless discussion and a bad thread

[Eliot Rosewater]

23. I thought everyone here knew by now

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/23/politics/john-roberts-supreme-court-pause-mystery-company-subpoena/index.html

I will ignore the over the top UGLY personal attack on me by another poster, I am used to it.

[lapucelle]

55. I've learned to never assume that those who express sweeping opinions

or make blanket judgements actually understand the topic of the discussion.

[jberryhill]

26. By issuing a stay of a lower court order pending appeal

It's an ordinary procedure, and if you want to believe, like the OP, that the "rule of law" means not following the rule of law, then go right ahead.

[kairos12]

16. Your damn skippy!

[cstanleytech]

17. The problem would be from the side hitting the streets with the intent to kill us

for even speaking out against it.

[UniteFightBack]

19. Well they are about to get involved with this super secret case. They are pausing the case

for a week...as just reported. Roberts is not going to skew his decision to benefit rump. He'll follow the law which Muller has on his side. rump's little court trick will end up not helping him....in my opinion of course.

[Eliot Rosewater]

24. Roberts is a con, not skewing, following the law, is not what cons do, usually.

If he does the right thing and follows the law, Mueller will NOT be interfered with.

[PeeJ52]

20. Oh no... What would happen now days is...

everyone would pull out their phones and start typing stuff on twitter. We'll show them who can have the snarkiest reply on twitter. We're all too lazy to march any more. Besides. my employer might see me and I'll lose my job... waaahhhhhh.... America is done ...

[KPN]

21. ????? What is the catalyst for this? Have you

heard something that raises this alarm?

[jberryhill]

28. This is one of several threads...

...in which people who don't have any understanding of how the US legal system works have attempted to suggest there is something inherently sinister in the Supreme Court issuing a stay of a lower court order pending an appeal.

[defacto7]

22. For damn sure

[jberryhill]

27. How is issuing a temporary stay of a lower court order pending appeal "interference"

First off, the subjects of subpoenas are allowed to challenge subpoenas. It happens all of the time.

Secondly, they are allowed to appeal lower court orders. Where a novel or interesting issue is at stake, it is not at all uncommon for the higher court to issue a stay of the lower court order pending the appeal.

So I would like you to explain something to me, because there have been a few threads about this, which rule of law you'd like to see suspended.

Are you saying that nobody should be allowed to appeal an order to show cause or a contempt order, or are you saying that the Supreme Court should not be able to issue a stay of a lower court order pending an appeal?

Explain this to me. Which set of rules would you like the courts to follow. Or are you saying that we should just dispense with the rule of law entirely?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. There is not the slightest evidence of this.

The Supremes have ordered a temporary stay of an order enforcing a grand jury subpoena, which may or may not even involve the Mueller investigation. There is an unresolved legal issue regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which immunizes foreign governments from subpoenas and other US legal actions. There is an open question as to whether a corporation that is owned by a foreign government is also immune. Because the legal issue is not resolved the court decided to stay the order until it could consider the issue. Mueller, or maybe some other party, wants documents in the custody of some corporation, most likely a bank, owned by a foreign government (probably not a friendly one like Britain or France). There are obviously sensitive diplomatic ramifications, as well as legal ones, which is the reason for all the secrecy. But it is ridiculous to suggest that this is a ploy by the Supreme Court to sabotage the Mueller investigation - it's an entirely legitimate process to decide a significant issue of federal law.

Get a grip, folks...

[jberryhill]

30. Good luck

Judge Ellis was a Trump "sycophant" because he dared ask questions of the prosecution in the Manafort VA case before Manafort was found guilty in that court: https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210576918#post26

Oddly, there are people who want the rule of law to prevail, but don't know what the rule of law is about.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. There are some who want the rule of law to prevail only when it's on "our" side.

But obviously it's not a rule of law if it's slanted in only one direction. I sometimes want to bang my head against the nearest wall when I see so much ignorance of our legal system and of the principles it's supposed to be based on.

[Eliot Rosewater]

34. Not me, I am suggesting Roberts and cons in general have NO problem IGNORING the rule of law

when it suits them.

Whether they do it in THIS case or not, my point is accurate.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

36. Can you give me a specific example of a case where Roberts has ignored the rule of law?

By this I don't mean issuing a decision you don't agree with - keeping in mind that the Supreme Court decides whether a law is constitutional.

[Eliot Rosewater]

39. Any case that is ruled 5-4 cons vs non cons on the SC I will always suspect exactly that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

41. The Supreme Court decides whether a law is constitutional. That's their job.

It's been that way since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. If they say a law is constitutional, it is, even if we don't agree - and vice-versa. I don't like Citizens United, for example, and I don't think it was correctly decided, but that's not my call - and until some future court overrules it, it is the law, like it or not.

[Eliot Rosewater]

42. And they promise to respect precedent too, dont they. The 5 cons on there now

have at one time or another proven they are liars about that.

I will apologize for being wrong if I am, though I have not accused him of anything yet. I will not apologize for seeing that headline and worrying and reacting.

[jberryhill]

49. Do you think the precedent in Bowers v. Hardwick should have been respected?

Precedent has been overruled both ways, as well.

Liberals also promise to respect precedent. So, we'll put you down for Plessy v. Ferguson should not have been overturned by Brown v. Board of Education?

[Eliot Rosewater]

50. We are talking about LYING about it, not doing it. These guys say anything they have to

to get on the court then do what they want, and I know you know that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

33. Not fair, when I am shown to overreact to something like that, I admit I was wrong.

It is a time for reacting with emotion like that because of the traitor in the WH.

If you are saying there is NOTHING Roberts could do in his position with this issue to interfere, then say that. Explain how that is possible, and that there is NOTHING to worry about that there is NO WAY he could prevent Mueller from getting records he needs.

If not, then my CONCERN is warranted and if Roberts does no such thing I will be the FIRST to acknowledge.

As I would have done at the post you are pointing out of mine had I gone back to that thread.

[jberryhill]

35. The problem is you don't even know what you are reacting to

You seem to be saying there is something sinister in the Supreme Court issuing a stay pending appeal.

Or is it that you don't think that the subject of a subpoena should be able to appeal a ruling about one?

I literally don't even know what it is you are excited about here - and it's not for lack of understanding that the Supreme Court has issued a stay pending appeal in a dispute over a subpoena in a sealed case. But that in itself isn't very unusual. That's why I've asked you to explain what it is you think you are excited about.

[Eliot Rosewater]

43. That is right, all I saw was MUELLER - STAY - ROBERTS

And as a non lawyer my NATURAL reaction was "oh shit, are they about to run interference for their pal?"

Granted Roberts has shown in his comments SOME distance from the traitor, so I actually am hoping he does the right thing here and think he may be capable of that.

If the law clearly says Mueller cant do what he is doing, which would be RARE that he would be wrong about something like this, I assume you agree, then so be it.

[jberryhill]

46. Yeah, because just like Trump...

...you are going to do the "if the judge rules the way I want, it's fair" and "if the judge rules the other way, the judge is crooked."

The US legal system is biased AGAINST prosecutors. Period. That's by design. Evidence gets thrown out, and subpoenas get limited or refused on a pretty common basis. It is NOT rare for courts to rule against prosecutors. Prosecutors get ruled against every god-damned day. Mueller is going to win some and lose some on motions. That's normal.

Where you get the idea that it is "RARE" that a prosecutor would lose a procedural motion is solely from your own imagination, in which the process is merely secondary to outcomes.

[Eliot Rosewater]

48. I said it would be rare for Mueller to be wrong. Thanks for comparing me to rump when it is not

the same thing, at all.

I did not say if the law was on his side AT ALL, I said IF he interfered which would imply it was not.

But up until now I have been polite to you and given you the respect of responding to you as I know you are an attorney and know more about this than I do but you have now insulted me and you didnt have to, you were wrong to, I have deferred to your knowledge but I will now ignore you for comparing me to trump.

[jberryhill]

51. A factual observation is what it is

I'm sorry if you don't like the fit of the shoe, but it is a common theme on the right that any judge who does not rule in their favor is "corrupt" or "crooked" and only judges that rule their way are the "fair" ones.

It just does not work that way.

[jberryhill]

57. Okay....

https://politicalwire.com/2019/01/08/supreme-court-wont-intervene-in-mystery-subpoena/

“The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a mysterious subpoena fight apparently involving a foreign-government-owned company and special counsel Robert Mueller,” Politico reports.

“The unknown firm had asked the high court to block a federal judge’s contempt order and financial penalties for refusing to comply with the subpoena, arguing that the company is immune from U.S. grand jury subpoenas.”

[Eliot Rosewater]

58. GREAT NEWS!

Love being wrong like this!

[jberryhill]

59. In this and other threads

Every person on DU with a background in law said this was not a big deal.

It's almost as if they all knew something.

A lot of news reporting these days is intended to inflame, more than to inform. When one feels that happening, it is worth asking "am I being manipulated in some way?"

[Eliot Rosewater]

60. Be fair, there are 5 ASSHOLES on the SC, some are bigger assholes than others but 5.

It is a logical thing to assume those 5 COULD come together to interfere with Mueller at some point or do something with this double jeopardy thing.

Right? Couldnt any person, lawyer or not make that assumption based on history and current events?

Is there a double jeopardy thing rump was told about so that is one of the reasons to put Kavanaugh on the court?

Oh and be fair, WHEN the attorneys came on and explained it after I started the thread I did listen to you. Actually I stopped responding to you when you said I was no better than trump. But I can forgive.

[jberryhill]

61. The principal aim of our enemies...

...is not simply the advancement of one agenda over another, but the general erosion of confidence in the institutional mechanisms which we have for fighting them at all.

[Eliot Rosewater]

62. Exactly, both rump and bannon are on record saying so.

When you have a SC that put their hands all over an election, Bush V Gore...one has to ASSUME it is possible they will do something equally horrible again.



BTW everyone should see this


https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5301662/

[Eliot Rosewater]

32. I said if, and whether it is a ploy or NOT surely THESE TIMES lend to this kind of concern.

If you dont agree, that worrying about REPUBLICANS protecting their own, then we will just disagree.

If it does NOT happen, great.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. You are making assumptions without evidence.

There is nothing unusual about the Supreme Court granting a stay of a grand jury subpoena. We don't even know if this is part of the Mueller investigation.

[Eliot Rosewater]

40. Fine, and if I am wrong I will be the first to admit I am wrong.

BTW, wasnt there a rush to get Kavanaugh on there for one reason having to do with making it so rump or his friends cant be tried in federal and state courts for the same crime?

Did I dream that up or is that a real concern? I am asking, not being an asshole.

Would you consider a 5-4 decision on that protecting the traitor to be ignoring the rule of law?

And lastly, you do understand WHY someone like myself would hear

Roberts - Stay - Mueller

and be suspicious? Would I even think to write such a thread were the WH not occupied by a traitor and almost the entire GOP? Probably not.

Do you or jerry give me credit for usually saying WHERE ARE THE DU lawyers, which I almost always do, but didnt this time?

BTW the question seems rather simple, whether he can get bank records and not be prevented from doing so as they do business here.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

45. Gorsuch sided with the liberal justices in deciding a deportation case, U.S. v. Dimaya,

which infuriated Trump. Kavanaugh sided with the liberals in denying review of the Planned Parenthood case. You can't assume much about the outcome of a case until it's been briefed and heard. There have been and will be cases that will be decided on "conservative" principles but we will like the outcome anyhow. The law is complicated and it's almost never a zero-sum game.

[Eliot Rosewater]

47. All true. I know about those. The question is will the 5 decide on a case that

ultimately protects the cons while not being a CLEAR case of them following the law.

Like preventing counting votes in an election.

It can happen. My mistake is expressing concern in an excitable way around lawyers and I usually try and ask them first, I didnt this time.

You tell me, isnt the question on this simple enough? If it is what we hear it is, and it may not be, but if it is does he have a right to the documents even though the home country laws would prevail though NOT this time since they do business here, or something like that, right?

Isnt that pretty straight forward?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. jberryhill and I are lawyers. We are trying to explain why Roberts' granting the stay

is not evidence of much of anything at this point and is an ordinary, normal procedure. The question of how the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act applies to a corporation owned by a country rather than the country itself is an open question that the Supreme Court will have to decide, and no political motive can be derived from the granting of the stay.

[Eliot Rosewater]

54. And you did it without accusing me of being no different than trump and I appreciate that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

44. EVERYTHING else is unusual right now, so ANYTHING any con does I am suspicious

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

52. People here have been predicting that pretty much ever since

the day Mueller started his investigation. Don't you think that would have happened by now, if it were to happen? Or that Trump would have fired Mueller already?

While I'm still not convinced that Mueller's investigation is going to bring down the Donald, at least he's still doing his investigation thing.

[niyad]

56. thank you for including the ink. not everyone is up on every single event in these bizarre days.