|
|
Post by Silas⊙ on May 24, 2017 18:33:04 GMT
The news just broke that Trump is refusing to comply with a court order mandating that he needs to turn over the Giuliani memo.
What does his refusal mean in a legal sense, and how does it affect his future?
"Contempt of court generally refers to conduct that defies, disrespects or insults the authority or dignity of a court. Often, contempt takes the form of actions that are seen as detrimental to the court's ability to administer justice."
That last part is the important part. By trump refusing to provide evidence to the court, he is "willfully" deterring the courts ability to administer justice. This claim is in addition to his other Obstructing Justice claims, posed by his firing of Former FBI Director James Comey.
Does trumps refusal meet the basic requirements for criminal contempt of court? On the face of it. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by krisgriebe on May 24, 2017 19:21:26 GMT
This is prima facia civil contempt. What can SCOTUS do about it? Turns out, not a whole lot.
The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and theoretically punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process but the due process is unpublished.
The SCOTUS Marshal and SCOTUS Police have no authority to jail or hold a person outside of the court grounds. As long as Trump does not enter the SCOTUS building, the court police cannot take any action against him.
The SCOTUS also falls under the purview of the US Marshal Service, which in theory could execute an order for arrest on POTUS for civil contempt of SCOTUS. In practice, this will never happen, as the Marshal service is a part of the DoJ, and Trump is the ultimate authority for the DoJ (part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch).
So, while he may be officially charged with contempt, there is little to no actual real-world penalty for doing so. The enforcement would come via this being further impetus for impeachment to begin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silas⊙ on May 24, 2017 19:25:57 GMT
This is prima facia civil contempt. What can SCOTUS do about it? Turns out, not a whole lot. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and theoretically punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process but the due process is unpublished.The SCOTUS Marshal and SCOTUS Police have no authority to jail or hold a person outside of the court grounds. As long as Trump does not enter the SCOTUS building, the court police cannot take any action against him. The SCOTUS also falls under the purview of the US Marshal Service, which in theory could execute an order for arrest on POTUS for civil contempt of SCOTUS. In practice, this will never happen, as the Marshal service is a part of the DoJ, and Trump is the ultimate authority for the DoJ (part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch). So, while he may be officially charged with contempt, there is little to no actual real-world penalty for doing so. The enforcement would come via this being further impetus for impeachment to begin. So essentially what you are saying is that it kinda doesn't matter what petty actions the president does, he can't be touched until he's officially not president? Laws are gonna get changed after this to prevent BS like this in the future. There's no way this stands after trump. |
|
|
|
Post by krisgriebe on May 24, 2017 19:28:54 GMT
Yes, in this case, because he is POTUS, he is protected by virtue of his station. The SCOTUS cannot take any real actions against a POTUS directly, as they have no authority or jurisdiction to do so. This is why people use the term "Constitutional Crisis", because in this case, the constitution is protecting a criminal POTUS from paying penalties for his crimes. Worse that it is happening in full public view.
The contempt charge would stand until such a time as the offense is satisfied, so if he continues to remain in contempt, and is then removed from office, an order for arrest could be issued to be executed by the US Marshal service.
(I will note that the above statements are conjecture based on my research. I can find no definitive documentation specifically supporting this claim. Please PM me if you have relevant information to this conjecture.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Silas⊙ on May 24, 2017 19:41:42 GMT
Yes, in this case, because he is POTUS, he is protected by virtue of his station. The SCOTUS cannot take any real actions against a POTUS directly, as they have no authority or jurisdiction to do so. This is why people use the term "Constitutional Crisis", because in this case, the constitution is protecting a criminal POTUS from paying penalties for his crimes. Worse that it is happening in full public view. The contempt charge would stand until such a time as the offense is satisfied, so if he continues to remain in contempt, and is then removed from office, an order for arrest could be issued to be executed by the US Marshal service. (I will note that the above statements are conjecture based on my research. I can find no definitive documentation specifically supporting this claim. Please PM me if you have relevant information to this conjecture.) I feel like this might justify a serious reconsideration of jurisdiction after Trump leaves office. The level of corruption here is so much that an entire book of brand new lawful precedents could be written solely from the first 4 months of the presidency. That is fucking... Insane. |
|
|
|
Post by krisgriebe on May 24, 2017 19:46:23 GMT
That is a tough row to hoe. If you give jurisdiction over POTUS to SCOTUS, you imbalance the three branches and set up the SCOTUS to be the true head of government.
I'm not nearly well-versed in law or US Code to know how to address this situation. Something should be done, yes. What that something is, I cannot say. Under current statutes, the POTUS is immune to almost everything. State charges are about the only avenue to prosecution which end-arounds the protections of holding the office.
And Impeachment, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silas⊙ on May 24, 2017 19:48:13 GMT
That is a tough row to hoe. If you give jurisdiction over POTUS to SCOTUS, you imbalance the three branches and set up the SCOTUS to be the true head of government. I'm not nearly well-versed in law or US Code to know how to address this situation. Something should be done, yes. What that something is, I cannot say. Under current statutes, the POTUS is immune to almost everything. State charges are about the only avenue to prosecution which end-arounds the protections of holding the office. And Impeachment, of course. So essentially the fastest way to get him out of office is to charge him with a state-level crime? That's easy... He's done so much for us to just gloss over >.> |
|
|
|
Post by krisgriebe on May 24, 2017 19:56:03 GMT
Yes and no. That still would not remove him from office, but an indictment for State charges could be used as evidence presented by member of the House for floor resolution to begin impeachment (and would be). My current understanding of the law is that he cannot be tried and convicted in State cases while sitting, but he can be indicted, with the indictment serving as basis for impeachment. If the POTUS is subsequently impeached, the State case can then proceed through the process of officially prosecuting the crimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by krisgriebe on May 24, 2017 19:58:18 GMT
I will note that this is murky and has been argued non-stop since Nixon. We are in somewhat uncharted territory with the vast range and array of potential criminal liabilities Trump may have. We only have tidbits of info about any of them, nowhere do we have the full picture.
Ultimately, all the power in this situation resides with the GOP in the House. If articles of impeachment are not ratified in the House, there can be no Senate trial, and thus no conviction/removal. No other offenses, as far as I can tell, can be actively prosecuted against the sitting POTUS himself.
So the only path forward is for the judiciary to gather enough evidence that GOP has no choice but to react and ratify articles of impeachment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silas⊙ on May 24, 2017 20:00:29 GMT
I will note that this is murky and has been argued non-stop since Nixon. We are in somewhat uncharted territory with the vast range and array of potential criminal liabilities Trump may have. We only have tidbits of info about any of them, nowhere do we have the full picture. Ultimately, all the power in this situation resides with the GOP in the House. If articles of impeachment are not ratified in the House, there can be no Senate trial, and thus no conviction/removal. No other offenses, as far as I can tell, can be actively prosecuted against the sitting POTUS himself. So the only path forward is for the judiciary to gather enough evidence that GOP has no choice but to react and ratify articles of impeachment. Fortunately for all of us, with McCain and a few other republicans already starting the charge for the GOP, I don't think it will take long for them to realize that they have no reason not to impeach... We can hope like fuck that they are logical, but god knows how many are "in the family". |
|
|
|
Post by krisgriebe on May 24, 2017 20:54:12 GMT
That's a topic by itself. I suspect quite a few at this point. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that Russian tendrils in Congress pre-date Trump by many years.
|
|
