141–150 of 362 posts
What's the legal reasoning (if there's any) to keep her locked up and ruin her financially while not being able to swing the same punishment at all those people who refused to testify in the recent impeachment?
What's the legal reasoning (if there's any) to keep her locked up and ruin her financially while not being able to swing the same punishment at all those people who refused to testify in the recent impeachment?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presidents being impeached (and their administrations) have always refused Congress's requests for testimony and documentation. Congress can take the President to court and compel documents and testimony (or else face contempt of court and imprisonment like Manning). The House did exactly that for Nixon and Cliton. For Trump, the House chose not to do that, because (I believe) it would slow them down, and that wasn't…
How was Clinton testifying also him refusing to testify? Your claims differ from history.
That said, I don't know what are they standing on to be able to do that without any court just sending them all to jail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you want to throw away money paying an illegitimate debt? Donate to a trust that will take care of her instead.
Is there some trust that cannot be touched by a lien placed by the government?
The sibling link to her legal defense fund is presumably structured this way - the money goes directly to her attorney who holds it in trust specifically for her legal defense. She never has any control over it, and so she cannot be compelled to use it to pay the fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even CrowdStrike seems to be backing away from those claims in this last week This is untrue: As we’ve repeatedly stated, we stand by the findings and analysis of our investigation, and, as detailed in our company statement, we’ve provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI as requested. Additionally, our findings have been supported by the U.S. intelligence community and other cybersecurity companies. h…
I came across more recent statements from Crowdstrike, but failed to save them, and must dig them up again. Will attempt to do so (I've noticed that Google has gotten more efficient at letting me fail to find previously discovered materials, but I hope to be able to be back with my references) Re: Assange - yes - he is quite circumspect.
All the evidence points to it being the Russians, Putin himself said it might have been "patriotically minded" Russians, all US intel agencies say it was the Russians, all non-US agencies say it was the Russians.
And you claim to be baffled as to why people say it was the Russians?
Maybe it wasn't, but it's not exactly baffling why people say it is. There are no real counter theories at all - the only counter claims sort of say "Deep State" but nothing else.
What's the legal reasoning (if there's any) to keep her locked up and ruin her financially while not being able to swing the same punishment at all those people who refused to testify in the recent impeachment?
I believe it has to do with the paperwork you sign when you enlist. Basically waiving a lot of your normal American rights.
"waiving your rights" is a very weird concept, particularly in the "land of the free".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot legally be jailed for failing to pay a debt, even to the legal system; you can be jailed for refusing to do so, but that requires ability to pay.
Based on my observations of poor people with debts at local courthouses, this is a strictly theoretical legal position. It is a fact that poor people are charged money for their time spent in local jails. It is a further fact that when they can't pay those bills they are jailed again, and charged more money for this additional time in jail. I'm in Missouri, so if you want more details about this you can see anything…
The legal system has and will treat a single mother who works full time but just can't make the agreed upon payments differently than a felon that can't get a job that pays enough to cover costs of living and their fines; especially if the felon is in the same jurisdiction and has seen the same judge before. I've seen it several times in person, have been told about it by people that it's happened to, in several states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot legally be jailed for failing to pay a debt, even to the legal system; you can be jailed for refusing to do so, but that requires ability to pay.
Based on my observations of poor people with debts at local courthouses, this is a strictly theoretical legal position. It is a fact that poor people are charged money for their time spent in local jails. It is a further fact that when they can't pay those bills they are jailed again, and charged more money for this additional time in jail. I'm in Missouri, so if you want more details about this you can see anything…
But that's not a “the law allows imprisoning you for inability to pay a fine” problem but a “the legal rights of the poor are ineffectively protected in our system” problem, which is a different and much broader problem.
> I'm in Missouri, so if you want more details about this you can see anything about Ferguson.
As I recall, practices of this kind were prominent in the catalog of violations of federal Constitutional and statutory rights compiled in the DoJ investigations around Ferguson that descended after the Michael Brown incident and associated protests, sure.
What's the legal reasoning (if there's any) to keep her locked up and ruin her financially while not being able to swing the same punishment at all those people who refused to testify in the recent impeachment?
I believe it has to do with the paperwork you sign when you enlist. Basically waiving a lot of your normal American rights.
makes you wonder if the side that can do less damage (enlisted serviceman) require the more draconian agreement after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The link above goes to paying her legal team. Her fine will come from her own funds separately. Your lawyers don't pay your fines, you do personally. Ideally, her legal team or someone would put up a separate fundraiser for her fine, that goes specifically to paying that. I for one would definitely donate.
Many fundraising platforms explicitly forbid raising funds to pay criminal fines.