Flynn declines U.S. Senate subpoena in Russia probe

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Congress has the constitutional authority to enforce a subpoena.

Interesting

[elgordo38]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Republicans in general will be exposed as the harmful-to-America corporate lapdogs they are.

I truly wonder if the Democrats are smart enough to capitalize on this next year after 2016

[CaptHaddock]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Congress has the constitutional authority to enforce a subpoena.

 

1 hour ago, elgordo38 said:

Interesting

Interesting, but wrong.  The Senate can pass a resolution holding Flynn in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with their subpoena, but the senators can then only pass the information on to the Dept. of Justice for prosecution.  The power to enforce the law including arrest and prosecution lies solely with the Executive Branch.

 

 

[Jingthing]

He has the right not to cooperate and that is to be respected.

However, by doing so, depending on what is uncovered in the investigation, he seriously risks being imprisoned, so it's fair to assume with some likelihood that whatever he is refusing to talk about is very, very serious.

Lots of smoke here!

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

He has the right not to cooperate and that is to be respected.

However, by doing so, depending on what is uncovered in the investigation, he seriously risks being imprisoned, so it's fair to assume with some likelihood that whatever he is refusing to talk about is very, very serious.

Lots of smoke here!

Will Flynn's next stop be

 

a) Ecuadorian embassy

Mother Russia

 

[CaptHaddock]

57 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

He has the right not to cooperate and that is to be respected.

However, by doing so, depending on what is uncovered in the investigation, he seriously risks being imprisoned, so it's fair to assume with some likelihood that whatever he is refusing to talk about is very, very serious.

Lots of smoke here!

He does not, however, have the right to refuse a subpoena whether from a court or the US Senate and that is the topic here.

[Baerboxer]

11 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

The US justice system makes it too easy to 'invoke the 5th.'  Rich and well-connected people like Flynn know all about how to do that.  Trump invoked the 5th 99 times in one trial, several years ago.  Poor and dark-skinned Americans don't know how to avoid justice that way.  

 

 

Are you seriously claiming that poor non caucasian Americans and their lawyers never use their constitutional right of the 5th amendment; or even know about it?

 

 

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

He has the right not to cooperate and that is to be respected.

However, by doing so, depending on what is uncovered in the investigation, he seriously risks being imprisoned, so it's fair to assume with some likelihood that whatever he is refusing to talk about is very, very serious.

Lots of smoke here!

 

To be fair, a lot of people maintained there was plenty of smoke around Mrs. Clinton. So far, AFAIK, she hasn't been charged with anything.

This "no smoke without fire" always plays to the sentiment that anyone using the 5th, or being somewhat less than helpful with investigations must be hiding something.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

To be fair, a lot of people maintained there was plenty of smoke around Mrs. Clinton. So far, AFAIK, she hasn't been charged with anything.

This "no smoke without fire" always plays to the sentiment that anyone using the 5th, or being somewhat less than helpful with investigations must be hiding something.

I'm sorry but who is this person Mrs Clinton you love to talk about?

 

[Jingthing]

 
To be fair, a lot of people maintained there was plenty of smoke around Mrs. Clinton. So far, AFAIK, she hasn't been charged with anything.
This "no smoke without fire" always plays to the sentiment that anyone using the 5th, or being somewhat less than helpful with investigations must be hiding something.

Irrelevant.

[Baerboxer]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Irrelevant.

 

To you maybe. Because you read it as a valid comment against a political figure you support rather than comprehending the point being made.

 

That point is far too many media driven, social and professional, witch hunts assuming far too much based on the whole no smoke without fire concept.

[Baerboxer]

30 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I'm sorry but who is this person Mrs Clinton you love to talk about?

 

 

Did you just fall off your bar stool after one helluva bender?

 

I don't like or like talking about her. But to be fair, she is a good example of someone who has suffered from the no smoke without fire mentality.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Did you just fall off your bar stool after one helluva bender?

 

I don't like or like talking about her. But to be fair, she is a good example of someone who has suffered from the no smoke without fire mentality.

Who is that person and why she or he is relevant today?

[Dumbastheycome]

The  stench in the  rubbish  bin increasingly  suggests it  would  be a   very healthy  idea  to  empty  it  !

[CaptHaddock]

So, the latest news is that, as expected, the Senate Intelligence Committee has rejected Flynn's right to refuse their outstanding subpoenas on Fifth Amendment grounds and issued two more subpoenas to him.  The Committee has threatened to hold Flynn in contempt of Congress if he fails to comply.  Apparently Flynn had gone so far as to claim a Fifth Amendment right for the two companies he owns to refuse subpoenas.   Sen. Mark Warner pointed out that companies have no Fifth Amendment rights at all.

[Langsuan Man]

56 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

Sen. Mark Warner pointed out that companies have no Fifth Amendment rights at all.

Not according to the US Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision, which stated that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as do people

 

I personally don't agree with this logic, since as far as I am concerned, until Texas executes a corporation they are not a person

[CaptHaddock]

3 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

Not according to the US Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision, which stated that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as do people

 

I personally don't agree with this logic, since as far as I am concerned, until Texas executes a corporation they are not a person

In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, the Supreme Court did decide to extend First Amendment rights to corporations.  That decision, however, did not constitute a blanket extension of all rights of citizens under the Constituion to corporations.  For example, corporations can still not vote or hold office.  And they do not have any rights under the Fifth Amendment.

 

Of course, that may change with future SC decisions.

[hawker9000]

And whoever said Lois Lerner couldn't teach us anything?

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

And whoever said Lois Lerner couldn't teach us anything?

Apparently she couldn't teach Trump who has repeatedly denounced people who plead the Fifth Amendment.

[helpisgood]

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, the Supreme Court did decide to extend First Amendment rights to corporations.  That decision, however, did not constitute a blanket extension of all rights of citizens under the Constituion to corporations.  For example, corporations can still not vote or hold office.  And they do not have any rights under the Fifth Amendment.

 

Of course, that may change with future SC decisions.

From what I have read, Hobby Lobby is not a First Amendment case.  Instead, the Court merely relied upon the RFRA statute (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993). 

 

As Justice Alito wrote at the end of that case's majority opinion:

 

"The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."  [Bold type added by the computer.]

 

Or, as Wikipedia states more clearly:

 

"The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution."  [Bold type added by the computer.]

 

Thus, Hobby Lobby does not extend First Amendment rights to corporations. 

[CaptHaddock]

35 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

From what I have read, Hobby Lobby is not a First Amendment case.  Instead, the Court merely relied upon the RFRA statute (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993). 

 

As Justice Alito wrote at the end of that case's majority opinion:

 

"The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."  [Bold type added by the computer.]

 

Or, as Wikipedia states more clearly:

 

"The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution."  [Bold type added by the computer.]

 

Thus, Hobby Lobby does not extend First Amendment rights to corporations. 

Or at least, so claims Justice Alito.  Hobby Lobby was widely regarded as a landmark case, however, not because the government's compelling interest to assure that women have access to contraception could only be applied in the least restrictive means available, which was less restrictive than compelling the employer to pay for it, but because the nature of the "restriction" was that it violated the "religious beliefs" of the corporation.  The only restraint on Congress not to pass laws restricting the free exercise of religion is the First Amendment, which was until this decision applicable only to natural persons, not corporations. 

 

We will see what body of case law results from the Hobby Lobby case, regardless of Justice Alito's contention.  It is worth remembering that in the execrable Bush v. Gore case throwing the 2000 election, the decision explicitly stated that it could not be used as a precedent in other cases.  Nevertheless, Bush v. Gore has indeed been cited as a precedent subsequently. 

 

An even more powerful example is the Fourteenth Amendment, the third of the anti-slavery amendments, which makes no reference to corporations.  Yet, it was the body of case law under the Fourteenth Amendment that established corporations as statutory "persons" entitled to the due process protections of the Amendment.

 

By this time the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were “persons” and their money was property protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Supposedly, the Amendment had been passed to protect Negro rights, but of the Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, nineteen dealt with the Negro, 288 dealt with corporations.

 

Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States," Chapter 11.

[iReason]

Ex-CIA chief: Worries grew of Trump campaign contacts to Russia

 

"Former CIA director John Brennan said on Tuesday he had noticed contacts between associates of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia during the 2016 election and grew concerned Moscow had sought to lure Americans down "a treasonous path."

 

"Brennan, who headed the agency until Trump became president in January, also told a congressional hearing that he personally warned the head of Russia's FSB security service in a phone call last August that meddling in the election would hurt relations with the United States."

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN18J2DE

[helpisgood]

4 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

Or at least, so claims Justice Alito.  Hobby Lobby was widely regarded as a landmark case, however, not because the government's compelling interest to assure that women have access to contraception could only be applied in the least restrictive means available, which was less restrictive than compelling the employer to pay for it, but because the nature of the "restriction" was that it violated the "religious beliefs" of the corporation.  The only restraint on Congress not to pass laws restricting the free exercise of religion is the First Amendment, which was until this decision applicable only to natural persons, not corporations. 

 

We will see what body of case law results from the Hobby Lobby case, regardless of Justice Alito's contention.  It is worth remembering that in the execrable Bush v. Gore case throwing the 2000 election, the decision explicitly stated that it could not be used as a precedent in other cases.  Nevertheless, Bush v. Gore has indeed been cited as a precedent subsequently. 

 

An even more powerful example is the Fourteenth Amendment, the third of the anti-slavery amendments, which makes no reference to corporations.  Yet, it was the body of case law under the Fourteenth Amendment that established corporations as statutory "persons" entitled to the due process protections of the Amendment.

 

By this time the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were “persons” and their money was property protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Supposedly, the Amendment had been passed to protect Negro rights, but of the Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, nineteen dealt with the Negro, 288 dealt with corporations.

 

Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States," Chapter 11.

I sympathize with your views.  In fact, I have Zinn's book.

 

Nevertheless, Alito did write the majority opinion and thus that is the Court's holding.  That's reality despite your personal politics and anyone's interpretation of history.  It still is not a First Amendment case and never will be. 

 

If you really had just meant that American case law, and perhaps Congress, would eventually stray from the narrowness of the majority opinion, then clearly you should have stated so when you mentioned the holding in Hobby Lobby.  Otherwise, you are misrepresenting facts.  It would have been better for you to have stated, e.g., that despite Alito's narrow holding, this is may be part of a trend by courts and Congress to treat corporations as people especially in light of Citizens United.

 

[YetAnother]

On 5/23/2017 at 10:06 AM, boomerangutang said:

          Some of the documents the various investigative committees seek are as follows. . . . 

 

              Filled-out and signed security forms required from anyone seeking to work close the prez. The Senate Intel Comm already asked to see such forms weeks ago, and (surprise) the crooks in the Oval Office wouldn't comply.  As one senator remarked, "Not one syllable was turned over."

 

                       DC big players are quickly getting polarized into two groups:   One, Democrats and decent bureaucrats who are trying to pursue leads - wherever they lead.

 

                            The other side are Republicans (with a couple of exceptions, like McCain), who are doing all they can to thwart investigations.

 

                          Expect Kelly Ann Conway (and her ilk) to come forth with yet another cavalcade of 'alternative facts' and outright lies to divert instigators.

those fun USA politicians; well, after all most of them are lawyers ......

[CaptHaddock]

15 hours ago, helpisgood said:

I sympathize with your views.  In fact, I have Zinn's book.

 

Nevertheless, Alito did write the majority opinion and thus that is the Court's holding.  That's reality despite your personal politics and anyone's interpretation of history.  It still is not a First Amendment case and never will be. 

 

If you really had just meant that American case law, and perhaps Congress, would eventually stray from the narrowness of the majority opinion, then clearly you should have stated so when you mentioned the holding in Hobby Lobby.  Otherwise, you are misrepresenting facts.  It would have been better for you to have stated, e.g., that despite Alito's narrow holding, this is may be part of a trend by courts and Congress to treat corporations as people especially in light of Citizens United.

 

I thought I did say that, but at any rate, it's apparent that you believe in the law while I believe in politics.  Unfortunately.

[Trouble]

If it were possible for people to separate Trump from this for just a moment, it would seem that there is basically one main issue that the House investigation has with Gen Flynn.  That is the issue of whether he accepted fees from foreign governments, etc. without prior approval of the government.  Retired military personnel are barred from taking such funds, etc. without prior approval.  Seems like Gen Flynn used his notoriety to cash in on making some money.  Something some of our ex-presidents, congressmen and senators are very good at as go betweens and lobbyist with foreign entities. He created a consulting firm. Further it seems like most of the activities in question were done before he had anything to do with formally endorsing Trump.  In fact he advised five of the Republican Candidates during the run up to the nomination process. He ultimately favored Trump for the nomination. It would be interesting to know if he was paid consulting fees by the Trump campaign or offered he services. After the election Trump offered him a job in the Administration which he accepted and was ultimately fired not too long after Trump took office for misleading Pence on his dealing with the Russians.  I would think that tying Flynn into "collusion" with the Russians in trying to elect Trump is a stretch.  It surely would be interesting to know the specifics of what he talked about and when he talked to the Russians but I would guess he is smarter having been director of the DIA to be doing much more than keeping an open door to people he obviously knew. We will probably never know and I would guess that his taking the 5th is more out of concern with financial dealings than with "colluding" with anyone.  To date there has been nothing presented to suggest collusion by anyone. Him testifying before a committee of Congress is nothing but a circus to begin with.  Anyone who watches these acts knows that it is all about posturing for the politicians and anything that "we the people" should know is kept for closed hearings as it is deemed classified.  It's all a bit of the clowns putting on a show.  If Flynn did anything illegal it is probably about the financial angle not collusion.

 

Seems like the intelligence community doesn't not have recordings of any conversation of anyone talking to the Russians or they would have been leaked by now.  In essence, we will never know IF anything happened. All the news reporting is really just to make headlines because it is all an insignificant footnote. Where's the news?  Seems he might be just another high government official cashing in on his career. Surprise.

[helpisgood]

56 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

I thought I did say that, but at any rate, it's apparent that you believe in the law while I believe in politics.  Unfortunately.

No, you very clearly did not write that when you first mentioned the case in the post I had first replied to.  

 

You instead wrote:

 

"In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, the Supreme Court did decide to extend First Amendment rights to corporations." 

 

Where is "politics" mentioned in this sentence?  Nowhere.  Or, are we just supposed to assume it because everyone knows and accepts your politics and interpretation of history?  Once again, it is not a First Amendment case.  Again, maybe later developments will move the law in the direction as you have stated, but that was not so stated in that post until you started backpedaling in your next post.  Plus, knowing the Court's real holding helps to understand how the resulting politics and law can possibly play out.  

  

And, your assumption regarding "politics" and "law" is a gross oversimplification.  I am sure that every reasonable person believes that the law and politics each have their affect, to various degrees,  on public affairs. 

 

And, no, I believe in reality and stating facts, and you are obviously just backpedaling.  Unfortunately. 

 

[CaptHaddock]

2 hours ago, helpisgood said:

No, you very clearly did not write that when you first mentioned the case in the post I had first replied to.  

 

You instead wrote:

 

"In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, the Supreme Court did decide to extend First Amendment rights to corporations." 

 

Where is "politics" mentioned in this sentence?  Nowhere.  Or, are we just supposed to assume it because everyone knows and accepts your politics and interpretation of history?  Once again, it is not a First Amendment case.  Again, maybe later developments will move the law in the direction as you have stated, but that was not so stated in that post until you started backpedaling in your next post.  Plus, knowing the Court's real holding helps to understand how the resulting politics and law can possibly play out.  

  

And, your assumption regarding "politics" and "law" is a gross oversimplification.  I am sure that every reasonable person believes that the law and politics each have their affect, to various degrees,  on public affairs. 

 

And, no, I believe in reality and stating facts, and you are obviously just backpedaling.  Unfortunately. 

 

I disagree with you and Alito.  The Hobby Lobby case allowed the attribution of "religious beliefs" to a corporation for the first time as far as I know, which in itself is both an insult to reason and a vast expansion of the rights of business.  The case turned on those "religious beliefs," not for instance on any other basis which might have lacked Constitutional protection, such as "aesthetic preference," for example.  The Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion derives only from the First Amendment.  If there were no First Amendment and Congress had, in its wisdom, sometime previously established a state religion, Hobby Lobby would have had no case. 

 

So it's lawyer's pettifoggery to take Alito's disavowal of a First Amendment precedent at face value.  As you know, both Hobby Lobby and Citizens United are part of the ongoing power grab by corporations and the elites who own them which is transforming the US in a fundamental way.  If you think that group or its jurists have any genuine respect for the law you are deluding yourself.  One might as easily believe, for example, that strict constuctionism is actually strict constructionism? 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by CaptHaddock

[Scott]

I am not sure what the connection is between the 1st Amendment and the 5th Amendment as it relates to this story, so if there is one, please enlighten us that have missed the point.  

 

If not, although it is an interesting discussion, it might be better to stick a little closer to the topic.  

[helpisgood]

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

I disagree with you and Alito.  The Hobby Lobby case allowed the attribution of "religious beliefs" to a corporation for the first time as far as I know, which in itself is both an insult to reason and a vast expansion of the rights of business.  The case turned on those "religious beliefs," not for instance on any other basis which might have lacked Constitutional protection, such as "aesthetic preference," for example.  The Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion derives only from the First Amendment.  If there were no First Amendment and Congress had, in its wisdom, sometime previously established a state religion, Hobby Lobby would have had no case. 

 

So it's lawyer's pettifoggery to take Alito's disavowal of a First Amendment precedent at face value.  As you know, both Hobby Lobby and Citizens United are part of the ongoing power grab by corporations and the elites who own them which is transforming the US in a fundamental way.  If you think that group or its jurists have any genuine respect for the law you are deluding yourself.  One might as easily believe, for example, that strict constuctionism is actually strict constructionism? 

 

 

You obviously do not know what strict contructionism means.  That's not an issue anywhere in our discussion. 

 

I have never stated any support for Alito's views.  I've  merely restated the correct holding, whether I agree with it or not.  

 

And Scott's right, we have digressed from the original OP.  I think we got here because Flynn's corporations have been issued subpoenas, and the case we have been discussing involves whether a corporation can be treated like a person.  My whole point has been that Alito's holding clearly states that the case does not rely upon the First Amendment or any other constitutional amendment.  It only relies upon the RFRA, a federal statute concerning religion.  If RFRA is repealed, then the case no longer has any controlling authority.