何謂關說？或者說如何處理？ ※ 引述《hifree (hifree)》之銘言： : : → diggershi:簡單的說 目前就是立法委員關說不違法 59.120.184.171 09/23 15:32 : : → diggershi:要違也只有內部的相關規定 反正不痛不癢 59.120.184.171 09/23 15:33 : : → diggershi:至於"檢察官"本身的問題，當事人記得已 59.120.184.171 09/23 15:34 : : → diggershi:經轉送相關部門審理了 59.120.184.171 09/23 15:35 : : → diggershi:就等結果啦。當事人的證言在哪邊 冷氣 59.120.184.171 09/23 15:36 : : → diggershi:就算證明檢察官被關說了. _立法委員 59.120.184.171 09/23 15:37 : : → diggershi:還是無法可罰. _唯一有實質效益的只有 59.120.184.171 09/23 15:38 : : → diggershi:兩種 黨紀拉下去 跟他自己自動下台 59.120.184.171 09/23 15:38 : : → diggershi:中間少打一句 因為冷氣太冷改變說法 也 59.120.184.171 09/23 15:39 : : → diggershi:在那邊，應該會有法官或是相關人士去審 59.120.184.171 09/23 15:40 : 其實這個案子剛好可以檢視一下何謂妨礙司法公正的關說 : 在國外立法例下 : 妨礙司法公正的正式定義為「具有妨礙司法公正傾向及意圖的作為、一連串的作為 : 或行為」（an act, a series of acts, or conduct which has the tendency and : is intended to pervert the course of justice）具體表現在任何一種下列的行為： : 中止刑事檢控以換取報酬 : 提出虛假的指控 : 向調查人員提供虛假的陳述 : 刻意協助他人逃避追捕 : 恐嚇、脅迫或騷擾證人 : 證人故意不出席聆訊，以換取報酬 : 捏造、藏匿或毀滅證據 : 發布文章，刻意妨礙司法公正 : 不當地中止檢控 : 使原來可能得以提出檢控的法定程序受挫 Hifree 不愧是懂美國的人，一個實際案例剛好替 hifree 作註腳： 來源： http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Domenici#Department_of_Justice_controversy (原文有點長，我重點解說） Prior to the 2006 midterm election Domenici called and pressured then-United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico David Iglesias to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator. When Iglesias said an indictment would not be handed down until at least December, Domenici said "I'm very sorry to hear that" — and the line went dead. Domenici's telephone manners were the subject of a later article in The Albuquerque Journal, which quoted numerous other sources whom Domenici had treated rudely by hanging up after making a point or receiving an unsatisfactory answer. 簡單地說，參議員杜曼尼的競爭對手因為貪污被檢察官調查，杜議員就打電 話給檢察官，希望他趕快處理，最好趕在11月選舉前。檢察官不鳥他，回覆 說最快得12月才能偵結 Iglesias was fired a little over one month later by the Bush Administration. A communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of ethics rules. 重點是，一個月以後該名檢察官就被布希政府開除了！ In a March 2007 statement, Domenici admitted making such a call.[20] House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., issued subpoenas to require Iglesias and three other ousted U.S. attorneys to testify before Congress.[21] Domenici later admitted calling Iglesias, though Domenici claimed he never used the word "November" when he called Iglesias about an ongoing Albuquerque courthouse corruption case.[22] Domenici has denied trying to influence Iglesias, and has hired lawyer K. Lee Blalack II to represent him.[23] According to the Justice Department, Domenici called the Department and demanded Iglesias be replaced on four occasions.[24] According to The Washington Post, on the day of the firing (December 7, 2006) William Kelley, a deputy to then White House Counsel Harriet Miers, said in an email that Domenici's chief of staff was "happy as a clam" about the Iglesias firing. A week later, a Justice Department email to the White House counsel stated: "Domenici is going to send over names tomorrow (not even waiting for Iglesias's body to cool)." 這裡的重點是：有關係就沒關係，沒關係就有關係。你檢察官哪有我參議員 大？一通電話就把你開除了！ On April 24, 2008, Domenici was admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee for "inappropriately" contacting in 2006 one of the nine U.S. attorneys later fired by President Bush.[16] 所謂的國會自律，僅值一紙不痛不癢的警告。 The light punishment came after the committee found “no substantial evidence” that Domenici tried to influence attorney David Iglesias when he contacted him to inquire about the status of a 2006 investigation into corruption charges on a state Democratic official. A possible indictment could have buoyed the re-election hopes of Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), who was seeking to replace Domenici when the senator retires after his current term. Iglesias charged that Domenici and Wilson were pressuring him to wrap up the investigation before that November’s elections, a violation of ethics rules.[20] The Ethics Committee said that Domenici’s phone call to Iglesias, in advance of an upcoming election, “created an appearance of impropriety that reflected unfavorably on the Senate”.[20] In July 2010, Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firing was inappropriately political, but not criminal, saying "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."[26] Domenici said of the closed investigation, "The Justice Department has now confirmed what I have always said and believed: I never attempted to interfere with any government investigation. I am glad that this matter has concluded."[26] 後面細節就不多翻了。 總之，這羣人 (foreign or domestic) 對關說司法個案的態度就是如此。從制度面到現實 面，一路走來始終如一。 我的心得是，這羣人一旦掌握了權力，大家真的只好個人顧性命。 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.123.185.72