President Yoon’s First 100 Days in Office Sees His Approval Rating Drop to 24%

BTW, this is every bit as sincere and meaningful as leftist polls:

It is with the saddest heart that I must pass on the following news:

Please join me in remembering a great icon of the entertainment community.

The Pillsbury Doughboy died yesterday of a yeast infection and complications from repeated pokes in the belly.

Born in 1965, he was only 57.

Doughboy was buried in a lightly greased coffin.

Dozens of celebrities turned out to pay their respects, including Mrs. Butterworth, Hungry Jack, the California Raisins, Betty Crocker, the Hostess Twinkies and Captain Crunch.

The grave site was piled high with flours.

Aunt Jemima delivered the eulogy and lovingly described Doughboy as a man who never knew how much he was kneaded.

Doughboy rose quickly in show business, but his later life was filled with turnovers. He was not considered a very smart cookie, wasting much of his dough on half-baked schemes.

Despite being a little flaky at times, he still, as a crusty old man, was considered a roll model for millions.

Doughboy is survived by his wife, Play Dough; two children John Dough and Jane Dough; plus they had one in the oven.

He is also survived by his elderly father Pop Tart.

The funeral was held at 3:50 for about 20 minutes.

Uh… Riiiiight…

if the Korean left will try and invent some way to impeach him like they did to former President Park Geun-hye?

@GIKorea

You still live in the fantasy that former Pres. Park’s impeachment was a conspiracy by the left.

But had you done your research, the Korean way of impeachment, unlike the US does not involve the legislative body handing out the verdict.

The National Assembly only votes whether or not to send the case to the Constitution Court, which makes the final verdict.

In former Pres. Park case the Constitution Court found her guilty of obstruction of justice and thus impeached her.

It is interesting to note that for the other charges, the Constitution Court either dismissed them or found her not guilty.

With her impeachment, she lost her immunity leaving the door open for Yoon(yes the current President) and his underlings to investigate her.

It was the result of these investigations that led to her conviction and jailing.

So, it would be better if you stop with these nonsense about the leftist conspiracy to overthrow Park.

Because at the end of the day, it was the judges of the Constitution Court, an independent judicial body that impeached her and Yoon who investigated and jailed her.

How can there be a leftist conspiracy when someone who now belongs to the conservative PPP jailed her?

And wasn’t it Yoon who vigorously investigated Cho Kuk?

The dubious tablet PC is what got the ball rolling on impeachment. A year after impeachment the tablet PC was found to contain no evidence

Personally, I would take Tara O’s posts with a pinch of salt.

But anyways, The Korean did a blog post about the Constitution Court’s ruling a while back, even taking the trouble to translate the ruling for those who are not fluent in Korean.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-impeachment-opinion-annotated.html#more

I think we can all agree here that The Korean as one of the original and respected K-bloggers has a lot of credibility, among those who read the K-blogs.

It’s a long read, but here’s a key passage from the post.

[TK: This long recitation of facts regarding Park Geun-hye’s involvement in Choi Soon-sil’s corruption is a sign that the court is about to dig deep into this issue. To be removed from office, Park Geun-hye must be found to have seriously violated the constitution and the law.]

Next, we consider whether such actions by the respondents violate the constitution and the law. The constitution declares the duty of the public official to actualize the public good by designating public officials as “servants for all people.” Such duties are specified through the National Public Officials Act and Public Official Ethics Act. The action by the respondent is an abuse of the president’s stature and authority for Choi Seo-won’s profit; it cannot be considered a fair administration of the duties of the office, and violates the constitution, the National Public Officials Act and Public Official Ethics Act. Further, the respondent’s action of directly and indirectly assisting Choi Seo-won’s profiteering violated the corporations’ right for property and their freedom to operate their business. Also, the leak of numerous confidential documents to Choi Seo-won based on the respondent’s direction or neglect violates the duty of confidentiality under the National Public Officials Act.

[TK: A big setup by the court, as it specifies exactly what law Park Geun-hye violated. But are those violations serious enough? Here it comes…]

We consider whether the respondent’s violations of the law are sufficiently serious for removal. The president must not only exercise her authority pursuant to the constitution and the laws, but also transparently disclose her carriage of duties to be assessed by the people. But the respondent tightly hid Choi Seo-won’s interference with governmental policies, denied any interference each time when questions arose, and denounced the fact that questions were raised. Accordingly, constitutional institutions such as the National Assembly could not check her actions, nor could the press monitor her behavior. Further, the respondent intervened and assisted Choi Seo-won’s private profiteering by establishing Mir and K-Sports Foundations and assisting Playground, The Blue K and KD Corporation. The respondent’s violation of the constitution and the law occurred consistently throughout her administration, and despite the criticism from the National Assembly and the press, the respondent hid the facts and punished the dissenters. Consequentially, those who followed the respondent’s directions, including An Jong-beom, Kim Jong, Jeong Ho-seong, were arrested and indicted for corruption. Such violations of the constitution and the law by the respondent damaged the principle of representative democracy and the rule of law. Although the respondent in her public statements promised to cooperate fully in ascertaining the truth, she failed to cooperate with the investigation by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office and the Special Prosecutor, and refused to allow the Blue House to be searched. In reviewing the series of remarks by the respondent in relation to the bases for impeachment, we cannot find the resolve to uphold the constitution such that the violations of the law will not be repeated.

Therefore, as the respondent’s violations of the constitution and the law betrayed the people’s trust, they are serious violations of the law that cannot be condoned from the perspective of upholding the constitution. As the respondent’s violation of the law significantly and negatively impacts and influences the constitutional order, the gains of upholding the constitution by removing the respondent from her office is overwhelmingly great.

Accordingly, by unanimous opinion of all justices, the court hereby issues the order:

The respondent, President Park Geun-hye, is removed from the office.

[TK: BOOM. There it goes, in one-two-three step: (1) Park Geun-hye used her power to help Choi Soon-sil’s profiteering; (2) such use of power violates the constitution and the law, and; (3) the violations were serious enough to merit removal from the office. 

Overall, the court’s opinion is principled and disciplined. It painstakingly established in the beginning that all procedures were proper. The opinion also set up a high evidentiary standard and did not budge from the standard. The court aggressively pruned off the weaker grounds for impeachment, and focused on the strongest one: Park Geun-hye’s assistance of Choi Soon-sil’s profiteering. Note that the decision was not even about the claim that Park herself profited from bribery; rather, it is that Park abused her power to help Choi Soon-sil profit. This much is factually irrefutable, and inarguably in violation of the constitution and the law. It is a sound judicial practice for a court to make a major decision based on the strongest and narrowest grounds, so that the legitimacy of the decision would be beyond reproach.

… she failed to cooperate with the investigation by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office and the Special Prosecutor

Hubris by Park there. There are only about a thousand prosecutors in the ROK. There is a difficult and long process to become a prosecutor. All the prosecutors, men and women, are no dummies.

Neutral observers of Korean behavior: Even in a court, facing a potential perjury charge*, some Koreans “provide a different perspective on reality” <del>lie</del> to protect their “friend(s)”.

ROK Prosecutors: We know that. Our job is to sift through the evidence, of often conflicting witness testimonies, to determine the truth. Korean witness testimonies are often bogus, that’s why we rely more on documentary and forensic evidence. Ms Park, we have the evidence, now ‘fess up. You refuse to cooperate? OK. We’ll add obstruction of justice to the indictment.

For our conspiracy theorist setnaffa, here’s the Constitution Court’s ruling on the Sewol disaster.

First, The Korean’s summary of the ruling. The Court found that her handling of the Sewol disaster is not an impeachable offense and thus threw it out.

Which means, setnaffa’s wild theory about Park being impeached because of Sewol, is a non-starter.

[TK: The third argument was about Park Geun-hye’s failure to respond properly to the Sewol ferry disaster. Although this argument had a great deal of emotional resonance, as a legal matter it was a non-starter. As the court explains in the opinion, the Constitutional Court already established in a previous case (namely, the impeachment trial of President Roh Moo-hyun in 2004) that incompetence is not an impeachable offense.

And the ruling itself, kindly translated by The Korean.

Next, we consider the alleged violation of the duty to protect life and the duty to exercise due diligence as a public official. On April 16, 2014, the Sewol ferry sank, tragically claiming 304 lives. At the time, the respondent remained at her residence. The constitution provides that the nation recognizes the fundamental and inviolable human rights belonging to each individual, and has the duty to guarantee such rights. As the sinking of the Sewol was a tragedy that greatly shocked and pained all Koreans, no word would be enough to console the victims. The respondent has the duty to exercise her authority and carry out the duties of her office in order for the nation to faithfully execute its duty to protect the people’s lives and bodily safety. However, even in the case of a disaster in which people’s lives are threatened, it is difficult to find that a specific and particular duty to act, such as the respondent’s personal participation in the rescue effort, arises. In addition, the respondent has the duty to exercise her due diligence in carrying out the duties of her office as the president. But because the concept of due diligence is relative and abstract, it is difficult to impeach based on a violation of such an abstract duty as duly diligent carriage of duties. Previously, the Constitutional Court already held that, because the president’s duty to exercise due diligence in carrying out his duty cannot be accomplished as a matter of rule, it cannot be subject to a jurisprudential judgment, and that the existence of due diligence in carrying out the presidential duties in times of political incompetence or errors in policy decisions, by themselves, cannot serve as a basis for impeachment. Although the Sewol disaster could not be more terrible, whether the respondent diligently carried out her duties on the day of the tragedy is not a subject for determination in an impeachment trial.