President Yoon Seok-yeol's request for review of arrest is dismissed...Arrest status maintained

(this excerpt is from a BBC.com article from earlier today translated by chrome into English)

The arrest warrant review held on the 16th was conducted by Judge So Jun-seop of the 32nd Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court. Attorneys Bae Jin-han, Seok Dong-hyeon, and Kim Gye-ri from President Yoon’s side attended, while three prosecutors from the High-ranking Officials’ Corruption Investigation Office (Public Corruption Investigation Office) including Chief Prosecutor Cha Jeong-hyeon attended.

At one time, there was speculation that President Yoon might appear for the detention hearing, but President Yoon did not appear in court due to security issues.

After the review, President Yoon's attorney Seok Dong-hyun met with reporters and said, "We made a very strong argument to the court about the unfairness of the Public Prosecutor's Office obtaining an illegal and invalid arrest warrant in violation of the jurisdiction regulations and then mobilizing a large number of police officers to roughly and illegally execute the warrant."

However, the court ruled to dismiss the case, stating, “The claim in this case is deemed to be without merit.” Accordingly, President Yoon will remain in custody, and the suspended arrest statute of limitations will start running again. This is tantamount to acknowledging that the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s arrest of President Yoon was not unreasonable, and that the execution of the arrest warrant issued by the Seoul Western District Court was lawful.

Russia and/or China stole the last general election and the National Assembly "Stop the steal"

According to right wing youtubers and Yoon supporters in the streets, there are "state enemies" in the National Assembly. The right says that's why Yoon had to have martial law. Russia or China or both of them, hacked the South Korean Election Commission servers during the last general election and caused a landslide decision against the ruling PPP, the conservative party that adopted Yoon to be their presidential candidate and president.

I've heard this contention being made by the right wing radicals waving their US flags and "stop the steal" signs at the pertinent Seoul locations, the CIO building, the Constitutional Court, and also at the approach to the Yoon official presidential residence before he was ultimately detained.

Big lies in the courtroom

I didn't think the defense has specified exactly what "anti-government activities" associated with the National Assembly did this and how the president announced martial law to invalidate the last legislative elections and therefore the National Assembly. It seems as if Yoon's defense pleadings alleged the martial law decree was necessary to protect the Assembly and the constitutional order from unspecified "anti-government activity."

The CC asked the defense to be more specific and they became tongue tied and confused. So what was the reason soldiers were sent into the National Assembly building? Blank stares. The CC then told them to clarify by being more concrete in their arguments. Since it wasn't clear from the defense pleadings, the CC said it expected the defense to more clearly specify the facts underlying their contentions. One of the defense attorneys attempted to make an analogy to things that happened in Ukraine after the Crimean annexation during argument, and a justice cut him off abruptly and told him to sit down, they weren't going to listen to that. Next argument. One attorney made the argument, that Yoon wouldn't have announced martial law in advance, and left the electric power to the Assembly on, if he was really intending martial law (it was just a warning to the assembly who was ruining the country) "unless he were an idiot."

At another hearing in the Seoul Central District Court, Yoon's defense sought to challenge the arrest warrant from the Western District. The Central District Court recognized the Western Court's decision on the initial arrest warrant, and dismissed the challenge. I think there was some tolling of the 48 hour limit for the magistrate's hearing to determine if there was cause to continue holding Yoon in jail, pre-trial. This is the criminal case running separately from the Constitutional Court's impeachment determination. In any event, the 'magistrate's' hearing on pretrial confinement will probably be sometime Friday (Seoul time). Yoon didn't come to either hearing, some vague reference to his "security." There was a later vague reference to some unspecified health issue that precluded his attendance at the CIO interrogation session in the afternoon, according to attorneys. The consensus is that he and his attorneys are still trying to stall the impeachment trial schedule. In any case, Yoon is not answering any more questions.

So Yoon will get a pre-trial detention hearing, and the Constitutional Court hearings will proceed on schedule. The CC adopted the 5 person witness list of the petitioner legislative body, and also many of their video and documentary exhibits. The defense appears to have named only one witness. Will Yoon bother to attend? Yoon has reportedly declined to make any statements based on his right to remain silent during the investigation. Yoon's factual defense is said to be that the then defense minister, also in jail, made a "mistake" by selecting a martial law order to copy from the Yushin era (dictatorship constitution) which provided for dissolution of the national assembly. Yoon didn't know? So this is the "cut off the tail to protect the head" strategy. Defense counsel noted a suspicious consistency in witness statements incriminating the president directly in the unlawful provisions of the martial law order, which undermined the witnesses "credibility." The defense attorney had difficulty repressing a wry smile while he said this.

From an earlier Reuters article which isn't as misleading as most of its work on this subject, but still misleading.

Detained South Korea's Yoon refuses questioning and challenges arrest

The emphasis on "Yoon supporters," and this poll:

Opinion polls conducted by Realmeter on Dec. 4, the day after Yoon's martial law declaration, showed 73.6% supported Yoon's impeachment. Its latest survey from Jan. 9-10 showed support for Yoon's ruling party rose to 40.8%, catching up with the DP which posted 42.2%.

The polls are being distorted by sampling bias, that is large overrepresentation of conservatives sampled in the polling and underrepresentation of left of center voters. Whether it is intentional or the result of a desperate pro-Yoon messaging effort to mobilize supporters doesn't really matter, the polls are unreliable. One pundit observed there is a momentum element or emotive factor that affects people's inclination to take the time to participate in a poll.

The next big event is the hearing on pretrial detention.

I think from watching and reading about the judicial hearings, the actions of the judges so far seem to indicate a response to the embarrassing, shameful and damaging conduct of the president, and the stonewalling tactics of the president's attorneys. One thesis I heard put forward was that it was bad enough for Yoon to order arrests of Assembly members to be taken military cells somewhere to be interrogated by soldiers, and quite another to place a judge's name on the same list. I'm starting to believe this is a factor. Another problem with that in terms of a misstep by Yoon, is that it also brings to mind, one of professional disciplinary violations Yoon was found to have committed by an administrative hearing appointed by the justice minister just before Yoon quit the Prosecutor General's office and declared himself a candidate for president. At that time, the Disciplinary Board found that Yoon had authorized unlawful investigations of judges. (In my opinion this was for the purposes of influencing judges improperly). What judge could not think of this under the circumstances? The separation of powers in the constitution has been upset by Yoon in all dimensions. This perception is unavoidable. Any professional jurist or attorney can see this. Who does not know of Yoon's abuse of the rules of confidentiality of police investigation files, which Yoon attorneys deliberately and repeatedly leaked to the press to smear the accused, or the abuse of the warrant process by issuing literally hundreds of warrants against his political rivals and their families?

Yoon's attempt to claim he was trying to save the country, save the legislature, save the rule of law and the constitution is likely to fall on deaf ears. We'll see how the pretrial detention hearing goes.

On the lighter side, people have joked that Yoon's "health problem" in fact, is distress caused by his inability to drink soju in custody.

By the time I finish this post it is likely to be overtaken by new developments. Next CC trial hearing dates January 21일, 23일, February 4, 6, 11, and 13. The last three dates were added today to the original 5 days of hearings, I believe to evaluate the defense's case presentation. The latter which apparently may include some Chinese conspiracy theory. All 8 judges began attending on the 14th and will attend the hearings twice a week.

So I think I get it now, the legislature is dominated by North Korean agents; the Russians, no the Chinese hacked the elections; and the legislature is a dictatorship subverting the government. This is why Yoon had to give a "martial law warning" but not an actual attempt to unlawfully impose martial law.