Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the recent column in the New York Times by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe and others that Devin Nunes could be charged with obstruction of justice. The column contains highly dubious uses of both history and precedent to advance this latest claim of criminality. The ABA Journal and other papers have reported on the theory without any objective of its meritless foundation in constitutional law. The basis for such claim is so attenuated as to border on the fanciful. There are serious possible crimes being alleged without twisting the criminal code to go after supporters of President Trump.
For a year, some of us have questioned calls for the prosecution of President Trump for obstruction of justice. Every ill-conceived statement or tweet by Trump is proclaimed as “smoking gun” evidence of this seemingly catch-all crime. As the “resistance” to Trump grew, so did the expansion of the interpretation of the crime. It became increasingly more difficult to determine not what is obstruction but what is not obstruction. A recent column in the New York Times seems to have the answer: Prosecute them all and let God sort them out.
The column by Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Tribe, (right), American Constitution Society president Caroline Fredrickson and Brookings Institution fellow Norman Eisen argued that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) could now join Trump in the criminal dock. His crime? Writing a memo alleging FBI abuses that was released by a vote of the majority of a committee overseeing the FBI.
The column entitled “Is Devin Nunes Obstructing Justice?” captures the distemper that has overtaken legal analysis. It appears that anyone deemed as supporting Trump can now be charged with the same nebulous crime. After all, if Trump is actively trying to obstruct a federal investigation, surely those who actively support him or oppose the investigation are no less guilty of the same offense.It is not that easy for federal courts, which traditionally follow the opposite inclination under the “rule of lenity.” Courts tend to not only define criminal laws narrowly but rule in favor of defendants in areas of ambiguity. These and other experts appear to view ambiguity as an invitation for creativity in finding ways to indict Trump. There is a real danger to civil liberties by the continuing effort to endlessly expand criminal definitions. Trump will not be our last president and these new overarching definitions will remain with us as a type of unpaid bill. It will be citizens who pay that legal bill.
The latest obstruction claim asserts that “by writing and releasing the memo, the chairman may just have landed himself, and his staff members, in the middle of Robert Mueller’s obstruction of justice investigation.” Of course, there is the obvious complication of the immunity afforded to members of Congress under the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I.
In Gravel v. United States, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this immunity for not just members but staff after Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) read portions of the Pentagon Papers before a congressional committee. Ironically, Gravel was supporting the New York Times, which first published the papers in defiance of the Nixon administration.
While acknowledging the “strong bulwark” of immunity, the authors work mightily to limit the possible use of immunity, including some creative use of history. For example, they note that the Supreme Court did not extend immunity as far as Gravel’s publication of the papers in a later book. However, the court supported the immunity over the disclosure through the committee.
If anything, Nunes is in a much stronger position than Gravel. Nunes did not unilaterally release the memo like Gravel and he did so in a committee with direct oversight of the FBI. Conversely, the Pentagon Papers were read at an entirely unrelated subcommittee on buildings and grounds of the Senate Public Works Committee.
It is equally dubious to suggest that the memo may be found to have “mere peripheral connection to legislative acts” or a pure political act to deny immunity. The basis for this claim is simply that the authors and Democrats disagree with the conclusions of the memo. No competent federal judge would rule that such a memo is unrelated to the legislative purpose of oversight over the FBI.
Even more bizarrely, there was this warning: “Nunes would do well to remember what befell Senator Daniel Brewster of Maryland.” Nunes would be understandably confused by the historical reference. Brewster claimed immunity over the acceptance of alleged bribes. This facially ridiculous argument was rejected by the Supreme Court, though Brewster was later acquitted of bribery and had the remaining convictions overturned on other grounds.
Where experts argued for months about the dubious crime of “collusion” with the Russians, these experts are now arguing for a crime of “collaboration” with the White House. The idea is that, if Nunes or his staff coordinated in the issuance of the memo, they could be charged for casting doubt on the conduct of the FBI in the early investigation of the Russian matter.
The suggestion of an obstruction case against Nunes reduces the criminal code to a virtual professorial parlor game. For a year, experts have assured eager (if not desperate) audiences that a criminal case against Trump is now in sight. For example, Tribe and Eisen have been alleging a host of unlawful acts, including a lawsuit alleging unconstitutional emoluments that was thrown out by a federal judge in December.
Tribe previously argued that Trump could be charged with witness tampering for dictating a misleading statement on the Trump Tower meeting. Tribe previously found compelling evidence of obstruction of justice, criminal election violations, Logan Act violations, extortion and possible treason by the president or his family. He also found grounds for impeachment.
Eisen previously declared the meeting at Trump Tower with Russians promising evidence of illegal contributions to the Clinton Foundation to be the long-sought “smoking gun” for prosecution. Eisen invoked the Logan Act, a law from 1799 that makes it a crime for citizens to intervene in disputes or controversies between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to convict a single U.S. citizen and is widely viewed as facially unconstitutional.
There has been an accordion-like flexibility in these interpretive approaches. While adopting expansive interpretations to allow the prosecution and impeachment of Trump, Eisen and Trump have adopted narrow interpretations to prevent Trump from granting himself a pardon.
There appears no price too high to pay in the pursuit of Trump. It is not enough to simply disagree in today’s politics. Your opponents must not only be wrong but criminally culpable in our extreme political discourse. The New York Times column shows how this mania has gone mainstream.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He has been lead counsel in national security cases for more than two decades and has testified before congressional intelligence committees. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The brown guy here makes a good point about Harvard being at the center of the Military-Industrial-EDUCATIONAL-Complex. He also makes note that “Educational” was supposed to be part of Eisenhower’s MIC speech, and presented reasons as to why it was left out. He is coming after Warren and Monsanto hard!
Nice discussion here:
A guy posted a link in reply to a comment I posted somewhere the other day — a video presentation by a CIA agent/whistleblower in which he gives a pretty good rundown on the history and current state of the intelligence community/deep state/shadow government — and in the presentation he says that Eisenhower originally referred to the Military industrial Complex as the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
https://disqus.com/home/channel/presidenttrumpchannel/discussion/channel-presidenttrumpchannel/more_education_regarding_the_swamp/
In case the denizens of Bedlam care, microplastics are a real problem:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58fed37be4b0c46f0781d426/amp
and likely to do us in far sooner than you think.
One of the few serious efforts on behalf of our government to eliminate some forms of plastic pollution was to phase-out microabrasives such as plastic particles in items such as exfoliants and such. We seem to have managed for nearly ever before to live without plastic disposables, it isn’t inconceivable that we could again.
You could say the same thing about satellites and cable-TV reruns of MASH.
Neither of which destroys the environment as plastic does but thanks for trying.
Why do leftists have no sense of humor? I was an environmentalist before you were born, snotrag.
The “real” problem is overpopulation.
Has Malthus arisen from the dead?
Let me get this straight. A member of the legislative branch of government does what, in his judgment, his constituents elected him to do. A member of the executive branch of government not only disagrees with the action and essentially overrules the action but prosecutes the member of the legislative branch for taking the action that the electorate elected him to do. I respectfully submit that allowing one co-equal branch of government to prosecute a member of another co-equal branch of government is what the founders had in mind when they established a system of checks and balances. Prosecuting political opponents by having the executive prosecute them is what third-world dictators do. Professor Tribe misses the forest because of all of these troublesome trees.
Vince, which member of the executive branch would disagree with, overrule and prosecute Nunes for the Nunes memo? Not Sessions. And not Rachel Brand, either. Rosenstein? Mueller? If either of those two took Tribe’s advice, I’m pretty sure Trump would fire him or both of them. Come to think of it, that might be the only way Trump could fire them without facing any backlash from the other co-equal branch of government. How crazy would that be? Tribe’s advice get Mueller fired??? Somebody should tell Tribe to go sit in a corner somewhere facing the wall and remain silent for the duration of the special counsel’s investigation.
Bedlam.
Tribe stands over on the corporate right; that is, the rights of corporations.
Maybe that is to the left of despots but not by far.
Turley said, “The suggestion of an obstruction case against Nunes reduces the criminal code to a virtual professorial parlor game.”
Except that Lawrence Tribe, Caroline Fredrickson and Norman Eisen do not possess the legal power even to indict the proverbial ham sandwich, let alone Ninny-Na-Na- Nunes. Other than that error of omission, Turley is right to say that Tribe, Fredrickson and Eisen’s argument against Nunes “. . . captures the distemper that has overtaken legal analysis.” So how does one legal analyst fight another legal analyst’s distemper? By attributing legal power to legal analysts who do not actually possess that legal power? Professorial parlor game, indeed! The sky is NOT falling. The sky is NOT falling.
Diane, I believe this is the one time in the history of blogdom that I totally agree with you. Thank you for that. I find it encouraging.
Agreement happens. Sometimes it just can’t be helped. It’s not really possible to disagree over everything all of the time. Trust me. I’ve tried it before.
Socialist posturing Larry Tribe is, in reality, really quite the capitalist with no compunction about defending corporate moguls like Trump that he now so vociferously decries. Here’s a quote from a 2015 New Yorker article wondering if Larry sold out:
“He helped General Electric argue that being ordered to clean up hazardous waste sites on the Hudson River was a violation of its constitutional rights. He aided Pacific Gas and Electric in complex bankruptcy proceedings, and defended Nike in a suit that claimed the company was lying about its sweatshop practices. Tribe also helped American Trucking Associations and the Petroleum Marketers Association of America fight common-law claims related to global warming. More recently, he assisted a hedge fund named Bulldog Investors in trying to block the enforcement of certain securities laws; his argument was based, in part, on the idea that such laws violated the fund’s First Amendment rights. In the nineteen-nineties, he worked on multiple cases helping the Bell companies try to avoid or nullify telecommunications regulation, and in the 2009 he helped Time Warner Cable fight net-neutrality rules, based on a theory of corporate First Amendment rights. In short, Tribe’s representation of Peabody Energy is nothing new. It is rather representative of his work over the past two decades.”
Why are we having this discussion at all ?
I have greatly respected and admired Prof. Tribe in the past – but he has gone bat-zhit crazy with respect to Trump long before this.
To even dream of charging Nunes, the assertions in his memo would have to be indisputably false.
What is patently evident is that at WORST he states the case of FBI/DOJ misrepresentation more strongly that the evidence. But it is equally possible that Nunes memo understates the claim.
Further Sen. Grassley’s referal to DOJ that has to a large extent been made public confirms a great deal of the Nunes memo and in some instances goes beyond it.
I have not read Tribes article – I do not need to. The possibility of Mueller going after congressmen for exposing the underlying weakness of his investigation reeks of Soviet Kangaroo courts.
The left has gone mad. There is more basis today to prosecute Yates, McCabe, Comey and Rosenstein for lying to the FISA court than there is for anything else here.
The left’s entire meme has collapsed. There is not and never was anything here and those closest to the investigation knew that from start to finish.
You can not obstruct INJUSTICE.
Worse that Watergate is tired and worn – but if this is not – what is ?
It is evident that members of one administration used the power of government to spy on an opposing candidate, without probable cause. There is no question of malfeasance. The question is how far beyond a handful at DOJ/FBI the misconduct extends. Circumstantially it appears to go pretty far.
DOJ/FBI can not investigate itself, and this goes beyond the oversite responsibilities of the house and the Senate. It is now time for another special counsel to investigate the efforts by the obama administration to spy on US Citizens – particularly in the political context without probable cause.
dhlii said, “It is evident that members of one administration used the power of government to spy on an opposing candidate, without probable cause.”
Carter Page was not running for President in 2016. He was an unpaid, volunteer, foreign-policy adviser to the Trump campaign. The FBI had a FISA warrant on Carter Page in 2014. The FBI gathered intelligence on Carter Page prior to, and independently of, the Steele dossier. The errors of omission in the Nunes memo were based upon studiously ignoring the intelligence that the FBI had gathered on Carter Page prior to, and independently of, the Steele dossier. It is probable that that intelligence corroborated and verified the portion of the Steele dossier that refers to Carter Page.
What you claim to be evident stems entirely from studiously ignoring the evidence.
“…that the FBI had gathered on Carter Page prior to, and independently of, the Steele dossier. It is probable that that intelligence corroborated and verified the portion of the Steele dossier that refers to Carter Page. ”
That is certainly a hail-Mary! Surely, if they had the goods they would not have needed said dossier in the first place. Especially given the true nature of the thing. Sorry, try again.
slohrss29, the standard for FISA warrants is “probable cause.” The standard for conviction by a jury of one’s peers is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The fact that Carter Page has not yet been charged with any crime does not presuppose that there was no probable cause for the FISA warrant on Carter Page. It does, however, entail that the FBI has not yet found any evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Carter Page. Criminal investigators exonerate the subjects of criminal investigations every day now. Has Carter Page been exonerated yet? Perhaps he will be, someday.
Excellent dhlii. The left has a tendency to forget everything learned about their misdeeds so each time starts from the beginning repeating everything already known to be wrong. We need experienced criminal prosecutors that don’t grant immunity and then forget to get the information like was done with Lois Lerner or investigate without tapes and swearing in like with Hillary Clinton. In this period of history the left bases the law on desired outcomes forgetting the unintended consequences while the right seems to function based upon the rule of law though it seems to act weakly and timidly.
There needs to be an aggressive PR campaign against all of our intelligence and other agencies that have stated that Russia has and continues to be attempting to meddle in our free and fair elections. Why anyone would even casually think that any of the Trump/Kushner non-profit organizations would have anything to do with anyone that has ties to Russia is beyond me.
Further more, it’s unfortunate that so few people are able to appreciate the subtle, astute statesmanship of one of the greatest strategists who has ever occupied the White House.
And, don’t get me started on the immigration status of Melania’s extended family. The very idea that there might be something fishy there is as absurd as who paid Stormy Daniels. And why.
billmcwilliams, may I please presume your post above to be sarcasm?
As time goes on…. I side with Trump. I was dumb and voted for Hillary. Now I see things better. Trump is not Goldwasser or Raygun. He is not Nixon or Ike. He is sort of a Republican but sort of a horse of a different color. When the midget sends a missile to LA I want Trump to respond. Coming to a theatre near you.
Right. You are, Liberty. And Trump is being true to his 1% supporters when he advocates a 25 cent per gallon tax on gasoline. It’s always and only : “socialize costs, privatize profits”.
How many times has Trump thrown out a hook and never found willing fish? So the original plan was to ditch the phony Davis Bacon demonstration projects and provide a matching funds requirement. The states would have to become States again and not only claim their long lost since the civil war ended and Wilson got the 16th and 17th Amendments passed fiction of States Rights and Checks/Balances Most of the big population States are already looking at the lowered taxes as an area to exploit and take away with the left hand what the right hand provided and part of that was a raise in state fuel taxes
Just this week II received a questionnaire from Oregon State University on how many gallons of fuel I purchased for my boat. It’s not registerered there anymore nor am I of that state but it was obvious they are fishing for another area of income – recreational and commercial boats. Red Ron Dellums formerly a Rep from Oakland CA noting all the sailboats in SF Bay wanted to tax the wind as these people were obviously cheating the government of their rightful fuel taxes
So by suggesting a 25 cent a gallon tax at a time when fuel prices are low President Trump caught two fish. One some states greedy non support of economic recovery with emphasis on the citizens who are in fact the only ones who pay both individual and corporate taxes at the cash register and their unwillingness to provide matching funds. from doing exactly what his tongue in cheek suggested openly stated. Furthemore was it Trump or was it some Congressional who made that suggestion ?
No matter. taxes on fuel go up fuel use drops and no taxes are gained. But since fuel is used to delivery goods to the consumer in store prices go back up Where’s the gain? No. How much is the loss?
Thus this idea served to expose government greed when they should have been thinking higher sales equal higher unemployment equals higher manufacturing and production costs due to increased demand and that includes fuel use producing more of existing fuel taxes which are the largest portion of fuel costs anyway.
NY and CA and MA and IL will end up asking for a government Davis Bacon style grant to pay their share of the matching funds and I hope they are flat turned down. Matching grants are an offer to pay half the cost of needed infrastructure upgrades not a reason to soak the citizens but if the citizens want to be treated like chattel property thats up to them Their votes will tell the story. leave us alone laissez faire moi or snap on the handcuffs and leg irons.
The top 1/10th of the 1% include not only the preponderence of billionaires registered as Democrats and openly supporteers of socialism such as Bill Gates but newly joined Nancy Pelosi…..
Whether Trump is a good person, a good president is independent of whether the investigation of him and his campaign was an abuse of power.
Trump was elected legitimately. This Trump/Russia collusion nonsense is unjustified and a criminal abuse of power and should have serious consequences for those involved.
If you disagree with Trump’s policies – as I do with some of those, we have a legitimate process for voicing and even thwarting Trump’s policies – LEGITIMATE court challenges, and legislative action or inaction, and voting in elections.
Marshalling the forces of the federal government to thwart a political opponent or worse the president elect is NOT LEGITIMATE. it is a criminal abuse of power.
That is so no matter how unlikeable or deep your disagreement with Trump
I’m not so sure some of those court challenges are legitimate when one lower court judge of one area of the country can dictate to an entire nation the most ludicrous being the Hawaiian on immigration whose state only accepted three.but the second most ludicrous is a lower court judge defyng the Supreme Court who are already moving to the last challenge of their authority in their May deliberations and now up pops another one on the same subject. SCOTUS should really look seriously at their underlings and get them under control.
Agreed Michael, we have had too many illegitimate decisions by lower court justices that far exceeded their power. In former years those questionable decisions (perhaps even with more merit) have been ignored. The Republicans have to develop a spine.
From your lips to God’s ears.
Foxtrot, I know little about this group, but they do point out some rational candidates. https://www.senateconservatives.com
I am not looking for perfection rather only movement in a favorable direction.
Lawrence Tribe needs to have his face put on toilet paper and the paper needs to be distributed in Courthouses across the nation. Law schools too but they are outhouses and perhaps copies of his diatribes could be used for toilet paper in those outhouses.
Wipe your butt with Tribe. He is not an Indian.
That was extraordinarily juvenile.
But it expresses the frustration with rogue judges running amok rather well.
Tribe is a symptom of how nuts the left has become.
This is all a mass delusion on the left.
This harms them more than anything.
Prof. Tribe is someone I once respected. No More.
dhlii
Given that Mr. Tribe has done legal work for many large companies, it’s odd that you seem to think that he is a leftist. That’s an easy word to use in describing someone that you disapprove of, but in what sense is he a leftist?
From the Wikipedia article on Lawrence Tribe:
“Tribe testified at length during the Senate confirmation hearings in 1987 about the Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination, arguing that Bork’s stand on the limitation of rights in the Constitution would be unique in the history of the Court. His participation in the hearings raised his profile outside of the legal realm and he became a target of right-wing critics. His phone was later found to have been wiretapped, but it was never discovered who had placed the device or why.”
One could cite other examples from the same source, but the overall results are still somewhat mixed. One could check Wikipedia’s article on Turley and get even more of a mixed bag.
Tribe in his earlier years represented legitimate legal constitutional issues whether one agreed with him or not. In his later years, his adherence to the law has waned as he has increased his reliance on outcomes rather than the Constitution.
Does anyone care what Lawrence Tribe has to say about anything? He’s a Leftist Loon. He’s of interest only to other ultrasubcretin Leftists. Please don’t waste valuable broadband space on such vomitous gutter-tripe. Thank you.
Valuable?
Ha, ha, ha.
The blog needs to address the topic of “nitwit”. Lawrence Tribe fits the qualification.
Lawrence… He’s a nitwit.
Lawrence is a friggin nitwit.
Fat kids, skinny kids, kids who climb on rocks..
Lawrence is a nitwit and he has chicken pox.
Nitwit. He’s a Nitwit!
The dog, kids, like…. to bite!
Liberty2nd, I don’t agree with Tribe, but he is not a nitwit. His judgment has deteriorated with time, but one has to remember that in the past, whether one agreed with him or not, he was brilliant.
Mike Peterman, after 16 months. Time seems to stand still with these people.
The legal analysis refuting Tribe’s nonsense is an interesting intellectual exercise for law students and the like-minded. However I believe there’s a more-direct way to view the situation: It’s just a diversion from information that’s dripping out about how fraudulent the Russia-collusion investigation is.
This is probably not a popular source for citation at this website, however the article to which I’m providing a link is characterized as being “exclusive,” so the information might not be available elsewhere:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/14/exclusive-doj-official-bruce-ohr-hid-wifes-fusion-gps-payments-from-ethics-officials/
If one were inclined to strain the definition of obstruction of justice, I suspect it would be easier to apply that label to intentional concealment of conflicts of interest in order to improperly influence an investigation.
William Bayer, I agree, in part: “To strain the definition of obstruction of justice . . .” is a bad idea for all concerned.
Just to be clear, I was using the word, “strain,” figuratively, in the engineering sense: “Strain is the response of a system to an applied stress. When a material is loaded with a force, it produces a stress, which then causes a material to deform. Engineering strain is defined as the amount of deformation in the direction of the applied force divided by the initial length of the material.”
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Mechanical/StressStrain.htm
Fine, William Bayer. But what is the modulus of elasticity for the U. S. Criminal Code?
Touché
It’s spelled Douche.
actually, the word “elasticity” is part of the reason that I chose the word “strain.” Strain is a measurement of deformation, and there are two basic kinds of deformation: elastic and plastic. If something isn’t strained too much, the deformation is elastic — meaning it will return to it’s original unstrained (unstressed) condition. Plastic deformation is when something is strained (stressed) to a point where it will not return to it’s original condition. My comment, then, refers to not having to strain the definition of obstruction of justice to the point where it won’t return to it’s original condition. And once again, with apologies to the website for violating its policy concerning name-calling, you are an incredible jackass — and proud of it, which is a sure sign that you will always be one. Of all the things people can choose to be, I’ll never understand why people like you choose to be such incredible jackasses.
O1 Proud Bayer, you have, by your own admission, agreed with an incredible jackass. Douche!
First it’s collusion then it’s suspicion of thinking. Life under a leftist government
The Donald is leftist? The Repugs running Congress are leftist? The supremes are leftist?
Michael lives someplace far, far, away from most.
Michael wants a feudal system, where homage is paid for the chance to live and pay homage again the next year.
So do most here, really; as they bow to the onslaught of wealth that has thoroughly corrupted our system of governance, mistaking one for the other they root for their demise.
I strongly suspect that Michael Aarethun lives in Galt’s Gulch, where “there is one word which is forbidden . . . the word ‘give.’”
No not a member they are far too involved in debating the fine point points of objectivism but have no inteerest in applying them.
Thank you for clearing that up, Michael. I will drop it effective immediately.
and went to far libertarian for my taste in 2016 judging it by it’s own curious candidates as opposed to it’s worthwhile efforts such as CATO Institute.
Redefining F Reframing F. You wasted $9.95 I am just a simple independent self governing constitutional centrist and practioner of objectivism
So be it, Michael. The notion that the Randian objectivists went too far Libertarian for your taste in 2016 is truly eye-opening. Let’s call the whole Randian thing off.
David, The Donald’s ideology is open to question. He doesn’t seem to have an ideology. He is more of a pragmatist and can potentially deal with both sides. The Republicans, for the most part, are RINO. That group is closer in ideology to the Democrats that existed sometime prior to Obama.
Some of the Supreme Court believe their duty is to uphold the Constitution and let changes of the Constitution be performed by the legislators and the people. Others believe their experiences can override what the Constitution actually says making the Constitution secondary to their opinions.
This is…
Bedlam.
With apologies to the memory of Edward R. Murrow. I go past the building named for him every week.
Yeah. I recall Edward R. Murrow. He is the guy who smoked on TV during his news show and indeed did commercials for cigarettes. Millions of kids thought it ok. Millions are dead from it. Winston tastes good– like a cigarette should. Ukfay on the uyah.
Let’s see…per DNC operative and surrogates: Carter Page is a Russian Spy/Russian Agent, yet he still continuously appears 2x a day doing interviews on CNN and going about his business, likely apparently assassinating innocent Americans daily who vote Democrat, stealing US secrets, and handing them over to Russia in plain site.
When confronted with the insanity I just described, Enigma says something like, “Just wait, you’ll see after Mueller is done!!!”
REALLY? The entire US federal law enforcement agency can’t arrest Page 2 years after starting their “INVESTIGATION?” To which I reply, “WHEN MONKEYS FLY OUT MY YOU KNOW WHAT!”
Good thought. How long were they planning on letting the beatings go on saving this setup?
Michael Aarethun, are you suggesting that the FBI beat Carter Page during their interviews of Carter Page?
No. Read it again.
Sorry Michael. You’ve got me stumped. Unless . . . it’s an allusion to what the flying monkeys did to the Scarecrow [strawman] in The Wizard of Oz. Is that it?
Tribe should have been retired long ago. This is beyond reaching. However, if the Nunes memo makes him guilty what will the Schiff memo make him?
Perhaps Schiff is to Cicero to as Nunes is to Cataline. Or not.
Damned irregular astigmatism. (damned volleyball.)
Schiff is to Mueller is to Cicero as Nunes is to Trump is to Cataline.
Actually, none of them are Cicero and none of them are Cataline.
One would think that after 16 months, Trump Derangement Syndrome which has afflicted millions of Dems and never Trumpers, would lessen over that time.
However, we continue to see legal interpretation of laws so twisted, its apparent that TDS may be a permanent condition.
For all of you sufferers, take 2 aspirin and leave the country immediately and never come back.
I don’t see what Nunes has done that warrants an indictment for anything. As for Trump Derangement Syndrome, my scientific opinion is that it will naturally abate with the cessation of Trump derangement.
Okay then.
Mike, Can you specifically state what Trump has officially as President done that you believe makes him deranged?
Allan,
While a legitimate question for Mike Appleton, you need to realize he’s this blogs version of Lawrence Tribe. His opinions are not to be questioned because he’s a legal expert.
I’ll leave that up to Mike and see if he wishes to and can defend his position. It’s easy to throw out terms like Trump Derangement Syndrome, but not easy to defend with facts. Even lawyers frequently shoot blanks.
Olly:
Mike’s a good and reasonable guy. He’s no Larry The Loon. We disagree about some things but that’s what we come here for in the first place.
mespo,
One of my first comments on this blog years ago was not surprisingly regarding natural rights. MA challenged me on my comment, but only on whether I was qualified to make such a comment. I don’t respect his arrogance but I do respect him on his legal analysis; that is when he doesn’t expose his bias like he did with his Trump derangement comment.
I think I recall that exchange. Mike is always respectful in my interactions with him and, as you say, he does know the law. He’s a former divinity student so I think he thinks a lot about what’s moral. As you know, I think morality is a fairly fluid concept depending mightily on the prevailing public opinion. Mike might disagree and feel more strongly about a topic based on that perspective. But he can speak for himself on that.
A divinity student and a student of the law. Two hats, often of conflicting colors.
No doubt about that.
I understand the respect that comes from being a member of the law profession. Not much different than the respect a Navy Chief is given on every command he goes to. You and Mike have gone further and proven your knowledge of the law. What’s truly interesting is how your views on government differ. Morality and public opinion being what they are, I believe people look to the law as the anchor to maintain civil society. The problem I see with that is the law can be used as a weapon in the hands of the unscrupulous. This is the essence of Lawfare. The opinions of law professionals like Tribe are given more weight than they deserve.
Btw, I think the guy in the Vatican is a former divinity student as well. 😉
Amen Olly and I agree with everything you said except that the law is really more like religion. Its good for good people and bad for bad people. Btw, I stole that concept from Reinhold Niebuhr. Not so strange about the difference in viewpoints when you consider I view human nature as essentially bad but redeemable. Mike might take the opposite view or might just have more faith in the good will of people than I do.
Thank you mespo. My only opinion on human nature is that it never changes.
I thought this, too, Mike Peterman. Amazing energy required to maintain that level of deranged hatred just because your candidate lost one election. Too bad we can’t bottle that energy and use it for something productive.
Mike Peterman, They are invested in TDS. They are like investors throwing more money into a bad investment.
The Democrats have gone bonkers! True, it was a short trip. But nonetheless, they have gone nutz. Laurence Tribe has lost his mind. I suspected it when he said Obama was his smartest student ever, but now I know for sure.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Maybe Tribe envisions a Hillary administration bringing charges against Nunes.
Tribe recently laid out a scenario where Trump and Pence are both forced out of office, Paul Ryan becomes president, Ryan chooses Hillary as his VP, Ryan then resigns, and Hillary becomes president.
So, once Hillary becomes president she sees to it that her handpicked DOJ prosecutes Nunes.
Tribe seems to be one of the more “imaginative” con. law professors around.
Tom Nash – Tribe is smoking those funny cigarettes again. 😉
Paul,..
– Sounds more like Tribe found a leftover stash from Timothy Leary.😉
Leary may not have completely cleared out his office and lab when he left Harvard.
Tom Nash – I heard that Leary was a real sharing kind of guy. 🙂
Totally off topic, but most comment threads get there eventually, so:
Bad news for all — the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in their annual assessment of, “global military capabilities and defense economics” has noted that, “[g]lobal defense-spending stagnation persists in 2017” as, “world military expenditure declined by 0.2% in 2017, caused by defense-spending cuts in states such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, and a slowdown in Asia.”
https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/military-s-balance
Damn, economic stagnation in arming the world is still persisting in 2017? We must do better, we must convince the world that war is peace, and weapons are the path; they must all increase their military budgets — like us, or is that US?
My stock is tanking now. I was so counting on the new mini-nukes development to push my nest-egg over the top, another carrier strike group also so I could butter my toast more thickly.
Damn, I hate to go back to municipals.
MOAR WAR, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
/sarc off
“Damn, I hate to go back to municipals.”
Man, don’t give up yet! NGOs have still been busy, Victoria Nuland (a horsewoman from the Apocalypse) is back at it. False flags coming soon, Syria, Ukraine, maybe even Jerusalem! Or, seems the Bolsheviks’ story lines are getting old and most people with reasoning abilities see it for the scam it is, so we might have a new big flagger on ‘Muriken soil. Returns will be good again soon, but it might be hard to find some place to spend it. I would recommend getting iodine pills first-off.