Over the last four years, we have seen an alarming trend of law professors and legal experts discarding constitutional and due process commitments to support theories for the prosecution or impeachment of Donald Trump or his family. Legal experts who long defended criminal defense rights have suddenly become advocates of the most sweeping interpretations of criminal or constitutional provisions while discarding basic due process and fairness concerns. Even theories that have been clearly rejected by the Supreme Court have been claimed to be valid in columns. No principle seems inviolate when it stands in the way of a Trump prosecution. Yet, the statement of House manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., this week was breathtaking. A former law professor, Raskin declared that the decision of Trump not to testify in the Senate could be cited or used by House managers as an inference of his guilt — a statement that contradicts not just our constitutional principles but centuries of legal writing. Yet, it appears a signature of this team of House managers. Rep. Eric Swalwell earlier insisted that the failure to then President Trump to turn over documents should be cited as evidence of guilt on any underlying claims.
Presidents have historically not testified at impeachment trials. One reason is that, until now, only sitting presidents have been impeached and presidents balked at the prospect of being examined as head of the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch. Moreover, it was likely viewed as undignified and frankly too risky. Indeed, most defense attorneys routinely discourage their clients from testifying in actual criminal cases because the risks outweigh any benefits. Finally, Trump is arguing that this trial is unconstitutional and thus he would be even less likely to depart from tradition and appear as a witness.
Despite the historical precedent for presidents not testifying, Raskin made an extraordinary and chilling declaration on behalf of the House of Representatives. He wrote in a letter to Trump that “If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.”
Raskin justified his position by noting that Trump “denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment.” Thus, he insisted Trump needed to testify or his silence is evidence of guilt. Under this theory, any response other than conceding the allegations would trigger this response and allow the House to use the silence of the accused as an inference of guilt.
The statement conflicts with one of the most precious and revered principles in American law that a refusal to testify should not be used against an accused party.
The statement also highlighted the fact that the House has done nothing to lock in testimony of those who could shed light on Trump’s intent. After using a “snap impeachment,” the House let weeks pass without any effort to call any of the roughly dozen witnesses who could testify on Trump’s statements and conduct in the White House. Many of those witnesses have already given public interviews.
Of course, the relative passivity of the House simply shows a lack of effort to actually win this case. The Raskin statement is far more disturbing. The Fifth Amendment embodies this touchstone of American law in declaring that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” It was a rejection of the type of abuses associated with the infamous Star Chamber in Great Britain. As the Supreme Court declared in 1964, it is the embodiment of “many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations.” Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52, 55 (1964).
Central to this right is the added protection that the silence of an accused cannot be used against him in the way suggested by Raskin. There was a time when members of Congress not only respected this rule but fought to amplify it. For example, in 1878, Congress was enacting a law that addressed testimonial rights but expressly stated that the failure of an accused to request to testify “shall not create any presumption against him.”
The Supreme Court has been adamant that the type of inference sought by Raskin is abhorrent and abusive in courts of law. In Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1964), the Court reviewed a California rule of evidence which permitted adverse comment on a defendant’s failure to testify. The California rule sounded strikingly like Raskin’s position and mandated that a defendant’s “failure to explain or to deny by his testimony any evidence or facts in the case against him may be commented upon by the court and by counsel, and may be considered by the court or the jury.” The Court rejected such references or reliance by prosecutors as unconstitutional.
Later in Carter v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that “the privilege to remain silent is of a very different order of importance . ..from the ‘mere etiquette of trials and …the formalities and minutiae of procedure.'” It goes to the most fundamental principles of justice in our legal system.
In the past, when such concerns have been raised, members and pundits have reached for the “anything goes” theory of impeachment. Such principles are dismissed as relevant in the purely “political” process of impeachment. I have long rejected this view. This is not a political exercise. It is a constitutional exercise. These senators do not take the take to act as politicians but to act as constitutional actors in compliance with the standards and procedures laid out for impeachments. It would make this process a mockery if, in claiming to uphold constitutional values, members like Raskin destroy the very foundations of constitutional rights.
Yet, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe (who has routinely favored any interpretation that disfavors Trump) declared Raskin correct promising to use a decision not to testify as evidence of guilt: “If Mr. Trump declines the chance to clear his name by showing up and explaining under oath why his conduct on January 6 didn’t make him responsible for the lethal insurrection that day, it’ll be on him. He can’t have it both ways.” No, it is on us. The House cannot have it both ways in declaring that it is upholding constitutional values while gutting them.
It is true that this is not a criminal trial. It is a constitutional trial. As such, the Senate should try an accused according to our highest traditions and values. That includes respecting the right to remain silent and not to have “inferences” drawn from the fact that (like prior presidents) Trump will not be present at the trial or give testimony.
This is not the first time that reason has been left a stranger in our age of rage. There appears no price too great to pay to impeach or prosecute Trump. Now, the House is arguing against one of the very touchstones of our constitutional system and legal experts are silent. If everything is now politics, this trial is little more than a raw partisanship cloaked in constitutional pretense.
The column also appeared on Fox.com.
Stop being a wuss, JT. You were approached about representing trump, but seem to be relying on your normal tactic of defending him through social influencing on your blog. If you really wanted to jump on his case, you would have.
We all remember Tom Cruise cross examining Jack Nicholson (“….YOU NEED ME ON THAT WALL!!!”) Raskin is just trying to bait trump into testifying. Trump’s ego makes him a sucker. Guarantee you he simmered and thought ‘watch this, I’ll go in and shred that clown’, which is exactly where Raskin wants him. No doubt, trump’s lawyers had to do the hard sell not to testify initially. But trump is just fooling himself, he’s a coward. He’ll avoid it because he knows he’ll perjure himself or just walk into the first trap Raskin et al will set. This is basically the legal version of trump saying at the podium he’d walk with the lynch mutants to the Capitol…, and then bailing.
“Of course, the relative passivity of the House simply shows a lack of effort to actually win this case. The Raskin statement is far more disturbing. The Fifth Amendment embodies this touchstone of American law in declaring that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.””
Trump is a 5th amendment kind of guy. Truth is, it’s been broadcast from the beginning just as it was in trump’s first impeachment. There will be no conviction by repubs in this trial. Several jurors are actual witnesses. The repubs have reached the logical extension of Nixon’s southern strategy and fear the lynch mob voters they’ve created. Done deal. So Raskin is just assessing the odds, and working the angles. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be doing his job.
As far as “snap impeachment” goes, Jon…, maybe shift your thinking to trump being a ‘walking impeachment’. If there was a level playing field trump would’ve been impeached and removed soon into his term based on his own actions alone. He’d have gone down for campaign finance violations, both in the trump/cohen/daniels garbage fire and for stealing $50million from his inauguration fund. Toss some obstruction from the Mueller report in there and he’s gone quickly — but instead, he got protected by the OLC guidelines from Justice.
Besides, Raskin is right. Everyone knows trump is guilty. Repubs know it and just don’t care. Commenters on the blog know it but they just don’t care either because trumpy bear excites their authoritarian boners.
Elvis Bug
There is a difference between representing an individual and representing the law? That line gets blurred by those with TDS. He is no longer President so he is not a threat to the opposition.
I am still trying to figure out why the rules of evidence don’t apply to Trump. Maybe the democrats, aside from their dismal lack of knowledge about the basic tenets of the Constitution, have some superhuman psychic ability to go along with their self declared omnipotence. Or maybe the rules of evidence don’t apply to any individual not in lock step with their chilling agenda.
You need to be anonymous lest the rest of us be able to identify the one with the spirochetes fighting for standing room.
No words can refute that which come forth from the mind of the disturbed, for they hath forged a path from which there is no return to sensibility…
Shakespeare, no…. Freud… no
TDS… YES!!!!
Trump isn’t President so this is all for show. Typical Democrats…Don’t run on anything except NOT TRUMP, and white people are racists and white supremacists!!! (except white progressives who really ARE racist) They are going to rue the day that they played these little games with an angry electorate.
Latest AP poll has Biden at 61% approval. Recent Monmouth poll had Americans favoring impeachment, 56-42%.
I don’t know how angry the electorate is right now.
More importantly, Pelosi begged Republicans to clean up this mess – Amendment 25, force a resignation, make us an offer – and they wouldn’t. It’s a matter of principle, not a desire to focus on the Mango Mussolini driving this and there is no turning back. Don’t forget, barring from future office is a possible outcome as well.
Better check those polls and make sure they are not biased like the 2016 polls were.
You have to remember….Republicans are always under represented in the vast majority of polls.
One must have a conviction before any debarment can be considered……don’t be counting your chickens before they hatch.
As to that 25th Amendment thing….when does Harris decide to pull the plug on Groping Joe’s Life Support machine and move into the White House?
The Clock is ticking on his Dementia problem and other health issues such as the two Brain Surgeries.
Any Woman that will gladly become Wilie Brown’s Mistress to gain advancement is not to be trusted when it comes to stealing the Golden Ring of the Presidency.
“Latest AP poll has Biden at 61% approval.”
Who wants the Chinese having control over our electric grid system? Today they can choke us off from the pharmaceuticals needed by Americans who are ill. Is that good?
Why are we making it easier for the Chinese to get oil so they can pollute the planet? Why are we laying off citizens and threatening disaster of railway explosions while aiding help China?
What does the Chinese funding of Hunter Biden’s firm with $1.5 mean to America?
———–
[The Biden Executive Order] order reverses a previous directive by the Trump administration last May, which found that “foreign adversaries are increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in the United States bulk-power system, which provides the electricity that supports our national defense, vital emergency services, critical infrastructure, economy, and way of life.”[Emphasis added.]
These systems are, of course, highly computerized and the Trump administration’s goal was to prevent the Chinese, America’s greatest geo-political and economic rival, from having their hands in it. Biden’s order strips that protection with the stroke of a pen.
So, where was the constituency for allowing the Chinese access to the market for providing critical equipment to run and manage the US power grid? Who was clamoring to undo protections from cyber-warfare directed against America’s power system?
[B]y cancelling the pipeline, Biden is not preventing any energy production of fossil fuels in Canada. He is simply shifting that consumption to China.
Economically, all Biden’s order does is damage America’s energy production and give the US less control of energy markets, and give China greater leverage.
With this one order, on his first day of work, Biden has given the communist government of China… a more favorable market for buying the oil that makes it the top producer of carbon-dioxide in the world. It is difficult to see how such moves, done unilaterally and without negotiating anything at all in return, make sense to the security of the U.S.
The timing alone raises questions about exactly which supporters Joe Biden was making happy.
Aricle at: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17026/chasing-the-dragon
The same pollsters who told us for months that Susan Collins would lose? (She trailed in every public poll).
I think the China connection is more important than any of these polls.
Turley, impeachments are political acts. Rankin is both a legal scholar and a politician. Guess which role he’s playing here? Hey, the last impeachment trial in the Senate HAD NO WITNESSES! That was a political decision, not a legal one. SUck it up. Not everyone pretends – like you do – to objective and non-partisan legality while somehow ALWAYS siding with the GOP.
Turley forgets that the Supreme Court itself has supported such a notion before. The Supreme Court in 2013 by a 5 to 4 ruling has stated that remaining silent CAN be used as evidence of guilt. This coming from conservative justices no less.
What the congress manager is suggesting is not as outlandish as Turley makes it seem. Trump has a right to refuse to come forth as a witness to defend himself. But the reason he doesn’t want to is because he will be under oath and he can’t lie. He NEEDS to have the ability to lie in order to defend himself. It stands to reason also that a very public admission under oath can really hurt Trump. He’s too incompetent and undisciplined to really defend himself under oath. If he did go defend himself he would immediately start spouting his false claims about the eke election being stolen and would be forced under oath to provide the evidence.
Trump would incriminate himself badly and his supporters wouldn’t be able to defend him, especially when he’s under oath and exposed to the public. That’s why his lawyers couldn’t allow him to be interviewed by Mueller’s team.
The Supreme Court in 2013 by a 5 to 4 ruling has stated that remaining silent CAN be used as evidence of guilt. This coming from conservative justices no less.
You found that scrawled on a stall in a rest room at Will Rogers Park, no?
?? Where is this park Deco, and which stall are you thinking of?
LOS ANGELES’ MOST POPULAR LGBTQ-FRIENDLY BEACH
Santa Monica’s Will Rogers State Beach, Los Angeles’ unofficial LGBTQ beach (with its own LGBTQ section of the beach), is a great place to mix and mingle with LGBTQ locals. This well-kept beach and popular surf spot offers amenities such as volleyball courts, restrooms, gymnastics equipment—and The Marvin Braude Bike Trail, also known as The South Bay Bicycle Trail or The Strand, runs right through it. Will Rogers State Beach is part of the larger Will Rogers State Historic Park, which boasts popular hiking trails such as the two-mile loop to Inspiration Point and the Backbone Trail which heads right into the Santa Monica Mountains.
For more sun, sand and ocean breezes, head to the area of Santa Monica State Beach in front of Dorthy Green Park (where Ocean Park Blvd ends). Located near lifeguard station 26, this spot is a popular LGBTQ hangout. Bonus: popular gay bar The Birdcage – located just inland from this stretch of beach – operates “The Beach Club” here on Saturdays on Sundays, weather permitting.
https://www.santamonica.com/visit-santa-monica/lgbtq-tourists/
OK, thanks Deco. Are you implying SC justices go there, or just that you find interesting graffiti on your visits?
Here’s the ruling –
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-246
Once again we get a link that doesn’t apply. How does that court case pertains to the impeachment against Trump. It is such a far stretch that your argument breaks into two where neither part is of value.
It’s the case Svelaz was talking about, so it applies to Svelaz’s comment.
That you falsely claim otherwise is just part of your ignorance or general dishonesty, Allan.
Anonymous the Stupid, you are promoting the case with the simple linkage. You like to link to things whether there is any connection to the discussion or not. That is ignorance.
S. Meyer,
“ Anonymous the Stupid, you are promoting the case with the simple linkage. You like to link to things whether there is any connection to the discussion or not. That is ignorance.”
He showed you proof of the veracity of my comment. That “simple” linkage was apparently too much for your mind to process. The link to the discussion was in regards to claim in JT’s article that trump not testifying can be construed as an admission of guilt. I posted a relevant case rules by the Supreme Court whose opinion was written by none other than ultra conservative justice Scalia. The crux of the case was that silence CAN be a submission of guilt.
“He showed you proof of the veracity of my comment.”
He showed nothing.
“That “simple” linkage “
So far you haven’t demonstrated a legal linkage and that makes you appear simple.
“silence CAN be a submission of guilt.”
Can be and is are two different things. Once again you don’t know what you are talking about. The SC case and the case under discussion are two different animals.
You should be silent when you don’t know what you are talking about. The second you open your mouth you prove your lack of knowledge.
Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats found no problem lying under Oath…..heck….her Hubby got done for Perjury because he lied under Oath.
Again…Democrats smelling their hand and trying to figure out what Trump is thinking……the Greeks told us long ago how that is fraught with peril.
Just because you say it so….does not in any way make it so no matter how much you wish to believe it. Deal with reality as it is and. not as you want it to be.
“Turley forgets that the Supreme Court itself has supported such a notion before.”
You’re confused (or worse). The Salinas case explicitly contradicts what you’re wishing for.
In the Salinas case, Justice Alito (one of the five) said that “the right to remain silent exists without it being explicitly claimed: when a criminal defendant does not take the stand at trial . . .” By not appearing, Trump is refusing to “take the stand,” and thus his silence cannot be held against him.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chemerinsky_silence_is_not_golden_supreme_court_says
More importantly, the majority in the Salinas case was wrong. That case hinges on what is necessary for an individual to expressly invoke his right to remain silent. By acting on his right to remain silent, Salinas was invoking his right to remain silent. Action is “explicitly invokes.”
Sam, don’t expect any cognizant signs from Svelaz. He is a time waster. He writes for the sake of writing but doesn’t know what he is talking about. He hides what he thinks are his better responses under this alias and uses other aliases for other types of comments.
No principle seems inviolate when it stands in the way of a Trump prosecution.
Turley’s legal blog colloseum has been a great place to observe the clash of principles between Conservatives and anti-Trumpers. Trump continues to be a constitutional Gordian Knot for the Democratic party.
I am interested in Professor Turley’s view of the argument made in the House Managers’ Brief that under Article 1 anyone can be impeached and that Article 2 deals solely with the specific case of the impeachment of civil officials. I think there is a substantial flaw in this reasoning. The standard of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanours is found only in Article 2. Does this mean that under Article 1 others can be impeached and convicted for other things? I think not. If not, then the correct view is that Article 2 defines when impeachment and conviction can occur, and Article 1 defines the procedures and limitations on punishments for any such impeachment and conviction. The statement in Article 2 that an official who is convicted “shall” be removed implies that only current officials, who are capable of being removed, may be impeached and convicted.
Any honest person should ask themselves “What if Obama did what Trump did, would the response be the same?”. If Obama refused to provide his tax returns. If Obama was caught on audio tape bragging about grabbing women by their genitalia? If a photoshopped photo of a black member of Congress were holding an assault rifle pointed at Republicans? Would the response be the same?
I happen to live in Raskin’s district. Never voted for him and never will but it is Gerrymandered enough that he is free to say/do anything and get reelected. If his comments were not so dangerous to our liberties I could laugh off his nonsense.
Gerrymandering in Maryland is particularly egregious as the Democrats have an advantage with six of the eight congressional districts you might draw in the absence of any gerrymandering. (There are three other hypothetical districts in which the Republicans might be able to generate a competitive race).. They gerrymandered it to break up the western Maryland district, being that it was in one of the two sections of the state where the Democrats are at a steep disadvantage. The gerrymandering was made ridiculous in an effort to keep Democratic incumbents from bumping into each other.
Gerrymandering is wrong, regardless of the party that does it.
I object to gerrymandering by both parties.
How about you, Arty, do you object to gerrymandering by both parties?
You object to gerrymandering, but do you offer a solution? No.
Democrats: “Due process? What’s that?”
Inference of guilt:
Silence is evidence of Guilt:
These are all Democrat party favors when celebrating Stalin Day.
Anonymous,
“ Inference of guilt:
Silence is evidence of Guilt:
These are all Democrat party favors when celebrating Stalin Day.”
Nope. Supreme Court justices have ruled that silence can be used as evidence of guilt.
“ The Supreme Court says prosecutors can use a person’s silence against them if it comes before he’s told of his right to remain silent.
The 5-4 ruling comes in the case of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of a 1992 murder. During police questioning, and before he was arrested or read his Miranda rights, Salinas answered some questions but did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon.
Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Salinas appealed, saying his Fifth Amendment rights to stay silent should have kept lawyers from using his silence against him in court. Texas courts disagreed, saying pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Constitution.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/supreme-court-pre-miranda-silence-can-be-used-as-evidence-of-guilt/
Aren’t you the time waster? If someone spends the time to provide something you don’t even acknowledge receiving it.
How does the case in question pertain to the Trump impeachment? You don’t have the slightest idea and are just pretending to act intelligent by copying something you have no understanding of.
As was said, “These are all Democrat party favors when celebrating Stalin Day.”
You either are a Stalinist or don’t know what you are talking about. The only other alternative is for you to explain yourself, but you can’t.
S. Meyer,
“ How does the case in question pertain to the Trump impeachment? ”
It pertains to trump choosing not to testify. Not testifying (remaining silent) can be deemed evidence of guilt. Not actually being guilty, but it can be inferred that his guilty. It’s legally acceptable according to the Supreme Court.
Trump would torpedo himself if he were allowed to testify. He would be under oath and he would be forced to produce proof of his claims. His lawyers won’t let him testify for that reason. Trump’s tendency to run his mouth is guaranteed to earn him a conviction.
Not actually being guilty, but it can be inferred that his guilty.
You’ve summed up in 12 words every accusation made by the Democrats and their Leftist ilk against President Trump and his base over the last 4 years.
Well done!
We understand it has to do with testifying but the use of similar words in one claim doesn’t make another claim true.
“It’s legally acceptable according to the Supreme Court.“
Under what circumstances. You don’t have the slightest idea of what the Supreme Court case was about. You are purveying nonsense.
“It pertains to trump choosing not to testify. Not testifying (remaining silent) can be deemed evidence of guilt.”
Now you’re flaunting your ignorance.
The Salinas case had nothing to do with “testifying.” The *only* facts of that case pertain to an individual’s encounter with law enforcement. The *only* legal issue is: In such an encounter, what is necessary for an individual to expressly invoke his right to silence?
That you wish otherwise, doesn’t make it so.
Pleading or taking the fifth is a legal term used during a criminal investigation or in a court of law. It refers to the fifth amendment of the US constitution which ensures a fair trial and a substantive due process for every citizen. Trump has every right to not testify. This total impeachment is a joke and every citizen who can read knows it. Its all fake, with the only goal by the left, to make sure he never runs again. These events will go down in history as Americas worst of times. 2021, the year America exploded into 2 separate countries all because 1/2 of the country hates one man and all of us who voted for him. I was taught by my parents to never hate but we were very religious southern Baptists. Hate destroys you inside and rarely effects the other person. They just consider you toxic and move on down the road. But today the hateful left wants to put all of us behind bars for life just because we think Trump did a very good job for 4 years. I haven’t given up hope but I am very worried the country I grew up in is finished.
Per SCOTUS, Trump has to actually invoke the 5th. He can’t simply remain silent. “To prevent the privilege against self-incrimination from shielding information not properly within its scope, a witness who “ ‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’ ” at the time he relies on it.”
Scooter….tell us how Trump can be compelled to “take the Fifth” by the Democrats?
Lay out. your case for us will you?
Let’s start with an example shall we….FBI knocks on your door….tell you they would like to ask you some questions….you immediately say hold on…let me call my Lawyer….you do…you come back and hand them the Lawyer’s phone number on a piece of paper and shut the door in their faces…..what happens?
They call the Lawyer….he politely states “I have advised my Client to remain silent and answer no questions.” and hangs up on them…..what do they do?
In Court…the Prosecutor attempts to call the Defendant to the Stand….what does the Defense Counsel say to the Judge and what will the Judge say to the Prosecutor?
Now….jump to the Impeachment….the Democrats (House Managers) in neither Impeachment Trial called for Witnesses…..so how do they force Trump to “take the Fifth” in a Non-Judicial Proceeding?
Don’t talk Bollocks and try to think anyone remotely thinks Trump can be forced to take the Fifth, take the Stand, or personally answer any questions posed by the Democrats in this Kangaroo Court of their making.
“Scooter,” in my 9:49 AM comment, I already linked to the SCOTUS ruling that I just quoted from, so if you want to understand more about the quote, I suggest that you read Justice Alito’s opinion.
As usual the link didn’t apply and presently you provide quotes without context or explanation. Your statement alone is near meaningless.
I also note that the use of “Scooter” appears derogatory. Just wanted you to know.
“Per SCOTUS, Trump has to actually invoke the 5th.”
You, too, are confused.
Per SCOTUS, the right to remain silent is explicitly invoked whenever a defendant refuses to take the stand (as Trump has done) — and *nothing* can be inferred from exercising that right. (See, for example, Alito in the Salinas case.)
There is only one thing going on here: Raskin treating the Senate chamber as his personal Star Chamber.
You’re continually surprised that Democratic politicians and their law professor auxilliary have no principles, merely improvisations which give specious justifications for them getting what they want. You’re surprised. We’re not.
Have a gander at this man’s biography and work history. He’s like a caricature dreamed up by Michael Lind. Red diaper baby, Harvard, married Harvard, law faculty, Maryland legislature, Congress, entire life spent around Washington bar about five years in Boston. That his latest project is promoting a shampeachment more bogus than the last one tells you just what sort of elites we have.
Since Enigma thinks its of great moment that Fred Trump was in 1927 arrested proximate to a Klan disturbance (but never charged with anything), I’ll point out that the subject of this post is the son of Marcus Raskin. Marcus Raskin, in a double act with Richard Barnet, founded the pro-Soviet Institute for Policy Studies in 1962. You don’t have the same access to archival material from the Soviet period as you did 25 years ago, alas. Be amusing to delineate the daisy-chain of cut-outs between Soviet intelligence and papa Raskin’s outfit.
The father is recently deceased but he promoted a Marxist outlook attacking capitalism. I don’t know where on that spectrum the son resides but I do see a lot of those on this blog that have difficulty understanding the difference between Marxist philosophy and capitalism.
No, Marxism was not the staff ideology of the Institute for Policy Studies, though some of the contributors to their working papers were foreign reds. What IPS was during the Cold War was an advocate for Soviet interests in international affairs, mostly via agitprop campaigns on behalf of 3d world reds. They had other irons in the fire, of course, e.g. attacking multi-nationals. Note that Philip Agee was housed at their Transnational Institute in the Netherlands for a time and the Chilean Communist Orlando Letelier had a berth at IPS at the time he was assassinated.
“No, Marxism was not the staff ideology of the Institute for Policy Studies”
Art, I was careful to stay away from making that claim. Instead I provided a narrow viewpoint, “he promoted a Marxist outlook attacking capitalism.”
Oh, they had working papers on political economy, but their primary book was PR for foreign reds.
“Oh, they had working papers on political economy, but their primary book was PR for foreign reds.”
I think that is clear. They wished to undermine American foreign policy and public policies which according to them was caused by capitalism.
Some on the Blog might favorably remember JFK and be committed Democrats based on their support for him. They should remember that Raskin and Barnet, the founders, worked in the Kennedy administration and were disenchanted. They left and worked against the American system of government.
I think they were more Marxist inclined than you might believe.
They are partly funded by the Soros Open Society Institute along with funding by other philanthropic groups that I frequently hear announced on PBS.
They wished to undermine American foreign policy and public policies which according to them was caused by capitalism.
I would refer you to Paul Hollandar’s Political Pilgrims as well as Thos. Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. These people are hostile to businessmen and do not understand them, but that’s just one feature of their malignancy.
Fox News just fired Lou Dobbs last night just because he supported Trump. The political cancer in America is FATAL. Just like conjoined twins. That is one of the longest and most difficult surgeries and sadly one often dies to save the other. The United states is suffering a horrible slow painful death. Why keep suffering? Let’s just get the surgery over with. Spit the US into 2 parts/new countries and move on down the road.
Harry, th US will not be split up. The Republicans in general do not represent your sympathies. One has to rely on the left combined with a significant portion of Republicans shoot themselves in the foot and the American people respond positively. That response has to come quickly before the generations that know freedom disappear.
It is very easy to control populations when you control their checks, healthcare etc. so they can remain satisfied and work.
Apparently Amazon in some parts of the nation is giving people a view of the future with much worse work conditions than we expect today. If that is so maybe we will see some awakening from that end. The report I heard looks like not only is it sending our jobs to China, but it is bringing Chinese working conditions here. I don’t know because I just saw one report.
Dissatisfaction can easily be remedied with alcohol and drugs freely available in American society so I expect the left not to do much about such vices in the immediate future though totalitarian control can be unpredictable.
Incredibly short sighted from both a military and financial perspective. This is no longer the 1860’s. The southern breakaways would be at immediate disadvantage from border wars on both the south and the north. And the split between urban vs. suburban/ rural split within would be a beast to contend with. Think Ukraine vs. Russia re border wars. Afghanistan re urban vs. rural (since the suburbs are trending more urban). This was definitely not the case in the 1800’s.
Not to mention the states that take more financially from the federal government than they provide are all in the south.
All in all, a good pipedream for when you’re liquored up watching right wing media, but not able to withstand contact with modern reality.
Elvis Bug
“Not to mention the states that take more financially from the federal government than they provide are all in the south.”
I don’t know the answer, but statements like that are meaningless without data and that is the problem with the left, they create data that never existed and never will.
This is a typical statement from the left as there is no mention of how the calculation was performed or the timeframe. I expect this type of unenlightened statement to continue in an effort to bailout NYS and NYC. As wonderful as NYC is one is noting an exodus of those well heeled individuals elsewhere. There are good reasons and leftism is one of those reasons.
I wonder if the calculations include all the money that originates from Washington such as Welfare, Medicaid, etc. Does that include Washington’s expenditures on universities and public schools, the costs to protect NYC from terrorism, the harbor and land. Does that include the transportation system that benefits the south with cash but NYC from starvation? There are so many variables to that equation that it is almost a fool’s errand to actually estimate the numbers but the left will do so in order to negligently pursue their goals.
And what you’re seeing re Dobbs is just the networks coming to terms with op ed anchors having lied their little bottoms off for trumpy bear. They’re gigantic lawsuit risks now that the companies most affected by their lies turn the tables and sue them stupid.
Elvis Bug
I have read Thomas Sowell’s Vision… I assume the “These people are hostile to businessmen and …”. I assume you are talking about IPS not Sowell. Marxism is hostile to capitalist businessmen. They blame capitalism for American foreign policy. The Vietnam War played a big part and they had access or control of the Pentagon Papers before the Pentagon Papers were released.
I am not sure what you point you are trying to make.
My point is that the babble about Marxism should cease. Very few of these people are animated by Marxist social theory or understand it at all. They are recriminatory, self-aggrandizing, contemptuous, and a half-dozen other disagreeable things. What Sowell calls ‘the unconstrained vision’ is rampant among them. They are not Marxists.
Have a gander at the leftoid posters here. There is no Marxism and only Paint Chips and Enigma show the slightest interest in policy (and only a slight interest).
I have a dear cousin who is the sort of person who might sympathize with Antifa though he doesn’t write about it. He’s a husband and father and hasn’t any time to go traveling around breaking stuff. His default occupation is writing instructor, though he does other things when he cannot find teaching jobs. (Among his recent employments was a stint in an Amazon warehouse and a stint with a coffee importer). He doesn’t know Marxism from tiddlywinks. He does fancy Howard Zinn is the bees knees, but that’s part of his general hostility to a menu of bogies.
“My point is that the babble about Marxism should cease. Very few of these people are animated by Marxist social theory or understand it at all. “
That is true as the definition of Marxism changes with the author. Sowell has commented on this and even said he doubted some of the authors ever completely read Das Capital. On the other hand we cannot discard the term since many leaders on the left were trained as Marxists, whatever that means. The three from BLM admit to being Marxists so we have to take them at their word. What flavor of Marxism is always a question but it tells us a good deal of their nature and why they are not acceptable. They are totalitarian in nature, potentially to the extreme, whether they believe the basic dream of Marx and Engles.
“They are recriminatory, self-aggrandizing, contemptuous, and a half-dozen other disagreeable things. … They are not Marxists. … Have a gander at the leftoid posters here. There is no Marxism and only Paint Chips and Enigma show the slightest interest in policy (and only a slight interest).
How can they be Marxist in the first place. They don’t even know what it is though Enigma might have a slight idea. Paint Chips and all his aliases that are responded to on this blog has little to no knowledge of policy though he thinks he is an expert.
The rest like Anonymous the Stupid, Holmes, Molly G do not seem focused at all on theory or policy. They focus on their particular ball team at the time and want to be part of the crowd. The Nazi’s counted on that. They look for what benefits them, not what benefits all. They are totally self-centered.
Marxism is a dream. There are a lot of posters on this blog that love dreams.
We’re all open to talking policy, Arty. We’re just not going to agree. That doesn’t equal “no interest” in policy. To quote COOL HAND LUKE…, what we have is a failure to communicate. This may or may not be problematic going forward. I mean, you may not be as detestable in your real life as you appear here, but still I’d tend to hold back my thoughts on, say, sustainable energy or tax policy, from you here because your online presence *is* so detestable.
So live and let live i say. i laugh just as much at your beliefs as you do mine (probably more, actually). And it’s not important at all because the real place to determine policy is within actual policy making forums. This comments section is just about drinking piss warm beer with a thumb up the butt.
Elvis Bug
RASKIN and his associates are nothing but partisan who already convicted Trump, Trump is guilty since the day he announced his run for President. The DEM’s are looking for a show trial. The DEM’s hate the US Constitution it gets in their way. The DEM’s, the Left and MSM can’t get Trump out of their minds. They live in Fear of Trump and his 75 million supporters and fear Trump will return in 2024
To impeach is to remove from office. Wait a second. He’s already out of office.
If he don’t admit then you must acquit.
Trump won’t testify. Trump will block the testimony of any and all persons with knowledge of his actions. Trump will refuse to turn over documents. Trump will try his case in the press and send surrogates to do the same but will block those same surrogates from testifying. No other defendant has this kind of power. So Professor how does one hold a trial. Oh yea, don’t hold a trial because Trump is above the law. The bedrock of this country is that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
There are a number of evidentiary assumptions that can be made with regard to the destruction and withholding of evidence that can come into play here and other factual issues that show that the trial in the Senate is not a typical trial. One being that a number of the Senators who will sit as the jurors are in fact accomplices. The other is that jurors never have the right to threaten the prosecutors or demand that no witnesses be called. To pretend that we are looking at a typical trial is simply wrong and, Professor, you know it!
No one has said that only a concession will be accepted. Testifying at trial is not a concession of guilt! Trump has the right to defend himself and will in the press but will refuse to stand up in public under oath to deny his guilt. What defendant would be able to do that? Would the young man accused or stealing get away with telling the PROSECTOR how the case could be tried? Can the Senate issue a gag order?
This is not your typical trial.
“Trump will block the testimony of any and all persons with knowledge of his actions.”
We see how the left is blocking free speech. How do you propose Trump will block testimony?
Raskin’s logic here is akin to him being charged for his son’s death, simply because he did nothing to prevent it… neither intelligence, logic, nor common sense under the law is displayed by these dangerous Leftists
Trump isn’t charged with doing nothing to prevent the attack on the Capital and the murder a police officer. He is charged with inciting the attack that is very different. Incitement to riot is a criminal offense under federal law.
and the murder a police officer.
It might have occurred to you to ask why we hadn’t seen the autopsy report or a summary of security camera footage in re Ofc. Sicknick. Here’s an admission against interest on the subject
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charges/index.html
Pity you never grew a brain.
Critical thinking is not required for leftists to comment. They feel entitled to create junk that the rest of us have to deal with.
Running late to the party are you…..the Police Officer was murdered. The Coroner’s Report stated there was no blunt force trauma and the investigation has not determined if the Officer was injured by a Protester.
Now as you were saying……
They can work backward from the time he collapsed in the division office and identify in succession each camera whose field of vision he passed through. They’ve had four weeks to identify an injury done him. They’re speculating about pepper spray and bear spray because they have no evidence anyone hit him at all (and they do have his text message to his family saying he’d been pepper sprayed twice). It’s a reasonable inference that this particular story is a leak to the regime propaganda outlet to prepare their public for the case to be closed without an indictment. Note, Kyle Rittenhouse is under indictment, manifest self-defense claims recorded on video notwithstanding. Derek Chauvin is under indictment, even though the autopsy report shows that the man he ‘killed’ had a fatal level of fentanyl in his femoral blood. They are signaling that, as of now, they have nothing.
Where is John Roberts on the constitutionality of this dog and pony show? Might as well let Patrick Leahy be a supreme court justice and take robert’s place. What a coward.
Roberts found no constitutional basis, therefore isn’t participating.
There is precedent that Raskin could just put stack stones on Trump until he admits to guilt.
Roberts isn’t participating because he’s afraid of the same people that attacked the Capital. He is a coward. Imagine if every criminal court judge refused to hold trials because the gang member’s crew was known to threaten people.
That is stupid. He is not participating because a very credible argument, which I believe he agrees with, that this whole process is unconstitutional. He is not being intimidated by a hand full of idiots!
That statement is laughable. I don’t like Roberts but he gave a good reason. Instead of telling us why that reasoning was bad you provided us with junk.
“he gave a good reason”
No, he didn’t. SCOTUSblog: “The Supreme Court had no comment regarding Roberts’ absence from the second impeachment trial.”
His non appearance is a good reason. He doesn’t have to spell it out. The Constitution says when he presides. Not presiding is a statement.
He isn’t participating because he isn’t required to participate, since Trump is no longer in office.
When the Good Professor said this…..he hit the nail squarely upon the head.
“This is not the first time that reason has been left a stranger in our age of rage. There appears no price too great to pay to impeach or prosecute Trump. Now, the House is arguing against one of the very touchstones of our constitutional system and legal experts are silent. If everything is now politics, this trial is little more than a raw partisanship cloaked in constitutional pretense.”.
The Democrat Impeachments of Trump are not about the Constitution, Due Process, evidence, testimony, or the Law…..they are both pure partisan politics.
We know how this latest bit of political kabuki shall play out….Trump shall prevail yet again because the Democrats are so blinded by their hate they cannot grasp the evil they are doing to our Nation.
What is interesting is they are scoring an Own Goal by their silly antics and the very opposite of what they hope to gain is being hand delivered all wrapped up in a pretty Bow….to their intended Victim.
Not only did they get confused with the axiom of Ready, Aim, Shoot…..they shot, missed the mark, and were not ever ready in either of the Impeachments.
We shall have no pity for them as they twist in the breeze on they own Petard.
Raskin was part of The Little Rascals back when he was a kid. He’s the one who said: I wish Cotton was a monkey.