Below is my column in USA Today on the decision to dismiss the Florida case against former president Donald Trump. The decision will soon force the Eleventh Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court in the wonderland of Special Counsels.
Here is the column:
In “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” the Mad Hatter asks Alice, “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” It turned out that the Mad Hatter had no better idea than Alice.
In her 93-page order, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon seemed to face the same dilemma when she asked special counsel Jack Smith why a private citizen is like a confirmed U.S. attorney. On Monday, she dismissed the criminal case against former President Donald Trump over his handling of classified documents, ruling that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful.
Cannon has struggled with the assertion of Attorney General Merrick Garland that he may pick private citizens to serve as special counsels and exercise greater authority than a federal prosecutor without any appointment under the Constitution or clear statutory authority.
The Biden administration has argued that even asking about its authority is as absurd and frivolous as asking about ravens and writing desks. It notes that most courts have dismissed these claims with little argument or consideration.
Yet, Cannon kept coming back to the question: Why is a private citizen like a confirmed U.S. attorney?
Justice Clarence Thomas raised same issue in Trump immunity case
It is the same question asked by Justice Clarence Thomas in his recent concurrence in the Trump immunity case.
“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,” Thomas wrote. “The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”
Someone just did. Cannon found the question neither frivolous nor easy.
After all, we have a demanding constitutional process for the presidential appointment of a U.S. attorney and the Senate confirmation of that nominee.
Yet, the Justice Department has argued that Garland can either follow that constitutional process or just grab any private citizen (like former top Justice Department official Jack Smith) to exercise more power than a federal prosecutor. Moreover, he can make such unilateral appointments by the gross if he wants.
Cannon also noted that the special counsel is pulling funds from the Treasury ($12 million by the latest count) without any clear appropriation from Congress.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Yet, Smith is pulling money under a permanent indefinite appropriation reserved for an “independent counsel.”
He is not an independent counsel, however, because the Independent Counsel Act expired in 1999. This means Smith must show some “other law” granting him this authority. The court said that he failed to do so.
‘Very little oversight or supervision’
Cannon noted that “there does appear to be a ‘tradition’ of appointing special-attorney-like figures in moments of political scandal throughout the country’s history. But very few, if any, of these figures actually resemble the position of Special Counsel Smith. Mr. Smith is a private citizen exercising the full power of a United States Attorney, and with very little oversight or supervision.”
With that, the judge dismissed the case and, with it, 40 charges stemming from Trump’s handling of documents marked classified after leaving office and allegedly obstructing the Justice Department’s investigation.
From the outset, I have maintained that the Florida case was the greatest threat to Trump. Where the other cases had serious constitutional, statutory and evidentiary flaws, the Florida case was based on well-established laws and precedent.
It was not the law but the lawyer who proved to be the problem. Jack Smith was himself the argument that would bring down his case − at least for now.
The special counsel said Monday that he will appeal, but the decision makes any trial in Florida before the election virtually impossible. That in itself is a huge victory for Trump.
Smith still has a second case in Washington, D.C., with an ideal judge and jury pool. However, the Supreme Court recently ripped the wings off that case by first limiting the use of obstruction charges (which constitute half of the four counts against Trump) and then declared that Trump is either absolutely immune or presumptively immune on a wide array of acts and evidence impacting the indictment.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has proved very favorable to Smith in moving away obstacles to try Trump before the election. However, perhaps for that reason, the Supreme Court went out of its way to narrow her range of movement on these questions.
Thus, even if Chutkan refuses to reconsider the constitutional issues on Smith’s appointment, she will be hard pressed to hold a trial before the election and even harder pressed to make it stick on appeal.
In the end, the appointment question has good-faith arguments on both sides, which Judge Cannon acknowledged in her detailed opinion. She could be reversed on appeal, but this issue seems likely to go to the Supreme Court.
Immunity case could go up to Inauguration Day
Convicting Trump either before or after the election seems to be Smith’s overriding priority. The Washington Post reported this month that the special counsel is prepared to pursue the conviction of Trump until Jan. 20, when Trump would take the oath of office if elected in November.
The problem for Smith is now another question worthy of the Mad Hatter: What can crawl and fly with only hands but no legs or wings?
The answer is the one thing that Smith no longer has: time.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Meanwhile:
“Georgia court will hear Trump’s case to disqualify Fani Willis one month after presidential election”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-court-hear-trumps-case-disqualify-fani-willis-one-month-after-presidential-election
“Should a prosecutor be disqualified for intentionally and repeatedly violating ethical and professional canons to prejudice defendants for personal or political gain? Yes,” the brief argues. “Is disqualification necessary when a prosecutor testifies falsely, conceals misconduct, and creates ‘an odor of mendacity’ that results in a ‘significant appearance of impropriety?’ Undoubtedly so. If this prosecutor deflects attention from her misconduct by claiming on national television that the defendants are dishonest racists for bringing the truthful accusations to light, could anyone have confidence in the impartiality of the prosecutor’s actions? Absolutely not,” it states.
Translation: Another Anti-Trump lawfare scheme bites the dust — aka Another reason for another democrat assassination attempt. Stay tuned.
As always, Turley and his hired trolls are 8 miles into nowhere, trying to peddle a “book” while completely oblivious to the fact that a Civil War is beginning in the US.
Just look at Christopher Steele’s call to arms virtually simultaneous with shutdown of the worldwide web immediatedly after Trump’s convention speech last night, which came on the heels of rhe failed assassination attempt, which came on the heels of the NY judge wanting to sentence Trump to prison — a prison where the Secret Service that oculdn’t protect Trump in public last weekend certainly won’t even TRY to protect him from a Jeffrey Epstein “suicide.”
If you can’t listen to what Matt Taibbi and Walter Kern point out for an hour in this link, at least listen to the beginning of this final segment of their coverage of the Republican Convention:
https://www.youtube.com/live/w1U47fr0T7M
The US is now entering what is most likely to be the craziest time in its history — certainly the craziest time within the lives of anyone still living. Better start paying attention to what’s actually happening. Time to stop staring at the magician’s right hand and notice what his left hand is doing.
^^^hired troll
Sure. I’m a “hred troll” because I’m talking about important NEWS instead of trying to help Turley sell his stupid “book.”
Hired troll^^^^
Why dont you go to an “important news” site then, troll?
No one invited you here. Turley didnt ask you what you want to discuss.
What a narcissist.
Why on earth would anyone put scare quotes around “book”? Are you seriously suggesting that it’s not actually a book at all?!
Garland and Biden’s rationale is simple as it is obvious – Garland can appoint political hit men whose first loyalty is to Biden, rather than those who have been approved by congress and (officially anyway) deemed worthy of marshaling the USA’s unlimited resources to crush defendants by hook or by crook.
Hear hear
I disagree with Professor Turley. The MAL case was legally very weak and reaked of selective and malicious prosecution, and possibly entrapment.
.
Was President Clinton charged?
.
Was President Obama charged?
.
Was Vice President Pence charged (had no declassification authority)?
.
Was Senator/Vice President Biden charged (definitely had no reclassification authority)?!
I do not know where this assassination attempt leads, but I asked an unanswered question earlier.
It is said the shooter wasn’t a marksman, but he fired multiple times, striking numerous people. However, two were on-target headshots despite the rushed and anxious situation. That leaves an open question that I am hoping someone can close. Two headshots, coincidence or something else?
And as I have said, if it were meant to be done and done right, a large caliber chest shot would have been the ticket. The odds of success increased 10 fold or more.
S. Meyer,
Watching the vids, listening to the audio with a pair of headphones, takes first shot, clips Trump’s ear, takes a second shot and then a third by which time Trump is ducking for cover and SS moves in. A pause. Then five rapid fire shots, with a sixth and last one clearly a different caliber taken by the counter sniper, killing the Act Blue donor.
Upstate, how easy is it to make two headshots without live experience firing rapidly? Some said he was not a good marksman. How did he get so good? It sounds strange to me, but I don’t have much experience with guns and rifles, especially when shooting at live targets.
S. Meyer,
For someone not properly trained, under pressure, rapid fire very difficult.
I have yet to read any details about the rifle, if it was scoped, the ammunition itself. The zero on the scope or sights could of been off, wind deflected the rounds. We know he was in the prone, but no details if he had support like a bipod, even a sling or was he shooting off his elbows.
“For someone not properly trained, under pressure, rapid fire very difficult.”
Two headshots become very coincidental because, according to some reports, he wasn’t a good shot.
You talk about things that make the shooter more accurate. I have no idea how much those things cost and if they were affordable to him. Why would he buy such accessories? Where would he use them?
He didn’t know long in advance when the President was coming.
The two headshots from a reportedly poor marksman make me wonder. Coincidence, or did he have help?
I answered previously.
First of all, he MISSED the first head shot, in case you hadn’t heard.
The second head shot hit a man who was moving to cover his wife. It was random.
He didnt aim and shoot another dude in the head. Everyones heads were moving.
You may have previously responded, but I don’t read all the stupid comments from ignorant and drunk people, especially anonymous ones.
“First of all, he MISSED the first head shot, in case you hadn’t heard.”
He missed Trump because a stationary target unpredictably moved (you are not well informed). The trajectory was on track to kill the President with a headshot.
“The second head shot hit a man who was moving to cover his wife. It was random”.
This is another ignorant response since we don’t know if the man was in movement when the assassin aimed.
“He didnt aim and shoot another dude in the head. Everyone’s heads were moving”
Two headshots are enough for me to ask questions, but you are too dumb to think. Make sure you stay away from the rubbing alcohol.
S. Meyer,
Mental Exercise.
While out watering the livestock this morning, I came up with this:
The average human head is 10 inches in diameter. Trump is a big, guy. Lets call it 12 inches.
Reports of the distance from the shooter to Trump varies from 130 yards to 148 yards. Lets go with the more extreme of 148.
Lets scale that down to 30 yards.
So, 12 over 148, X over 30, cross multiply, and divide to solve for X.
Comes out to 2.4 inches at 30 yards.
Draw a circle 2.4 inches in diameter. Then put a small line to the right of the circle. That represents what would be Trump’s ear.
Using a .22LR semi-auto rimfire rifle with a low powered scope, and white box ammunition, run in place for one minute to simulate the effort to climb the ladder, low crawl to position, the stress. Then dive down on the rifle, from the prone, in 10 seconds, acquire the target and shoot the LINE, not the circle.
That would represent our Blue Anon leftists “staged” event.
Check this analysis with extensive second by second commentary and videos on the attempted assassination by the Act Blue supporter. Bill Ackman forwarded on his account
https://x.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1814300337299165562
“He missed Trump because a stationary target unpredictably moved (you are not well informed). The trajectory was on track to kill the President with a headshot.”
His head “unpredictably moved”? LOL Exactly. Heads unpredictably move. Thats what they do. Thats why a head shot is a poor choice for an amateur. He should have been aiming at Trumps right nipple at that angle and range. Trump would be dead now. Period.
And his head only slightly moved in the instance between the shot and contact. If his head had not made that miniscule turn, the impact would have been behind Trumps right ear. Do you really think that is where he was aiming??? At that angle, he should have aimed at Trumps right eye. So the shot was off by 3 inches.
The man in the stands that was hit in the head was 20 or 30 yards from Trump. He is hit with the second barrage of fire that was clearly not aimed.
My issue is two headshots. You like to hear yourself talk but fail to stay focused. Your response is not bright; it is ignorant.
You can insult me all you want. But its your issue that is ignorant. The fatal headshot was 20 yards from trump. Are you seriously suggesting that some other shooter shot some random dude in the crowd? There were 2 others injured not head shots. Were there 4 shooters?
Ok lets go with that.
There are a lot of unanswered legitimate questions. Yours is not one. I’m sorry if that offends you.
“You can insult me all you want”
You prove yourself imbecilic without help. You cannot think past your nose.
“Are you seriously suggesting that some other shooter shot some random dude in the crowd? “
No.
On the contrary, you’re the one behaving like an imbecile. Or as i prefer to say, a spastic idiot. I’ve done quite a bit of thinking, not just for myself, but for you as well.
You keep making up some scenario where the guy hit in the head was anything more than sheer random bad luck.
He also attempted a shot that someone properly instructed would not have. He also used a caliber that someone “helped” would not have.
“You keep making up some scenario where the guy hit in the head was anything more than sheer random bad luck.”
I question if one lone assassin accomplished the hit by himself. The answer doesn’t require two shooters.
A brain the size of an amoeba examines the superficial facts and takes a surface view of them so that the first answer that comes to mind is his answer that never changes. That describes you.
Two headshots were one of many facts that made one suspicious. Two neurons do not permit complex thinking.
Listen to you. What a smart boy. What other concerns have you? I just explained the two “head shots”, one missed and one random. How is that suspicious, except to someone making shit up?
Why dont you spit out what your extra brain cells are telling you, dip shit, and stop projecting on me?
If there were another shooter, and he was someone who knew wtf they were doing, Trump would be dead. I have explained this several times in terms even you could understand. A large caliber shot to the chest. Dead.
You give credence to those who say never argue with a drunk or an idiot with a maximum of two neurons. You qualify for both.
Listen to Ron Johnson’s interview provided by Young. You will see more variables, but you can’t process that much information with only two neurons.
Ron Johnson was also making shit up. Just like you did.
There were no 2 “head shots”. there wasn’t even one.
This was the work of a rank amateur. If there were anyone else involved, they were also rank amateurs.
Given the oppotrtunity that day, Trump should be DEAD.
“Ron Johnson was also making shit up.”
Ron Johnson was reporting what he heard. You are too stupid to distinguish between gathering facts and concluding.
There is no question that something terrible happened and no question that a lot of answers are missing, but you pretend you are bright. Keep fooling yourself.
It’s reasonable from the distance in fact. The head is a large target.
The head is not a large target, because it moves unpredictably. The chest does not.
From the nose to the ear is 3 inches.
The average AR in 5.56 has a MOA of 1.5 to 2 when the barrel is new.
So thats 1” off already. A 10mph wind makes the drift at 130 as much as 2”.
Thats a possible miss even if fired from a bench rest.
There is a reason that many of the best trained use a double tap; chest and then head.
Upstate
Thanks for taking the time to listen and post your findings.
George W
Try a sniper porn website.
I don’t visit porn sites because they are likely a waste of time. Did you have a sniper porn website in mind?
He wasn’t a good enough shot for his HS rifle team, but some time later he joined a gun club and was on the range quite a bit. Practice makes perfect, or at least it makes one better at what one is trying to do. Right? In fact, Crooks was practicing at the range prior to the assassination attempt.
Thank you. Your comment leads me to two questions. How good a shot was he? What was his reason to practice shooting?
S. Meyer,
It is one thing to practice on a nice, controlled, range, known distance, stationary target, from a bench.
It is something else after climbing a ladder, low crawling across a roof, taking a impromptu position, under pressure and take the shot.
Thank you Upstate. These things make me concerned that there was more than just the kid.
Witness saw the kid take all 8 shots. There are also videos. You can even see him get whacked if you search hard enough.
Do some web searching. It will save you needless speculation.
There are many aspects to my question. You address only one of them, and even then, you made a fool of yourself. Read more, Drink less.
My reply seems to have gone into cyberspace so I will repeat it.
There are many aspects to my question. You address only one of them, and even then, you made a fool of yourself. Read more, Drink less.
It went in the garbage where it belonged. Now its back.
For you, that means it is lunchtime.
SMeyer, it’s unlikely your question will be answered soon, at least not “officially”. If a prominent member of Team Blue had been targeted we’d already know, via an eager media (and long before six days passed) the make and model of the weapon, the caliber of the cartridge, and the motive of the shooter. The longer ‘they’ wait to release this information the less trustworthy and believable it will be. “They” know this too, they simply don’t care that we know they know that.
JAFO, I agree.
“SMeyer, it’s unlikely your question will be answered soon,”
What question is that?
Jonathan: I am a little bit late for work today. But prior to getting to work, I want to ensure everybody knows that it is Cheap Fake politics to accuse President Biden and Attorney General Garland of being police state fascists who used legal mechanisms to retaliate and spy on congressional staff and whistleblowers.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/doj-wants-hide-why-it-spied-congressional-staff-whistleblower-groups
D Mc LIGHTEREDKNOT More of that Biden Garland DOJ, FBI, CIA corruption will be disclosed after DT takes office Jan 20, 2025. So you head on in to work and assiduously retain that paycheck for time being. Would you care for the fact I explained why the Biden handlers allowed JB to go onto that Debate platform? Yep, they were ready to disclose to the people just how physically and mentally incompetent JB was, and mission accomplished. Now the Big Dem Schumer has spoken and another mission accomplished.
Dear Mr. Turley, appreciate GEB’s wit and his writing! The Left thought they had finished Mr. Trump. Now their man, Mr. Biden is on the ropes with Covid following other disastrous interviews. Who would have thought? More of his party is asking him to step aside. Word is out that Ms. Harris is looking for a running mate. (Has she thought about Willie Brown?) Had anyone suggested this current scenario a few short weeks ago, they would have called a goof ball.
My question is this, if Smith’s appointment is unlawful, then is he able to appeal the decision as a US attorney, or will the DOJ have to do it themselves? Smith would seem to currently lack the standing to do so as a prosecutor by the dismissal.
IMHO – Neither Smith, or his SC staff, can write or argue any appeal of the Florida case, because a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final judgment that declared the attorney for the government who brought the criminal case is not legitimate or authorized member of the criminal law process (i.e. Smith is an imposter).
Think of person in black and white car with flashing lights, wearing a police uniform and badge and carrying a gun… looks like a real cop, but it’s really a wannabe or vigilante).
The government can file an appeal of the judgment that dismissed the case, but Smith and his staff would be in contempt of court if they tried to represent the government in an appeal, because until the appellate reverses the lower court, the lower court ruling is the law of the case.
I said this a week ago when idiots like Svelaz George claimed “Smith will appeal”.
Uh, no he wont.
I agree with you. It’s a Catch-22 for the DOJ: If Smith shows up in the 11 Circuit with an appeal in hand, the Court should dismiss the appeal immediately upon its filing, because it is the law of the case. If a DOJ attorney or a new properly authorized SC shows up with an appeal in hand, the Court could possibly dismiss the appeal upon its filing because of mootness of the issue… because the Government – by filing the appeal – has demonstrated that it has an adequate remedy at law to re-file the case with a properly authorized official to serve as SC.
Garland certainly painted himself into a corner. I’ll have a heartfelt guffaw when the 11th and SCOTUS tell him he doesn’t have standing to appeal Cannon’s decision…”You didn’t assign a Senate Confirmed attorney to the case. No Standing for you. Lower court decision stands.”
I agree with you in result only – but technically speaking – Smith having “standing” isn’t the legal issue to be decided on appeal. The federal government has “standing” to bring a criminal case on behalf of the people of the US, and government has standing to appeal an adverse judgment if the lower court was in error.
In this case, Smith was – in effect – deemed to be an imposter, pretending to be a properly authorized official of the government with the capacity and authority to prosecute a criminal case. In my opinion, he is nothing more than a private citizen with a Bar card, and MG waived a magic wand over his Smith’s head, casting an illusory spell of granting the full force and authority of the DOJ for Smith to wield at his pleasure.
Way back when the statute was in place a fellow by the name of Cisneros paid off Medlar . Medlar was his paramour. She got prison time. I’m afraid I’ve forgotten what kind of public official Cisneros was.
Garland gave the no greenlight in Hur’s prosecution of Biden and rightly so under Janet Reno’s guidelines for special counsels.
@Anonymous: Re: “IMHO – Neither Smith, or his SC staff, can write or argue any appeal of the Florida case…” Though a SCOTUS ruling would certainly be preferable, Andrew McCarthy opined that he is puzzled as to why Garland did not hand the case over to a lawfully appointed U.S. attorney with the DOJ in Florida who could prosecute the case with Smith acting in a subordinate role rather than challenging the ruling up the chain. Such a turn over could be done within a weeks time
ZZ, a question from a total know nothing: since Smith has been deemed an unconstitutional special counsel, ie. a private citizen pretending to be a SC, would there be any sort of “fruit of the poison tree” barrier to using any of his work product in furthering this case? Does anything he states about the case evidence become hearsay? Can the actual evidence gathered by a fraudulent officer of the court be admissable?
These are all valid question that beckon for answers.
Note that the prosecution of a former president, itself, was unprecedented.
The legal challenge of a special counsel was unprecedented, and the ruling
that granted the dismissal of the dox case on the grounds of an unconstitutional appointment
of a DOJ lawyer was also unprecedented. Logically then, there will be legal loose ends that need tying together.
By the way, I agree totally with Judge Cannon’s ruling, and, as I stated in an earlier comment, if one also
considers the unchallenged, unlawful Mueller appointment (for similar constitutional defects) that commenced
in the Spring of 2017, whose legal and political goal was to create an impotent presidency, well then,
any secret investigation of a President by his own DOJ that intends to decapitate him, BETTER DARN WELL
COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION IN ALL ITS PARTICULARS, FIRST. That is the important meaning of Cannon’s ruling.
If Garland and Smith acted unlawfully, are they not personally liable for any harm that can be claimed for their actions? Could Trump the private citizen not have the standing to sue them personally to recover legal fees incurred from this unlawful prosecution? Do American taxpayers have a claim personally against Garland and Smith to recover monies unlawfully spent? I don’t think that qualified immunity from prosecution protects a governmental official from damages caused by the unlawful acts of those officials.
$12M to Smith, $6B to Ukraine, etc etc, the biden criminal administration does what it is designed to do – loot.
Vincente: Surely you jest! Accountability in government? That is so ‘yesterday’.
While Lois Lerner was the public face of the IRS targeting of conservative groups, it was Jack Smith working the lawfare angle. He has been an unaccountable hitman for the Regime. He shouldn’t have a law license, let alone a public paycheck. Unless that was income earned from a prison laundry.
While Lois Lerner was the public face of the IRS targeting of conservative groups, it was Jack Smith working the lawfare angle.
Since the day Garland retrieved Jack Smith from Europe where he was hiding in disgrace after SCOTUS threw out his prosecution and conviction of Governor McDonnell and his wife and called him “a threat to our separation of powers” to name him to go after Trump in the exact same way as he went after Governor McDonnell, I have been baffled that not a single Republican – especially those who were in office in 2016 when that SCOTUS decision was handed down – have sat completely silent about his known record.
I have been baffled that not a single Republican – especially those who were in office in 2016 when that SCOTUS decision was handed down – have sat completely silent about his known record.
They are afraid of getting in the crosshairs of the Regime.
If Smith is an imposter (See my comment above), then: Imposter = No Official Capacity = No Qualified Immunity. QED
The penalty for those and other unlawful acts of those officials should be forefeiture of their taxpayer-paid pensions to the accused/defendants. Every. Time.
Qualified Immunity
Why Smith is still receiving a paycheck? The wheels of government run slowly, hence the status quo prevails. It is not in the interests of the current administration, at all levels, to intervene. Certainly not the AG. To the great disappointment of many, Meese’s amicus was brilliantly researched and crafted, as was Cannon’s opinion. Garland and his minions will hopefully be obliged to defer to the SCOTUS whose final determination in these matters, as with ‘Chevron’, will be a welcome regulator of individuals in government and the law, who are given to explore every nefarious opportunity available to achieve their ends when no guard rails exist to keep them in check. Where the likes of an Andrew Weissman is deemed a proper role model for aspiring attorneys and is appointed to a faculty of law. Never lose sight of the fact that this AG was deemed a suitable candidate for elevation to the Supreme Court and who it was who submitted his name. Providence was a blessed intervention in that regard. Morally and ethically, Garland is about as qualified to be sitting where he is as Jeffrey Epstein would have been as a high school guidance counsellor. The “Peter Principle’ fully realized once more.
zzdoc: when a regime comes to power that is corrupt and evil to its core, as our present regime is, it virtually always makes mistakes that backfire on it, usually stemming from arrogance and over-extension. The FJB administration appealing this ruling appears to be one of those.
The party that calls their opponents a threat to democracy is about to disenfranchise 14 million voters that voted for Joe Biden in their already fake primaries and hand the nomination to an insider that they will SELECT in a back room in Chicago.
PS. Can anyone name one Democrat that has called for either an investigation into what happened with the Secret Service last week or for it’s head to be fired? Is it really a political issue that the leading candidate for the WH was put in such a precarious position due to the myriad of bad decisions the Service made in advance of and the day of the event? The Dems are such loathsome people that they won’t even criticize a JILL BIDEN appointee when she obviously is running a disaster of an agency.
Inconvenient, that constitution of ours. Seems like it was designed exactly for things like this. Oh! I forgot it WAS DESIGNED for things like this because it is a document that was designed to strictly limit government. If I remember right it was written in the light and context of the colonists having to deal with a King, but even worse, a parliament that felt they had no bounds on their power. And if you really look at the UK, that is who has the highest power and really no appeal from it and that is Parliament. They have courts but Parliament has the ultimate power. Not We The People. The King is a figurehead and the executive and legislative power is combine in one institution, Parliament. And they can supersede the courts.
And nearly every day I think in awe at what our founders created and the forethought they exhibited. They were not perfect but with few exceptions those signers of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution showed more fortitude and intelligence than any person in politics today. Alas they did not anticipate that we would have a president as stupid and demented as we have now.
Our present president thinks the Supreme Court needs term limits and ethics provisions imposed upon them by congress. And it will “require some legislation”. Exactly where in the constitution is the power to do that enumerated. The Constitution created the Supreme Court (but not the number of judges). Congress can constitute courts inferior to the Supreme Court. They all get lifetime appointments (good behavior), Congress must pay them, but cannot reduce their pay while still a justice. They may impeach with 2/3 votes of the senate. Everything else requires a constitutional amendment. Which ultimately means 3/4 of the states after passed by 2/3 of the House and Senate or a constitutional convention. Who wrote the president”s memo, Jill the erstwhile Dr. Biden. Sounds like it.
I think He and She and the AG (sounds like a song) forgot that the Constitution created 3 independent centers in the government. Big mistake by small people.
2 items:
A) I saw an interview with Barack Obama, from before he was President, but aired after, in which he sniffed that “the Constitution is a document of negative liberties for the Government”. It was clear he was not happy about it – my thought was, “hey, at least he can read.”
B) When Trump was President, the Dems talked about packing the court with Leftists as soon as they had the power to do that. I wondered why Trump didn’t say: “Great idea! Here’s my list of 500 new conservative justices I want to put up for confirmation now!”
I suppose the parties could have then gone on an orgy of nominating alternating crowds of conservative and liberal justices to the point where everyone in the US could eventually be a Supreme Court Justice…. (or maybe our current system is better)
GEB, your comment deserves to be part of a curiculum of combined US History and Constitutional civics starting at grade 6. Skousen’s ‘5000 Year Leap’ should be required reading for that course.
” If I remember right it was written in the light and context of the colonists having to deal with a King, but even worse, a parliament that felt they had no bounds on their power. And if you really look at the UK, that is who has the highest power and really no appeal from it and that is Parliament. ”
The King was frequently seen as a potential restraint on Parliament’s abuses by the populace and the colonists. This is why, as you correctly noted, our founders sought innovative alternatives, such as the checks and balances system between the three branches, to avoid a similar concentration of power.
Unfortunately, though Madisonians prefer Congress with greater power over the Presidency, our Congress has been self-serving (money and reelection concerns) and lazy, providing it and its agencies (see Chevron decisions) with more power than desirable. A weak Congress was not good enough for the left and some on the right, so Congress abrogated much of its power to the courts, letting the courts pass legislation that Congress never intended.
S.Meyer-Agree, Congress is lazy and wants to leave decisions to bureaucrats writing regulations designated by executive orders from the President (or guidance or suggestions or notes but all coming from the president) rather than doing their job.
so Congress abrogated much of its power to the courts, letting the courts pass legislation that Congress never intended.
I agree with you and GEB. The ultimate in lazy however rests squarely in the hands of the People. Years ago I described on this blog a question and subsequent discussion I had on a blog I had. I asked “We have many problems, with many causes, but is there one root cause?” After about 1 year and a 1000 unique responses, the answer boiled down to 3 root causes:
– Voter ignorance
– Voter apathy
– Voter dependency
That state of basic civics failure has left fertile ground for the rise of this massive and abusive bureaucratic state. It’s a government of our own doing. Put another way; We created a form of government designed for one fundamental purpose: to secure our right to life, liberty and property. And then populated it with teenagers effectively emancipated from their parents. It’s like Lord of the Flies, but with feckless parents living under the rule of these warring factions. We have a chance to change this dynamic in November.
3 root causes:
– Voter ignorance
– Voter apathy
– Voter dependency
I have mentioned it many times on this blog, and it is one word: acedia
a•ce•di•a (əˈsi di ə)
n.
sloth; spiritual torpor or indifference; apathy.
[1600–10; < Late Latin acēdia < Greek akḗdeia]
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/acedia
Read the following excellent explanation of how the Early Church Fathers described it, struggled against it, and how all of us, but especially me (as Darren could tell you), have to fight it.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/desert-fathers-sins-acedia-sloth
Oremus!
The best outcome for the nation would be to nudge Trump into coming clean with the voters about what he was planning to accomplish in late 2020, the outcome he had hoped for, and why he thought extraordinary means were justified. It’s the cover-up (and consciousness of guilt in fighting to maintain it) that hang over the nation like a dark cloud.
Let’s assume Jack Smith has unpublicized details of the various plots to remain President beyond his term of Office, obtained via depositions under oath in the Georgia case by insiders like Sidney Powell and Mark Meadows. He has the power to announce he’ll be releasing this evidence on October X. Then, candidate Trump will have every incentive to preempt and defuse by doing a TV interview where he admits to “overreach” and drops the usual spinning (deceptive infowarfare). This will be a test of candor. Hell pass it if he robs Smith of any bombshell — he’ll fail it if he is shown to still be self-deceiving or lying when Smith presents the testimony.
Telling the unvarnished truth will do wonders for Trump’s campaign, since there are tens of millions of women who react very negatively to a man obviously lying to them. Many of these women would prefer “common sense” Repub policies, and only are holding back over the issue of Trump’s untrustworthiness — his penchant for duping himself and then expecting others to go along.
The point of greatest directness would be for him to say that he feared that the country would not survive 4 years of Biden, and that to him justified taking the steps he took. “In retrospect, my prediction was somewhat off the mark, as we stand here today with our country diminished but still standing and capable of a comeback — I got swept up in the hype”. That dose of honesty would go far in defusing anything Jack Smith has in his quiver, as it goes to unhinged paranoia and counter-zealotry as the poison that must be cleansed from national politics.
The legal process of exacting some honesty and accountability for Trump’s late 2020 misconduct has one final act. It will come in October. And if Trump has the “courage of a lion” and determination to unite the entire country, he’ll have the opportunity. Admitting you made a mistake and asking for forgiveness is his winning hand. Let’s hope he plays it.
Let’s assume…
You need to get yourself a different hobby. One that doesn’t involve fantasizing about the law. Or more accurately, lawfare.
I didn’t make up this scenario (Jack Smith going public with depositions). It was voiced by several Constitutional scholars in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on immunity. OK, I fantasized the politically skillful way Trump could then defuse it. Remember the Hollywood Access crisis? Hope Hicks convinced him to come clean and apologize or risk losing the election. He was able to do it then, and I think he’ll be able to do it again when necessary. I want Trump to win, but only after showing he has learned from his biggest mistake and is making amends. I’ll vote for that Trump, but not the other one.
You’re a liar.
It was voiced by several Constitutional scholars…
Oh, just stop already. Next you’ll trot out 51 intelligence officials, or most Nobel Prize winning economists. Appeal to Authority is a sign of weakness.
Cheap Fake pbinca tried this excuse when he got caught channeling Obama/Biden/Clinton guilt onto Trump:
I didn’t make up this scenario (Jack Smith going public with depositions). It was voiced by several Constitutional scholars in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on immunity.
Again, that insinuating original post you started with you SHOULD have directed at the Democrat crime cartel responsible for commissioning and paying for the Russia Dossier in 2016, lying to FISA courts about it, and then using it in Lavarentiy Beria fashion to find or manufacture crimes against everybody associated with Trump.
Humor us Cheap Fake pbinca… what were Clinton/Obama/Biden/Donna Brazil trying to accomplish in the 2016 election campaign and in the first two years of Trump’s presidency with their “Russia Dossier”? And was their turning the FBI/DOJ into their personal STASI perfectly normal in American politics? A lot of us are old enough to remember that’s how the Warsaw Pact companies of the USSR operated.
Never gave it a thought while watching years of Trump Russia Dossier, Trump Russia Dossier, Trump Russia Dossier?
You’re a Cheap Fake American
Phinca-why not start with your own confessions first and write them all down so we can judge you. I think it was all played out right in front of us. Where were you?
In politics asking for forgiveness is a death wish.
You’re wrong. It takes the most courage to be honest with yourself and others when you screwed up. It’s the only way you can learn from your mistakes. It’s how you earn trust. These are the teachings of Jesus Christ. I stuck to these in my business career and found them to be practical wisdom. Your notion that “In politics, asking forgiveness is a death wish” is a recipe for building up paranoias and animosities (two completely disjoint realities), and that ultimately leads to civil war. Politics is about give and take, and solving problems collaboratively. Your naive approach leads to ping-pong policy gyrations, where each side only cares about thwarting the other while in power, and nothing permanent gets accomplished.
I heard some faint rumblings from Trump last night about wanting to break out of that cycle of wasted time and energies. That was the best part of his speech.
Phinca-I reasses on a daily basis and modify my thoughts and plans based on those re-assesments. I confess and ask forgiveness from my god and my wife. All others can pound sand. I admit to imperfections but nothing requires me to advertise my errors. I am more of a severe critic of myself than anyone else I have met.
Your notion that “In politics, asking forgiveness is a death wish” is a recipe for building up paranoias and animosities (two completely disjoint realities), and that ultimately leads to civil war. Politics
isshould be about give and take, and solving problems collaboratively. [but it is not]YourMy naive approachleads to ping-pong policy gyrations, where each side only cares about thwarting the other while in power, and nothing permanent gets accomplished.[ignores the reality that politics has in reality, always been about power. Admitting failure is political suicide.]pbinca, GEB is not being naïve, he’s expressing the reality of what politics is today. Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak. Sun Tzu
So what do these tens of millions of women do instead? Which truthtellers do they follow?
Who are they, exactly, and which “common sense” Pub policies do they prefer over Trumps?
Methinks you are projecting in your exaggerations and follies.
The best outcome is the one that is proceeding, nothing becoming more nothing that will be forgotten in a couple weeks – no problem for Trump and smith gets to keep his ill-gotten fees.
Hopefully, Trump will sue Garland for those fees in January
Except that, as I have commented elsewhere, the modified and unofficial accusation will sound like this: He got off on a technicality, even though we all Know he’s as guilty as sin. Like in the NYC fraud case, I don’t expect the Democrats to drop the description of Trump as a “convicted felon” even after a success appeal.
Something something about where do I go to get my reputation back.
You certainly think you are a mind reader, do you not?
“…Many of these women would prefer “common sense” Repub policies, and only are holding back over the issue of Trump’s untrustworthiness — his penchant for duping himself and then expecting others to go along….”
I have actually talked to many women who are first rate Trump haters; Democrats and Republicans. I ask them to explain what they dislike about Trump — something concrete is what I ask for. What they do is put their hands to their face as if confronting something deeply, unspeakably, revolting. No verbal explanation of anything. No evidence or data or apparent reasoning. And a few even admit they avoid the news.
Now I ask any of them if they know anything about the Biden family SARs. Not a peep. They haven’t heard about it and I have yet to meet one who even knows what an SAR is.
This seems to me to point to a huge problem — feelings without evidence driving everything. Not a good way to make important decisions.
pbinca tried this false flag operation: The best outcome for the nation would be to nudge Trump into coming clean with the voters about what he was planning to accomplish in late 2020, the outcome he had hoped for, and why he thought extraordinary means were justified.
Trump? Seriously? You have had EIGHT YEARS to make this post. Except changing from ‘Trump’ to ‘Obama, Clinton, Biden, Donna Brazil’ claiming that the best outcome for the nation would be for them to come clean with voters about what they planned to accomplish by illegally hiring Russian and British spies to write their Russia Dossier, then leak it, then direct the FBI to commit perjury to FISA for spy warrants. And then spend millions of dollars using that fraudulent ‘Dossier’ to investigate everybody with any links to Trump.
Your excuse? Using the FBI as the party STASI was not extraordinary in America? Or Trump was known to be virtually Hitler, and thus the means were justified.
Quite a glaring piece of channeling you’re attempting here, Cheap Fake pbinca.
” to nudge Trump into coming clean with the voters about what he was planning to accomplish ”
@PBinCA
It is clear to all with open minds. Trump, along with many others, believed that the Democrats cheated, and he won the election. Many noted the same problems with the election initially, but with time, more and more recognized that cheating put the wrong man into power.
Unfortunately, some are so closed-minded they can’t figure that out themselves despite time providing more and more evidence that the Democrats broke the law to gain power.
Authoritarians do that. Since then, they have used the DOJ and lawfare to attack those opposing present administration policies. Those people whose rights were violated include mothers, Catholics, whistleblowers, and many others who represent the American people.
Cannon in her opinion is strict whereas others, if they had considered the question, had been sloppy. She methodically applied the dictionary and canons of construction to the statutes cited by the government as a basis for Smith’s appointment. She used a scalpel and when she was done there was nothing left but the withered dreams of whoever is running the DOJ.
Women care about:
• safety of their children from violence and bullying
• family financial security
• good health and healthcare for themselves and family
• their children receiving great education from inspiring teachers
• their opportunities to marry a dependable partner, same opportunity for their children
• being able to trust the men in their life (at home and at work)
• stable and supportive friendships
• being listened to and respected — being taken seriously
What you said is so 1950s. Too many women today care about none of those things. If they get pregnant, they opt to kill their babies. And wanting a “good” man? Surely you jest. They want bad boy Chad Thunderstroke, and hardly any of them can have him exclusively. You need some good Red Pill information. Here’s you a starter:
Might want to read this one,
California’s New Law Lets Schools Keep Secrets from Parents
https://www.thefp.com/p/abigail-shrier-california-gender-law-newsom
Phinca-Do you prefer your women barefoot and pregnant. You are incredibly condescending to women. I have a family of strong women, all of whom would have left you bleeding on the floor for those comments. Each and every woman is unique and they all have different desires and approaches to life. I have treated women as patients for 42 years and would never have the arrogance to tell a woman what her cares in life would be. Especially unasked. Obviously you have never worked in a critical care unit or Emergency center with female nurses. If you are ever in such a situation I would suggest you keep your mouth shut and your ears open. You might survive the experience.
“Women care about:
• safety of their children from violence and bullying”
@pbinca:
Men care as well. Did you burn your bra in the 60s, or were you the one screaming when Trump was elected? Everything else you wrote pertains to men as well. You forgot that!
Not bad for a judge not born in the United States. Makes me wonder if anyone at DOJ can be bothered to read the actual text of the Constitution.
Maybe it will be Smith who ends up in jail? Along with Garland too!
Where do President Trump and his co-defendants go to get their money and reputations back? Where do the American taxpayers go to get their money back?
weirdly your email blurb says the case against former president Joe Biden…I suspect there was a late edit. Just FYI as I suppose the emails are all sent.
I was thinking the same thing. Why is Smith receiving a paycheck now that his appointment is invalid.
If his appointment is invalid, how does he have standing to appeal? DOJ could for sure, but Smith appealing is problematic
That was my second question too.