Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bostonangler

  1. Awesome... Another diatribe of nothingness... You really ought to get a job. B/A
  2. So what's a human to do? How do we prepare our future generations? I'm old and won't be here in 50 or 100 years, but the future is going to be bleak for those who remain. If there is anything humans can do to help mother earth, there's no time like the present. B/A
  3. I will thanks... Check out the book Modern Romans.... It is so spot on. B/A
  4. Barr Once Contradicted Trump's Claim That Abuse of Power Is Not Impeachable WASHINGTON — Scholars have roundly rejected a central argument of President Donald Trump’s lawyers that abuse of power is not by itself an impeachable offense. But it turns out that another important legal figure has contradicted that idea: Trump’s attorney general and close ally, William Barr. In summer 2018, when he was still in private practice, Barr wrote a confidential memo for the Justice Department and Trump’s legal team to help the president get out of a problem. The special counsel, Robert Mueller, was pressuring him to answer questions about whether he had illegally impeded the Russia investigation. Trump should not talk to investigators about his actions as president, even under a subpoena, Barr wrote in his 19-page memo, which became public during his confirmation. Barr based his advice on a sweeping theory of executive power under which obstruction of justice laws do not apply to presidents, even if they misuse their authority over the Justice Department to block investigations into themselves or their associates for corrupt reasons. But Barr tempered his theory with a reassurance. Even without the possibility of criminal penalties, he wrote, a check is in place on presidents who abuse their discretionary power to control the executive branch of government — impeachment. The fact that the president “is answerable for any abuses of discretion and is ultimately subject to the judgment of Congress through the impeachment process means that the president is not the judge in his own cause,” he wrote. He added, “The remedy of impeachment demonstrates that the president remains accountable under law for his misdeeds in office,” quoting from a 1982 Supreme Court case. Barr has long embraced a maximalist philosophy of executive power. But in espousing the view that abuse of power can be an impeachable offense, he put himself squarely in the mainstream of legal thinking. Most constitutional scholars broadly agree that the constitutional term “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which an official may be impeached includes abuse of power. But in a 110-page brief Monday, Trump’s impeachment team — led by Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel and a former aide to Barr in the first Bush administration, and Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow — portrayed the article of impeachment claiming that Trump abused his power in the Ukraine affair as unconstitutional because he was not accused of an ordinary crime. “House Democrats’ novel conception of ‘abuse of power’ as a supposedly impeachable offense is constitutionally defective,” they wrote. “It supplants the framers’ standard of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ with a made-up theory that the president can be impeached and removed from office under an amorphous and undefined standard of ‘abuse of power.’ ” Contrary to what Barr wrote 20 months ago, the Trump defense team also insisted that the framers did not want Congress to judge whether presidents abused their discretion and made decisions based on improper motives. “House Democrats’ conception of ‘abuse of power’ is especially dangerous because it rests on the even more radical claim that a president can be impeached and removed from office solely for doing something he is allowed to do, if he did it for the ‘wrong’ subjective reasons,” the Trump team wrote. A spokeswoman for Barr declined to comment. A spokesman for Trump’s impeachment defense team did not respond to a request for comment about the tensions. But Barr’s view was no passing thought. His 2018 memo emphasized that presidents who misuse their authority by acting with an improper motive are politically accountable, not just in elections but also via impeachment. Between elections, “the people’s representatives stand watch and have the tools to oversee, discipline, and, if they deem appropriate, remove the president from office,” he wrote. “Under the framers’ plan, the determination whether the president is making decisions based on ‘improper’ motives or whether he is ‘faithfully’ discharging his responsibilities is left to the people, through the election process, and the Congress, through the impeachment process.” The result of Barr’s main argument in 2018 and the Trump team’s theory in 2020 is identical: Both posited that facts were immaterial, both in a way that was convenient to counter the threat Trump faced at that moment. If Barr’s obstruction of justice theory is correct — and many legal scholars reject it — then Mueller had no basis to scrutinize Trump’s actions that interfered with the Russia investigation. Similarly, if the Trump impeachment team’s theory is correct, the Senate has no basis to subpoena documents or call witnesses. The lawyers are implying that even if Trump did abuse his power to conduct foreign policy by trying to coerce Ukraine into announcing investigations that could help him in the 2020 election, the Senate should acquit Trump anyway. Another member of Trump’s legal team, Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and criminal defense lawyer, is expected to make a presentation to the Senate trial this week laying out in detail the theory that abuses of power are not impeachable without an ordinary criminal violation. Critics of Dershowitz’s arguments have pointed to the seeming tension with comments he made in 1998, when he did not have a client facing impeachment for abuse of power: “If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.” In an interview this week, Dershowitz argued that his position now was not inconsistent with what he said in 1998, pointing to his use then of the phrase “technical crime” and saying that he is arguing today that impeachment requires “crimelike” conduct. Dershowitz went further Tuesday, saying on Twitter that he had not thoroughly researched the question in 1998 but recently has done so. “To the extent therefore that my 1998 off-the-cuff interview statement suggested the opposite,” he wrote, “I retract it.” Maybe we do need a revolution... I can't find one honest person in this entire show. B/A
  5. 5,783 people are talking about this Making the footage even more awkward in retrospect, McConnell slammed Democrats by saying they had decided to clear Clinton before the proceedings even began. “There were no open minds on the Democratic side in this trial,” he said. But now, McConnell is guilty of doing just that himself. “I’m not an impartial juror,” he declared last month. McConnell also seemed quite deferential to the wishes of House impeachment managers in 1999, offering to give them what they wanted to put on the trial: 459 people are talking about this GO RV, then BV Sadly, as pitcher has said you can find the other side doing the same flip flop... B/A
  6. This adds nothing and demonstrates blind faith... You sound like a Jim Jones worshipper... No one is perfect, not even your false prophet... B/A
  7. You are correct... 20 years ago on both sides they all said the opposite... They are flip flopping con-men... B/A
  8. Now I didn't say it works every time… I said if you show up you can (sometimes) get out of a ticket... If you don't then you have no chance at proving your innocence... Just like our president, he had a chance but passed... I won't be surprised when this is over, the majority of the public will think he should go... If he had let his people testify and handed over documents, he could have ended it... B/A
  9. Yeah McConnell is real contradiction... B/A
  10. You've obviously have never gotten out of a speeding ticket... LOL If you show up, you can get out of a ticket, if you don't you pay... In the real world, that's how it works. B/A
  11. Senators on both sides are showing their true colors, party before country.... It's disgusting and everyone of them should be tried for treason. B/A
  12. Come on CL you know the White House refused... They had an opportunity to end this, but chose to hide. Name me one of the 62 impeachments that didn't have witnesses... B/A
  13. I agree... Anyone voting against witnesses and evidence should be voted out of office. This equates to treason. B/A
  14. Considering nearly 70% of Americans would like to hear from witnesses and see the documents, you could say senators are not listening or serving their constitutes… Even some of our DVers may be part of the 70% and are being used and abused by their senators. B/A
  15. Trump's golf resorts, like most of his businesses, are losing money hand over fist. He needs to use his position to create income. B/A Trump Hotels, Golf Clubs and Resorts Saw a $35 Million Income Drop in 2018 In all, business at his flagship properties was down about nine percent from last year’s totals. President Donald Trump’s income from his hotels, resorts, and golf clubs declined substantially last year, according to newly filed financial disclosure forms. Trump brought in about $352 million last year from 30 companies that own or manage those properties, down from nearly $387 million in 2017. That included seven-figure drops in income at some iconic Trump resorts. His Mar-a-Lago club brought in about $2.5 million less than it did in 2017. Income from the Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles dropped by roughly $3 million. And the Trump Organization’s hotel management arm saw its income plummet by nearly $16 million, though its numbers for 2018 were more in line with those prior to Trump assuming the presidency. Other Trump properties fared better. His Doral resort in Miami hiked its income by about $2.2 million in spite of internal concerns about declining residency reported by The Washington Post this week. Trump Turnberry, a golf resort in Scotland, saw income increase by $3 million. Trump’s hotel at Washington’s Old Post Office, just blocks from the White House, maintained an income of just over $40 million, second only to Doral in total income among the properties examined. And the company that manages Trump’s golf club in Dubai more than doubled its income, though it was still a small portion of the resort portfolio. Overall, though, the president’s hospitality business appears to have taken a hit last year. And it suggests that the divisiveness of his presidency is impacting his business empire. President Trump’s company operates a city-owned golf course in the Bronx under a contract that makes it far easier for Trump to turn a profit. New York City agreed to pay Trump’s massive irrigation bills. And, for the first four years, it didn’t require Trump to pay a cent in rent on 192 acres. Despite all that, Trump’s course lost money for the first time last year — running $122,000 in the red, according to a new filing with the city. The loss for the past operating year, from April 2018 to March 2019, is the latest bad financial news for Trump Golf Links at Ferry Point. It comes as other Trump golf courses — from his Doral resort in Florida to his expensive courses in Scotland and Ireland — have reported declining revenue, or outright losses, during Trump’s polarizing presidency.
  16. I don't think this guy understands, Central Banks are private banks and do not have to abide by any rules outside the ones they set for themselves. JMHO B/A
  17. You've learn well grasshopper... Name calling just like your fearless leader... I don't get why you are angry, I'm all for witnesses. In fact every impeachment including the two for presidents had witnesses. So the question is, what is McConnell afraid of? The partisanship on both sides of this is really disgusting. That's why I won't vote for either party in the coming election, they are all traitors when it comes to protecting the constitution. B/A
  18. No you should say... The oceans are rising... The oceans are rising!!! LOL B/A
  19. Yeah me too, but like you, I don't think I'll be here when that happens.. B/A
  20. I hear you... I'll be an hour away from the beach instead of 6 or 7 hours... There's always a silver lining. B/A
  21. John Roberts Has More Power Than Mitch McConnell Would Like You to Think. But Will He Use It? The Constitution is, in many respects, vague. And no part of our founding charter has more gaps than the impeachment clauses. At the time of drafting of the Constitution, the colonists were still recovering from a bitter eight-year war for independence, in which their adversary was the armed forces of the British King George III — the tyrannical monarch who had stripped them of their right to self-government. So while the Founders understood the need for an executive department of any effective government, they were wary of recreating anything close to a monarchy. The result was a compromise, a tripartite state consisting of a legislature, an executive and a judiciary. One of the checks in this balance was to give the legislature the power to remove the any member of the executive branch, including the President, by impeachment. But the Founders chose not to provide many details regarding the impeachment process. All they told us in Article I was that (i) the House “shall have the sole power of Impeachment,” and the Senate “the sole power to try all Impeachments,” (ii) “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside” and (iii) it takes a two-thirds vote to convict, and the punishment is limited to removal from office. That’s it. The Article says nothing about witnesses, hearings or any other procedural aspects in either house. Indeed, it is only when we reach Article II that we learn the standard for impeachment and conviction is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Now, facing the third-ever presidential impeachment trial in history, we grapple with procedural issues left unspecified by the Founders, but that are potentially of great significance on the issue of this President’s guilt. The most prominent question today, is shall the Senate hear witnesses? Precedent suggests the answer is “yes”– there have been 15 prior impeachment trials in the Senate (two involving Presidents) and all have had witness testimony in the Senate. And there is no Constitutional bar against witnesses in what the Constitution refers to as an impeachment “trial.” But Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader in the Senate, is clearly willing to ignore precedent and has thus far refused to commit to calling witnesses. He even considers that his constitutional oath to do “impartial justice” permits him to coordinate every aspect of trial management with counsel for the President, who objects to witnesses. But wait a minute. While McConnell is not mentioned in the Constitution, Chief Justice John Roberts is. Indeed, it is the Chief Justice of the United States who shall “preside” over the trial, not the Majority Leader. So why isn’t it up to Roberts to decide whether witnesses shall appear? Absent anything in the Constitution to the contrary, it seems obvious that the witness dispute should be resolved by the ruling of the constitutionally appointed “Presiding Officer” of the trial. This is especially true if we were to abide by the conservative element of our judiciary that insists on the strict construction of the words of any constitutional or statutory provision. Why isn’t “let presiding officer decide” the guiding principle here? Because the Senate, without a shred of constitutional authority, has adopted a set of rules that would effectively strip the presiding officer of much of his power to “preside” over the trial. Are those Senate rules constitutional? I keep a pocket copy of the Constitution in my backpack. I have reread it a dozen times. I see nothing in there giving McConnell, or a majority herd of senatorial sheep, the power to limit the Chief Justice’s constitutional power — and duty — to “preside” over this trial. Is there a remedy for this illicit power grab? Yes. The remedy is for the Chief Justice of the United States to exercise his sworn duty and “preside” over the trial unencumbered by unconstitutional Senate rules. If he deems it relevant to call witnesses, he has the power and the duty to do so, whatever McConnell thinks. But even assuming the Senate did get, from some unknown source, the right to make impeachment rules that fill in the blanks left by the Founders, whence comes the assertion that the Senate can overrule the presiding officer on any issue? The claimed source is the Senate’s impeachment Rule VII, which provides, “The Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence, including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions…” But later in the rule the Senators granted themselves the right, by majority vote, to overrule the Presiding Officer with respect to those rulings. What the Constitution giveth, the Senate taketh away. Rule VII is also the basis of numerous media articles that erroneously state that every ruling by the Chief Justice is subject to being overturned by the will of the Majority Leader, or the majority, and therefore the appointment of the Chief Justice is “ceremonial.” Really? I would not be surprised if you do not find the word “ceremonial” in your copy of the Constitution, because I cannot find it in my copy either. Conclusions: 1. The Senate lacks authority to adopt any rule placing any limit whatsoever on the Chief Justice’s power to preside over this trial. In his capacity as presiding officer, Justice Roberts has unlimited authority to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and if the occasion arises, he should so rule. 2. Even if one were to assume Senate Rule VII passed constitutional muster, the rule is quite limited, and arguably would not prevent the Chief Justice from issuing a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents. The ability to overturn a ruling on relevance is not a grant of total authority to overrule every act of the presiding officer. Will our institutional Chief Justice rise to the occasion and do the right thing here? B/A
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.