I’ve referred several times to the longstanding criticism of the Espionage Act, based on its broad reach and its historical use to suppress political dissent. Professor Jonathan Turley has a new article out that begins with a brief discussion of the danger the Espionage Act presents to free speech—in fact he’ll be publishing a book on the subject:
Durham's responses to McClintock were often truly pathetic, as in: The FISC didn't sanction anybody for lying to them, but they issues an "appropriately harshly worded memo" and said that they expected everyone to tell them the truth. Till next time, I guess.
In this excellent video, Robert Barnes discusses many facets of the indictment, most especially the unitary executive theory, as well as the Espionage Act, selective prosecution, prosecutorial misconduct, the search warrant, and the Trump's weak defense team: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxCDVOmGPlo&t=236s
Brilliant article. Trump’s case ends when SCOTUS tosses Espionage Act to the curb. That is where this is headed. But can it get there before the 2024 election? Stay tuned.
Jim, responding to your edit, I think McCarthy needs to rethink that position. It flies in the face of the Constitution which creates a unitary executive. I realize that there are those who argue against the unitary executive, but to do so results in a radically disempowered presidency, which is clearly not what was intended. The PRA came into play far more recently than Nixon when an attempt was made to force Clinton to hand over tapes. The court--Amy Berman Jackson--said that the president is the sole judge of what's personal and what's government property. That's a backhanded recognition that the president IS the executive branch, and "the government" isn't some independent entity. I found another article I'll present tomorrow.
What Sachs doesn’t mention in this conversation, but does in other interviews, is that Eisenhower and Khrushchev were preparing for a peace summit when the CIA pulled the suspiciously timed Gary Powers stunt.
Thank you, thank you. Up till now I regarded this indictment with amusement, reasoning that even a loss for Trump would be an even bigger loss for the government in terms of public support. Now I see this has the power to destroy the Country. We will never again have an Executive ready to act decisively in a crisis. We would have a government of petty bureaucrats, and subject to intolerable red tape. Or government by committee. Except that a dictator would probably take over when things got impossible.
Remember the guy with the pen and the phone? The neo-Marxists were very receptive to the idea of a unitary executive back then. And the Supreme Court appeared to agree with that view when Roberts and friends upheld the Dreamers law created by the magic pen that the next unitary executive wasn’t allowed to nullify. I guess some unitary executives are more equal than others as we seem to be learning.
My history on Barr is fuzzy, so correct me if I'm wrong...
But didn't he argue in Ruby Ridge that the FBI sniper should not be prosecuted because ultimately he worked for the president? As such, his actions were effectively those of the president and therefore the proper remedy was political (elections) and not legal..
I dunno...not sure where I heard that, but I quickly scanned Wikipedia's Ruby Ridge entry and didn't see a mention of Barr.
But it sue seems a convenient position: protect the deep state by claiming the unitary executive, then make the president subservient to protect the deep state.
Durham's responses to McClintock were often truly pathetic, as in: The FISC didn't sanction anybody for lying to them, but they issues an "appropriately harshly worded memo" and said that they expected everyone to tell them the truth. Till next time, I guess.
Compare that to the J6 people.
In this excellent video, Robert Barnes discusses many facets of the indictment, most especially the unitary executive theory, as well as the Espionage Act, selective prosecution, prosecutorial misconduct, the search warrant, and the Trump's weak defense team: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxCDVOmGPlo&t=236s
Brilliant article. Trump’s case ends when SCOTUS tosses Espionage Act to the curb. That is where this is headed. But can it get there before the 2024 election? Stay tuned.
Hopefully Scotus will do its job, with probable dissent from the amazingly dumb Sotomayor and the one who can't tell what a woman is.
DeVito is arguing that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional. U.S. v. Nixon looms large.
Since when has unconstitutionality stopped the new communists?
Jim, responding to your edit, I think McCarthy needs to rethink that position. It flies in the face of the Constitution which creates a unitary executive. I realize that there are those who argue against the unitary executive, but to do so results in a radically disempowered presidency, which is clearly not what was intended. The PRA came into play far more recently than Nixon when an attempt was made to force Clinton to hand over tapes. The court--Amy Berman Jackson--said that the president is the sole judge of what's personal and what's government property. That's a backhanded recognition that the president IS the executive branch, and "the government" isn't some independent entity. I found another article I'll present tomorrow.
What Sachs doesn’t mention in this conversation, but does in other interviews, is that Eisenhower and Khrushchev were preparing for a peace summit when the CIA pulled the suspiciously timed Gary Powers stunt.
My God, these people are despicable.
And Lee Harvey Oswald, who had TS+ and was read into the U2 program, had just 'defected' to the Soviet Union a few months earlier.
Allen Dulles...
Exactly.
I was in Paris and saw Eisenhower heading towards the meeting, and minutes later the limousine returning in the opposite direction.
Thank you, thank you. Up till now I regarded this indictment with amusement, reasoning that even a loss for Trump would be an even bigger loss for the government in terms of public support. Now I see this has the power to destroy the Country. We will never again have an Executive ready to act decisively in a crisis. We would have a government of petty bureaucrats, and subject to intolerable red tape. Or government by committee. Except that a dictator would probably take over when things got impossible.
Are you saying Zhou is a "figure head"? Sorry. my sarcasm appeared suddenly.
However, it does remind me of George Bush being "controlled" by his V.P. Dick Cheney... a Deep Stater.
Remember the guy with the pen and the phone? The neo-Marxists were very receptive to the idea of a unitary executive back then. And the Supreme Court appeared to agree with that view when Roberts and friends upheld the Dreamers law created by the magic pen that the next unitary executive wasn’t allowed to nullify. I guess some unitary executives are more equal than others as we seem to be learning.
Well said
My history on Barr is fuzzy, so correct me if I'm wrong...
But didn't he argue in Ruby Ridge that the FBI sniper should not be prosecuted because ultimately he worked for the president? As such, his actions were effectively those of the president and therefore the proper remedy was political (elections) and not legal..
Just search Ruby Ridge William Barr and you'll find what you're looking for.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/william-barrs-connection-to-ruby-ridge-defending-fbi-snipers/
Thanks
I'm fuzzy, too, but it sounds about right.
I dunno...not sure where I heard that, but I quickly scanned Wikipedia's Ruby Ridge entry and didn't see a mention of Barr.
But it sue seems a convenient position: protect the deep state by claiming the unitary executive, then make the president subservient to protect the deep state.
Whatever it takes.
oo