[jimjam]

All Nations have a Sovereign who decides when the Constitution (all Nations have written or unwritten Constitutions) in order to be defended, must be abrogated. President Trump has this power within the US Constitution.

This latest chapter has potential to ignite a knock down drag out fight that may well end up in the Supreme Court. I suggest you notify the involved parties of your verdict so as to save the country months of uncertainty and anguish.

and

No tenable account of executive power holds that a president’s purposes in exercising powers accorded under Article II, “to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” have no import. If it were otherwise — if the president had the authority to use his constitutional powers for any reason — it would follow that he could accept a bribe for doing an official act, or, more saliently, extend a pardon to keep a witness from testifying. This would very clearly violate the maxim that the president is not above the law.

If this sounds like legal theorizing, just consider the fact that Mr. Trump’s position is soundly contradicted by the Richard Nixon case. Under Mr. Trump’s view, Nixon would not have been guilty of obstruction for ordering the F.B.I. to stand down on the investigation of the Watergate burglars or paying off the defendants to keep them quiet.

[Zamuel]

Within the context of the modern Bourgeoisie system, there isn't much difference, a ''conservative'' is just yesterday's Liberal. - Indeed, as I try to explain. There is no difference, really.

This is ancient Bullshit. Technically all democracy is a "liberal" form of government (as opposed to the tyranny of absolute monarchy which it replaced.) This makes what we call "conservatives" into Liberals too … Liberals are classically divided in to "Moderates and Progressives" Modern American Society has evolved the language of "Liberal and Conservative." Annatar is just confusing things with antiquated words. Communism and Bolshevism are also liberal and progressive in his archaic language.

annatar1914 wrote:
Carl Schmidt; ''Sovereign is he who decides the exception''. All Nations have a Sovereign who decides when the Constitution (all Nations have written or unwritten Constitutions) in order to be defended, must be abrogated.

And this is more out of context BS. The USA does not have a "Deciding Sovereign." The constitution forbids it, as it forbids any "abrogation" of our constitution. Sovereignty in the USA is vested in the PEOPLE. And government is instituted to express their "Sovereign Will."

Annatar1914 is trolling again …

Zam

[annatar1914]

This latest chapter has potential to ignite a knock down drag out fight that may well end up in the Supreme Court.

It won't end there, either.

I suggest you notify the involved parties of your verdict so as to save the country months of uncertainty and anguish.

If I could do that, I would be the Sovereign. There's no getting around the years of uncertainty and anguish...

That's right, years, not months.

and

No tenable account of executive power holds that a president’s purposes in exercising powers accorded under Article II, “to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” have no import.

It's precisely for this reason and under Article Four's assurance that the States must have a ''republican form of government'', plus a few other sections, that the President's power in a State of Emergency is basically unlimited by any mortal or immortal political body, established or ad hoc. The President's power is unlimited to protect, not overthrow, the Constitution of the United States. The Founders knew what they were doing.

If it were otherwise — if the president had the authority to use his constitutional powers for any reason — it would follow that he could accept a bribe for doing an official act, or, more saliently, extend a pardon to keep a witness from testifying. This would very clearly violate the maxim that the president is not above the law.

There is no such maxim. A sitting President can have articles of impeachment drawn to stand trial before Congress to attempt to remove him from office, under the purposefully vague ''high crimes and misdemeanors'' section of the US Constitution, but that's not much to go on.

If this sounds like legal theorizing, just consider the fact that Mr. Trump’s position is soundly contradicted by the Richard Nixon case.

No, because President Nixon resigned rather than face articles of impeachment, so there was no legal case or defense offered.

Under Mr. Trump’s view, Nixon would not have been guilty of obstruction for ordering the F.B.I. to stand down on the investigation of the Watergate burglars or paying off the defendants to keep them quiet.

Not just President Trump's view. President Nixon was not legally guilty at all, period.

[annatar1914]

This is ancient Bullshit.

How ''ancient'' is it? Does it make it wrong or right, the newness or the antiquity?

Technically all democracy is a "liberal" form of government (as opposed to the tyranny of absolute monarchy which it replaced.) This makes what we call "conservatives" into Liberals too

This is pretty much what I'm saying, that there are no real ''conservatives'' in a liberal democratic capitalist society.

… Liberals are classically divided in to "Moderates and Progressives" Modern American Society has evolved the language of "Liberal and Conservative." Annatar is just confusing things with antiquated words.

Can you show where the words are ''antiquated''? A rather bizarre proposition.

Communism and Bolshevism are also liberal and progressive in his archaic language.

No, not at all. Communism and Bolshevism are revolutionary, not liberal.

And this is more out of context BS. The USA does not have a "Deciding Sovereign." The constitution forbids it, as it forbids any "abrogation" of our constitution. Sovereignty in the USA is vested in the PEOPLE. And government is instituted to express their "Sovereign Will."

Your comment here is out of context BS, not mine. This is because the elected representatives of the people are the ''deciding sovereign'', elected to decide for the sovereign... the United States is more a traditional illiberal Republic in origin than a ''democracy'', strictly speaking. The Moneybags and their Authorities will remind you of that as they do from time to time...

Annatar1914 is trolling again …

Sure, when our country is on the brink of Civil War again, i've got nothing better to do than troll

[Zamuel]

No, not at all. Communism and Bolshevism are revolutionary, not liberal.

You seem to forget that "Liberalism" is also revolutionary. Without liberalism Karl Marx was just another potato farmer.

Your comment here is out of context BS, not mine. This is because the elected representatives of the people are the ''deciding sovereign''

No it's context is absolute. We elect "representatives." They accept a "duty." If they fail, we "Recall" them and try again. They have no "sovereign powers."

Sure, when our country is on the brink of Civil War again, i've got nothing better to do than troll

Exactly …

Zam

[blackjack21]

Which is of course why all those Russians are now under indictment … Duh …

A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. An independent counsel with cursory supervision and an unlimited budget that is burning through $1M+ a month can indict a handful of Russians as window dressing for the benefit of media talking heads. None of the people indicted had an impact on the election. None of them are in custody, and can't be extradicted. One of the corporations has already plead "not guilty" and the Mueller team is trying to prevent discovery. It doesn't look that impressive under the circumstances.

Do Russians have the right to put things on the internet the same as Americans?

For all intents and purposes, yes. They are non-resident aliens of the US. So making US laws apply isn't particularly feasible.

MR. Mueller seems to think not …

They aren't allowed to overstay visas or lie on government forms.

Trump's lawyers have told Mueller that their man does not have to answer any of Mueller's questions due to "executive privilege".

He doesn't have to answer any questions arising out of his exercise of Article II powers.

In other words, Donald, unlike you or I, is above the law.

He's the chief law enforcement officer. His actions may be reviewed by the Supreme Court and his term may be cut short by impeachment. He does not have to be subjected to inquiries from his inferior officers.

If this sounds like legal theorizing, just consider the fact that Mr. Trump’s position is soundly contradicted by the Richard Nixon case. Under Mr. Trump’s view, Nixon would not have been guilty of obstruction for ordering the F.B.I. to stand down on the investigation of the Watergate burglars or paying off the defendants to keep them quiet.

Nixon was never convicted of anything.

[Zamuel]

Nixon was never convicted of anything.

Because he was pardoned of EVERYTHING. Don't that just make you so proud ?

Zam

[blackjack21]

Nixon was awesome!

[Albert]

He was last standing hope for humanity before the SJW and progressive craze.

[Zagadka]

He was last standing hope for humanity before the SJW and progressive craze.

Yea, your life is so hard.

[Hong Wu]

I think the democracy period for the west is ending. I suspect democracy itself is a middle stage between "there's enough consensus that we don't need to debate" and the choice between tyranny and chaos.

In the US the next generation has many people who believe that protests and debates are about force and intimidation, not truth and discussion. They don't even understand the basic concepts that used to explain debate. So we are moving into that third stage.

[Albert]

[jimjam]

Nixon was never convicted of anything.

Well of course I know that. He resigned his job as POTUS so he could spend more time with his family .

The latest is that Donald intends to bring the ridiculous farce of his melodrama to a new High (low? ) by pardoning himself. This show of mental masturbation would be the perfect highlight for his place in history.

I suspect that when Trump dies (and he very well won't. It is entirely possible that he will exempt himself from this annoying event) his whole body will rise up, intact, into the clouds of Heaven.

[Albert]

I have to be honest, he has to drop his whole ambitions of becoming a dictator and realize it wont happen. He is to old for that.

But honestly, I would like America to return to its republic roots, also deal with its business class who keep hindering the democratic process.

[Hong Wu]

I swear to God, I've never done this before but I'm going to donate the max to Trump and other Republicans in 2020 because I try to post in a subreddit about motorcycles or something and some little shit comes out of the woodwork attacking me for having posted in the Trump subreddit because Trump is a Russian kompromat and then shadowbans my thread so I can't get my question answered there. This stupid shit that these cucks are doing in their "#resistance" is going to unleash a wave of Trump support like they can't imagine.

[Zamuel]

I swear to God, I've never done this before but I'm going to donate the max to Trump and other Republicans in 2020 because I try to post in a subreddit about motorcycles or something and some little shit comes out of the woodwork attacking me for having posted in the Trump subreddit

So, when it comes down to it, what you are is a "trivialist."



Zam

[Stormsmith]

Walter Isaacson, distinguished fellow, Aspen, pointed out tonight that for eons Putin's goal has been breaking up Nato and spreading out the US from Europe. With this G6 and America he seems close to accomplishing this end.

[Hong Wu]

I like how Darth Putin's plan now stretches back for "eons". Apparently the EU taking a suicidal stance towards America because Trump doesn't play league of virtue signallers with them is actually a Putinth plot because they are the ones who made Trump President, so now the EU is not responsible for any decisions they make going forward, even though America wanting to stop having trade deficits is something any sane country would consider.

Come to the Putin side

[Hong Wu]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... p-mueller/

Manafort has a new charge, witness tampering, although the exhibit presented says that he talked to said witness for 1 minute 24 seconds. Makes me wonder what the elements of federal witness tampering are.

I'm still baffled that Mueller telling Manafort's attorney they have no evidence of him communicating with Russians isn't bigger news. Russiagate looks to me like it's been dead for weeks now. There's also the Padadopolous issue where the guy whom Pada spoke to about Russians says he never mentioned Hillary's hacked emails, which seems to throw the entire original basis of the Russiagate investigation into doubt.

Edit: Well, I have time so I looked it up.

It appears to be this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

It involves killing, attacking, threatening or "corruptly persuading" a witness. So basically Manafort would have, according to Mueller's' provided evidence, have done one of those things within 1 minute and 24 seconds. I guess it's not impossible but I wouldn't feel very confident having to convince someone that happened without some really solid evidence. The only actual statement released is he wrote a text message which says "This is Paul, we should talk."

[Zamuel]

Witness Tampering

It appears to be this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
It involves killing, attacking, threatening or "corruptly persuading" a witness.

In this case it involves (from your source)

" Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding

Mueller has two witnesses who have attested that Manafort suggested a scenario that was untrue, in solicitation of their agreement and testimony. Given the serious charges against Manafort this is of a minor nature, but it illustrates that Manafort is using the "house arrest" privileges granted him by the court to advance further criminal activities. Mueller would therefore like the court to return Manafort to jail … it's another move to pressure Manafort to cooperate. (probably a good one.)

Zam