The criminality of the Obama Years keeps coming out
People want to complain about other Presidents' administrations being corrupt, but Obama's far exceeds all others combined. I would argue that his actions in fact constituted not only High Crimes and Misdemeanors for which he should have been impeached, but actual Treason for which he should have been tried and executed. This is one such example of facilitating the invasion and killing of thousands of Americans.
Criminality? Criminality that keeps coming out? So whaty? Read the above and ask, "What am I? Some kinda racist?"
So shut up and sit down, you horrible person you.
But if Session weren't so corrupt there should still be a conviction on his FISA action alone.
As for Sessions, I'd like some actual/real proof of corruption rather than just the CYA he's used to as a Congressman.
Impeaching Rosenstein holds about as much probability as impeaching Odumbo, zero. If Trump actually had a pair he should fire Rosenstein and then demand Sessions resignation. Then he should recruit his good friend Napalitano for Sessions replacement and then the drain pipe would be unclogged. But none of that is going to happen either,
Sessions is a fraud in his office, nothing more is needed to get rid of him, But with all the whining, crying and playing footsie that Sessions is doing exactly what he was tasked to do.
Basically, it says that it is unclear and would probably end up in the Supreme Court before it happened. I think the more practical point was given later: if the individual committed federal crimes, why not go after them for those, since those carry the weight of jail time? (That would certainly be my focus regarding Hillary Clinton and since no charges were officially brought there is no double-jeopardy issue.)
I had my run in with the Clintons After conferring with the corporate legal team, I was to deliver to the state of Arkansas that we refused to pay bribes and should they attempt to invalidate our contract we would sue their pants off. Our legal team had already destroyed AT&T for predatory practices so they shut up and fulfilled the contract. When it comes to the Clintons, I have first hand knowledge of just how depraved those two, actually three, really are. Boy that acorn didn't fall far from the tree.
Now as to Hitlerly and by the same intent Willie, jail is not the solution. That just puts the burden on others to maintain them. The instant solution would be a rope with gallows on the white house lawn at dawn to remain in repose until sundown as a reminder of consequences to others that are to follow.
But what in my opinion would be the best solution lies in the common law and civil action wherein all their assets are taken to make the victims as near to whole as possible and to leave them in the gutter with nothing. That is justice.
As to equity, the people of Haiti would be entitled to a huge share of those assets.
By the way, under common law there is no such thing as criminal action, that is a statist concept.
I'm also not sure where you get the notion that there is no such thing as a "criminal" action. The only way for there not to be both civil and criminal courts is for no government to exist at all. Are you an anarchist, then?
But there is no such thing as criminal law. Criminal law is where a fiction displaces or in spite of a victim claims superior authority to extract a toll even if no injury has occurred and the victim be damned. It is a maxim of law that fictions cannot be harmed and has no standing at law.
Government or no government is immaterial to the fact. However government is material to the fact that if criminal action exist, it exists. This is one of the fallacies of the constitution wherein Article III, Section 2 states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,..."
Are you aware of the difference between "in Law" and "at Law"? "In Law" connotates the law of statutes or the Roman law. "At Law" connotates the common law or law of the people.
As a quick side note, I get a kick out of asking lawyers just what that title on their cards mean: "Attorney at Law". None has ever been able to answer it. What it really means, attorn - to turn over; at Law - the common law. And people never understand why they are getting the shaft and charged for the elevator.
Even though it is immaterial to the argument, I declared first thing in my introduction to be an anarchist and I have attempted to hide it.
But to be more accurate I am "of the People" and do not consent. That means I live under the Declaration of Indendance as a free man as opposed as the slavery imposed by the coup of the constitution.
And as one of my heroes so amply stated: "And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.” - Lysander Spooner.
So in closing let me leave another little jewel from Spooner:
“The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this--that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot.” ― Lysander Spooner
I have always had expectations of being shot and it still not too late.
My original thought was that Impeachment proceedings were only valid against a sitting target. I amended that after reading the opinions I linked to to agree with those authors that the Constitution is sufficiently unclear. That is where I leave it until such a time (if it ever happens) that such proceedings take place and establish precedence. In the non-existence of such a precedent, however, your pronouncement as fact is premature - to say the least.
I have taken enough law classes to be dangerous, but the current prohibitions built into sitting for the bar exam disgust me. More important than my profession, however, I'm a thinker. I've had conversations with people in a variety of "dirty jobs"-type positions that have been far wiser than those with ivory tower accolades, so I while I hold a master's degree, I don't view it as anything more than the necessary piece of paper for my job and not nearly as valuable as the full-time job I held down while in school. Sure, I learned valuable things in college but my study post-college has been far more personally profitable.
"Government or no government is immaterial to the fact."
I find your argument incredibly curious - especially given your avowed occupation. I would assert the exact opposite: that government is of paramount and material relevance. In civil law, the two participants must have an adjudicator and - while they certainly may expressly select an arbitrator - most choose to rely on a civil tribunal with a legally-appointed (and usually elected) magistrate (or in some cases a jury of one's peers). Thus government in this case provides the arbiter in the vast majority of civil suits as well as - and perhaps more importantly - the enforcement mechanism behind the verdict. What is also interesting is that even in arbitrated cases the enforcement is generally carried out by governmental law enforcement - not the arbiter themselves. In criminal law, the government acts on behalf of the People in front of a magistrate. The distinction between civil and criminal lies primarily in the type of complaint being heard... but I'm sure you have your own opinions on the matter.
Perhaps it is because you view yourself as an anarchist that you make this statement. To me, laws and government begin as soon as two consenting people agree that rather than kill each other they'd rather take advantage of each other's special competencies through trade. In my mind, there is no such thing as anarchy, there is only rebellion. To me, the relevant question is whether the government is going to be one of coercion or one of consent.
"But to be more accurate I am "of the People" and do not consent. That means I live under the Declaration of Indendance as a free man as opposed as the slavery imposed by the coup of the constitution."
Good luck with that.
Anyway to the argument, the only requirement for impeachment of government is that they held some sort of public trust and the action must be based on that office. If they have their hands in the government till or are trying to put their hands in the till due to prior bad behavior, they can be impeached and tried resulting in all benefits terminated and enjoined from obtaining any office of trust for the future. But rest assured as was demonstrated in England in the 1700s, that can of worms once opened are hard to stop so it is prudent to not open it. Also, all tenements of the intent of the process was erased with Amendment XVII. It is the people that have suffered from uncontrolled abuse of power.
Your argument for government is patently absurd. Government has proven many times over that they are incapable of handling anything. The current justice system is proof positive of that proposition. Just the thought of a judge is repugnant to the rights of a free man. There is only one judge in this universe and he is not of this world. That concept is of man believing he is god.
In a court of record under common law, the magistrate is separate from the tribunal. The only tasks of the magistrate is to maintain peace and order and to insure the case moves forward in reasonable time. He is allowed no other decisions. The tribunal is the jury of your peers that will determine both law and fact. Their verdict does not offer an opinion but settles the matter forever. There is no such thing as appeal. Only by fraud may one get a second shot at the apple.
"The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203" - Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 US 218, 254.
Even the county system of electing judges is obnoxious. As to whom will be the magistrate should be part of the legal process between the parties, no one else. Like UL and other standards bodies, certification should be based on acceptable standards maintained by an independent body.
And your argument that government provides is absurd on it's face Government dictates and appoints a actor in a black robe that thinks they are god. They have ideas so great that are enforced at the end of a gun. Justice is always best administered in a local environment by a professional layman knowledgeable and certified in the craft of procedure.
Criminal law is nothing more than the usurpation of the justice system. Case in point, justify criminal procedure against one for possession of a weed. Where is the injured party? Whom is the real victim? If you are actually honest with this answer, your whole argument for criminal law is blown right out of the water.
Now I find your statement somewhat insulting. I do not view myself as an anarchist, that connotates no conviction. I am an anarchist. When you state that there is no such thing as anarchy, you need to check your premises, they are in error. There can be no conflict.
To your relevant question of coercion or consent, I submit the immortal words of Lysander Spooner:
"A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases."
Government by it's very nature is coercion with ideas so great that consent is at the end of the barrel of a gun.
Thank you for your good wishes but luck is not what I need. An open mind against the enslavement of others against their will is more important.
I enjoy our disagreement as it makes for interesting debate. It is only through open debate that differences can be reconciled.
That's quite an assertion, but I think that's because in your mind you associate all "government" with the pseudo-socialist, try-to-control-everything bureaucracy we have now. I am thinking in much simpler and basic terms. As I stated before, as soon as you have two people who agree on social mores, you have government. It doesn't need to be formalized by a Magna Carta and have purview of millions of people. And yes, when the social mores are defined, the parties similarly agree on an enforcement mechanism which has actual power. In some circles this is called contract theory. Do not mistake what is actually absurd - meaning non-existent - with something that just challenges your prejudices.
"And your argument that government provides is absurd on it's face Government dictates and appoints a actor in a black robe that thinks they are god."
Now you are just letting your biases speak. Who is the source of proper Government? The People. The People agreed to form a government with certain limited powers, and this is not only at the national level but the State and local levels as well. Those governments include school boards, county and city zoning boards, even neighborhood associations. Can they become sources of tyranny when people put their ideology over their proper authority? Absolutely. Such is the trial of men - to see what they will do with power. But is the father any less of a governor than a Head of State? Not one whit. And he can govern through care or through coercion just as a public servant.
"Criminal law is nothing more than the usurpation of the justice system. ..."
Look, I know you want to play the anarchist "all government is bad" card, but your arguments truly fail because you only consider them when taken to the extreme. You are arguing an absurdity. Again - government exists as soon as you have two people who determine that they are going to work together rather than kill each other. Criminality is determined when those two (or more) people sit down and agree on a list of behaviors which aren't acceptable and agree that anyone behaving in such a way will be subject to prosecution by an impartial third party. One can only usurp power one did not legally receive in the first place.
As for your weed example, let me suggest a far better one: murder. In such a case, the true defendant is not longer around to argue their case of unwanted coercion - there can be no "civil" court. So if there are no criminal courts to take up such a case on behalf of the defendant, you have just legalized murder have you not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBmVi...
Listen very closely to the closing minutes of this interview of Ayn Rand on Johnny Carson in 1967. I would suggest listening to those moments multiple times when she describes statist.
First let me say that you have no clue as to what is in my mind, why it is in my mind nor by what means it arrived there. This would be in the realm of an ad hominem attack but not as a fallacy and I admire your skill of its use. But that does expose the reasoning behind it's use. I have no incentive to lie as it has no benefit to me at all, in fact just the opposite as it requires additional effort on my part. An effort of my own making though I might add.
"… the pseudo-socialist, try-to-control-everything bureaucracy…" would seem to be a projection of some matter you would like to be true of my argument instead of an argument against my position. This is to imply that if my argument were based on these facts that my argument would be invalid but that is not the basis of my argument at all. Government from the Latin verb gubernare: "to control", and the Latin noun mens: "mind". It is based on the concept of authority, an illusion of a diseased psyche, based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief that some people are masters who have the moral right to issue commands, and others are slaves who have a moral obligation to the masters, slavery.
Two people do not a government make. All you have there is one that believes they are the master and the other is the slave. In reality one is going to die, the question is whether tyranny or freedom remains. But your view is very shallow as government is among many where there is a master and all else are slaves with some of the slaves being order followers to do what the master more than likely doesn't have the fortitude to do themselves. To this let me ask, what power would Hitler have had would he not have had all the little psychopaths willing to violently carry out his orders? None, the little coward would have died in a matter of minuets.
Bias, if you want to see bias I would suggest a mirror. There is no proper source of government, period. Government by it's very mature is but the application of violence. Throughout history man has been controlled by clubs, stones, spears, swords and the barrels of guns. First there was the church using ecclesiastical law that was usurped by kings declaring the divine rights of the gods. Those not believing were put to death in totally inhumane ways to illustrate that power. Then came the elitist that used the ignorance of the masses to instill government by the illusion of the election. Slavery where one gets the illusion they are choosing a representative when in reality it's their master.
Your argument totally ignores history. For the purpose of this argument, let's ignore any history prior to what has been unjustly (now perhaps my bias is showing or is it? Words have meaning.) deemed the constitutional convention. By what right was this convention held, fraud? By whom was this convention held, an elite statist group? Where outside Rhode Island where the people involved, and they rejected it? What was a state convention, more elite statist? If it was of the people, why did they not ratify directly except for Rhode Island that rejected it. Here is a letter of Tench Coxe of Philadelphia showing what fools those supporting the ratification were: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/li... History has proven him wrong on every count.
I disagree with every claim you have made on the state and local level, but again for the sake of brevity I am not going to go there. I definitely disagree with you on the role of a father but again, that is a whole separate debate. I will state that I do not believe a parent has a right to initiate aggression against a child. They need to be taught the how to use dialog to resolve conflict. If you are looking for discourse in this area, I would suggest John Locke, "Second Treatise on Civil Government", Chapter VI, Of Paternal Power.
I do not "play" anything and actually find the remark insulting. I either am or I am not, in this case I am. I am under full knowledge and responsibility of what I am. Unfortunately, I can not say that about statist.
It is within the power of a person to either accept or deny slavery. If one desires to be a statist, then they have chosen slavery. They have made a claim their lives are void without the control of another. You hear it all the time: "When are they going to do something about it?" This connotates that others need to do something because the claimant is not going to do anything but whine.
Your two person argument again. I say that if two people are like that then they need to kill each other and the problem is resolved, permanently. If one where to survive, then the remainder of the society should finish the job and peace is restored. Your claim is that people are too stupid to act within the bounds of rights unless government which is the worse aggressor of all, becomes involved.
Murder, are you trying to imply that should someone murder another there is no one that will stand for the victim or more specifically are you saying you would not stand? While this country has very few moral convictions remaining could that be because government has relieved the population of all responsibility for their actions. The result is clearly demonstrated in this world today, are you saying that is what you want?
Thus my assessment of your opinion was accurate in every respect. You define government very differently than I do. When you see government, you see only one person trying to control another. When I see government I see two people agreeing on how to conduct business (which can turn into one person trying to control the other). You see only B. I see A which might - or might not - lead to B. If B were all there was, I could certainly understand how you come to the conclusions you do and would probably join you in your conclusion. I simply assert A - which changes the entire discussion.
"There is no proper source of government, period."
According to your definition of government, that might be true. I'm not using your definition, however. I'm using the one also used by the Founders in the Constitution - one that has also been noted by Locke and Blackstone. This is not a claim that people are angels nor is it a claim that noone when given power to govern will attempt to pervert that into coercive rulership such as you have described and justifiably abhor.
"Murder, are you trying to imply..."
I imply nothing. I countered your example with another example. (You posed a case regarding mind-altering drugs as a pretense that criminal courts were unjust. I responded by pointing out the case of murder is a prime example that criminal courts serve a very critical purpose.) Your choice is to either acknowledge the example I gave is valid or show why it is not.
Since you think that Clinton would have been better than Trump, I have a good guess.
I don't think we need your kind of "wisdom" here.
Is not the thread about Odumbo? Is not Odumbo ultimately responsible for the FISA fiasco?
Just because someone has left office does not mean they can't be impeached. But by the same token it also applies to those still in office.
Hitlerly better than King Donald would beg the question, define better.
But I was rooting for Hitlerly as the inevitable would now be under way instead of delayed.
You really don't think King Donald is anything beyond what he is, do you?
And how is my "wisdom" any different than what would be espoused by Ayn Rand herself? Is your argument that Ayn Rand's philosophy is not needed here?