The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Leonard R. Jaffee Archive
Structural Crisis: Senate Threatens to Usurp Presidency, Constitution, and Will of the People
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

By 8 January 2021, Mitch McConnell had determined he would not permit the Senate to try Trump until 19 January 2021 or later. He ruled that the Senate could not convene for special session unless all 100 Senators formally agreed; he maintained that ruling consistently, through 19 January 2021. By 10 January 2021, House majority Whip James Clyburn suggested the House may not deliver articles of impeachment to the Senate until after Biden has been in Office 100 days.

Not until today, 20 January 2021, did Pelosi deliver articles of impeachment to the Senate. The same day, McConnell said: (a) the Senate will receive the House managers at noon ET Thursday, 21 January, when the managers will present and exhibit the articles; (b) at 2:00 PM 21 January, Chief Justice John Roberts will be escorted into the Senate chamber and swear in all senators; (c) the impeachment articles’ trial will begin Tuesday, 26 January.

Until 20 or 21 January, the Senate majority would remain Republican; and a GOP-majority Senate would not only acquit Trump but also impeach, strongly, the articles of impeachment. So, why did Mitch McConnell block early Senate trial? Two possible intersecting reasons:

  • (a) McConnell hates Trump, Trump’s “populism,” and the MAGA population. [McConnell has suggested he would vote to convict — apparently, a “vote of conscience,” not a reflection of evidence, fact, and law (since all actual valid, reliable legally competent evidence indicates conclusively that Trump did not incite insurrection or commit, or urge others to commit, the crime of sedition) McConnell has said Trump fed the “mob” lies to provoke the mob to use violence to prevent Congress’s certification of Biden’s election.]
  • (b) If trial occurs (as it will) when the Democrats control the Senate, a conviction might seem a Democrat-framed lynching — not the GOP’s traitorous assassination of Trump’s “populism” and his political career.

I do not suggest such reasons are wise, logical, or even rational, but possibly real. McConnell is a crafty, dissembling, unscrupulous pseudo-aristocrat, but no Socrates or Aristotle.

“Liberal” and “moderate” Democrats, never-Trump Republicans,“The Squad, ” the “Deep State” — the nation’s whole jumble of psychopathic and otherwise-psychically-ill “Elite,” “woke,” anti-“White”/anti-male/anti-meritocracy/sexually-deviant members — all share one mantra : Trump and populism are evil, inimical to “Democracy” and the “culture,” “morality,” and “public interests” of the U.S. Populism must be extinguished. Never again may Trump “hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” [U.S. Constitution Article I § 3 clause 7].

Why ought anyone care?

I voted twice for Trump, the second time (2020) merely because he was the lesser evil. In 2016, Trump promised more than a few moves that would have bettered the nation, e.g.,

  • (a) end then-existing military adventures and do not begin others unless truly necessary to the actual safety of the nation, and cease interfering in other nations’ governments but conduct foreign affairs with negotiation
  • (b) re-enact Glass-Steagell and strengthen it, and break up the worst big banks
  • (c) cut Mexican and Central American immigration drastically
  • (d) withdraw from NAFTA or modify it drastically for benefit of American citizen workers
  • (e) withdraw from the Pacific Rim trade agreement (“Trans-Pacific Partnership”) Obama promoted
  • (f) cut substantially major U.S. corporations’ outsourcing labor to foreign nation residents
  • (g) protect Social Security and Medicare
  • (h) withdraw from NATO or demand the other NATO members pay a fair share of its cost
  • (i) “drain the swamp” and cut the power of the Deep State
  • (j) improve the economic health of the Middle Class and cut Middle Class taxation
  • (k) cut healthcare costs

Trump meant and honored some promises — at least partly. But others — (a), (b), (f), (h), (i), and (k) — were bad jokes. His Israel policy was evil. He railed against growing impairment of free speech. But his concern was mostly his own freedom of expression; and he failed to do anything substantial toward restoring the general public’s freedom of speech. He continued, and worsened, Obama’s persecution of Julian Assange and Bradley [“Chelsea”] Manning. Edward Snowden remains exiled. Trump has pardoned or commuted sentence of tens of nefarious criminals, but not Assange, Manning, or Snowden.

Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, George W Bush, and Obama supported the illegal “state” called Israel. But Trump lifted Israel-support, and, concomitantly, anti-Iran policy to insane levels. Trump’s Israel-related domestic policy included design of blocking or impeding first-amendment-protected speech and assembly that opposes Israel’s genocidal persecution of Palestinians. Trump rendered formal equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and sought to outlaw the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement.

So, why ought we care whether, after Trump is not President, the Senate tries the articles of impeachment of Trump and rules that Trump shall not “hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States”? Why ought we care even whether simply the Senate tries the articles of impeachment but acquits Trump?

Trump’s 2016 election suggested a true populist might become President — not a closet “Elite,” but one who would resist the Elites and the Deep State, not surround himself with snakes of the swamp. If the Senate tries Trump and rules that Trump shall not “hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” because Trump and his supporters exercised their First Amendment freedom of speaking and assembling to support populism and protest a corrupt election, speech and assembly freedoms will cease and near-certainly no capable, electable populist will run for the Presidency.

But that consideration is subsumed in another, greater, more vital, fundamental concern.

We have a federal Constitution. Every federal legislator and judge promises, by oath, not to act contrary to that Constitution.

Every federal judge must promise this: “I…solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me…under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Every federal legislator must promise this: “I…solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”

The Constitution’s Preamble asserts:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The highlighted terms accord with Benthamian Utilitarianism — the greatest human happiness of the greatest human number.[1]Compare the Declaration of Independence’s assertion of an “unalienable” right of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” which comports with Benthamian utilitarianism — except that no “rights” are inalienable, natural rights, but all rights are solely creatures of law (even if the “law” is a primitive tribal chief’s promise of violent enforcement or protection of two tribe-members’ private agreement). “Benthamian” references Jeremy Bentham, 1747-1832, an English economist, philosopher, and jurist.

Bentham proposed his utilitarian principle, “principle of utility,” first in 1776, in his work Fragment on Government. In a text published first in 1789, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Copyright © Jonathan Bennett 2017: All rights reserved), Bentham elaborated extensively upon his Fragment on Government’s “utilitarian” principle. In footnote 1 of An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (supra), Bentham wrote:

I have heard it described as `a dangerous principle’, something that on certain occasions it is `dangerous to consult’. This amounts to saying that it is not consonant to utility to consult utility-i.e. that it is not consulting it, to consult it.

* * * [Ellipsis added.]

Not long after the publication of my `Fragment on Government’ (1776), in which the principle of utility was brought to view as an all-comprehensive and all-commanding principle, one person who said something to that effect was Alexander Wedderburn, at that time Attorney General…. [Ellipsis added] He said it in the hearing of someone who passed it on to me. So far from being self-contradictory, the remark was shrewd and perfectly true…. [Ellipsis original.] A principle that lays down, as the only right and justifiable end of government, the greatest happiness of the greatest number-how can it be denied to be dangerous? It is unquestionably dangerous to every government that has for its actual goal the greatest happiness of one person, perhaps with the addition of a comparatively small number of others whom he finds it pleasing or convenient to admit to a share in the concern, like junior partners. So it really was dangerous to the sinister interest of all those functionaries, Wedderburn included, whose interest it was to maximise delay, vexation, and expense in judicial and other procedures, for the sake of the profit they could extract from this. In a government whose goal really was the greatest happiness of the greatest number, Wedderburn might still have been Attorney General, then Chancellor; but he would not have been !Attorney General with £15,000 a year, or !Chancellor with a peerage and a veto on all justice and £25,000 a year, and with 500 sinecures at his disposal.

Wedderburn parallels well our 21st century American Elites, Democrats, never-Trump Republicans, neoliberals, and neoconservatives — even, in some essentials, BLM and advocates of “affirmative action” and certain homosexual and transsexual rights. Surely Wedderburn would support Trump’s Senate trial conviction, enthusiastically.
Much (but surely not all) pertinent history suggests that Bentham’s thinking influenced the construction of the Preamble — though in the 18th century, the greatest number did not include Black slaves, non-Black indentured servants bound long to their masters, or any but spare few indigenous Americans.[2]I do not suggest that the Black Lives Matter movement [“BLM”] deserves support or respect. BLM is rabid, much criminal, stupid racism. BLM does not seek legal equality or rational legitimate racial equity — but subjugation of “White” Americans and unearned socioeconomic/political advancement of American “Blacks.”

Democrats, Never-Trump Republicans — Congress-Members, many federal judges, Trump-administration-members — and too many lunatic pundits, “journalists,” and common folk have been hell-bent toward (a) destroying Trump and any populist ideas associated with him and (b) instituting a regime of anti-utilitarian lunacy in which freaks are normal and psychopathic greed is the moral code.

That bent is anathema to the federal Constitution’s Preamble. In the election-fraud-denial aspect of the Trump impeachment, that bent is anathema also to several of the federal Constitution’s provisions that are fundamental to realization of the purpose abstracted in the Constitution’s Preamble.

Where that bent manifests in Congress-Members and federal Judges, it reflects a flagrant dishonor of magnitude rarely witnessed in the history of nations. It is criminal disloyalty. It is criminally conspiratorial because increasingly it occurs with impunity.

The truly grave matter is not the Senate’s treatment of Trump — whether particularly the Senate tries Trump and holds Trump guilty. Such result would be unfair to Trump — bar, illegally and unjustly, his holding any “Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” defame him unjustly and horrendously, harm him economically for wrong cause, and not-unlikely endanger him otherwise. Accordingly, the pro-impeachment Senators would deserve severest rebuke.

The core and overarching matter the government’s and the political parties’ quasi-seditious/quasi-treasonous trashing of our Constitution — “quasi-seditious/quasi-treasonous,” because not involving or suggesting use of force or involving or aiding an “enemy” of the U.S. [Compare 18 U.S. Code §§ 2381- 2386 & U.S. Constitution Article III § 3 clause 1].[3]U.S. Constitution Article III, § 3, clause 1 provides:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Per U.S. Constitution Article III, § 3, clause 1, one commits “Treason” against the United States only if either

(a) one wages war against the United States — as by fighting for a foreign state attacking or attempting to attack the United States or by joining an armed insurrection (against the U.S. government)

or

(b) one adheres to — adopts a supportive association with — a foreign power engaged in open hostility against the United States and renders active aid or comfort to the troops or other belligerency-agents of that foreign power.

The Article III, section 3, clause 1 term “enemies,” applies only to troops or other belligerency-agents of a foreign power manifesting a state of open hostility against the United States. The term’s denotation does not include U.S. domestic rebels engaged in insurrection or sedition against the U.S. government.

But if an insurrection’s armed forces form a “body politic” (as did the Confederacy of the U.S. civil war), then such armed force’s members are “enemies”: Such belligerent body politic is effectively a “foreign” power. And if one adheres to such belligerent body politic and renders aid or comfort to its troops or other belligerency-agents, one commits “Treason.” But such belligerent body politic is not an “enemy” unless its belligerency manifests as war (armed violent belligerence).

Article III, section 3, clause 1 applies only to disloyal acts committed during time of war or armed insurrection and in pursuit or support of such war or armed insurrection— not to disloyal speech or anti-government conduct occurring in peacetime.

Compare, e.g.,

(a) pp.331-335 of https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent....xt=ylj

(b) https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/....2.pdf

(c) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/

(d) https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitut...ses/39

(e) https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/44-...y.html

That is why I write this article. That is why I shall show the dishonor — and illegality — of the House’s delivering articles of impeachment to the Senate and the Senate’s trying Trump after Trump’s term has ended and he has left Office. And that is why I shall show that if federal judges refuse to declare such Congressional action unconstitutional, those federal judges will have violated the Constitution and their oaths and committed impeachable offenses.

I. Senate “precedent” cannot govern whether the Senate can try Trump after his term has ended and he has left Office

Some “scholars” argue that the Senate may adjudge the second Trump impeachment after Trump is not in Office (after his Presidency term has ended and he has vacated Office). The arguments cite “precedents,” which I discuss below. But precedent-reliance is error.

The Senate is not a common law court. The Senate cannot rely on or be bound by the Senate’s previous impeachment-trial judgments, as if those decisions were judicial “precedent.” In impeachment trials, the Senate’s jurisdiction depends directly and solely on these Article I § 3 provisions:

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. [Article I § 3 clause 6]

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States. [Article I § 3 clause 7]

In the Article I § 3 clause 7 phrase “removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office…,” the conjunction is not “or,” but “and.” Hence, if the Senate adjudges an impeached Officer guilty of the charge presented by articles of impeachment, the Senate may remove the Officer from Office AND disqualify him from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” The Senate cannot disqualify the impeached Officer from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” unless the Senate removes him from Office.

Therefore, the case must be one in which the impeached official can be removed from office. And such case does not obtain where the Officer does not hold, or remain in, Office.

Were the critical conjunction “or,” not “and,” the Senate could choose either (a) to remove an impeached Officer from Office or (b) to disqualify him from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” [or both (a) and (b), if the impeached Officer remained in Office when the Senate tried him]. Hence, if the critical conjunction were “or,” even if an impeached Officer were not in Office, the Senate could disqualify him from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” But the critical Article I § 3 clause 7 conjunction is not “or.” It is “and.”

Yet, suppose, in impeachment trials, the Senate were like a common law court — bound by, or entitled to rely on, Senate impeachment trial “precedent.” Still, never has the Senate held that the Senate can try an impeached Officer who is not in Office at the time of trial.

II. No Congressional “precedent” could establish that the Senate can try Trump after his term has ended and he has left Office; but, rather, prior cases indicate the contrary

The first federal impeachment case was the 1798 impeachment of U.S. Senator William Blount. The Senate had expelled Blount for “high misdemeanor.” Blount was ordered to appear before a Senate select committee. He refused. A Senate impeachment trial began without him. The trial never reached the merits. The Senate dismissed the impeachment because the Senate lacked jurisdiction since Blount was not in Office at the time the impeachment articles reached the Senate for trial: Blount had been expelled from the Senate.

Some “scholars” cite the 1827 case of Vice President John C. Calhoun. Calhoun’s enemies were rumoring that Calhoun engaged in financial misconduct when, earlier, he was Secretary of War. Though Calhoun had left the Office of Secretary of War and had become Vice President, Calhoun begged the House to impeach him concerning whether he abused his Office when he was Secretary of War. Calhoun wanted a forum and process in which he could refute the rumors.

The House investigated Calhoun and cleared him. But he was not impeached. Hence, the Calhoun case does not support the argument that the Senate can try an Officer after he has left Office.

Some “scholars” cite also the 1846 case of Daniel Webster. Webster was President Tyler’s Secretary of State. Three years after he left the post (and four years before he returned to it), Webster was accused of using federal funds improperly while he was Secretary of State (under Tyler). Some House members thought impeachment would be proper means of testing the accusations.

During House’s debates of Webster’s case, John Quincy Adams asserted that the House could impeach a person after he left Office. Adams’s assertion is oft-cited as “proof “ of the truth of its content. But impeachment did not occur. Hence the case, and Adams’s assertion, prove naught but the fact that some House members thought impeachment was possible though Webster had left Office.

Some “scholars” cite also the 1870 case of Benjamin Franklin Whittemore and John Deweese. The House censured Whittemore and Deweese for selling commissions to the Naval Academy while Whittemore and Deweese were House-Members — despite Whittemore and Deweese were no longer Members of the House. The House debated whether the House could impeach Whittemore and Deweese. But impeachment did not issue — partly because one House-Member thought that the Blount case [see above] had established that Congress-Members could not be impeached.[4]U.S. Constitution Article II § 4 suggests a Congress-Member is not impeachable:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

A legislator is not a “civil Officer.” The term “civil Officer” denotes a member of the Executive (“executive officer”) or the Judiciary (“officer of the court”). Just so, since the phrase “and all civil Officers” follows the phrase “The President, Vice President,” the phrase “and all civil Officers” connotes Officers like the President and Vice President, not legislators (Members of the House or Senate).

Some “scholars” cite the 1873 case of Judge Mark Delahay. House-Members alleged that Delahay’s personal habits rendered him unfit for judicial office: he was intoxicated both on the bench and off. Delahay resigned before the House could draft accusation-specific, formal articles of impeachment and deliver them to the Senate for trial. So, Delahay was neither formally impeached nor submitted to Senate trial. Hence, the case cannot be precedent.

In the 1876 case of Secretary of War William Belknap, the House impeached Belknap after he had resigned his Office. The Senate’s minority insisted the Senate lacked jurisdiction because Belknap had resigned his Office. For that reason the minority voted to acquit. Belknap was acquitted.

Though the Senate’s simple majority argued that the Senate had jurisdiction and pressed the case to judgment, that argument is not precedent. The argument was not upheld by two-thirds vote. Belknap was acquitted. And Belknap’s Office had not ended (albeit Belknap had left Office). Belknap had resigned, and, therefore, could have continued holding Office.

A more interesting case is the 1912 impeachment of Judge Robert Archbald. At the time of his impeachment and Senate trial, Archbald was an Article III judge of the U.S. Commerce Court, an Article III court.[3]U.S. Constitution Article III, § 3, clause 1 provides:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Per U.S. Constitution Article III, § 3, clause 1, one commits “Treason” against the United States only if either

(a) one wages war against the United States — as by fighting for a foreign state attacking or attempting to attack the United States or by joining an armed insurrection (against the U.S. government)

or

(b) one adheres to — adopts a supportive association with — a foreign power engaged in open hostility against the United States and renders active aid or comfort to the troops or other belligerency-agents of that foreign power.

The Article III, section 3, clause 1 term “enemies,” applies only to troops or other belligerency-agents of a foreign power manifesting a state of open hostility against the United States. The term’s denotation does not include U.S. domestic rebels engaged in insurrection or sedition against the U.S. government.

But if an insurrection’s armed forces form a “body politic” (as did the Confederacy of the U.S. civil war), then such armed force’s members are “enemies”: Such belligerent body politic is effectively a “foreign” power. And if one adheres to such belligerent body politic and renders aid or comfort to its troops or other belligerency-agents, one commits “Treason.” But such belligerent body politic is not an “enemy” unless its belligerency manifests as war (armed violent belligerence).

Article III, section 3, clause 1 applies only to disloyal acts committed during time of war or armed insurrection and in pursuit or support of such war or armed insurrection— not to disloyal speech or anti-government conduct occurring in peacetime.

Compare, e.g.,

(a) pp.331-335 of https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent....xt=ylj

(b) https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/....2.pdf

(c) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/

(d) https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitut...ses/39

(e) https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/44-...y.html
But of the twelve articles of impeachment, six articles addressed alleged misconduct committed while Archbald was a judge of a U.S. District Court, another Article III court. Still, the Archbald case is not precedent for the proposition that the Senate can try an Officer’s impeachment after the Officer has left office.

Six impeachment charges related to alleged misconduct Archbald committed while holding the Office of a U.S. Commerce Court judge. While Archbald was still a Commerce Court judge, Archbald was convicted of two of those six charges. Archbald was acquitted from all six impeachment charges that related to his conduct occurring while he was a District Court judge.

Archbald had been elevated from a U.S. District Court judgeship to another federal “Article III” judgeship, a Commerce Court judgeship, when, and from which, the Senate removed him. Archbald’s two federal judgeships can be treated as one “office” — for impeachment and Senate trial purposes — for several reasons:

  • (a) Often U.S. District Court judges sit in U.S. Circuit Court three-judge panels in federal appellate cases.
  • (b) Commerce Court judges were reassigned to another appellate court when their term on the Commerce Court expired. Even while they served on the Commerce Court, Commerce Court judges served also as at-large appellate judges whom the U.S. Supreme Court’s Chief Justice could assign to any federal appellate court.

Commerce Court judges heard claims arising from orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Commerce Court judges rendered judicial review of such orders. So, effectively, Commerce Court judges acted as hybrid trial-court/appellate-court judges. [The Commerce Court was abolished one year after Archbald was removed from that court. In 1982, the “Federal Circuit” Court of Appeals was given jurisdiction like, but broader than, that had by the Commerce Court.]

A federal District Court judge, federal Court of Appeals judge, or any other federal “Article III judge” holds office for life, unless impeached and removed for bad “behaviour.” [Compare endnote 5 (infra) & U.S. Constitution Article III § 1 sentence 2 (quoted infra) & U.S. Constitution Article II § 4 (quoted supra)]. So, even after elevated from his District Court judgeship, Archbald continued to hold the same Office — the Office of an Article III judge. An Article III judge is an Article III judge — not only a judge of a specific Article III federal court.

So, Archbald had not left office — U.S. Constitution Article III judicial office — when, and from which, the Senate removed him, even if (as was not true) the Senate had removed him partly because of misconduct he committed while a U.S. District Court judge.

One may question whether federal Article III judges’ so-called “impeachments” rest solely, or even partly, on the power the Constitution’s Article II § 4 assigns to the House.

U.S. Constitution Article III § 1 sentence 2 provides: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished….” [See also endnote 5 (infra).] Since the Article III judge-removal standard is breach of good behavior, federal judge impeachment/removal seems a process somewhat, or materially, distinct from the process of impeaching and removing other “civil Officers” — for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” [U.S. Constitution Article II § 4].

Hence, for reason of such distinction, the Archbald case may be specially not precedent for impeachments and Senate trials of Presidents, Vice Presidents, and other non-judicial civil Officers.

The ultimate conclusion must be that, ‘”as a matter of law,” the Senate cannot try an impeachment of a President, Vice President, or other federal civil Officer (except, perhaps, an Article III judge) whose Office’s term has ended and who has thus left Office. The Senate will violate the Constitution and act unlawfully unless the Senate refuses to try Trump and dismisses the articles of impeachment for lack of Senate jurisdiction — because Trumps term has expired and he has vacated Office.

III. The federal Constitution empowers a federal court to declare unconstitutional the Senate’s trying an ex-President after his term has ended and he has vacated Office; and such declaration would not usurp a power of Congress or trespass upon Congressional authority

Suppose, despite Trump’s Office has ended and Trump has vacated the Office of the Presidency, the Senate tries Trump and disqualifies him from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), established that the federal judiciary possesses the sole power to determine conclusively what the law is — what is the law of the land, including the “law” of the federal Constitution:. “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” [Idem at p.4.]

Respecting whether the House can impeach an ex-President and the Senate try him after his Office has ended and he has vacated it, the threshold, jurisdictional matter is purely one of constitutional lawpurely the meanings of certain terms of the federal Constitution. Hence, a federal court would not usurp Congress’s power or invade the province of the Congress if the court issued a declaratory judgement determining that matter in Trump’s case.

Cf. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (in which I wrote part of the winning brief). In the Powell case, Petitioner Adam Clayton Powell had been duly elected to the House of Representatives, 90th Congress. He was denied his seat by House Resolution No. 278. The Resolution was premised on charges that Powell had misappropriated public funds and abused the process of the New York courts.

Petitioner Powell (and certain voters) brought federal District Court suit for injunctive, mandatory, and declaratory relief. Respondents were certain named House members and the Speaker, Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, and Doorkeeper of the House. The suit’s core and fundamental allegation was that the Resolution violated U.S. Constitution Article I § 2 clauses 1 & 2.

U.S. Constitution Article I § 2 clause 1 provides (in apparently mandatory terms) that House members be elected by the people of each State. Article I § 2 clause 2 sets the qualifications of House-membership — age, citizenship, and residence — all satisfied by Powell.

Powell claimed that those Article I § 2 qualification-requirements were exclusive, that the House Clerk threatened (unlawfully) to refuse to perform the service to which Powell was entitled as a duly elected Congressman, that the Sergeant at Arms refused (unlawfully) to pay Powell’s salary, and that the Doorkeeper threatened (unlawfully) to deny Powell admission to the House chamber.

The Supreme Court held, inter alia, thus:

Although the Speech and Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6, clause 1) bars judicial action against respondent Congress-Members for statements (including votes) rendered in Congressional proceedings, that clause does not bar action against Congressional employees charged with unconstitutional activity — despite the employees act pursuant to express orders of the House (or Senate) — and it does not preclude judicial review of the constitutionality of the underlying legislative decision. [395 U.S. at 501-506.]

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the petitioners’ action. [395 U.S. at 512-516.] The case is one “arising under” the Constitution per Article III, since petitioners’ claims will be sustained if a federal court gives the pertinent Constitution provisions one construction and will be defeated if it gives those provisions another construction. [395 U.S. at 513-514.]

The litigation was justiciable also because

  • (a) the claim presented and the relief sought can be judicially resolved. [395 U.S. at 516-518.]
  • (b) if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. [395 U.S. at 517.]
  • (c) The relief sought is susceptible of judicial resolution, since, notwithstanding the appropriateness of a coercive remedy against House personnel (an issue the Court did not decide), declaratory relief is independently available. [395 U.S. at 517-518.]

In judging the qualifications of its members under Article I § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. [395 U.S. at 550.]

Just so, the case did not involve a “political question” [395 U.S. at 518-549.][6]Per the “separation of powers” doctrine, a “political question” is non-justiciable [not determinable by a (federal) court]. — because

If Trump — or, e.g., a Senator — sought declaratory judgment of whether the Senate lacks power of trying Trump now, after his Office ended and he vacated it, the law and jurisdictional facts would be near-perfectly analogous to those of Powell v. McCormack. In the Trump impeachment trial case, the legal matter favors Trump more than did the legal matters in Powell v. McCormack (supra).

In the Trump impeachment trial case the matter is the proper construction of U.S. Constitution Article I § 3 clause 7 (quoted supra). A declaratory judgment would not attack the Senate or a Senator — or even a House-Member who prosecutes the impeachment. Rather, a declaratory judgment would determine only whether Article I § 3 clause 7 empowers the Senate to try and impose an Article I § 3 clause 7 penalty on Trump despite his Office has ended and he has vacated it.

The case would not present a “political question.” The case would “arise under” the Constitution per Article III, since petitioners’ claims will be sustained if a federal court gives Article I § 3 clause 7 one construction but defeated if it gives that provision another construction. Per a “textually demonstrable” limitation of the Senate’s power of punishing an impeached President, the Court could decide “as a [pure] matter of law” whether the Senate has jurisdiction to try impeachment of an ex-President after his Office has ended and he has vacated it.

The case would not be merely “an occasion” where “our system of government requires a federal court to interpret the Constitution differently from how other branches interpret it.” It would epitomize necessity of the federal judiciary’s acting to protect our government’s constitutional organization from one government-branch’s becoming dictatorial — usurping the Presidency, the Will of the People, and the government-organization and political prescriptions of the Constitution.

Nor would the case involve a federal court’s entering a “potentially embarrassing confrontation” of the Senate. If the Senate were embarrassed, the Senate would have embarrassed itself by pursuing a grave-effect-threatening, flagrantly unconstitutional defamatory and otherwise grievously harmful punishment of a duly elected President — especially since the Senate would do so for corrupt and nation-destructive, wickedly-pernicious political motive.

The petition could name as respondent(s) the Senate Clerk, the Senate Secretary, or both; and the petition could plead that neither Clerk nor Secretary can call roll to determine presence of Trump trial quorum because the Senate lacks jurisdiction to commence the trial.[8]Per the Standing Rules of the United States Senate, if any senator requests a quorum call by “suggesting the absence of a quorum,” the current Clerk must call the roll of the Senate and note which members are present. In practice, senators almost always request quorum calls not to establish the presence of a quorum, but to delay proceedings temporarily without having to adjourn the session.

According to the Congressional Research Service publication “Voting and Quorum Procedures in the Senate” (Updated March 26, 2020), under the Senate’s standing rules, if no other Senator has the floor,

any Senator (including a Senator who is presiding) may “suggest the absence of a quorum.” The presiding officer may not respond to this statement by counting the number of Senators actually present unless the Senate is operating under cloture. At all other times, when a Senator suggests the absence of a quorum, the presiding officer responds by directing the Clerk to call the roll. Paragraph 3 of Rule VI requires:

If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the presiding officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate.

A quorum call begins formally when the Clerk calls the first name. Once the quorum call has begun, the Senate may not resume the conduct of business until a Senator-majority responds to the call, or unless the Senate agrees by unanimous consent to “dispense with further proceedings under the quorum call.” While the quorum call is in progress, no debate or motion is in order, nor may the Senate act on any unanimous consent request except a request to dispense with the call.
The court would not judge or even consider or quote a single word of any Senate debate or of any Senator, or even of a House-member who prosecutes the impeachment.

If the petitioner were a Senator, the core question would be whether, constitutionally, the petitioning Senator, or any Senator, can vote to try an ex-President after his Office has ended and he has vacated it.

And the matter would be only — purely — the meaning of Article I § 3 clause 7 : precisely what power that provision grants Senators, or the Senate, and what limit(s) that power suffers.

Surely, a Trump-supporting Senator, like Senator Josh Hawley, will “suggest the absence of a quorum.” The declaratory judgment petition can be filed, electronically, an instant after such Senator states such quorum-absence suggestion. That Senator may even be named a petitioner.

The petition could request a temporary restraining order issued to the Senate Clerk or Secretary or both — an order restraining the Clerk or Secretary from calling roll. Or the petition could seek solely a declaratory judgment respecting the pertinent limit(s) of the Senate’s Article I § 3 clause 7 power.

If the Clerk or Secretary calls roll and trial begins, the court could determine whether the Senate lacks jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. If the court declares that the Senate lacks jurisdiction, the court would issue declaratory judgment that holds so.

The court could not stop the proceeding. No U.S. Marshall could enter the Senate to force the Senate to halt trial.

But Trump would have a judgment that would invalidate a Senate determination that he (Trump) cannot “hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” [per U.S. Constitution Article I § 3 clause 7]. And such judicial judgment ought (a) militate against any court’s adjudging Trump guilty of sedition or inciting a riot when he gave his 6 January 2021 speech and (b) enable Trump to run again for political office.[9]I wrote “…such judicial judgment ought to militate against any court’s adjudging Trump guilty of sedition or inciting a riot when he gave his 6 January 2021 speech and enable Trump to run again for political office” — not “such judicial judgment will militate against…[etc.] — because, with their treatments of numerous legitimate, well-evidence-supported petitions and complaints challenging the 3 November 2020 Presidency election, the federal courts have shown themselves incapable of dispassionate enforcement of the law — for lack of honor or courage, or because they are corrupt. And it would encourage a true, courageous, electable populist to run for the Presidency. And it would accord the “lower” classes — the “common folk” — some rational hope.

I expect, however, that no federal court will permit even preliminary consideration of a petition seeking declaration that the Senate lacks jurisdiction to try Trump’s impeachment. Corruptly, they will insist, contrary to law, that such petition puts a political question or is barred by the separation of powers doctrine or that the petitioner lacks standing for lacking “legally protected interest” or…….[10]In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), Justice Scalia stated the now-mechanically-applied rule that federal judicial standing requires that the claimant has suffered an “injury in fact,” which, Justice Scalia asserted, is “a concrete and particularized, actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest.” He added that standing is specially unlikely where “third parties,” rather than the named claimants, are the objects of Government action or inaction that the claimants challenge. 504 U.S. at pp.559-562.

In that Lujan case, the claimants were wildlife conservation and other environmental organizations who sought a declaratory judgment that two Cabinet Officers violated the Endangered Species Act when they issued a new regulation that cut protection of certain species habitat. Justice Scalia opined that the claimants lacked standing partly because their claims sought to further arguably statute-protected interests of persons or non-human entities other than the claimants.

In Lujan, the “legally protected interest” problem was that the claimant’s alleged interest did not fit the specific language of the statutory protection the claimants asserted. If Trump or a Senator filed a federal court petition seeking declaration that the Senate lacks jurisdiction to try Trump’s second impeachment because Trump’s Office has ended and he has vacated it, the court could not assert truthfully, honorably, non-corruptly, that the claimant lacks legally protected interest.

Trump is entitled to the protection of the limit Article I § 3 clause 7 imposes on the Senate. A Senator is entitled not to be put in a Senate situation in which his Office will be tainted by unconstitutional process or he will be forced to suffer a Hobson’s choice of acting as if unconstitutional Senate process were lawful or disassociating himself from that process by refusing to participate and hence suffering political calumny and ostracism or Senate censure or expulsion from the Senate.

With the federal judiciary’s corrupt or cowardly treatment of legitimate election-result challenges, the federal judiciary has shown it has abnegated its constitutional duty and will incline to commit impeachable offenses to avoid resisting the Elites’ and the Deep State’s subjugation of the People. The Supreme Court has shown that five or more pseudo-aristocrat judges (two Democrats, three or more Republicans) align with the Elites and the Deep State. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is correct. The People are suffering a revolution wrought by the “Establishment” (of the Elites and the Deep State).

Leonard R. Jaffee is Professor of Law Emeritus: Juris Doctor degree, Rutgers (Newark) School of Law, Editor-in-Chief of Rutgers Law Review, graduated first-in-class, has been full-professor member of eight Law Schools, including Washington University (St. Louis), Rutgers (Camden) University, Villanova University, Willamette University (where he held an endowed Chair), and l’Université de Montpellier (France). Among his major law-topic publications (oft-cited & relied-on by courts & lawyers) are:

  • The Troubles with Law and Economics , 20 Hofstra Law Rev. 777 (1993) (155 pages)
  • Of Probativity and Probability: Statistics, Scientific Evidence, and the Calculus of Chance at Trial , 46 U. Pittsburgh Law Rev. 925 (1985) (157 pages)
  • The Constitution and Proof by Dead or Unconfrontable Declarants , 33 Arkansas L. Rev. 227 (1979) (150 pages)
  • State Citizen Rights Respecting Greatwater Resources Allocation: From Rome to New Jersey , 25 Rutgers Law Rev. 571 (1972) (139 pages)

Among his online law-topic publications are:

His arguments have won often in the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts, and appellate courts of several states. Many litigator-attorneys rely on his advice and arguments.

NOTES

[1] Compare the Declaration of Independence’s assertion of an “unalienable” right of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” which comports with Benthamian utilitarianism — except that no “rights” are inalienable, natural rights, but all rights are solely creatures of law (even if the “law” is a primitive tribal chief’s promise of violent enforcement or protection of two tribe-members’ private agreement). “Benthamian” references Jeremy Bentham, 1747-1832, an English economist, philosopher, and jurist.

Bentham proposed his utilitarian principle, “principle of utility,” first in 1776, in his work Fragment on Government. In a text published first in 1789, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Copyright © Jonathan Bennett 2017: All rights reserved), Bentham elaborated extensively upon his Fragment on Government’s “utilitarian” principle. In footnote 1 of An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (supra), Bentham wrote:

I have heard it described as `a dangerous principle’, something that on certain occasions it is `dangerous to consult’. This amounts to saying that it is not consonant to utility to consult utility-i.e. that it is not consulting it, to consult it.

* * * [Ellipsis added.]

Not long after the publication of my `Fragment on Government’ (1776), in which the principle of utility was brought to view as an all-comprehensive and all-commanding principle, one person who said something to that effect was Alexander Wedderburn, at that time Attorney General…. [Ellipsis added] He said it in the hearing of someone who passed it on to me. So far from being self-contradictory, the remark was shrewd and perfectly true…. [Ellipsis original.] A principle that lays down, as the only right and justifiable end of government, the greatest happiness of the greatest number-how can it be denied to be dangerous? It is unquestionably dangerous to every government that has for its actual goal the greatest happiness of one person, perhaps with the addition of a comparatively small number of others whom he finds it pleasing or convenient to admit to a share in the concern, like junior partners. So it really was dangerous to the sinister interest of all those functionaries, Wedderburn included, whose interest it was to maximise delay, vexation, and expense in judicial and other procedures, for the sake of the profit they could extract from this. In a government whose goal really was the greatest happiness of the greatest number, Wedderburn might still have been Attorney General, then Chancellor; but he would not have been !Attorney General with £15,000 a year, or !Chancellor with a peerage and a veto on all justice and £25,000 a year, and with 500 sinecures at his disposal.

Wedderburn parallels well our 21st century American Elites, Democrats, never-Trump Republicans, neoliberals, and neoconservatives — even, in some essentials, BLM and advocates of “affirmative action” and certain homosexual and transsexual rights. Surely Wedderburn would support Trump’s Senate trial conviction, enthusiastically.

[2] I do not suggest that the Black Lives Matter movement [“BLM”] deserves support or respect. BLM is rabid, much criminal, stupid racism. BLM does not seek legal equality or rational legitimate racial equity — but subjugation of “White” Americans and unearned socioeconomic/political advancement of American “Blacks.”

[3] U.S. Constitution Article III, § 3, clause 1 provides:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Per U.S. Constitution Article III, § 3, clause 1, one commits “Treason” against the United States only if either

(a) one wages war against the United States — as by fighting for a foreign state attacking or attempting to attack the United States or by joining an armed insurrection (against the U.S. government)

or

(b) one adheres to — adopts a supportive association with — a foreign power engaged in open hostility against the United States and renders active aid or comfort to the troops or other belligerency-agents of that foreign power.

The Article III, section 3, clause 1 term “enemies,” applies only to troops or other belligerency-agents of a foreign power manifesting a state of open hostility against the United States. The term’s denotation does not include U.S. domestic rebels engaged in insurrection or sedition against the U.S. government.

But if an insurrection’s armed forces form a “body politic” (as did the Confederacy of the U.S. civil war), then such armed force’s members are “enemies”: Such belligerent body politic is effectively a “foreign” power. And if one adheres to such belligerent body politic and renders aid or comfort to its troops or other belligerency-agents, one commits “Treason.” But such belligerent body politic is not an “enemy” unless its belligerency manifests as war (armed violent belligerence).

Article III, section 3, clause 1 applies only to disloyal acts committed during time of war or armed insurrection and in pursuit or support of such war or armed insurrection— not to disloyal speech or anti-government conduct occurring in peacetime.

Compare, e.g.,

(a) pp.331-335 of https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2589&context=ylj

(b) https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0026.f.cas/0026.f.cas.0018.2.pdf

(c) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/

(d) https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/39

(e) https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/44-aid-and-comfort-to-the-enemy.html

[4] U.S. Constitution Article II § 4 suggests a Congress-Member is not impeachable:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

A legislator is not a “civil Officer.” The term “civil Officer” denotes a member of the Executive (“executive officer”) or the Judiciary (“officer of the court”). Just so, since the phrase “and all civil Officers” follows the phrase “The President, Vice President,” the phrase “and all civil Officers” connotes Officers like the President and Vice President, not legislators (Members of the House or Senate).

[5] An Article III court is a court established per Article III and having judges holding life tenure [“shall hold their offices during good behaviour”] per Article III § 1. Like the U.S. Commerce Court and U.S. District Courts, federal Courts of Appeals are Article III courts and their judges Article III judges.

[6] Per the “separation of powers” doctrine, a “political question” is non-justiciable [not determinable by a (federal) court].

[7] Article I § 2 provides, inter alia, this:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Article I § 5 provides, inter alia, this:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

[8] Per the Standing Rules of the United States Senate, if any senator requests a quorum call by “suggesting the absence of a quorum,” the current Clerk must call the roll of the Senate and note which members are present. In practice, senators almost always request quorum calls not to establish the presence of a quorum, but to delay proceedings temporarily without having to adjourn the session.

According to the Congressional Research Service publicationVoting and Quorum Procedures in the Senate” (Updated March 26, 2020), under the Senate’s standing rules, if no other Senator has the floor,

any Senator (including a Senator who is presiding) may “suggest the absence of a quorum.” The presiding officer may not respond to this statement by counting the number of Senators actually present unless the Senate is operating under cloture. At all other times, when a Senator suggests the absence of a quorum, the presiding officer responds by directing the Clerk to call the roll. Paragraph 3 of Rule VI requires:

If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the presiding officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate.

A quorum call begins formally when the Clerk calls the first name. Once the quorum call has begun, the Senate may not resume the conduct of business until a Senator-majority responds to the call, or unless the Senate agrees by unanimous consent to “dispense with further proceedings under the quorum call.” While the quorum call is in progress, no debate or motion is in order, nor may the Senate act on any unanimous consent request except a request to dispense with the call.

[9] I wrote “…such judicial judgment ought to militate against any court’s adjudging Trump guilty of sedition or inciting a riot when he gave his 6 January 2021 speech and enable Trump to run again for political office” — not “such judicial judgment will militate against…[etc.] — because, with their treatments of numerous legitimate, well-evidence-supported petitions and complaints challenging the 3 November 2020 Presidency election, the federal courts have shown themselves incapable of dispassionate enforcement of the law — for lack of honor or courage, or because they are corrupt.

[10] In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), Justice Scalia stated the now-mechanically-applied rule that federal judicial standing requires that the claimant has suffered an “injury in fact,” which, Justice Scalia asserted, is “a concrete and particularized, actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest.” He added that standing is specially unlikely where “third parties,” rather than the named claimants, are the objects of Government action or inaction that the claimants challenge. 504 U.S. at pp.559-562.

In that Lujan case, the claimants were wildlife conservation and other environmental organizations who sought a declaratory judgment that two Cabinet Officers violated the Endangered Species Act when they issued a new regulation that cut protection of certain species habitat. Justice Scalia opined that the claimants lacked standing partly because their claims sought to further arguably statute-protected interests of persons or non-human entities other than the claimants.

In Lujan, the “legally protected interest” problem was that the claimant’s alleged interest did not fit the specific language of the statutory protection the claimants asserted. If Trump or a Senator filed a federal court petition seeking declaration that the Senate lacks jurisdiction to try Trump’s second impeachment because Trump’s Office has ended and he has vacated it, the court could not assert truthfully, honorably, non-corruptly, that the claimant lacks legally protected interest.

Trump is entitled to the protection of the limit Article I § 3 clause 7 imposes on the Senate. A Senator is entitled not to be put in a Senate situation in which his Office will be tainted by unconstitutional process or he will be forced to suffer a Hobson’s choice of acting as if unconstitutional Senate process were lawful or disassociating himself from that process by refusing to participate and hence suffering political calumny and ostracism or Senate censure or expulsion from the Senate.

 
Hide 128 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anonymous[305] • Disclaimer says:

    You seem like a very nice man, and you know a lot about laws and stuff but you got your greater vital fundamental concern bassackwards so the whole piece is all bollixed up.

    We have a federal constitution. Oh-kayy…

    Well, if you search for the Code of Hammurabi, you can look at it and read it in English and stuff, and quote how if you jump in the river and don’t sink you get this guy’s house. That doesn’t mean you *have* it.

    It’s the same way with that federal constitution there. You can searx it, you can read it. But it’s gone. You’re not getting it back. You have it like you have the Code of Hammurabi, for antiquarian shits and grins.

    This oath that judges swear, Robert Vance swore that up and down but one time it kind of looked like he meant it, and ka-BOOM. All judges know that. That oath that congresspukes swear, Hale Boggs swore it, but he groused a little bit about the Warren whitewash, and nee-yaowwww-PHOOM.

    Here is your problem. In 1947 the government created an institution. In 1949 they gave it impunity in municipal law. That means the institution can kill you and torture you and get away with it. So you can take your constitution and roll it real tight and stuff it up your urethral sphincter, cause it’s not doing you any good waving it around. You live in a totalitarian state with arbitrary power.

    Your government has three branches: CIA, CIA, and CIA. They infest every other corner of your government with spies. Until you can accept this you will be an irrelevant muppet writing bullshit.

    • Agree: RoatanBill, Stonehands
    • Thanks: Majority of One
  2. TG says:

    “They have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing” – Joseph Heller, Catch 22.

  3. Wyatt says:

    His Israel policy was evil.

    K. So why did he stop following the script the neocons set out in the mid 90s about destroying Middle Eastern stability, particularly through continued aggression against Syria? He denied God’s Chosen the Golan Heights when he cut the funding to “moderate rebels” and stopped bombing Syria proper.

    Further, why were the neocons the harshest critics and agit-prop against Trump from “the right” if he was so in the tank for Israel?

    And yes, he did a lot of saber rattling against Iran. He killed a general. There was no war. The Iranians are pissed that America and Israel killed a popular man. Do you think they’re going to buy into bullshit from either side now? They’re galvanized against both because of what Trump did. Whether he did it unintentionally or not is irrelevant because the outcome was not a war and Iran now on guard. When Biden starts bombing Syria again with his heavily Judaized, zionist cabinet, Iran will once more funnel aid to Assad.

    I’m always astonished how people can get the target in their sights and then miss entirely. Well done.

    • LOL: shylockcracy
    • Troll: Supply and Demand
    • Replies: @moi
  4. “…the nation’s whole jumble of psychopathic and otherwise-psychically-ill “Elite,”…”

    That’s all anyone needs to know, IMHO. Because a psychopath is gonna do what a psychopath is gonna do. To expect otherwise is a waste of time and spirit.

  5. Trump pardoned the following:

    1. Little Wayne
    2, Big Wayne
    3. The negro who sang “wet ass pussy”
    4. Every jew ever involved in health care fraud over the past 100 years

    If you might be a Trump supporter, just stop. Trump was an incompetent fraud. And Biden (well his handlers really, will be very competent) and will soon make you feel the sting of systemic punishment.

    Everyone can claim some African ancestry. Suggest you get familiar with the process real quick.

    • Agree: stevennonemaker88
    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
  6. Dr. X says:

    Back in 1987, as a young political science major, my constitutional law professor made us attend a lecture by a visiting scholar on the 200th anniversary of the Constitutional Convention. I cannot remember who the lecturer was, but I do recall one phrase he used that has stuck in my mind ever since: the Constitution only works if we have a “constitutional frame of mind.” In other words, the Constitution reflected the culture and the attitudes of its authors. Today, elites in both parties could give a damn about the Constitution. They simply ignore the Constitution when it suits them — or, conversely, use it as a club to bludgeon their enemies when it suits them.

    Today we are reduced to parsing the language of the Constitution because nobody is really committed to the upholding the culture and the attitudes that informed it when it was written. Therefore it has become meaningless.

    I will give $500 to anyone who can cite the Article and Clause that creates the sacred “right to choose” an abortion. I will never lose that money, because it doesn’t exist. Yet the very same people who tell us that this sacred constitutional right to abortion exists also tell us that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” places absolutely no limitations on the government to ban, tax and/or confiscate any and all weapons not in the hands of the National Guard.

    The Constitution was written by the several states to create a federal government of limited and enumerated powers. Like a Frankenstein monster, the federal government conquered the very states that created it with brute military force from 1861-1865. It has now become a bloated Leviathan of unlimited powers, a tyranny worse the George III by an order of magnitude. If the Founders were to wake from the dead and see what their creation has become, they would be shooting.

  7. The president must dance to the tune of the bankers and assorted oligarchs who actually control the US. They enjoy confusing the common people with changing rhetoric and theater, but at the end of the day, the president is little more than a figurehead, and the policies remain largely the same. Many do not realize that the Obama administration deported some 2,750,000 illegals.. Under Trump it was only 935,000. Foreign wars? Police brutality? the rich getting richer? Prison industrial complex? decimation of the middle class? endless currency debasement? these things are consistent regardless, because they represent the interests of the actual rulers. The red candidate throws a bone to the “conservatives”, the blue candidate throws a bone to the socialists, but the policy makers continue from one administration to the next. The last president who tried to stand up to the powers that be was JFK…. and look what they did to him.

    • Agree: Thomasina
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Katrinka
  8. Richard B says:

    Interesting essay. Well argued and well written.

    All of it would be highly relevant and extremely useful if the Constitution mattered to the hostile elite.

    Unfortunately, the last thing a swamp full of man-eating crocodiles is interested in is listening to a lecture on ethics from someone they’re sizing up for a late night snack.

    • Replies: @stevennonemaker88
  9. RogerL says:

    I appreciate the thoughtful analysis and details the previous commenters shared here. That saves me a lot of work 🙂

    One thing isn’t clear. Trump enjoyed being the wealthy big man, and lording it over lesser people. So why did he spend so much effort on populist rabble rousing, when he knew the deep state hates that with a passion? Its kind of like he had a split personality, and part was an elitist, and part was a diehard deplorable in his bones.

    Maybe he was even more incompetent than anybody realizes. So now the deep state are frothing like mad dogs, driving a herd of terrified bulls, and they will trample Trump until he is a greasy smear on the ground.

    Instead of building a powerbase in the government, Trump spent 4 years pissing off the people with real power. Not building a powerbase, and pissing off those in power, was like he had a death wish.

    If Trump was an idiot, then the deep state are IDIOTS, because after Trump is just a greasy smear, they will have created a martyr, and a hundred hears from now there will be shrines to him all over the US. That the working class was and will be so devoted to him (in spite of him being a conman idiot) just shows how desperate they are to hear their truths told.

    I feel pretty bitter about both Obomba and Trump, because they were both hot air, and not much else. What the deep state seems to be overlooking is that in spite of all of that, millions of people still adore Trump. What will these people do after Trump is martyred?

    One thing I haven’t figured out yet is, will it be a good thing for the US for a martyr to be made of a conman idiot?

    We as a society desperately need mobilization of the masses, and if making a martyr of Trump will help do that, then its fine with me.

  10. The Republic is dead. Long live the republic. From the latin: republic =”res” “publica” + rule by the people = popular sovereignty. It aint’ for sure happening right now, but who can foretell the future?

  11. Thomasina says:

    Excellent article. Very well done.

    Tucker Carlson said Monday or Tuesday night on his show that McConnell warned Trump not to pardon Assange, and he held the impeachment over Trump’s head.

    Swampington has gone rogue. I have a feeling that during much of Trump’s presidency the threat of impeachment loomed large, and maybe worse.

    Look at Sessions, recusing himself and cowering in the corner. Barr comes in and does diddly squat. The Durham investigation was a very long joke.

    Two years of the Mueller Commission (when everybody in the know knew it was a pack of lies), spying, leaking, abuse of the FISA Court, Kavanaugh, impeachment over Ukraine, Covid, Antifa, BLM, stolen election…..never-ending chaos.

    These corrupt clowns will do whatever the hell they please. They are the law now. If they do end up following the law, it will only be because the destruction they’ve caused already will be deemed to be enough.

    Many of them should be behind bars.

    • Replies: @Beavertales
  12. Anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    Mr. Jaffee’s analysis is superb, as he explains why a Senate result against Mr. Trump would be legally incorrect. How dismaying it is to read his realistic, honest, final paragraph, in which he writes that none of the above matters anymore; the USSC will abnegate its duty to apply the law; the law does not matter anymore; the PCR-explained revolution has arrived. (He actually says that the USSC will “incline to” do so, thus leaving open a sliver of doubt.) I would not even inject the sliver, because of the power of the court-expansion threat, and the rioting possibility (including, perhaps especially, demonstrations upon the justices’ very own residential streets — no one wants pots and pans banging and microphones blaring on his street during the middle of the night.)

    I make the assumption that the USS follows the “inclined to.” The result will be profound. That is because future legislation, future justice-department action, and future lower-court cases will go forward “in the shadow of” that USSC result. Simply put, the USSC will have announced: Go to it. We are hands- off. We surrendered.

    • Replies: @Majority of One
  13. @anonymous

    “Accept”? If it is true the CIA predominates all spheres of power, as you declare, why would anyone but a CIA seed suggest that America simply accept this covert control? That is pathetic. Their power is not brute power, but a function of positioning; a chicken hawk on the back of a cape buffalo. With a skirmish or two, they can get tossed overnight.

    You must have chosen the wrong word. I mean, can you at least suggest something a little constructive? If not, then are you nothing more than a guttersnipe.

    p.s. Personally, I have been thirsting for some champions to finally speak out on behalf of our moth eaten Constitution. And now I am optimistic it will be revived. Or has not Big Tech over played their hand?

    Veritas filia temporis

  14. @anonymous

    Yes, seems they do send messages to US judges by killing them. Thanks for the helpful reference to the 1989 killing of Federal Judge Robert Vance amidst other bombings, for which Walter Moody was put to death in Alabama in 2018 at age 83, after writing to the dead judge’s son to say he was a patsy.

    Federal Judge John Roll was shot dead on the street in Arizona in 2011 after ruling against Obama. The way the media obscured the story of Roll’s murder, whilst focusing on the wounding of Gabby Giffords that day, seemed to underscore that Roll’s killing was a signal to the rest of USA’s 865 federal judges. Witnesses saw more than one shooter, but the government only blamed a weird-looking guy who seems like a cut-out.

    And then Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead in 2016 with a pillow over his face – ‘no autopsy’ of course – after he ruled against Obama, another seeming ‘message’. And re the Supreme Court and the long-dead ‘Constitution’, we have this ultimate moment of degeneracy:

    • Replies: @Aardvark
  15. I don’t know if the author of this article considers himself a “conservative”, but “conservatives” are always imagining that if they just to manage to salvage some particular thing—Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, the presidential election, the Georgia senatorial runoffs, Trump’s impeachment—then things will be all right. But things will not be all right for the US of A no matter what. Things would not have been all right if Trump had not been cheated out of his reelection or if the Senate had stayed in Mitch McConnell’s hands or if any recent event had gone the conservatives’ way. That’s because the US is a bad country down to its bones. That is the case because it’s built on a damnable lie: All Men Are Created Equal. Whites should not hope for the salvation of this country. First of all because it can’t saved, which makes that a futile hope. Secondly and more importantly, because its end at the soonest possible creates the possibility of White survival. All Men Are Created Equal as a governing ideology means White genocide because it would force Whites down to the level of sub-Saharan Africans and others who cannot be considered to belong to an intelligent species. But since that’s not possible, our enemies’ strategy then defaults to actual genocide. They are already openly talking about wiping away “whiteness”. What’s more, the US is not content to destroy just American Whites with All Men Are Created Equal but forces its ideology, or attempts to force it, on every other White country. Trump is yet another in a long line of false saviors who were and supported and elected by Whites but who serve our enemies. If his servitude to Israel didn’t make that abundantly clear, his so-called Platinum plan—a generous giveaway to blacks only—should have wiped the last bit of doubt. Let the other faction of the All Men Are Created Equal Uniparty impeach him. Let them imprison him. Hell, let them burn him at the stake. The more strife and hatred within the Uniparty, the better for us.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Thanks: cronkitsche, Katrinka
    • Replies: @George F. Held
  16. His arguments have won often in the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts, and appellate courts of several states. Many litigator-attorneys rely on his advice and arguments.

    I am not a lawyer nor an expert on Constitutional Law. I am an Arab, I live in Middle East and I am a Muslim.

    1. What I understand that impeachment will require 2/3 votes or more, not just the simple majority. In the House, the impeachment passed on a partisan basis, where only majority was required. The way I see it no way on earth Trump will be impeached due to partisanship.

    2. We all know that the election was stolen from Trump. What a a great opportunity for him to prove the world on prime time TV that the election was compromised, due to the interference of a rouge country. I am willing to bet that rouge country is Israel.

    If 2016 election was blamed on Russia, this can easily be blamed on Israel. A precedent already exists.

    Best regards,

    Mohamed

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Larchmonter420
  17. Drew says:

    Mr. Jaffee, your constitutional analysis seems air-tight. However, your political analysis is worthless because the constitution has been dead for a while, so it’s simply not pertinent to bring it into a political discussion. What happened and is happening to Trump is terrible, but the lessons for populists are invaluable, and are as follows:

    1) Family may be loyal, but only hire them if they’re competent.

    2) Working for Israeli interests is never worth it.

    3) If at all possible, preempt your opponent, don’t react.

    4) If you want supporters to be loyal to you, you must first never be disloyal to them.

    5) While being willing to fire non-performers is great, being discerning in the hiring process is better.

    6) Never give your tacit approval to someone who is undermining you.

    7) Ultimately, if you want to get and stay in power, you have to actually improve the lives of the people. Criticizing is fun, and sometimes even useful, but what matters most is doing things better than the people you criticize.

  18. gotmituns says:

    Senate Threatens to Usurp Presidency, Constitution, and Will of the People
    —————————————————————————————
    Congress did this before. After Lincoln’s murder, Congress ran roughshod over President Andrew Johnson and took over the running of the country, especially the South.

  19. Miro23 says:

    With the federal judiciary’s corrupt or cowardly treatment of legitimate election-result challenges, the federal judiciary has shown it has abnegated its constitutional duty and will incline to commit impeachable offenses to avoid resisting the Elites’ and the Deep State’s subjugation of the People. The Supreme Court has shown that five or more pseudo-aristocrat judges (two Democrats, three or more Republicans) align with the Elites and the Deep State. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is correct. The People are suffering a revolution wrought by the “Establishment” (of the Elites and the Deep State).

    I would say that they are more cowardly than corrupt.

    They know that if they supported Trump’s legitimate (good evidence) questioning of the election result, they would personally be in big trouble, so the Supreme Court is really not a Supreme Court at all – it’s a piece of establishment window dressing – same as the rest of the hollowed out US Democratic institutions.

    Real power in the US lies with the ZioGlob deep state and their MSM, the military (whichever way they turn), and the 72 million US gun owners (whatever they decide to do). There’s also the aspect of real military power outside the US (Russia and China) that could be brought to bear, and would be potentially decisive. Accepted that some of these are TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) scenarios but that seems to be how it is. Genuine Democracy isn’t coming back to the US any time soon.

  20. “Accordingly, the pro-impeachment Senators would deserve severest rebuke.”

    Especially, Mitch “I got my Chinese bride through the mail order catalog” McConnell. One wonders if he is a paid up agent of the Chinese communist party… now there is an offense that deserves to be impeached!

  21. This whole ex post impeachment fantasy is merely a fig leaf to what is essentially a Constitutionally barred Bill of Attainder.

    US courts have ruled that ‘shall’ means ‘may’ in some cases and ‘must’ in others, and US politicians have suggested that ‘is’ has multiple meanings. Why would it be any different with ‘and’ ?

    More likely than not, they will cook up enough plausible arguments to wend their way past all the possible objections you have laid out, and John Roberts will give it his blessing as the cherry on top, and it will thereby have the patina of constitutionality for posterity.

    • Replies: @FoSquare
    , @Dr. X
  22. Thanks for laying out the issues in plain view and for tying them back into their deeper philosophical roots. Pelosi and fellow Mediterranean co-conspirators attack the the core tenets of Northern European political thought. If they succeed we will find ourselves up to our necks in riotous Latin political turmoil as in the tumultuous times of the Borgias.

  23. Whitewolf says:

    …speech and assembly freedoms will cease and near-certainly no capable, electable populist will run for the Presidency.

    After the banana republic style vote count in 2020 they needn’t bother with impeachment of Trump to discourage populist candidates. Anyone that is capable is smart enough to see it would be futile to run for the Presidency.

  24. @Thomasina

    “McConnell warned Trump not to pardon Assange, and he held the impeachment over Trump’s head.”

    Few know the truth about Trump’s presidency. The establishment tried from day one to gain leverage over him. What negotiations and horse-trading occurred to get Trump to sign off on the killing of Soleimani? What pressure was he under to strike Iran or keep forces in Syria?

    What the public saw was merely Trump acting after the fact. How much of his agenda was he forced to trade away because of things held over his head? How many pardons?

    Trump should be given 24/7 protection so that he can write his memoirs. I guarantee the establishment does not want their dirty, corrupt dealings to be revealed, because then everyone would know how the POTUS is just a figurehead, and the Constitution is treated as just a set of suggestions..

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
    • Thanks: Majority of One
    • Replies: @Avery
    , @cronkitsche
    , @Anon
  25. @Just another serf

    I just can’t believe Trump was a fraud. A fraud has a projected image and a true self…the “real” Trump beneath seems to have had no motivation other than ego gratification. He was also one of the biggest p*****s to ever be President, a terrible tragedy since he was independently wealthy and beholden to no one. He had a chance to change history for the better and blew it.

    It’s a shame his blimp-sized ego didn’t enjoy enraging our enemies over receiving fleeting adulation.

    • LOL: Sick of Orcs
    • Troll: anarchyst
  26. We’ve been down this “constitutional usurpation” road before, and that’s why we are where we are today.

  27. moi says:
    @Wyatt

    Just as with Trump, Zio Biden will have a Jewish dominated administration. Same old, same old.

    • Replies: @Wally
  28. Droopy faced Mitch McConnell and 80 year surgically enhanced face old Nancy Pelosi. Neither one is the best candidate to be the leader of anything including a singalong.

  29. Avery says:
    @Beavertales

    {“Trump should be given 24/7 protection”}

    All former POTUS and their (immediate ?) families are entitled to Secret Service protection until the end. Unless they decline. (I think Nixon declined SS protection after he resigned.)

    Aside from that, do you really think Trump will discuss anything that went on in private? He is not the type to write a memoir.

    And some of the most bizarre decisions he made while POTUS were as a result of “advice” from his favourite daughter Ivanka and her repellant husband. Ann Coulter has an article where she lists the boneheaded decisions Trump made on “advice” from the two incompetent rich-kids..

    This short video is very indicative of the stupidity of Ivanka: she is so stupid, that she can’t even see the contempt these politicians have for her, and sticks around like a bad smell:

    [French Government Posts Video Of Ivanka Trump At G-20 Summit | NBC News]

    • Replies: @gotmituns
  30. Mefobills says:

    The author Jafee is confused on Bentham, because Bentham was confused himself, or was a Jewish agent of mammon.

    The highlighted terms accord with Benthamian Utilitarianism — the greatest human happiness of the greatest human number.[1]
    Much (but surely not all) pertinent history suggests that Bentham’s thinking influenced the construction of the Preamble

    The English philosopher Jeremey Bentham (1748-1832) was a defender of usury, which is the opposite of happiness for the greatest human number.

    In 1787 Jeremey Bentham wrote “In Defence of Usury.” Bentham was the son of a rich lawyer, and a lawyer himself, not an economist, which is why he was confused.

    Bentham created the present mis-definition of usury which prevails to today, so he was very damaging. “The taking of grater interest than the law allows, or the taking of greater interest than is usual.”

    Bentham ignored hundreds of years of the Catholic Scholastics work on usury, and also ignored Aristotle. Actually Bentham attacked Aristotle in order to spread his B.S.

    Bentham’s father was Jewish, and Bentham also ignored the fairly strong Old Testament admonitions against usury.

    Bentham spread the same erroneous B.S. that Calvin did, and both men did enormous damage, and whether by design or confusion are NOT for the common good. Their connections to our (((friends))) is suspicious.

    A Persian Daric is a gold coin. Bentham said this: Though all money in nature is barren, though a Daric would not beget another Daric… yet for a Daric which a man borrowed he might get a ram and couple of ewes… and the ewes would probably not be barren (pages 98 to 101 of his screed)

    Aristotle and the Catholic Schoolmen clearly showed that it was the Ewes that were fertile, not the coins.

    Bentham or Calvin could not read with comprehension and twisted words into new meanings. This twisted language persists in the brains of modern humans as confusion.

    As if every Daric is going to buy an Ewe in order to reproduce.

    By 1850 John Whipple wrote “The Importance of Usury Laws – An answer to Jeremey Bentham.”

    “The purpose of money is to facilitate exchange. It was never intended as an article of trade, as an article possessing an inherent value in itself, and further than as representative or test of the value of all other articles.”

    It undoubtedly admits of private ownership, but of an ownership that is not absolute, like the product of individual industry, but qualified and limited by the special use for which it was designed.

    And…

    The power of money over every other article, arises out of the artificial character given to it by the STATE, AND NOT OUT OF THE QUALITIES OF THE MATERIAL WHICH IT IS COMPOSED.

    Bentham also argued that anti-usury laws were due to prejudice against Jews. Whipple was not frightened by the Jew trick of anti-semitism claims. Whipple said this in reply, “The real truth is this feeling which he calls prejudice is the result of the moral instinct of mankind.”

    Whipple wasn’t afraid of calling out the Jew.

    In other words, Bentham did not have the moral instinct of mankind, but instead was a usurer, hiding behind his utilitarianism doctrine.

    My view is that the preamble general welfare clause is direct lineage that comes through Benjamin Franklin and his experiences in the Philadelphia Colony. Franklin was definitely NOT a usurer, and was not confused on money.

  31. McConnell has mastered the art of getting rid of pesky elements in the GOP. Besides lining his pockets, its what he does best. Populism is in his sights. Unfortunately he needs some of the populist GOP voters to maintain his personal graft. Going after Trump is his best option. A potential third party will benefit the uniparty machine, so it isn’t near the threat Trump Maga fans think. He lso knows some populists will remain to chip away at the GOP.

    I laugh at people who think they can primary GOP inc out of office. First you need to take over the election boards and become committee people while not outing you are a populist. Let’s face it for the grifters leading the populist charge such things are too trivial. Nor do they understand the need to subvert with discretion to avoid early detection. Finally someone needs to destroy McConnell’s graft machine, which will grow stronger with another Trump impeachment. Best bet is the Devil will come calling for Mitch. Or maybe Elaine Chao will finally have had enough with the job of being Mitch’s handler wife. She then can get half the graft of which she has totally earned. Actually she should get all of it due to it was her connections enriching and ultimately empowering the less than appealing Mitch McConnell.

    • Replies: @Majority of One
  32. Defining quality of Democrats is that they are totally stupid.

    And Pelos’s face looks like face of death itself. She should be barred to show her death mask face in public ever.
    Her insane drive for revenge is out of this word. She is obsessed to prohibit Trump to run for president again.

    Constitution does not give Congress right to chose the president.
    Constitution does not give right to Senate to chose the president.
    Constitution does not give right to Government to chose the president

    Constitution gives exclusively right to people to chose their president.
    Baring Trump to run for president is infringing on the right of American people.

    To impeach a retired president is epitome of idiotic stupidity.
    Not only that.
    It is stupid futile idiotic stupidity.
    Democrats even if prohibit Trump to run again they cannot prohibit to Ivanka, or one of the Trump sons to run for president.
    And they cannot prohibit Trump to speak at rallies for his child.
    So all death face Peloshi effort cannot bring desired result.

    Everything depends on performance of new president Biden.
    If Biden will be successful president there should not be any worry for death face Peloshi.
    But if Biden turns out to be failure than Trump is coming back.

    (Before curtain or behind curtain. It does not make an iota difference.)

  33. gotmituns says:
    @Avery

    At this point in her life, she’s just another shitbird shiksa.

  34. The Preamble of the constitution reflects a Liebnizian metaphysic reflected in the notion of the pursuit of happiness, were are not talking utilitarianism, but a recognition that man is made in the image of the creator, Imago Dei where happiness reflects an acknowledgement that we are actually creative beings where happiness is a reflection of such creativity, above mere acquisition of ‘property’ as the Confederacy devolved the phrase to “Life, Liberty and Property”

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @The Alarmist
  35. FoSquare says:
    @The Alarmist

    US courts have ruled that ‘shall’ means ‘may’ in some cases and ‘must’ in others, and US politicians have suggested that ‘is’ has multiple meanings. Why would it be any different with ‘and’ ?

    Agree. Judges are essentially verbal logicians, and they will manipulate the words to justify the end.

  36. Mefobills says:
    @RogerL

    One thing isn’t clear. Trump enjoyed being the wealthy big man, and lording it over lesser people. So why did he spend so much effort on populist rabble rousing, when he knew the deep state hates that with a passion? Its kind of like he had a split personality, and part was an elitist, and part was a diehard deplorable in his bones.

    I don’t think Trump enjoyed lording over other people. He enjoyed being feted. He enjoyed being admired and loved.

    The Trump rallies are also a feedback mechanism. If the crowd roars approval, then it is a good line and should be kept for the next rally. When the crowd roars approval it is both feed-back and being admired and loved.

    Populism pre-dates Trumpism. Ann Coulter accuses Trump of chasing after shiny objects. For example, immigration restriction was a shiny object desired by the American people, and all Trump had to do was pick it up and trial run it in a rally.

    Another populist politician will emerge as the people have lost faith in the ruling class. Or, as Tucker calls the ruling class, ” A ship of fools.”

    Populism is on the rise everywhere.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
    , @Spanky
  37. Anastasia says:

    Trump badly hurt the reputation of McConnell. And McConnell is so angry he cannot see straight. I don’t think McConnell has a problem in tearing up the entire constitution to get back at Trump. He even looks like a petty-minded bureaucrat. .

    Tucker Carlson said on television that McConnell threatened Trump with impeachment if he pardoned Assange and Snowden. After Trump left without pardoning them, McConnell started to backpedal on his impeachment position, but he still leaves open what he is going to do. McConnell must need something else from Trump – something else he is threatening him with.

    I think he may be keeping the impeachment threat open if Trump moves to start another political party, or does something to throw a monkey wrench into their (Biden and McConnell’s) Chinacloset.

    Gaetz said that McConnell doesn’t care about the next election for Republicans (McConnell himself was just reelected for 6 years, is 78/79 years old and will probably not run again). What he is concerned about, according to Gaetz, is corporate money. I would think that there could be a lot of corporate money in his pocket for his retirement if he shows corporate America that he is playing ball with the opposing side. I wonder how many Charitable Foundations McConnell has? I can almost hear from here the chink-ring, chink-ring, chink-ring of the cash register.

  38. Mefobills says:
    @Abdul Alhazred

    Confederacy devolved the phrase to “Life, Liberty and Property”

    The Confederacy also was devolving into a feudal aristocracy with aristocratic landed owners and negro indentured slaves.

    These owners would then sell their king cotton and other raw materials to England, and were thus rejoining the English Colonial System.

    Finance Capital out of wall street and London financed the Atlantic slave trade into existence. The South and the West was in danger of becoming an extraction economy which would fill up with Negro labor (to extract raw materials).

    The English colonial system uses finance capital to exploit labor and to gain the increment of production for privateer finance. It also has no compunction about creating debt slaves of any population, white or black or yellow.

    Our (((friends))) did the same thing to Russia in the 90’s, where they tried to convert the Russian economy into an extraction economy, and Russians would essentially be white slaves (slavs), poking holes in their earth to find oil and minerals i.e. become drawers of water and hewers of wood.

    Russians would not earn increment of production making platinum catalytic converters, but instead would sell their platinum to others who would earn the increment.

    • Agree: Majority of One
  39. @Beavertales

    He has appeared to be under threat since the Easter, 2017 “Happy Passover” speech.

  40. McConnell must, not maybe, must be the first person to go if the Republican Senate has any chance of surviving in a way that serves conservative interests. He has been positively of Zero support to president Trumps four years in office, only giving lip service to the interests of the issues the presidents supporters wanted addressed.. For four long years, McConnell was an expert at bringing every advance, or potential advance in conservative interests to naught. He however, had no problemo at all in taking advantage of President Trumps popularity with conservative voters, when his re-election was in doubt. Maybe his middle name should be Mitt.

  41. Marckus says:

    This article can be condensed to just one line:

    The Second “Impeachment” is not going anywhere .

  42. Aardvark says:
    @brabantian

    It is also alleged that in the case of Irwin Schiff the presiding judge said “I will not allow the law in my courtroom”. If that were true, what the hell is a court needed for in the first place?
    The Supreme Court in at least the past 100 years only gives off the air that it protects constitutional freedoms when in reality it protects the interests of government.

    • Replies: @Getaclue
    , @Dave Bowman
  43. CMC says:

    I disagree with your reading of the Constitution, in particular your argument regarding the conjunction “and”.

    Why is removal necessary? Required before doing anything else? A condition precedent to the federal government barring a former official from federal office, etc?

    It’s not, as far as I can tell.

    Your argument omits three important things.

    First, the sentence listing the available punishments begins, “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than...” After that opening clause, it lists types of punishments. It might help to abstract it a bit. For instance, “Judgment in Cases of Whatever shall not extend further than Punishment Type X, AND Punishment Type Y and Punishment Type Z.” Is your reading still the same? Is a judgment ordering just Punishment Type Z invalid? Such a judgment would not EXCEED or EXTEND FURTHER THAN the three punishment list, would it?

    Let’s continue with this first point. Suppose it was gym class and that in addition to grading and the usual teacher prerogatives with regard to discipline and order, the gym teacher could adjudge poor sports or poor character on the field of play and penalize students with performing punishment exercises, push-ups, pull-ups, a mile run, whatever. Now suppose that for reasons of protecting students and avoiding sadistic power mad gym teachers or whatever the rules from the superintendent or principal said, “Judgment of Poor Sportsmanship in gym class shall not extend further than 20 push-ups, 10 pull-ups, and a mile run.” Alternatively, suppose it said, ‘shall not extend further than 20 push-ups, 10-pull-ups, or a mile run.’

    I submit to you that the conjunction AND, under the condition of ‘shall not extend further,’ has precisely the opposite effect that you propose, limiting the punishments to only those three types, so a kid could get hit with the treble as it were, but sit-ups were against the rules as punishment.

    Had it said, ‘or’, than the reading, I submit, would be that the Senate judgment could only impose one type of punishment: i.e. this punishment, or that one, or this other one. ‘I’ll take the push-ups, please, coach.’ ‘Forget it CMC, you’re running the mile today!’

    Second, did you see what I just did there? The colon? Because you also omitted the last clause of the sentence, which reads:

    “but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    Is that superfluous? Logically I think it is, as it’s redundant. But it’s there. And to give it effect would mean acknowledging that the Constitution immediately and as part of this limitation of punishment, added a line that in today’s language would go something like, ‘nothing in this section shall be construed to infringe on [some other stuff].’ Which is another way of saying, ‘obviously if the guy committed treason or whatever, just getting him on this or that other type of Senate office holding related punishments doesn’t get him off the hook on the Law.’

    The third thing you omit is the temporal element. Your argument —that removal is a necessary, required pre-condition to applying the other punishments, ignores the reality of time. Why shouldn’t the Senate be able to permanently bar a guy from office and profit from the United States for a horrible act of Treason just because he commits it too late for the process of impeachment and trial to be practicable?

    At this point it might be useful for me to point out that I don’t think Trump is guilty of anything like that.

    Thus, while I agree that in the whole context of the US now that the impeachment is kind of stupid, I disagree with your apparent argument that his not taking the oath of office for a second term moots the whole thing. There are still, I contend, other punishments available. And Congressmen have Constitutional rights to be kind of stupid.

  44. CMC says:

    I disagree with Jaffee’s reading of the Constitution, in particular his argument regarding the conjunction “and”. As far as I can tell, his argument omits three important points.

    First, and most importantly, the first clause of the key sentence begins by stating that it is a limitation on the Senate. The Senate can do no more than this, that, and the other thing. If it used the word “or” following such a condition, then the limitation would be to one of the things listed. As it is, it’s a limitation on the Senate to the three or so things listed. So, the Senate can do one of them, or two, or some combination —but only of those things listed.

    Second, there is a final clause to the key sentence omitted entirely from Jaffee’s argument, not merely from proper consideration, but from any mention at all. That clause is “but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Although possibly superfluous, it’s there and should give rise to the realization that, of course, nothing in this section about what the Congress can do would prevent further punishment under the law, i.e. just the legislative branch removing and banning a guy from executive office for treason wouldn’t prevent his also hanging under the law.

    Third, Jaffee’s argument omits the temporal element. His argument —that removal is a necessary, required pre-condition to applying the other punishments, ignores the reality of time. Why shouldn’t the Senate be able to permanently bar a guy from office and profit from the United States for Treason just because he commits it too late for the process of impeachment and trial to be practicable?

  45. Dr. X says:
    @The Alarmist

    Correct. It’s an attainder, a way to punish Trump specifically.

  46. @Richard B

    Good comment! The elites need a stake driven through the heart, not verbose reprimands. (I’m not insulting the author, it is fine to be educated on constitutionality and our history)

    • Agree: Richard B
  47. Getaclue says:
    @anonymous

    McConnell received $25,000,000 in cash from his ChiCom dealing In Laws as a “gift”? In what world is this not a bribe from the ChiComs — from whence In Laws $ all arises…. McConnell shows the country is totally sold out to the ChiComs and in fact “governed” by them — the rest of Congrassholes are about the same with various “spies” working them, having sex with them, and screwing us — the USA is an occupied country via IsraHell and the Chinese Communists — very, very bad days are ahead and most in the USA are moron mask wearers who actually believe the filthy pieces of cloth do something for their “health” contrary to all actual 41 Medical Studies to date which state the opposite — truly Maskholing was an IQ test and the country failed to reach even the level of “Moron”. Easy to steal an election when dealing with Maskhole Morons. Sad all are being pulled down by them….

  48. Getaclue says:
    @Aardvark

    Anyone who has been in Federal Court knows that “Justice” is the last thing that occurs there….I Clerked for a Federal Judge — “joke” does not adequately describe it, if you are charged by the Feds you will be railroaded, innocence means zero once you are charged and all the “Judge” cares about is getting you to plead guilty and move the case, you will be grossly overcharged to force this to happen and the Judge will glare at you and let you know he hates you if you go forward — unless you are a Leftist Political hack or “activist” then you will be cut loose and probably never even charged….”justice” Roberts is the “model” — his rulings in Obamacare etc. show he has no care for the actual “law” at all — all the other Federal “judges” follow his example….The best thing that could happen to the USA is for the end of the Federal Courts, DOJ, and FBI — all are Enemies Of The People — get involved with them and find out.

    • Agree: Thomasina
  49. @RogerL

    So why did he spend so much effort on populist rabble rousing, when he knew the deep state hates that with a passion?

    Unlike Julius Caesar, Mr. Trump didn’t think it was necessary to bring his armed troops with him as he crossed the Rubicon. Doesn’t matter; both will have ended up “killed” by their respective Senates.

    Semper Fi SPQR, do or die.

  50. waw says:

    The Trumpster is a phony. He folded like a cheap suit, as he had done the bidding of the Khazar Satanists like a judas goat.

    • Agree: gotmituns
  51. Getaclue says:
    @FoSquare

    LOL — the example doesn’t show that “Judges are essentially verbal logicians” — it shows that they are LIARS!

    • Replies: @profnasty
  52. @FoSquare

    Judges are essentially verbal logicians, and they will manipulate the words to justify the end.

    Exactly, though I would commend the use of the word sophist instead of logician. We need, I think, to distinguish between the search for, and belief in, an objective reality and the so-called post-modern disbelief in any possibility of finding truth. That disbelief goes back several millennia in fact and is now commonly associated with the Greek sophists:

    The works of Plato and Aristotle have had much influence on the modern view of the “sophist” as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. In this view, the sophist is not concerned with truth and justice, but instead seeks power.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist

    Societies that value truth but recognize the difficulties involved in discovering it also put value on freedom of expression. Those interested in power for its own sake, not so much. Unfortunately the power mongers always have the advantage of moral certainty. For them Alinsky and the Protocols are the only bibles.

  53. @Abdul Alhazred

    … the Confederacy devolved the phrase to “Life, Liberty and Property”

    The expression is believed to have been derived from John Locke’s definition of a man’s property as his “life, liberty, and estate.”

    The phrase was more effectively borrowed and re-stated in Virginia’s Declaration of Rights (June, 1776) by this passage:

    “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

    Jefferson and Franklin both felt it would play better to the masses by downplaying ‘property’ and playing up ‘happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence.

    So, stop trying to smear the Confederacy for a concept that underpinned the United States of America from its earliest days.

  54. bayviking says:

    Trump has a knack for making headlines daily, by generating an endless stream of headlines which are offensive to half the domestic population yet inspiring to the rest. He has generated quite a loyal following. Trump’s values are identical to Corporate neoliberal values whose only value is profits. Forget the constitution, human rights, clean water, fresh air, a safe working place, or a level playing field. Take whatever you can get away with and use your money and power to obstruct any search for the truth or justice. Trump personifies Milton Friedman’s claim that the best prosperous outcome for the general population is for everyone to act selfishly.

    Trump is a despicable excuse for a human being, who lost the popular vote twice but still managed to get elected through the undemocratic notorious electoral college that has delivered the two worst Presidents of our lilfetimes.

    For the last four years Trump has snubbed his nose at the legal system and its traditions. More importantly he had failed to deliver on his campaign promises, even though prior to the pandemic employment and the stock market improved. Most people give credit or blame for their economic health to the President even though the Federal Reserve exercises real control. The simple fact is that since 2008 the real rate, set by the Federal Reserve, of the prime rate less the inflation rate, has been negative or close to zero. The only purpose of this real rate is to save the criminal speculators in Banking who created the 2008 crisis in the first place and every other financial crisis in the history of the USA.

    Does any of this matter, since he’s been thrown out of office? Trump is a con man with track record of defrauding people through failed casinos, airlines, steaks, vodkas, Universities, charities and real estate transactions, many of the latter which involve money laundering. He is also suspected of engaging in tax fraud and violation of election laws in Georgia. There is a legal tradition in this country for investigating and prosecuting this behavior. Holding him accountable for these behaviors is more important than impeachment. Successful prosecution will most certainly end his political career. Besides, the Democrats under Pelosi, have failed to communicate to the public the scale of Trump’s persistent flaunting of the law. Impeachment twice on the basis of a single charge, which half the country refuses to accept, has more downside than upside, even for the Democrats.

    Better to send the con artist to prison in a jumpsuit for his more ordinary crimes. He will never be able to run again then anyway. I look forward to never thinking about the bum again.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  55. @Mefobills

    I don’t think Trump enjoyed lording over other people. He enjoyed being feted. He enjoyed being admired and loved.

    So you’ve diagnosed President Trump as a narcissistic phony. Typical Democrat distraction. The very people most perceptive at detecting narcissists are the working Americans who supported him for no reasons of personal advancement in politics or the bureaucracy. The same ones who had long decided that the big media had an agenda that did not include looking out for their interests.

    A narcissist would not have put up with personal attacks based on specious reasoning for four years, coming out and facing a hostile press almost every day. Listening to their vicious insinuations and parrying them at every opportunity.

    A narcissist would have pretended to concede the election for the good of the country and gone home to write a book entitled What Happened or maybe An Inconvenient Truth and basked in a manufactured victim-hood.

    • Replies: @R2b
    , @Mefobills
  56. Derer says:

    The issue is simple, the cowardly Democrats and some dishonest Republicans want to eliminate formidable political adversary not in the transparent political arena but by the undemocratic means of a lowly coward. We stand by while they are chipping away from our limited democracy.

  57. @Anon

    Only another lawyer would argue that Jaffe’s ramble was superb. I’m sorry, but even more so than myself, that profession wallows in prolixity. On and on and on, he did not cut to the chase and simply, with a relative handful of bolsters, conclude that the enemy of We The People won on all counts against the very concept of republican governance and any semblance of popular sovereignty.

    Owning the Senate, due to vote thievery in Georgia by an I$rael firster and a wild-eyed Black preacherman; The House,under faded-beauty and then some, Nancy Pelosticator; the Administration under the soon to be 25th Amendmented St. Joe, always biding with the Deep $tate; the CIA–Rottenfuhrer of the Deep $tate; the 6 mega-billionaire Zioni$ts controlling 90% of the mass media of mindfuckery, mesmerization and mass megalomania and finally, the CIA financed and directed “Social Media”, the greatest enemy of our First Amendment rights;;; those nefarious forces nearing absolute control over the federal regime in the Di$trict of Corruption have now fully succeeded in driving the last nail into the coffin of the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights, the enabling precondition for establishment of the federal system.

    Behind the scenes, roaring and howling with fits of schadenfreude laughter; the ultimate shotcallers, those OWNER$ of the Federal Reserve and most other major international banking institutions, are rubbing their greasy palm$ with total glee by having pulled off the greatest heist in world history.

    • Agree: Zarathustra
  58. Former President Trump is playing his final scene today, making ready to hand over the lead part of a government like reality show to the mentally infirm Joe Biden. Biden, with history of pathological lying and a trail of crimes and associations with other crimes had no actual chance of winning a real election, but real elections are now only part of America’s history.
    Trumped & Dumped: The Psychological Operation Scrambles to Survive | Jack Mullen
    https://blog.thegovernmentrag.com/2021/01/21/trumped-dumped-psychological-operation-enters-phase-two/

  59. polistra says:

    Not a crisis. Not anything at all. Just noisy farts, which are smelly for a moment but always dissipate. All politics is noisy farts, and the only purpose is to bring in money to the politicians.

    Pretty good trick. Most people don’t get paid for farting. Politicians do.

  60. @Mefobills

    Mefobills: Thanks a heap for all the research which went into your dissection of the egregious futilitarian, Jeremy Bentham—and for most informatively equating him with the horrible John Calvin, whose surname was apparently Cohen, by origin. Before reading yet another of your masterly dissertations, it was my intention to point out what little I knew about Bentham.

    Calvin’s “predestination” scheme was highly attractive to the accelerating fortunes of the urban bourgeoisie in Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, Scotland and among the Cromwellians in England—also the Puritan, alleged “Pilgrim Fathers” in Plymouth Colony and latterly in Massachusetts Bay. Those recent converts to literacy tended to read only one book, the Constantinian Bible. They became ensorcelled by the Old Testicles and the bloodthirsty tribal WarGod of the ancient Hebrews, Yahweh. Whatever good was to be found in Christianity as a culture was deeply distorted by Calvinistic Puritanism and its “Chosen People” mythos.

    Much of the religious fervor which dominated the American frontier in the latter decades of the 18th Century and early 19th–they called it “The Great Awakening”— was infused with the patriarchal form of religiosity as ignited by Calvinistic tropes and memes. Today’s cultural dominance in much of the South and chunks of the Midwest by boobtoob preachers, Dominationists and the highly heretical oxymoronical “Christian” Zioni$ts can be seen as the afterbirth of cultural Calvinism. Calvinism is Talmudic in its essence and squats at the nexus of what they like to call “Judeo-Christian Civilization”.

    My preference is to employ the more objectively truthful description: the “JudieChristie MagickMindfuck.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Thanks: Mefobills
    • Replies: @The Soft Parade
  61. anonymous[334] • Disclaimer says:

    thotmonger, thanks for the helpful reaction to that word choice, accept. I meant accept not like bend over for it and relax and enjoy it but accept like AA says, this here is your problem, face it. We do of course have to wind up and shitcan this regime. But it will not get done by milling around the capitol because the capital is a puppet theater.

    The constitution could work perfectly well now, I think, with no amendments, if it were honored. One inveterate US problem is that people tend to dick around with the org charts too much, to the point that they never get world-standard rights and rule of law in place.

    Brabantian, thanks for the reminder about Roll! I was only dimly aware of him at the time.

    https://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/08/22/u-s-federal-judge-john-roll-murdered-the-sheriffs-judge-who-upheld-the-constitution-and-reversed-congress/

    N.B. 21, 22

  62. R2b says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    The sympathy I have for Trump, derive from his supporters.
    They are desperate for draining the swamp.
    Now I hear there is Impeachment from the republican side.
    It’s about Biden in Ukraine.
    If that goes thru.
    Wow!
    Trump-supporters may force their ambigous, reluctant idol to actually do their bidding!?

  63. @Old and Grumpy

    That old triplechin quean, McConnell, is protected and enriched thereby, as he is and long has been blackmailed. Check out photos taken of him with his aides. One which stood out in my mind’s eye was Triplechin being trailed by this slightly studly youngish aide. His preference? Could you even pretend to begin to imagine those folks in the Commonwealth of Kentucky voting for a Senator who was fully open about his preferences? I mean, we ARE talking Kaintuck here.

    Consider the Ep$tein, Maxwell, Wexner nexus. Many observers have fingered them as working directly for the Mo$$ad and possibly MI-6, the CIA and other intel agencies as well. Their primary weapon for blackmail are honeytraps, by which they have even been said to control the egregious John Marshall’s penultimate successor as Chief Ju$tice of the Extreme Courte$ans, John Roberts (whose name—or some similarly named unknown individual of blackmail able importance—was discovered in one of Ep$tein’s logs).

    Anyone notice how the Joint Chiefs of $taff for the U$ armed forces put out a notice to all military personnel that they must not participate in acts of sedition prior to the coronation of the Kamal’s Foote/Biding administration.? Since the days of their attempted Operation Northwoods false flag scheme to attack Cuba, which was vetoed by JFK (among his other sins against the Deepe$t $tate); the proof was already in the pudding that the JC$ is dirty and our military is compromised by their chains of command from the top-down—which is the way the enemies of We The People choose to employ their nefarious control system over one and all—excepting, of course, the Elite$ themselves.

    • Replies: @profnasty
  64. Spanky says:
    @Mefobills

    Supposed populist politicians is one of our most pressing problems…

    Leaving Trump aside, for the moment, consider Bernie. Twice (2016 and 2020) he had substantial popular support, enough to be nominated, yet threw those supporters under the Democratic Party bus and meekly endorsed the candidate favored by party leaders. This was no accident — it was his job — corralling idealistic and highly motivated young Democrats (and independents) and delivering their votes to the leadership’s favored candidate…

    It’s a simple bait and switch, used by both parties, and accomplished with a genial pat on the back as “we can nominate him/her next time, but right now we’ve got to support a candidate that can win the most important election ever against our evil opponent” is whispered in their ears.

    And what was Trump? A billionaire populist? A savvy self-promoter who let his ego get the better of him? A cartoonish foil for Hillary to defeat?

    Can’t say for sure but, with the benefit of hindsight, my guess would be a combination of savvy self-promoter and foil for Hillary. That would explain a lot, especially Hillary’s (and the Democrats) absolute hatred of Trump and his supporters. That his shtick worked is testament to both his talent for self-promotion and our dislike of Hillary. Guess she miscalculated…

    In any case, it became obvious that either the fix was in, when he refused to back Flynn and appointed swamp creatures to fill his administrations’ posts, or Trump was a fool. But that’s not to say he wasn’t useful in exposing the media and deep state’s contempt, hatred and fear of us — deplorables all — by personifying it in their attacks on him.

    The question that matters now, for populists, is how do we avoid the leadership trap?

  65. gotmituns says:
    @FoSquare

    For the most part, our entire legal profession has been taken over by an overeducated, inexperienced crowd of people who are not able to deal in “Letter” and “Spirit” of law. They’re prisoners of the letter of the law because their only background is of the spoken and written word.

    • Agree: Zarathustra
  66. AReply says:

    This author just spent thousands of grueling words parsing arcane Constitutional details un-lit by any intellectual context to rail against a piece of political theater that’s appropriately intended to shame and dismember openly corrupt elements of the GOP from continuing to taint the legislature via Trump’s legacy.

    I say good it’s good theater! And the rebuke of Trump should be even harsher.

    I didn’t read every word in this emission of an article because the details are largely irrelevant to the matter at hand. We know the President as Chief Executive has the greatest single point of responsibility to honor and protect the Constitution, and the document being a proxy for the voice of the people, honor and protection of the American people themselves. Trump took daily shit on the people, and therefore the Constitution as the will of the people.

    All this academic parsing is obviated by Trump himself, who as President in office is effectively above the law. Trump openly denigrated the nation at every turn and made stinking political sausage through malice and criminal incompetence. These are just plain facts of the man Trump, that are so numerous and various, there was a reported assigned to count Trump lies in an official capacity and was well on the way to 60,000 lies in 1400 days of office. Keep in mind this President was flown there and back to his personal golf courses for recreation during hundreds of of those days but thanks to Silicon Valley he could keep lying and increase the pace of his lying to super-human levels This lying stat does cover the harmful policy intents, shameful stunts, and political pandering which are the man’s m.o., just the outright official lies told as a matter of course.

    I seem to recall a little event where Trump himself put his hand on the Bible and swore an Oath of Office to the Constitution. Can you uphold the Constitution while lying about everything?

    Trump was tolerated pretty well in his executive capacity and given every benefit of the doubt the Office can confer, and he still fucked it up. Even Jack Dorsey was like we have have to abide the misuse of our platform because he’s the President. They finally turned off Trump’s spigot only after the end of hope of any redemption. Talk about a swamp, the IQ of the nation went up 20 points in one day.

    Trump lived for the sausage-fest of his own politics and he’s dying of the sausage-fest. He can join his buddy Jeffrey Epstein in their bliss on heavenly sausage island.

    As to this pedantic Turing Test of an article, it should be on a dweeby subreddit on the design of CAPCHAs along with the topic of online IQ tests that drag on and give a lower score the longer you take them while feeding the contents of your Contacts into to spambots.

    • Troll: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  67. Anon[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @stevennonemaker88

    You know why in nominal democracies people don’t actually choose the rulers? Because they lack the ability to be as aware of reality as, for instance, you are.
    And that’s a thing like IQ. No-one’s going to change it.

    The bile towards Trump was because Trump tried to awake the asleep, instead of cheating and exploiting and despising them like the anti-Trump associated rulers do. To them, he was a traitor, one to be made an example of, because, of course, the association of the rulers works effectively for the very reason that betrayal is made to cost a lot, and they are highly cohesive.

    • Thanks: stevennonemaker88
  68. Anon[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beavertales

    Few know the truth about Trump’s presidency.
    And, as comments even on this site show, few understand under what circumstances he was to “govern”, while many make comments against his presidential performance.

    Criticizing then, is easier than understanding, let alone knowing.

  69. @Mefobills

    You misread Bentham’s “In defense of Usury.” Bentham’s position reflected a libertarian perspective and a dislike of most English aristocrats of those times — those whose livelihoods depended on inheritance and who did nothing productive.

    Respecting the libertarianism of Bentham’s “Defense of Usury,” I shall quote a Libertarian source, rather than argue the matter (partly because the argument’s adequate construction would consume too much space here):

    In A Defence of Usury (1787), he [Bentham] argued that it was a mistake for governments to prohibit high interest rates because individuals are the best judges of what will benefit them.
    * * *
    In his discussions of concrete issues, Bentham in general supported a laissez-?faire economic policy, as can be seen in his Defence of Usury. There he takes issue with Adam Smith, whom he otherwise looked up to as a hero, because Smith was willing to support government in its attempts to keep the rate of interest down. In addition to economic freedom, Bentham especially espoused the cause of intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. Because individuals are usually the best judges of what is good for them, and because a regime of liberty provides the individual with the greatest freedom to follow his own goals, there is a presumption in favor of it, and the burden of justification is on those who would make exceptions.

    “JEREMY BENTHAM,” in LIBERTARIANISM, https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/jeremy-bentham

    And cf. this:

    [In “Defence of Usury” (1787),” …Jeremy Bentham wrote a series of thirteen “Letters” addressed to Adam Smith, published in 1787 as Defence of Usury. Bentham’s main argument against the restriction is that “projectors” generate positive externalities. Gilbert K. Chesterton identified Bentham’s essay on usury as the very beginning of the ‘modern world.’ Bentham’s arguments were very influential. “Writers of eminence” moved to abolish the restriction, and repeal was achieved in stages and fully achieved in England in 1854. There is little evidence as to Smith’s reaction. He did not revise the offending passages in The Wealth of Nations, but Smith made little or no substantial revisions after the third edition of 1784.

    Quoted from the Bibliography of the JEREMY BENTHAM UTILITARIAN PHILOSOPHY, Central European University, Budapest, course concerning “Moral Intuitionism, Epistemological and Ethical Aspects,” http://utilitarianphilosophy.com/jeremybentham.eng.html

    Bentham’s anti-aristocrat/anti-inheritance view accorded with the perspective that (a) if an enriched-by-inheritance aristocrat squanders his unearned fortune and tries to survive by borrowing from a usurer, he deserves the financial stress he suffers and (b) liberty requires risking the negative effects of your choices (a condition that is anathema to socialism). Cf. Josiah Wedgwood, THE ECONOMICS OF INHERITANCE (first published in 1929), https://archive.org/details/economicsofinher035213mbp/page/n1/mode/2up

    You wrote:

    Bentham’s father was Jewish, and Bentham also ignored the fairly strong Old Testament admonitions against usury.

    Your assertion’s “ignored the Old Testament” part is questionable at best. In Bentham’s time (mid-and-late 18th century to early 19th century), immensely few Jews ignored the Old Testament — though, perhaps, many attributed much greater importance to the Talmud..

    Your “father was Jewish” assertion appears to be simply false. A competent source states: Bentham was baptised “14 Feb 1747/8 ” at St Botolph without Aldgate, London, England. His father, Jeremiah Bentham, was baptised Dec 1712 at St Botolph without Aldgate, London, England. See “Ancestry of Jeremy Bentham,” in countyhistorian, https://sites.google.com/site/countyhistorian/ancestry-of-jeremy-bentham

    Still, such ethnicity/religion matters are irrelevant. The matter is the content of Bentham’s Fragment on Government (1776) and An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), not Bentham’s ethnicity or religion, or even Bentham himself. The specific matters are: (a) Did Bentham’s “utilitarianism” influence the Constitution’s “Framers”? And (b) would Benthamian “utilitarianism” be s greatly beneficial principle of social/political/economic organization?

    You wrote also this:

    Bentham spread the same erroneous B.S. that Calvin did, and both men did enormous damage, and whether by design or confusion are NOT for the common good. Their connections to our (((friends))) is suspicious.

    I suggest you need to present substantial supporting evidence, not merely your rather hefty assertion.

    And you wrote this:

    In other words, Bentham did not have the moral instinct of mankind, but instead was a usurer, hiding behind his utilitarianism doctrine.

    I do not recall encountering any evidence that Bentham was a usurer. Bentham was not a money-lender, pawn-shop proprietor, or even a banker.

    As my article noted (see its first endnote, endnote “[1]”), Bentham was an economist, philosopher, and jurist. And he was a leading theorist of Anglo-American jurisprudence (legal philosophy) and, politically, an major active advocate of individual and economic freedoms, separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and women’s equal legal rights.
    See again JEREMY BENTHAM UTILITARIAN PHILOSOPHY, Central European University, Budapest, course concerning “Moral Intuitionism, Epistemological and Ethical Aspects” (supra); and see also the Jeremy Bentham entry of Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer reviewed source), https://iep.utm.edu/bentham/

    Thank you, though, for presenting your point of view.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Alden
  70. Which Constitution? of the Republic of the united states of America or THE UNITED STATES, INCORPORATED? The last President of the Republic was Ulysses S Grant. All those after him have been corporate officers CEOs/Presidents. Do some research. We live in a bubble if misinformation and disinformation spoon-fed to us from birth. After you discover the truths about this country and almost every country in the world you’ll get sick. Step outside the US Inc matrix or another matrix and you become a domestic terrorist/you now are one with the animal kingdom. Survival will definitely be for the fittest. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  71. @Dr. X

    This is a superb comment. Roe and the more recent decision extending civil rights to the LGBetc. group are examples of a judiciary that pays no attention to either the words or the spirit of the Constitution. The federal government has become a totalitarian monster that, particularly in the hands of the current Democratic party, is determined to allow no dissent despite the clear meaning and intent of the first amendment.

  72. A movie about Al Gore.

  73. Mefobills says:
    @Leonard R. Jaffee

    I suggest you need to present substantial supporting evidence, not merely your rather hefty assertion

    I have made a lot of comments here at UNZ, and I often provide supporting evidence.

    Thanks for correcting me about Bentham’s dad. Still, Bentham was wrong on usury, and has done enormous damage. The old testament prohibits usury, and a Jew “of the book” should know that.

    Usury is a power relation, it is not just the taking of interest. It is the taking of sordid gain, with no counterpart in production.

    A libertarian argument is no defense either.

    It was the classical economists who were able to discern what free markets were… markets free of rents and unearned income. NOT LIBERTARIANS.

    Bentham was pretty much a P.O.S. Charles Haney, in “History of Economic Thought” classified Bentham as a “hedonist.” One who asserts that individual actions are solely motivated by a desire for pleasure and avoidance of pain. The community Bentham stated, is a fictitious body, and the common interest can be understood by what is the interest of the individual… nothing ought to be done or attempted by the government.. his rule of government is to be quiet.

    So, Bentham instead of criticizing the most powerful Jews for their anti-social activities, views as harmful by all former moral systems, Bentham instead plays the anti-semitism card. Bentham even attacked Aristotle for corrupting Christianity.

    In Bentham’s book, Bentham associates some of the positive attributes of thrift with money lending. Money lending becomes on the same plane as thrift in his worldview.

    An here is the coup-de-gras: Compound interest was forbidden in Bentham’s day, and Bentham urged its legalization.

    A compound curve for interest is outside of nature, as the claims on nature grow exponentially. Nature does not grow exponentially. Nature and labor cannot pay the claims, and society polarizes. Jesus started his mission on the Jubilee year, as Jubilees are coded in the Bible to prevent polarization.

    If Bentham wasn’t a Jew, he certainly had the Jewish spirit. Bentham was not for the common good.

  74. troof says:
    @Dr. X

    I will give $500 to anyone who can cite the Article and Clause that creates the sacred “right to choose” an abortion.

    Excessive regulation of the public medical license denies equal protection of the human right to privacy, which includes medical decisions. The same reason I am entitled to medicate without permission from the FDA is the same reason women are entitled to abortion surgery without too much oversight of the required medical license. It’s a question of balancing public interest with personal liberty, so it became a judicial precedent after much deliberation. I want my $500

    I will never lose that money, because it doesn’t exist.

    You don’t have money? Dishonor! I feel cheated

    this sacred constitutional right to abortion

    Not a “right to abortion”, a right to make medical decisions with a licensed doctor without undue public interference. Of course every conservatoon gets everything backwards, hence the recent collapse of the Trump regime. 100% morons, all of you.

    tell us that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

    translation: “the right to keep and bear arms in defense of the State shall not be questioned”

    also stated “loyal subjects may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition”

    places absolutely no limitations on the ̶g̶o̶v̶e̶r̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ average moron to ̶b̶a̶n̶,̶ ̶t̶a̶x̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶/̶o̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶f̶i̶s̶c̶a̶t̶e̶ brandish, menace and display any and all weapons not in the hands of the National Guard

    FTFY

  75. troof says:
    @RogerL

    Just flip it around opposite and you have the answer. Instead of building a powerbase in the government, the deplorables spent the last 4 years pissing off the people with real power. Not building a powerbase, and pissing off those in power… they have a death wish.

    Because RED state retards are all IDIOTS, they chose a perfect clown to manifest their deplorable sensibilities. Now that Trump is just a greasy smear, they have martyred themselves on a cross of mental illness, and a hundred years from now there will be shrines to them all over the US, describing the lost race of rubetards and dumfuks that like to wave flags. That the obsolete jerbtard class was so devoted to him (because of him being a conman idiot) just shows how desperate they are for attention.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance

    The redtard race will soon be confined to reservations and locked out of the whiteman’s world, barred from commercial travel. They need to revert to a way of life more suited, circa mid 19th century, no technology. Modern things spook the werkist jerbalots.

    See how FTYF?

  76. troof says:
    @Mefobills

    Calculating an amount due on the lien position is just mathematic abstraction. All of these things are “threshold”, to reach the point of stating a claim by right.

    The equity of foreclosure, eviction, shut off or another hard consequence is within the sound discretion of any court, and the right of actual possession is always guaranteed trial by jury. All that really matters are the legal time bars to make claims for land and other assets, every lien might as well be ‘infinity’… usury is just a concept.

    That’s why it has no penalty nor any ordination in Scripture. It can’t be defined, but it will be abolished by truly free markets that drive all prices down to cost and exchange.

  77. @AReply

    But the guilt is still on Democrats who obviously cheated.

  78. @Aardvark

    what the hell is a court needed for in the first place?

    Since you ask, a Court is therefore needed in order to legally try, convict, sentence and hang-draw-and-quarter corrupted, disloyal, anarchic, treasonous, godless, nation-wrecking scum like that Judge.

    You’re welcome.

  79. Wally says:
    @moi

    said:
    “Zio Biden will have a Jewish dominated administration.”

    Here we go:

    • Thanks: profnasty
  80. @Mefobills

    I want not to use much more of this comment-thread. So, I shall not present a second detailed response, but note only that again you present no valid, reliable evidence of anything, but merely assertions. The “Bible” and “Jesus” and your other sources prove nothing of economics, and they, like you, do not show why, e.g.,

    A libertarian argument is no defense either.

    [Your assertion.]

    But, still, the matter is NOT Bentham. The matter is the content of his published works that argue for utilitarianism — a sociopolitical regime that promotes the greatest human happiness for the greatest human number.

    I shall not respond to you again, but only to avoid taking up more of this thread. I do not mean to insult you. You seem sincerely concerned for the general welfare of humanity. I plain to respond only to one other comment, posted by a different reader (not you, sir or madam). Then, likely I shall not post more comments.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  81. troof says:
    @Mefobills

    There isn’t really any difference in selling shares of an estate against securing that estate for payment of notes and bonds. It’s still just selling shares of the same estate. In a really free market the price of money falls towards zero, and if it pays interest this allocates investment by attracting capital.

    The bottom line is that these hypothecations are just organising shares of interest, the real issue remains the organic property relationship, which is founded on the ecology of social relationships. The main question is strictly who should have possession of what, and when, and why.

    Most things which are now subject to speculation are easily removed just by high exemptions from levy, and time barring claims grounded in real possession. One of the lawyerly tricks that emerged was the “suspension of time”, that making payments tolled the time limits to prosecute claims.

    At the same time the clock always marches on, so does time really stand still by abstract ideation? i think not… time stops for no man. This means all demands for payment are inherently limited. The Catholics understood the problem, but their “solutions” were always blockheaded.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  82. Katrinka says:
    @stevennonemaker88

    The Obama administration counted anyone turned away at the border (never stepping once on U.S. soil) as having been “deported”. Numbers were very fudged. On the other hand, Trump failed to live up to his campaign rhetoric with regard to illegal aliens.

  83. Mefobills says:
    @Leonard R. Jaffee

    The “Bible” and “Jesus” and your other sources prove nothing of economics, and they, like you, do not show why, e.g.,

    ___________________

    See Hudson’s book, “And forgive them their debts.” Jesus was very much a monetary reformer. Jesus started his mission on the Jubilee year to intercept Hillel’s Pharisee class. The Pharisee class and Hillel’s prozbul clause was attempting a creditor take-over, where the creditor class could extract from debtors forever — a form of usury. This is relatively new information for humanity, so it is understood if you are not conversant. Hudson and the Harvard team’s information has not reached critical mass yet.

    As far as libertarianism goes, it is being deconstructed on an ongoing basis, with articles on it here at UNZ.

    https://www.unz.com/article/did-milton-friedmans-libertarianism-seek-to-advance-jewish-interests/

    Bentham was a usurer, and wrote a book about it. “Defence of Usury,” in 1811 (London, Payne and Foss)

    Bentham was the spiritual cousin of Hillel.

    Bentham’s book was even republished in 1842, just around the time that Bank of England’s abuses were becoming an obvious problem. From around 1810, BOE’s policies were impoverishing the lower levels of English society.

    In 1844 the BOE was FORCED with reforms to:

    Stop charging interest on governments debt to it.
    A separate note issuing department that required gold backing for more than 15million pounds of notes.
    Silver could be used again to back up the bank, but not used as coinage.

    (The objective was to reign in the bank.)

    In other words, the first Debt Spreading Bank in history, which then took over a country, used Bentham’s works to justify their usury position, which had impoverished the the lower strata. The public fought back with the 1844 reforms, which are something Bentham would not have understood given his worldview.

    I did mention sources by the way, such as Bentham himself, Whipple and Haney.

    I’m sorry if your worldview is under assault. But, I’m only interested in the truth and if I break eggs to make an omelet, so be it.

    • Thanks: profnasty
    • Replies: @profnasty
    , @GeeBee
  84. Mefobills says:
    @troof

    I guess in your world, naked short selling cannot happen?

    It is just selling of shares. Actually it is the hypothecation of shares. The free market is perfect.

    https://stopnakedshortselling.org/about/

    • Replies: @troof
  85. @Majority of One

    Whatever good was to be found in Christianity as a culture was deeply distorted by Calvinistic Puritanism and its “Chosen People” mythos….My preference is to employ the more objectively truthful description: the “JudieChristie MagickMindfuck.

    So, I hear you saying the failure of those mindfucked people (and I’m not sayin they aren’t) by the hundreds of millions was caused by opportunity and inclination and not predestination per se. At least not *the* fait accompli into whose gail force wind you now spit, head on. Calvin merely observed the phenomenon. You prove it.

    Puritanism does not act out expecting to change others. It acts from within, it is a moving force and cannot be denied by those possessed of it. In the event you kill a Puritan, make sure it is for who they are, rather than who they are not. They simply cannot act in ways to make you think they are right, when if by doing so, they lose their own person. How do they know who they are, you ask? What is their unknowable knowledge? Calvin described it. They acknowledge it as unknowable. Others rage.

    “Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?” Psalms 2:1

    Respectfully, your problem may lie in having accepted the counterfeit of the so called Jews, “Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.” Rev. 3:9

    Get your night vision together man. First, eliminate the impossible. That is, if your heart believes that it may be.

  86. That is the most confusing riposte I have yet to receive on this site. Oh, there are plenty of responders whom I would regard as confused, but you, sir, are confusing. “Hundreds of millions” of Calvinists? Oh please. Evidently demographic geography is not your high suit. “Gail (sic) force wind”? Would that be akin to the late actress Gail Storm”? I “prove” exactly what? Calvin’s description of “unknowable knowledge” strikes me as pilpul.

    Do you happen to be a Presbyterian preacher/teacher at John Calvin University for those hardcore Calvinists that the folks I met while traveling in the Netherlands happened be delighted that they split the country for South Africa and western Michigan?

  87. Alden says:
    @Leonard R. Jaffee

    So Bentham approved of usury because decadent aristocrats who borrowed and wasted the money deserved to suffer. Most borrowers aren’t clueless aristocrats who deserve to suffer.

    Constitutional law in 9 words. Constitutional law is whatever a judge says it is.

    School integration and bussing, affirmative action Louisiana slaughterhouse case, rulings that closed entire industries.

    Since the Griggs case the judges have totally overturned and rendered null the 14th amendment. Legislators don’t make laws any more. Judges and plaintiffs attorneys do.

    At one time a group that wanted a law to benefit the group hired a lobbyist to influence legislators to propose and pass the law.

    Now the groups just fund a lawsuit and hope the judge issues orders the group’s attorneys wrote for the judge. If the first law suit fails, the group just filed again and again till some judge somewhere issues the orders that create a new law.

  88. @Mefobills

    Thanks. (Unable to use the AGREE/DISAGREE button.)

  89. Usury, as any other economic activity is subject to Law of supply and demand.
    And anyway who the hell can determine what is usury and what is not.
    Today Fed is determining the interest rates.
    Talking about usury is waste of time.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  90. @CMC

    You wrote:

    First, and most importantly, the first clause of the key sentence begins by stating that it is a limitation on the Senate. The Senate can do no more than this, that, and the other thing.

    Your construction is false.

    The Constitution’s Article I § 3 clause 7 proposition reduces to: “Judgment shall not extend farther than P, where P = Q & R.”

    The language “Judgment shall not extend farther than P” begs the question of what P is. Article I § 3 clause 7 answers that question, expressly, explicitly, clearly thus: “Q and R’ is “removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” [my emphasis].

    Article I § 3 clause 7 does NOT provide that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, or disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” And Article I § 3 clause 7 does NOT provide that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to either removal from Office, or disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States or both removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

    Article I § 3 clause 7 DOES provide expressly, explicitly, clearly that Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

    Perhaps a language-logic observation may help:

    The term “and” is conjunctive, always only conjunctive — always both (a) and (b, or all of (a), (b), (c)……and (n).

    The term “or” has two, distinct meanings. One, a common (non-logical/non-legal) meaning, is “complete disjunction” — “either (a) or (b) but not both (a) and (b).”

    The fundamental (or rudimentary) logical “or” — and the correct legal “or” means “(a) or (b) or both (a) and (b).” Quite like the “or” of symbolic logic, propositional calculus, truth logic, and Boolean algebra, the legal, “or” indicates that “A or B [is true] if A [is true] or if B [is true] or if both A and B [are true].

    Some truth-logic “disjunctive” [logical “or”] properties:

    associativity: A ∨ (B ∨ C) ≡ (A ∨ B) ∨ C
    commutativity: A ∨ B = B ∨ A
    distributivity: [A ∨ (B ∧ C)] ≡ [(A ∨ B) ∧ (A ∨ C)]
    and……………….. [A ∨ (B ∨ C)] ≡ [(A ∨ B) ∨ (A ∨ C)]
    and……………….. [A ∨ (B ≡ C)] ≡ [(A ∨ B) ≡ (A ∨ C)]

    The symbol ∨ means “or”
    The symbol ∧ means “and”
    The symbol ≡ means “identity” or “is identical to” (which is similar to, but not exactly the same as =, which means “equals”)

    So, since Article I § 3 clause 7 provides expressly, explicitly, clearly that Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” Article I § 3 clause 7 provides that Judgment shall extend ONLY to BOTH removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

    The proposition that “Judgment [my emphasis]…shall not extend farther than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit …[etc]” does NOT imply the proposition PUNISHMENT shall be EITHER “removal from Office OR disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit …[etc] OR BOTH such punishments.

    The proposition that “Judgment[my emphasis]…shall not extend farther than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit …[etc]” does NOT imply ANYTHING respecting whether PUNISHMENT may be one or the other of “removal from Office OR disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit …[etc] RATHER THAN ALWAYS BOTH “removal from Office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit …[etc].”

    Just so, the language “Judgment [my emphasis]…shall not extend farther than to” refutes your argument.

    The “Judgment” is the determination whether the impeached Officer is guilty as the impeachment articles charge. A guilty-as-charged judgment is the event that authorizes punishment.

    If the judgment authorizes punishment, then the punishment can be ONLY and EXACTLY what Article I § 3 clause 7 prescribes: “removal from Office, and [my emphasis] disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States. Such punishment is not possible if the impeached Officer’s Office has ended and he has vacated that Office. One cannot remove something from a place or situation if that something is absent.

    The Constitution’s Framers were not stupid or oblivious to probable consequences of their Constitution-provision choices. Surely, the Framers appreciated (even if only for sake of their own self-interests) that if the Senate could disqualify a non-Office-holder from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” any person could be barred from holding “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, even if the person has never violated any official Office or official Trust” under the United States,” or even never held such Officee.g. simply because a House majority and two thirds of the Senate dislikes the person’s politics or the conduct of his private life.

    Pointing to the Article I § 3 clause 7 provision that “the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law,” you state:

    Although possibly superfluous, it’s there and should give rise to the realization that, of course, nothing in this section about what the Congress can do would prevent further punishment under the law, i.e. just the legislative branch removing and banning a guy from executive office for treason wouldn’t prevent his also hanging under the law.

    That language does not even intimate what you argue.

    Article I § 3 clauses 6 & 7 & Article II § 4 do not require that a crime be committed [see Leonard R. Jaffee, IMPEACHING CHENEY, http://usalone.com/jaffee_on_impeachment2.htm AND consider the Senate trial of the Clinton impeachment, in which the dominant charges was obstructing civil-suit evidence-discovery and having sexual encounters with a White House aide, conduct that no law makes criminal].

    Article I § 3 clauses 6 & 7 & Article II § 4 contemplate removing a “civil Officer” from Office if he has perverted his official office, corrupted government, threatened the Republic or our democracy, or damaged the public welfare the official swore to protect. A civil Officer can have committed such offense even if his conduct does not constitute a crime according to any criminal law [again see Leonard R. Jaffee, IMPEACHING CHENEY, http://usalone.com/jaffee_on_impeachment2.htm ].

    So, Article I § 3 clause 7 punishment does not require that the impeached civil Officer have committed an act or omission that criminal law makes a crime. AND an impeached Officer’s having committed such crime does not require or necessarily authorize the Senate’s punishing him per Article I § 3 clause 7.

    You wrote:

    Why shouldn’t the Senate be able to permanently bar a guy from office and profit from the United States for Treason just because he commits it too late for the process of impeachment and trial to be practicable?

    You state a policy question. But the question is moot, because the Constitution determined that question with Article I § 3 clause 7. The determination was that the impeached civil Officer must be subject to “removal from Office” — for, the only authorized punishment involves “removal from Office, and [my emphasis] disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

    • Replies: @CMC
    , @CMC
  91. @bayviking

    Quite an accomplishment. Almost everything you said is false, wrong or fattening.

  92. profnasty says:
    @Mefobills

    I looked up ‘mefobills’, fascinating. I’ll guess you are not Jewish, Mr Jaffee is.
    It’s a great discussion and I thank you both.

    • Replies: @Leonard R. Jaffee
  93. profnasty says:
    @Majority of One

    Camela’s Foot/Binding Administration?
    I’m gonna have to steal that.

  94. profnasty says:
    @Getaclue

    I have stood before judges three times in my life. Each time they lied to my face. I spent two nights in jail. I wrote a song about it.

  95. @CMC

    In my earlier reply, where I responded to your statement that

    Although possibly superfluous, it’s there and should give rise to the realization that, of course, nothing in this section about what the Congress can do would prevent further punishment under the law, i.e. just the legislative branch removing and banning a guy from executive office for treason wouldn’t prevent his also hanging under the law.

    I noted that “Article I § 3 clauses 6 & 7 & Article II § 4 do not require that a crime be committed.” One indication was the Clinton impeachment, in which the dominant charges were obstructing civil-suit evidence-discovery and having (consensual) sexual encounters with a (non-minor) White House aide, conduct that no law makes criminal.

    In his Senate trial, Clinton survived by one vote, that of Arlen Specter, who applied the Scottish criminal law regime in which the jury’s choices are (a) not guilty, (b) guilty, (c) not innocent but guilt not proved; and Specter chose (c). Specter felt that Clinton had done wrong but felt also that the case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

    In the same part of my earlier reply, my concluding observation was:

    So, Article I § 3 clause 7 punishment does not require that the impeached civil Officer have committed an act or omission that criminal law makes a crime. AND an impeached Officer’s having committed such crime does not require or necessarily authorize the Senate’s punishing him per Article I § 3 clause 7.

    Your statement related to the Article I § 3 clause 7 language

    …but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

    My concluding observation ought to have included also this: The above-quoted Article I § 3 clause 7 language has no function but to recognize or provide that a Senate impeachment trial is not a criminal proceeding and does not affect, positively or negatively, any criminal law liability. Hence, that language says nothing respecting what punishment the Senate is empowered to impose.

  96. @profnasty

    I’ll guess you are not Jewish, Mr Jaffee is.

    I am not an ethnic Jew. And I do not adhere to any form of Jewish religion (all forms of such religion I despise). I am an atheist and utterly irreligious. My surname is held by many Jews. But I am not my surname.

  97. CMC says:
    @Leonard R. Jaffee

    Thank you for your responses.

  98. Mefobills says:
    @Zarathustra

    Today Fed is determining the interest rates.
    Talking about usury is waste of time.

    Usury isn’t about interest rates. That is Bentham’s works that have you baffled with his BS. This is why Bentham was dangerous. You are a living example.

    In the Philadelphia Colony, they made new loans based on land, which then put new “money as credit” into the supply.

    They also SPENT new money into the supply on things like bridges and the commons. This new money paid the interest on the new loans. The loans were also held such that they did not go exponential … this was done by limiting the loans to simple interest paid in yearly increments, generally around 8 years length. The debt claims from the loans were not usurious in that they could be paid out of the physical productivity of the Colony. Franklin wrote about this experience:

    http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1701-1750/benjamin-franklin-a-modest-enquiry-into-the-nature-and-necessity-of-paper-currency.php

    General Welfare clause and American System of Economy were contemporaneous.

    General Welfare clause transmitted to the Constitution through Franklin and Leibniz.

    https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_02-06/031_happinessA.html

    (whenever you see the word “venetians” in the link, substitute usurers)

    Life/Liberty/Happiness is Franklin/Leibniz

    Life/Liberty/Property is a materialistic view.

    The materialistic view is that man is an animal and can be hedonistic (like Bentham), and the jewish method of usury to “put property to property” is just fine and dandy. Usury funds their hedonism.

    It is something like NAMBLA, the north american men boy lovers association. They put out a doctrine as a cover and shield for their perversions.

    There is a large body of thought and definitions of what usury is, which predates Bentham. Artistotle codified the most prominent definitions, which is why Bentham attacked Aristotle.

    Clown world is funded, and clown world requires propaganda narratives.

    Bentham also opposed natural law and natural rights. Much of human history was trying to define what the logos is, or god-given natural law and natural rights. And now we are back full circle to the Catholic Schoolmen led by Thomas Aquinas, who further defined what usury is, and how it is against the natural order.

  99. Mefobills says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    A narcissist would not have put up with personal attacks based on specious reasoning for four years, coming out and facing a hostile press almost every day. Listening to their vicious insinuations and parrying them at every opportunity

    I’ve had the same thoughts as you. What motivates Trump? He always put himself in the limelight and self promoted.

    It is possible that people are complex and simple black and white definitions are too easy?

    Is it possible that Trump got enough feedback from his people at the rallies to then be able to face down the clowns in Washington swamp?

  100. troof says:
    @Mefobills

    naked short selling of what?? ideas? the only thing that matters is real life, actual possession of land and other tangibles.

    • Replies: @Larchmonter420
  101. CMC says:
    @Leonard R. Jaffee

    Thanks again, but I am not persuaded. Or perhaps I am not comprehending your essay and comments.

    I think you have misapprehended the meaning of the phrase ‘shall not extend further than to.’

    I understand your argument as:
    Judgment shall be A and B.
    In this instance, there can be no A.
    Therefore there can be no [complete set of] A and B.
    Therefore there can be no Judgment at all, whatsoever.

    Am I summarizing your argument correctly?

  102. (1)

    I type very badly. Today, I cannot spare time enough to proofread the following text. I apologize for any typing error(s) that may mar the following text.

    (2)

    This is a compliment, not an insult or supercilious remark. I wish that when I was still teaching law-students, the majority thought critically as your comments suggest you can.

    (3) You wrote:

    I understand your argument as:
    Judgment shall be A and B.
    In this instance, there can be no A.
    Therefore there can be no [complete set of] A and B.
    Therefore there can be no Judgment at all, whatsoever.

    Am I summarizing your argument correctly?

    You have mis-summarized my construction of Article I § 3 clause 7 first sentence: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” Also, you continue to mis-construe Article I § 3 clause 7 first sentence.

    Article I § 3 clause 7 first sentence reduces to this:

    Given J, then P ≯ (R∧D)

    where
    “J” means “J of conviction” (or “Judgment affirming the charge(s) the articles of impeachment assert”)
    “≯ ” means “not greater than” (or “not further than”)
    “R” means “removal from office”
    “∧” means “and” (exactly and only conjunctive)
    “D” means “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office…[etc.] under the United States”
    “(R∧D)” means “absolute conjunction of R and D” — not (R∨D), where “∨” means “logical ‘or,’ which is “(a)∨(b)∨[(a)∧(b)],” or “(a) or (b) or both (a) and (b)”

    Consider the proposition:

    Given J, then P: ≤ (R∧D)

    where
    “:” means “such that”
    “≤” means “less than or equal to”

    Per that proposition [“Given J, then P: ≤(R∧D)”], if the Senate convicts an impeached civil Officer, the Senate may choose not to impose (R∧D) punishment but impose, instead, e.g., to censure that Officer; and censure may be more or less harsh or may may include a specific rebuke respecting one certain previous act or some number of specific acts that the Officer committed while in Office.

    Assume, for argument, that such proposition [“Given J, then P: ≤(R∧D)”] comports with Article I § 3 clause 7 first sentence. (That assumption is quite arguable, and, in a perfectly fitting case, I would support holding that assumption valid under Article I § 3 clause 7 first sentence. But the Trump impeachment is not such case.)

    Let “C” stand for “censure but not R∨D.” Now look narrowly “backwards” — not from (R∧D) to “C ∧ not-R,” but from (R∧D) to “not-R ∧ D.”

    Suppose an impeached civil Officer remained in Office during the entirety of Senate trial of the Officer’s impeachment, that the Senate adjudged the Officer “guilty,” and the Senate ruled not that P be the Officer be (R∧D) but only D. The result would be that the Officer would remain in Office despite the Senate ruled that the Office be disqualified from holding and [or] enjoying “any office [my emphasis] of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

    Look hard: In such case, the Senate would have permitted an Article I § 3 clause 7 disqualified Officer to “hold and enjoy” an “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” though the Senate had disqualified the Officer from holding and enjoying any “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

    If, per Senate ruling, H may not hold any “O” [“Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States”], then H may not hold O1,O2,O3,….O∞. Thus, H may “hold” or “enjoy” no Office of honor, Trust [etc.], ever, anywhere “under the United States.” Hence, H may not “hold” or “enjoy” the Office that the Senate has permitted H to remain holding and enjoying.

    So, “Given J, then P≯ (R∧D)” must mean “Given J, then P⇔[P≡ (R∧D)]∨ [(P≡(C∧¬D)].” [Senate can punish an impeached Officer only if punishment is removal AND disqualification from holding or enjoying “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” OR punishment is only censure and not “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust…(etc.).]

    Recall my earlier observation:

    The Constitution’s Framers were not stupid or oblivious to probable consequences of their Constitution-provision choices. Surely, the Framers appreciated (even if only for sake of their own self-interests) that if the Senate could disqualify a non-Office-holder from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” any person could be barred from holding “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, even if the person has never violated any official Office or official Trust” under the United States,” or even never held such Office — e.g., simply because a House majority and two thirds of the Senate dislikes the person’s politics or the conduct of his private life.

    Cheers,

    Leonard R. Jaffee

  103. GeeBee says:
    @Mefobills

    I just saw your ping-pong game with Jaffee, and couldn’t help noticing that he used a very obvious ‘cop-out’ excuse, namely the old ‘I’m far too busy and important to respond to people who challenge my shoddy and shaky pronouncements’ gambit.

    Bentham was certainly an odd chap: I recall my brother-in-Law telling me that when he studied architecture at The Bartlett College (part of University College, London) Jeremy Bentham’s mummified body was always sat in a chair at the head of the table, on the occasion of the annual college dinner, in accordance with his wishes prior to his death in 1832 (Bentham had helped found University College).

    It might be worth you invoking in reply to Jaffee the 20th-century English philosopher Anthony Ludovici, and especially his book Jews and the Jews in England (which he wrote under the pseudonym ‘Cobbett’, for understandable reasons bearing in mind it was published in 1938) in which he touched upon Bentham. He wrote:

    The fact, moreover, that in England after the resettlement the Jew was in the position of a stranger aspiring to power in a society already organized to a great extent upon the aristocratic and hereditary principle, meant that his one form of power — Money — found itself opposed, or at least limited, by other kinds of power which, besides having no necessary basis in money alone, were inaccessible to money as such. These other kinds of power were Gentile aristocratic lineage, Gentile aristocratic privilege, hereditary honours and functions, all of which could not be bought, had no market price, and belonged to a political system and a constitution which would need to be transformed and if necessary wrecked, if these forms of power were to be released to merely affluent candidates for their possession.

    Thus, if in such a society the Jew was to persist in his ambition to acquire power that had no insuperable limitations, it meant that, willy-nilly, he must give the weight of his support in influence and money to all those tendencies in the land which were aiming at destroying these peculiar and unpurchasable forms of power, and at dismantling the political framework into which they fitted.’

    Ludovici goes on to ask whether the old order were stupid, neglectful or merely naïve in going along with much of the attack upon their power at the hands of Jews, concluding:

    ‘But what is important is the fact that, no matter how virtuous or efficient they might have been, and no matter how exemplary might have seemed their administration and their leadership in the eyes of the masses, the Jew could not logically have acted otherwise than he did; for he was by the very nature of his position committed to siding with their political critics and opponents.

    ‘Fundamentally, there is no reason — no fact in the past history of the Jews — which would justify us in assuming that, had the privileged rulers of this country satisfied all the demands of the nation, the Jews, as inveterate strangers, knowing only their own ethnic and spiritual solidarity, would have allowed the efficient performance of their functions by the privileged classes to weigh against the more pressing desideratum of opening up all avenues to power for themselves.

    ‘Hence, throughout the latter part of the eighteenth and the whole of the nineteenth centuries, two movements aiming at the reform of the House of Lords — to mention no other modifications of the national political structure — ran side by side. On the one hand, there was a steady crescendo of denigration levelled at the hereditary principle, and, on the other, a tendency to lower the prestige of the Upper House by making money alone a means of access to it.

    ‘Early in the nineteenth century, by a curious coincidence which requires some explanation, the same publicist who wrote a “Defence of Usury” had also attacked the constitution as being “aristocracy-ridden”, (Jeremy Bentham: “The Catechism of Parliamentary Reform”, 1817) and if by 1911, after a propaganda campaign which for fraudulent misrepresentation surpassed anything of the kind in history, and in which the landed nobility were persistently represented to the people as their only real oppressors and parasites, the Parliament Act virtually removed the House of Lords from any functional position of importance in the constitution, it was because there had been no rest, no pause, in the steady advance of Radical anti-Lordism from the day of Bentham onwards.

    ‘Now, the whole of this anti-peer campaign was supported and directed by the Liberals and their extreme Left Wing, and it was on the side of the Liberals that the English Jews necessarily ranged themselves.’

    Ludovici thus attacks not merely the Jews, but their supporters among the gentiles who had swallowed the Jews’ bait, namely the Liberals. Bentham was surely in the vanguard of this attack on Traditional life, and thus he assisted the ushering in of our toxic Judaised world of Materialism and ‘individuality’.

    • Agree: Mefobills
    • Thanks: FoSquare
  104. Among the Republican establishment, the most toxic of politicians to emerge is Mitch “mumbles” McConnell. He did every single thing he could do to sink the Trump administration. He has the leader of the conservative party, almost single handedly ruined it in the last five or ten years.

  105. @GeeBee

    You wrote:

    I just saw your ping-pong game with Jaffee, and couldn’t help noticing that he used a very obvious ‘cop-out’ excuse, namely the old ‘I’m far too busy and important to respond to people who challenge my shoddy and shaky pronouncements’ gambit.

    I do not complain against your putting false argument — as much, actually, you do (and as Mefobills did). [Free speech is good even when it is bad.] I do not object even to your rendering ad hominem attack (as you did). [Non-libelous ad hominem attack is free speech, too (albeit often stupid or silly).]

    But I do object to your attacking me ad hominem with a flagrantly false assertion. SUCH ad hominem attack is libel — actionable libel.

    I did not state anything like “I’m far too busy and important to respond to people who challenge my…pronouncements.” I stated exactly this:

    I want not to use much more of this comment-thread. So, I shall not present a second detailed response, but note only that again you present no valid, reliable evidence of anything, but merely assertions.

    * * *

    I shall not respond to you again, but only to avoid taking up more of this thread. I do not mean to insult you. You seem sincerely concerned for the general welfare of humanity. I plain to respond only to one other comment, posted by a different reader (not you, sir or madam). Then, likely I shall not post more comments.

    My comment of January 23, 2021 at 12:39 am GMT (comment # 81), https://www.unz.com/article/structural-crisis-senate-threatens-to-usurp-presidency-constitution-and-will-of-the-people/#comment-4423889

    And in the same comment, and an earlier comment [comment # 70, January 22, 2021 at 10:32 pm GMT, https://www.unz.com/article/structural-crisis-senate-threatens-to-usurp-presidency-constitution-and-will-of-the-people/#comment-4423889 ] I responded to Mefobills with much detail and with sound, competent evidence that I linked to online sources.

    Not I, but your comment, fits your terms “shoddy and shaky.”

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  106. @GeeBee

    This comment corrects a bad internet link that appears in my previous reply (comment # 106).

    The bad link was that given for my comment of January 22, 2021 at 10:32 pm GMT (comment # 70).

    The correct comment # 70 link is:
    https://www.unz.com/article/structural-crisis-senate-threatens-to-usurp-presidency-constitution-and-will-of-the-people/#comment-4423651

  107. GeeBee says:
    @Leonard R. Jaffee

    My, what a precious and pompous old trout you appear to be! I await your action in libel in mock trepidation sir.

    • LOL: Larchmonter420
    • Replies: @Larchmonter420
  108. My, what a precious and pompous old trout you appear to be! I await your action in libel in mock trepidation sir.

    Ron should consider kicking this author from his site, rather than enriching him with Mammon. This is this first time I have seen a threat by the author of the thread in response to a post. Behold, it is a sign of desperation.

    It will be nice when Trump proves on Prime Time TV that some rouge country interfered in the election. Wonder, how will the Majority Leader the Schumer of Israel will act? I am ready for a new and improved DRAMA.

    “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own drama. And while you’re studying that drama — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new dramas, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re drama’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    In the 2016 Election Drama, the precedent is already set where Russia was a Rouge Country. Won’t be difficult to pin it on Israel this time.

    Good times are ahead! A truly United USA! Amen!

    • Replies: @Leonard R. Jaffee
  109. You wrote:

    Ron should consider kicking this author from his site, rather than enriching him with Mammon. This is this first time I have seen a threat by the author of the thread in response to a post. Behold, it is a sign of desperation.

    * “mammon”? Ron Unz did not pay me for my article. I wrote my article solely because I fear for our nation — for what little remains of our “democracy” and “republic” and the “honor” of our government and our media.

    * I did not threaten to sue GeeBee. I noted that GeeBee’s statement was actionable libel. That is a statement of fact, not a threat. I suggest you read more carefully.

    I would not sue GeeBee. I would not waste the substantial time and monetary and emotional costs involved in ascertaining GeeBee’s identity, drafting the necessary complaint, summons, and memorandum of law, pursuing discovery, arranging appearances and testimonies of witnesses, and presenting evidence, etc. GeeBee is not worth such expenditure.

    My purpose was only to point out the wrongness of GeeBee’s conduct, so that, perhaps, Mr. Unz would chastise GeeBee or at least so that other readers would appreciate the wrongness of such behavior.

    * I am not the first author who has reacted as I did to GeeBee’s libel (and it was libel).

    Open this article of Israel Shamir: The New Puritans, https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-new-puritans/

    Then Read these comments:

    Comment # 246 of “paranoid goy” (a comment-poster), where paranoid goy calls Linh Dinh (and Unz Review author) a “rhino horn smuggler,” https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-new-puritans/?showcomments#comment-4089722

    Comment 251 of paranoid goy, https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-new-puritans/?showcomments#comment-4091222
    In that comment, paranoid goy doubles down on his libel, and states this:

    Thanks for corerecting my speling of gauge, you sure showed me! Linh Dinh? I only ever read one of his pieces, where he reminisces upon his stay in Angola, and his appreciation of the plentiful supply of rhino horn. Around here, we know exactly what that means, and he is free to deny the charge himself. He does write engagingly enough though, doesn’t he?

    Comment 259 of Loup-Bouc, where, replying to paranoid goy, Loup-Bouc, Loup-Bouc states this:

    Since YOU[ assert the existence of a Linh Dinh piece in which Linh Dinh “reminisces upon his stay in Angola, and his appreciation of the plentiful supply of rhino horn” [a piece that my 19 searches (with both Google and swisscows) did not discover], YOU are obliged to cite the piece with an internet link, because your statement is libelous unless true. [I used Swisscows, not just Google, because Swisscows does NOT either de-platform sites or prioritize sites per political preference.]

    If, truly, Linh Dinh uttered the “rhino horn” statement you allege (uttered it in actuality, rather than in your hallucinatory experience), might Linh Dinh’s statement have been humor or wit (both of which you lack) — NOT an indication that Linh Dinh “smuggles” rhino horns (an indication absent even if Linh Dinh uses rhino horns for the idiotic “reason” put by faux Chinese Medicine).

    Then read these two comments of Linh Dinh (who is, recall, an Unz Review author):

    (1) https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-new-puritans/?showcomments#comment-4092810
    where, replying to “paranoid goy” (a comment-poster), Linh Dinh states:

    “Linh Dinh the rhino horn smuggler?”

    This “paranoid goy” is a bald-faced liar, everybody. Disgusting.

    (2) https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-new-puritans/?showcomments#comment-4092846
    where, replying to paranoid goy but also addressing Ron Unz, Lin Dinh states:

    Hi Ron,

    To baselessly accuse someone of a crime is no joke. This “paranoid goy” should not be allowed to do this at Unz.

    Libel is a crime.

    Linh

    I suggest you, Larchmonter420, learn to read scrupulously and to investigate well before you publish assertions like yours that I quoted at the start of this comment.

    • Replies: @Larchmonter420
  110. @Larchmonter420

    I regret that, in writing my comment # 110, I neglected to make clear at that comment’s outset that the comment (# 110) replies to your comment # 109, Larchmonter420.

  111. @Leonard R. Jaffee

    * “mammon”? Ron Unz did not pay me for my article. I wrote my article solely because I fear for our nation — for what little remains of our “democracy” and “republic” and the “honor” of our government and our media.

    I paraphrased Karl Rove quote for your convenience:

    Original Quote of Karl Rove : “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    My paraphrasing of Karl Rove Quote : “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own drama. And while you’re studying that drama — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new dramas, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re drama’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    To me 29 standing ovations by a joint meeting of Congress is the Biggest DRAMA. These are honorable men who will never insult the Office of Presidency, no matter who occupies that Office. So, the “democracy” and “republic” have never been in peril.

    As far as mammon and usury are concerned, Federal Reserve System is obsolete. The three momentary tools no longer apply, anymore. Hardly any money is being printed. It is all debit/credit; debit/credit; debit/credit and of course at the very top the debits always equal to credit. Basically, an accounting entry. So, federal debt no longer matters.

    All the jobs were shipped to China as a favor to them. Now the jobs in China too are automated. As Milton Friedman explained many years ago that we need, “Negative Income Tax”. The way he calculates the “Negative Income Tax” is different from what McGovern suggested in 1972.

    Fake Covid-19 is Godsend! Whether we like it or not, the “Negative Income Tax” is already being implemented all over the world, under the disguise of Covid-19.

    Best regards,

    Mohamed

    • Replies: @Leonard R. Jaffee
  112. @troof

    naked short selling of what?? ideas? the only thing that matters is real life, actual possession of land and other tangibles.

    Actual possession of land and other tangibles are on useless papers too. Ask Zuckerberg, now the richest man on earth, how many useless papers he owns. Properties papers, ownership papers, stock and bond papers, bank deposits and statement papers, owning crypt0 currencies in the cloud papers.. Papers, papers, papers…. The real wealth is what he actually spends, which is hardly much and the rest are investments in useless papers.

    Best regards,

    Mohamed

    • Replies: @troof
  113. @Larchmonter420

    Your “logic,” “fact”-ideation, and “evidence” are not of any world I know.

    The term “mammon” is not expressed or even intimated in either your Karl Rove quote or your paraphrase of it.

    Your Federal Reserve, debt, money-printing, Freidman, and China (etc.) discussion is utterly irrelevant to my comment to which you reply and to my article concerning the Trump impeachment’s Senate trial.

    Your comment bears no content that can support with any sane logic your assertion that

    …the “democracy” and “republic” have never been in peril.

    Your Milton-Friedman/Federal-Reserve/money-printing/debt/China/Negative-Income-Tax discursion is gibberish.

    Is your salutation “Best regards” a sarcastic irony? [Sarcasm reflects poor imagination of infantile mind.]

    Is your comment’s closing “signature” — “Mohamed” — a joke? Your comment-handle is “Larchmonter420.”

  114. troof says:
    @Larchmonter420

    Actual possession of land and other tangibles is something real and very different than just reading paper. Papers shows titles from ‘A’ to ‘B’, not what is in actual possession or if that possession is better title than the paperwork. All claims lapse in 20 years under English Common Law, bar absolutely in 50 years, can be revived up to the 100th year… its a long time but at some point all titles will vanish.

    Possession is still 9/10th the rule

    • Thanks: Larchmonter420
  115. Possession is still 9/10th the rule

    Salam,

    Well said brother and I had to look up the definition of possession. I am not an legal expert but let us assume a person owns 100 properties on paper, legally how many of the properties he/she can claim as possession? It is the old argument about pot, one can smoke as much one wants to, but possession is illegal. Your are absolutely right about the 9/10 rule, unfortunately as far as the Palestinians are concerned they fell under the 1/10th category because obscure religious book some 4000 years ago has deeded them to parasites.

    I have heard that the parasites were kicked out from 109 countries in the past. The basic problem is that the parasites were always the money changers. This is the wealth which brings them tremendous power as they can buy almost anything with that wealth. As long as they remain the money changers the parasites will move from one country to another. The wealth has to be destroyed. A British economist wrote a book sometime ago called, “Small is Beautiful”. At any given time, our possessions are very few and our basic daily needs are small. We need to get out the rat race before we destroy the Earth. Hopefully, the FAKE Covid-19 will destroy most of this wealth. One has to look at the world financial center, London to see what is happening.

    Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations recognized inherent monopolies such as utilities companies and that these inherent monopolies should be subject to regulation, which they are now. Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and so forth have become inherent monopolies too, and they cannot self regulate themselves. Zuckerberg shouldn’t have the sole power on the POTUS account. So, the Dramas continues…

    I for one don’t consider any President, Senator, Congressman sold out to foreign powers. When USS Liberty was destroyed, President Johnson called the planes back in the midway. I don’t think that he is a sellout, or John McCain was a sell out too, though he one of the best Drama actor!

    Best regards,

    Mohamed

    • Replies: @Larchmonter420
  116. @Larchmonter420

    So, the Dramas continues…

    God bless President Trump, as his impeachment is nothing but a series of long running Dramas….

    Amen!

  117. @GeeBee

    My, what a precious and pompous old trout you appear to be!

    Salam brother,

    Throughout the history mankind has tried to destroy the parasite, leaving the environment ripe for the parasite to move to a different host. If we really want to destroy the parasite we need to destroy the environment mammon on which the parasite thrives. If we are able to do this, we will destroy the parasite for a long, long time. If you take 1% of the richest people, their actual possession is very minute, and also like other human beings their daily needs are not much. All their wealth is in useless papers. It is the greed for accumulation, which is hardwired in the mankind.

    Prince of Peace (as) showed us that you can feed the whole village with five fish. I don’t take that story as literal but rather as metaphor, being our needs can be satisfied with very little. Now, I am not taking about going the Amish way, driving horses and buggies. But we don’t need all that wealth. Mammon which has become cashless society is a median of exchange and in itself doesn’t have any value. It is all debit/credit and nothing more. Hopefully, with destruction of wealth, prices for goods will plunge to affordable levels for everyone in the world. Also, consumption will be actual rather than buying paintings as investments, which keeps driving the prices up and up. A good example is Bitcoin. Invest, invest, invest or your useless paper you own will decrease in value. An investment for investment sake.

    As a Muslim, my religion teaches me that Jews and Christians are Family of the Book. The Book is singular here. A book in Hebrew is called, “Ketuv” and in Arabic it is called, “Kitab”. Mankind is One Family, either we are brothers in Adam or brothers in religion. One God, One Religion….

    I am sure majority of mankind including Jews are tired of parasite.

    Best regards,

    Mohamed

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  118. @Larchmonter420

    What I understand that impeachment will require 2/3 votes or more, not just the simple majority. In the House, the impeachment passed on a partisan basis, where only majority was required. The way I see it no way on earth Trump will be impeached due to partisanship.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senators-sworn-in-impeachment-trial-start-feb-9

    Paul said he expected his resolution to prove there would be “no chance” of impeaching the president in the Senate.

    “I think there will be enough support on it to show there’s no chance they can impeach the president,” Paul told reporters Tuesday. “If 34 people support my resolution that this is an unconstitutional proceeding it shows they don’t have the votes and we’re basically wasting our time.”

    The Senate would need a two-thirds majority, or at least 67 votes, to convict the president.

    Touché

    Mohamed

    • Replies: @Larchmonter420
  119. @Larchmonter420

    Touché

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/rand-paul-test-vote-impeachment-trial-constitutionality/index.html

    Washington (CNN) — The Senate tabled an effort by Sen. Rand Paul Tuesday to force a vote on the constitutionality of former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, but the vote offered an indicator for how Republican senators — who overwhelmingly voted for Paul’s measure — feel about the trial.

    Paul’s motion was killed on a 55-45 vote, with five Republicans joining all Democrats, meaning 45 Republicans voted for Paul’s effort. Republican Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania crossed party lines to vote with Democrats.

    In order to convict Trump at his trial, at least 17 Republicans will need to vote with all Democrats when the trial begins next month. Significantly, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell sided with Paul in the vote — a potential indicator that he agrees the constitutionality of impeaching a former President is in question.

    Paul argued after the vote that the fact that 45 Republicans sided with him “shows that impeachment is dead on arrival.”

    “If you voted that it was unconstitutional then how in the world would you ever hope to convict somebody for this?” Paul asked, adding ,”45 of us, almost the entire caucus, 95% of the caucus, voted that the whole proceeding was unconstitutional. This is a big victory for us. Democrats can beat this partisan horse as long as they want — this vote indicates it’s over, the trial is all over.”

    Even those Republicans who voted against Paul’s measure — including Collins — said Tuesday’s vote was a sign of the eventual outcome of the trial.

    “Do the math,” she said. “I think it’s extraordinarily unlikely that the President will be convicted.”

    DRAMA Continues….

    Mohamed

  120. GeeBee says:
    @Larchmonter420

    Many thanks for this, and very well said. Salam my brother.

  121. Chief Justice Roberts (a.k.a. la Justice Corrompue en Chef ) has refused to preside over the Senate trial of Trump’s impeachment. One may deduce, not unreasonably, that Roberts knows the Senate lacks jurisdiction (that the Constitution does not empower the Senate to try a President after his Office has ended and he has vacated it).

    Roberts is politically corrupt and does not deserve the appellation “your Honor.” But he is very far from a fool: He would want not to preside over, or even associate himself with, a clearly unlawful Senate process.

    Today sources reported that some Democrat Senators are suggesting that the Senate censure Trump, not try him (not try the articles of impeachment but, I infer, dismiss the case without trying it and censure Trump, instead). The reasons? Not enough votes AND the galactic importance of Covid-19 hype. See, e.g., https://www.newsmax.com/politics/tim-kaine-censure-trump-impeachment/2021/01/27/id/1007462/?ns_mail_uid=913b2e7e-2a0b-4835-b853-b4d70bd38dc8&ns_mail_job=DM186267_01272021&s=acs&dkt_nbr=0105022t9s7e

    But I challenge any LAWYER (lawyer, not a Democrat or never-Trump Republican hack holding a JD degree) to find a constitution-provision that says the Senate is empowered to “censure” an ex-President. Such so-called “censure” would be merely some Senators’ announcing that they hate and contemn Trump and want people to think Trump is a baddy-baddy. It would issue as a mono-cameral Resolution that Trump is a baddy-baddy who deserves being hated and contemned.

    And so what? Such Resolution would reduce to a Democrat-and-never-Trump-Republican Senator-contingent’s acting as if the NY Times’s Editorial Board or a group of CNN or MSNBC “round-table” talking heads. A President-censure “Resolution” would bear the legal force of a political passing of intestinal gas.

    Congressional Resolutions may tell a President that Congress will not contest some particular Executive action(s), like invading Vietnam or Iraq. But they do not mandate or interdict anything with force of law: Statutes do.

    In 1834, President Jackson suffered a Whig-Party-pushed censuring-Resolution. But later, Democrats expunged that Resolution. The Senate, the House, or, together, both Chambers can pass any kind of “Resolution,” even one that insists the Earth is really flat and Galileo and Copernicus were hallucinations of a 16th century Grand Mullah of Persia.

    “Resolutions” are not statutes.

    Rejoice! These clowns are “governing” The People.

  122. @Mefobills

    Truth concentrated and consecrated:

    An(d) here is the coup-de-gras: Compound interest was forbidden in Bentham’s day, and Bentham urged its legalization.

    A compound curve for interest is outside of nature, as the claims on nature grow exponentially. Nature does not grow exponentially. Nature and labor cannot pay the claims, and society polarizes. Jesus started his mission on the Jubilee year, as Jubilees are coded in the Bible to prevent polarization.

    If Bentham wasn’t a Jew, he certainly had the Jewish spirit. Bentham was not for the common good.

    Unpacking that brilliance:

    Interest and compound interest are ideas, concepts. They are not physical, they have no nature beyond the ideological, and thus are capable of being unrelenting.

    All of nature and physicality eventually relents or fails. Thus interest and compound interest are evil as against the natural order due to the ideology overwhelming nature.

    In other words, the usury ideology is diabolical.

    Interest whether simple or compound is evil which must be forbidden.

    Your mention of God Incarnate Jesus is in reference to Luke 4 wherein quoted speaking publicly for the first time: back in the hometown after performing miracles elsewhere word of which preceded the homecoming. addressing fellow Jews on the Sabbath, first reading Isaiah’s declaration of a Jubilee Year, then telling them the scripture is fulfilled in their hearing. They murmur proudly and approvingly of this one of their own. Then after listening for another minute they become filled with murderous fury. Why? He announced the relief is for all, not just Jews. They had been pleased to hear their interest-free intragroup debts would be forgiven, but the idea of absolving the usurious obligations they’d imposed on the outgroup was viewed by these Jews as an existential threat.

    Nothing’s changed to this day. Jews still hate Jesus for that announcement and have genocidal designs on whitey as the descendants of Christendom.

    And this is why The Divine Son of God Jesus named the Jew as murderer and liar with no truth in him, John 8:44.

    So whether Jew or shabby goy “the Jewish spirit” or as E. Michael Jones titled his masterwork “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” drives predation upon humanity.

  123. @GeeBee

    Many thanks for this, and very well said. Salam my brother.

    WaSalam brother,

    When Russia walked in and reclaimed Crimea, I said at that time Crimea was returned back to Russia on a Silver Platter as Crimea is very significant for Russia. We all know the history of Crimea very well and its’ significance to USSR, and we know about Khrushchev too. At that time, I said that USA, Russia, Iran are all in cahoots. People at that time thought I didn’t know the meaning of cahoots. Rest is history.

    USSR was kicked out from the Middle East by Evil Kissinger as peace terms of Yom Kippur war. God bless President Nixon as he paid a very high price for it. Then came Obama’s red line on Syria. Supposedly Syria breached the red line. LOL, Obama asked for Congress’ approval to bomb Syria, but they refused him. So his knickers were in a twist. On a live TV Putin bailed him out, when Kerry suggested come rain and shine, Syria chemicals has to be removed. Sergey Lavrov offered they can remove these chemicals within six months. Voilà on live TV, Russia was back in Syria. Now Iran is in Syria, and Iran’s two main enemies were removed by Bush junior. Saddam and Taliban. Now, Islam is being United and Ummah is becoming ONE!

    I still roll over laughing when I remember, the significance of 29 standing ovations….

    Best regards,

    Mohamed

  124. @GeeBee

    We all know what happened last time Zio-American Finance Capitalism took on Industrial Capitalism. It was pretty close run thing then. Today? Just let them try.

    Bring it on! https://www.unz.com/pescobar/xi-reads-multilateral-riot-act-to-virtual-davos/#comment-4431373

    Yes, bring it On!. The Jews early on recognized the value of creating Money from thin air. M1 = coins and currency in circulation + checkable (demand) deposit + traveler’s checks. There are three tools available to FRS to increase or decrease Mi. To increase M1 is to print more money, lower the interest rate and/or lower the loan deposit ratio. To decrease Mi is to remove printed money, increase the interest rate and/or increase the loan deposits ratio. Now Mi is become defunct as almost all the transactions are debit/credit and no printed money is involved, and hardly any checks.

    It is the loan deposit ratio, which created Money from think air. Usually in the past the ratio used to hover around 8% to 12%. If the ratio is set at 8%, then the Banks can loan out 12 times the deposits they have. If it is set at 12%, then the Banks can loan out 8 times the deposits they have. If you remember, in olden days, the mortgage interest rates very high and the Banks were after customers to put money as CDs in their Banks. These days, Banks don’t need CDs, as loan deposit ratio has become almost 100% and it hoovers around 90%. Debit/Credit without money changing hands. Therefore, Federal Reserve has become useless.

    In the past the countries used to destroy the parasites, but leave the mammon creation and wealth environment untouched. So, the parasite used to move to a different host who was very ripe for their survival. Now, already Money Creation is destroyed and the Wealth is being destroyed too, all over the world.

    Where can one investment these day but only in stock market. Other investments such as properties, art, antiques and others are losings their value due to Covid-19. Invest, invest or your investment will loose value. A market crash is coming all over the world, including crypto currencies too.

    Bitcoins at $40,000 which nobody seen it or fully understand it!

    Best regards,

    Mohamed

  125. See a new, much-edited, substantially supplemented version of my article here: https://leonardrjaffee.substack.com/p/structural-crisis-senate-threatens

  126. anon[505] • Disclaimer says:

    The question that is really pertinent here is whether or not the authority of the Constitution and all law based upon it still stands. Paul Craig Roberts asserts a revolution has occurred. If so, the new government no matter how much it pretends to be the old government need not accept the obligations of the old government.

    I do not doubt that massive Treason against the Constitution has occurred and that Biden , many of his officials, the judiciary, and much of Congress are traitors to that Constitution. So what? In revolutions it is treason only if you lose. If you win you are a founding patriot of a new order of things.

    Certainly, this revolution has been coming on for a long time and has seized the government without resorting to arms. They have come to power by Constitutional means or so it would appear. Never mind any irregularities; once power is obtained these can be safely buried. That is the beauty of what they have done.

    If the judiciary is too cowed to contradict the authority and claims of the New Congress and New Presidency which recently took office what can you say about the Constitution? Corruption is too small a word to fit the reality. The Constitution is now what our New World Order says it is.

    The great bugaboo of armed force is now the only recourse for the defenders of the old order. This should delight the defenders of the new order who have one of the greatest armies in the world to put down such defense. God defends the Right through arms and never loses. The mantle of the Deity, legitimacy, is the real prize gained in our recent political farce. The law that is to come, founded in that legitimacy, will surely be a non sequitur to the law as we have known it. We are damned who are now not legitimate.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Leonard R. Jaffee Comments via RSS