Connect with us

Culture

The Mueller Report Explained by a Constitutional Law Scholar

Published

on

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” – Federalist No. 51.

Robert Mueller did not indict President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice, nor could he have even if there were evidence of a crime. This is due to the very design of the Constitution. Moreover it’s dishonest for legal scholars to claim it’s “undemocratic” that a sitting President can’t be indicted.

The Structure of the Constitution and Separation of Powers.

The Constitution vests powers into three separate but co-equal branches of government – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The powers of the respective branches of government are enumerated in Articles I, II, and III in the Constitution itself.

Article 2 of the Constitution lists the powers of the Executive branch, and reads, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

The power to prosecute is an executive power. That’s why the President appoints federal prosecutors in each district.

To understand the role of separated powers plays, think of it like this: Congress writes the laws that define crimes, which the President signs. The Executive branch enforces those laws. And the Judiciary interprets them.

If you’re pulled over with a brick of marijuana in your car, you’ll be prosecuted by the Department of Justice (Executive) because transporting marijuana is a crime (as defined in the United States Code, the body of laws written by the Legislative branch). A judge will determine whether the law is constitutional or if your rights were already violated.

“But it’s undemocratic that Trump can’t be indicted,” you might say.

Trump is an elected official. Mueller was not elected. How would it be democratic for an unelected official to disrupt the ability of the highest elected official to govern?

The obstruction of justice paradox.

The power to prosecute resides within the Presidency. How then could you obstruct your own investigation?

Imagine Hillary Clinton had been elected POTUS. A US Attorney in Iowa, looking to make a name for herself, decides to indict Clinton for various crimes.

Would that be democratic?

If President Clinton had fired the US Attorney, would that be obstruction? Why? The power gives President Clinton that power.

The democratic remedy against Trump is impeachment.

Article 1 of the Constitution provides:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Furthermore:

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.

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

Democratic officials (Article I) have the power to remove a democratically-elected official (Article II).

The system is functioning exactly as it should be.

By the way, to get a sense for what the United States has lost, and to understand how far into the gutter so-called legal scholars have dragged us, read the full excerpt from Federalist No. 51.

The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Could you imagine such insights coming from any modern legal commentator or observer?

P.S. If you enjoyed this article, listen to the full podcast about Trump and Mueller here.

Comments

Culture

Is “Kung Flu” the latest Media Hoax?

Published

on

Several White House reporters confronted Trump regarding his decision to call the coronavirus (or COVID-19) the China Virus.  One reporter asked him about a White House administration official who is alleged to have called the coronavirus Kung Flu.

When the reporter was asked the name of the official, the reporter said she didn’t know.

The original claim regarding Kung Flu comes from CBS reporter Weijia Jiang. On March 17th, she Tweeted:

This morning a White House official referred to #Coronavirus as the “Kung-Flu” to my face. Makes me wonder what they’re calling it behind my back.

Ms. Jiang has not identified the official.

One reason could be because this official does not even exist.

Under American defamation law, you can lie all you like.

You can’t lie about a person by name.

If no White House official called the coronavirus Kung Flu, or if there is some important context missing, then Jiang could be sued.

You can watch the Kung Flu exchange in this video here:

Continue Reading

Culture

The Stafford Act Text Message Announcing an Emergency Quarantine is a Hoax

Published

on

By now you or someone you know has received a hoax text announcing martial law. With some minor variations, the texts all read the same:

  • In 48 to 72 hours the president will evoke what is called the Stafford act. Just got off the phone with some of my military friends in DC who just got out of a two hour briefing. The president will order a two week mandatory quarantine for the nation. Stock up on whatever you guys need to make sure you have a two week supply of everything. Please forward.

 

The National Security Council issued a rare public statement warning the public that the Stafford act text was a hoax.

How can you tell the Stafford Act Text is a Hoax?

Even if you refuse to accept the NSC’s word on the matter, the text message has some telltale signs of a hoax.

First, the text promises secret insider knowledge. “Just got off the phone with some of my military friends in DC who just got out of a two hour briefing.” This is a vague enough proclamation that it sounds plausible.

Second, no specifics of these friends are given. Who are these friends? Why did they call this specific person?

Third, the hoaxers ask you to spread the message. Why would anyone acting in good faith want to incite a panic?

If an emergency quarantine were able to be declared, the plan would be Top Secret. No one’s friends would just get out of a briefing and start alerting people. THEY WOULD GO TO PRISON FOR LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

If such an emergency plan were in the works and higher command wanted the story to get out, they’d leak it to a credible outlet. Not share chain-letter style text messages.

There’s also tradecraft involved in sharing classified information.

None of the telltale signs (and no I won’t share how to leak classified secrets here) were present in that alert.

UPDATE: Other outlets are now reporting that the Stafford Act text is a foreign disinformation campaign:

The Trump administration is alleging that a foreign disinformation campaign is underway aimed at spreading fear in the country amid the coronavirus pandemic, three U.S. officials said Monday. On Sunday, federal officials began confronting what they said was a deliberate effort by a foreign entity to sow fears of a nationwide quarantine amid the virus outbreak.

Agencies took coordinated action Sunday evening to deny that any such plans were put in place, as they tried to calm a nation already on edge by disruptions to daily life caused by the virus.

 

——-

Read More about Mike Cernovich here.

Who is Mike Cernovich?

Continue Reading

Culture

How Trump Drafted Google into the War Against Coronavirus

Published

on

Elvis Presley served in the Army after he was drafted, and in American history it was common for celebrities to serve their country during times of national crisis. Noblesse oblige, or the duty the noble and rich owed to society, arouse perhaps out of morality or maybe simple self-preservation. If you’re getting while the getting is good, giving something back goes a long way to avoid class resentment.

Those thoughts were perhaps on Trump’s mind (or more likely his instinct) when he announced that Google was taking massive action to help America fight the coronavirus.

Google at first pushed back at the suggestion that it, a nearly trillion dollar mega-corporation, actually doing something to help the users it profits from.

Why should Google help save lives? Why should Google do anything other than operate as an amoral, blood-sucking corporation that violates user privacy and exploits children?

The media bros were quick to rush to save Google. Poor Google! They were being bullied by the ORANGE MAN BAD.

Google’s media errand boys like Jake Tapper and others were quick to publish stories attacking Trump for suggesting that Google actually do something.

Some like your humble correspondent Mike Cernovich saw right away was Trump was doing.

Trump was drafting Google into the war against coronavirus.

Google, whatever its motivations, answered the draft.

Public pressure must intensify.

The corporations make billions of dollars a day by spying on users.

The least they can do is use that data to find out where coronavirus hot spots are, share that information with the CDC, and get information shared with the sick.

Continue Reading

Trending

shares
Read previous post:
Does Mike Cernovich hate Christians?

Gossip mongers and wannabe Internet e-celebrities are claiming I'm "anti-Christian." This is a silly claim but it's catching on, so...

Close