Now School House Rock will kick aside another song that my young nephew was singing and I couldn't get out of my head from yesterday. My God, I thought the same thing about being our last Independence Day. I had read some argument how although the President is now immune from prosecution for official acts, that anything carried out by subbordinates that is illegal can be prosecuted. Gee, ever heard of Presidential Pardons? I am not sure which was worn out most at the Trump White House: the revolving door of "the best" cabinet members / advisors, the counter at the pill dispensary, or the pardon printer they must have installed like a parking meter. I am cynical, but optimistic...is that possible?
So patient in thought and expression. Not sure you’re paying attention to, well, the entire world, when you say good will win in the end. But, ok, I hold out hope.
What a peculiar response. You're not a Russian bot are you? It ain't over until its over....consider how things can get worse, much worse, but much better. Think the 1930s, and how over a decade of conflict, including six years of War lead to the longest peace. That's a rather sweeping generalization directed towards someone you do not know if solely based on this one post. Would you prefer I panic? That's what autocrats thrive on: fear. I keep up with friends in the UK, Germany, and Ukraine on a daily or weekly basis, all of differing Political view points, and I am well aware of the International power struggle and shift. At the same time, I am not Anthony Blinken, and as Politics, Economics and World Affairs are not my livelihood,. Unfortunately, my work keeps me distracted from following the news 24 hours a day, seven days a week with three TVs on set to the MSNBC, CNN, and the BBC while also trying to monitor Breitbart and the New York Times. Obviously, everything is relative....I thought I was cynical. I guess I am ignorant. Thanks for your input, Henry Kissenger. Glad to hear that news of your passing was exaggerated. :-)
You are my expert on this, Asha. Thank you for taking the time to update us. I saw your DEFCON 1 post earlier this week and am spreading the word as best I can.
248 years after the Declaration of Independence how does the Supreme Court think it can turn the Presidency into a Kingship? I don’t get it. Are they just that arrogant? Don’t they know history?
The podcast was so good I stopped twice to re-read and re-hear the section on Immunity. I get the feeling CJ Roberts learned from Bush v Gore and steered the 5 other justices away from saying that the ruling was “”not for precedent” …he learned how partisan this would look the 2nd time around. So instead they laid out constraints that give Trump wiggle room to go through….and forcing future Presidents to go through a maze that likely leads nowhere. It’s really, really hard to find another explanation. Our Constitution failed us …. now it looks like the Rule of Law might too!
It’s been fifty years since I sat in a criminal law class, but there are two key concepts I most vividly recall, the first being “mens rea” i.e. the defendant’s state of mind, specifically their criminal intent, or “guilty mind” in committing a “guilty act”, which is the second concept, “actus rea.”
So in theory, by precluding any analysis or introduction of the motive or intent, the “mens rea” is impossible to establish. As in their abandonment of “stare decisis”, this decision turns our system of laws on its head as it makes the introduction of criminal intent off limits, making the establishment of a guilty mind an impossibility. “Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.” “The act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.”
This same Supreme Court in Rehalf vs U.S. in 2019 held that “mens rea” is “universal in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil.” It seems this court is basically saying the president has no such duty, and you are precluded from introducing his intent to do evil in order to establish he did or did not commit a criminally culpable act. To my mind this completely upends our concept of criminal justice and accountability in government. They could have more simply said “the president rules by divine right”, or as Nixon scandalously claimed, “When the president does it, it’s not illegal.”
Now School House Rock will kick aside another song that my young nephew was singing and I couldn't get out of my head from yesterday. My God, I thought the same thing about being our last Independence Day. I had read some argument how although the President is now immune from prosecution for official acts, that anything carried out by subbordinates that is illegal can be prosecuted. Gee, ever heard of Presidential Pardons? I am not sure which was worn out most at the Trump White House: the revolving door of "the best" cabinet members / advisors, the counter at the pill dispensary, or the pardon printer they must have installed like a parking meter. I am cynical, but optimistic...is that possible?
So patient in thought and expression. Not sure you’re paying attention to, well, the entire world, when you say good will win in the end. But, ok, I hold out hope.
What a peculiar response. You're not a Russian bot are you? It ain't over until its over....consider how things can get worse, much worse, but much better. Think the 1930s, and how over a decade of conflict, including six years of War lead to the longest peace. That's a rather sweeping generalization directed towards someone you do not know if solely based on this one post. Would you prefer I panic? That's what autocrats thrive on: fear. I keep up with friends in the UK, Germany, and Ukraine on a daily or weekly basis, all of differing Political view points, and I am well aware of the International power struggle and shift. At the same time, I am not Anthony Blinken, and as Politics, Economics and World Affairs are not my livelihood,. Unfortunately, my work keeps me distracted from following the news 24 hours a day, seven days a week with three TVs on set to the MSNBC, CNN, and the BBC while also trying to monitor Breitbart and the New York Times. Obviously, everything is relative....I thought I was cynical. I guess I am ignorant. Thanks for your input, Henry Kissenger. Glad to hear that news of your passing was exaggerated. :-)
Panic? No. Absolutely not. Never. But take action. Care to help me find out how?
You are my expert on this, Asha. Thank you for taking the time to update us. I saw your DEFCON 1 post earlier this week and am spreading the word as best I can.
248 years after the Declaration of Independence how does the Supreme Court think it can turn the Presidency into a Kingship? I don’t get it. Are they just that arrogant? Don’t they know history?
That's quite a subtitle to the Round Up. :-/
Asha, they know it, but are totally ignoring it for self-serving purposes ! Scumbags!
The podcast was so good I stopped twice to re-read and re-hear the section on Immunity. I get the feeling CJ Roberts learned from Bush v Gore and steered the 5 other justices away from saying that the ruling was “”not for precedent” …he learned how partisan this would look the 2nd time around. So instead they laid out constraints that give Trump wiggle room to go through….and forcing future Presidents to go through a maze that likely leads nowhere. It’s really, really hard to find another explanation. Our Constitution failed us …. now it looks like the Rule of Law might too!
A crazy good podcast!!!!
Clearly Nixon's error was hiring private contractors to burglarize DNCHQ instead of ordering the Air Force to bomb it.
It’s been fifty years since I sat in a criminal law class, but there are two key concepts I most vividly recall, the first being “mens rea” i.e. the defendant’s state of mind, specifically their criminal intent, or “guilty mind” in committing a “guilty act”, which is the second concept, “actus rea.”
So in theory, by precluding any analysis or introduction of the motive or intent, the “mens rea” is impossible to establish. As in their abandonment of “stare decisis”, this decision turns our system of laws on its head as it makes the introduction of criminal intent off limits, making the establishment of a guilty mind an impossibility. “Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.” “The act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.”
This same Supreme Court in Rehalf vs U.S. in 2019 held that “mens rea” is “universal in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil.” It seems this court is basically saying the president has no such duty, and you are precluded from introducing his intent to do evil in order to establish he did or did not commit a criminally culpable act. To my mind this completely upends our concept of criminal justice and accountability in government. They could have more simply said “the president rules by divine right”, or as Nixon scandalously claimed, “When the president does it, it’s not illegal.”