[PAX] The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

[Ifur]

Trump is clearly in violation of the emoluments clause at the very least.
His enormous attempts to hide his taxes from Congress is getting to the point of guilty by his own actions to hide them.
Just yesterday a Trump appointed judge helped slow down the process that Congress clearly has oversight of and there are very clear laws giving them the power to see them - yet, all Trump’s appointed people break the law and flaunt it.

This does not get mentioned enough!

I have mentioned previously that Trump seems to be making a mockery of the laws that give cooperations rights as a person.

So there is Donald Trump the business and coorporation as a person, and Donald Trump as the person in the presidents office and a legal private person.

Now it's time to laught, as this is headache inducing stuff, and congress is not much better, but this is rather new with Trump.
Where congress as a huge amount of ways to make money on inside trading and other despicable practices.

There does seem to be "honour among politicians" just as much as there is "honour among thieves" with ethical codes and moral standards.
And here nobody can truly agree on whats worse and how to fix it, where the good news is that with Trump it kind of has to.

Barr is clearly biased and a Trump protectionist.
The subpoenas being issued by Congress are being ignored by the DOJ and the Trump people, or if they do testify they refuse to answer any questions and invoke some BS executive privilege that doesn’t exist anywhere ever, not ever....never.

This is a huge part of the problem, as things currently are, DoJ largely does everything "legal" on behalf of the congress, when in reality they should be policing themselves and the president.
Additionally, the DoJ, justice has not business doing law enforcement, because it is the right place for even police and military to do whistleblowing, but not as long as they do law enforcement on behalf of the courts and investigation on behalf of congress. Legally speaking, the DoJ is a "wall", they stand on it while doing business on both sides.

There are some pretty hefty amount of mental gymnastics and wishful thinking concerning how far one can bend the interpretation of the constitution to support political agendas, beliefs and ideals when checks and balances are unwanted and considered inefficient as government employees are virtuous by definition.

If congress form a comitteee to investigate Trump instead of demanding that the FBI does it, what are the chances that the comittee will be investigated by the DoJ? One can imagine an alternative, where the DoJ take on cases on behalf of "justice", "truth" and "right" and so on....

Legally speaking, it looks like they are chasing each others and their own tails on important constitutional questions where everyone agrees, and especially to disagree to continue the threatrical display.

Getting rid of Trump may involve fixing som things about "corporate personhood" laws or risk double jeopardy. Then there is this thing about the president or the person, not to mention all the law enforcement exceptions made permanent in the DoJ or centralised and organied there.
As there is a difference here when it indeed is a business and not just a legal entitity where one can argue the only person involved has full responsibility and that there is no difference.

Said it before, there is something Andy Kaufman-ish over Trump's performance on delicate matters.

Best option might be to take Trump Tower, where given it is his name, he needs nothing on his person for everything to be his for beeing such a star. Want to bribe Trump? Send it to the Tower.
"To Trump", address, "Trump Tower" -- you expect anyone to buy that it wasn't for Trump the legal double jeopardy?

What would Andy Kaufman do as President of the USA? Probably make a mockery of everything and not screw up diplomacy.

So, local oversight over elections are better than the federal meddling as that allows fixing election within an organisation spanning all the states, get paper back, it's cheaper as well. And you should be able to whistleblow to he DoJ or federal courts on election rigging that can use Marshalls that can use militia and military if I'm not wrong. "Big Brother knows how to get the people what they truly want".

Laws don't seem to stick on Trump as nothing is grammatical correct enough or coherent and cogent enough to know for sure what he is saying, means or whats actually going on. Can we have Obama back to navigate past all these backdoors and loopholes we've created with accurate and consistent quotable statements?

Trump, keep spewing out those Tweets champ! Don't be coerced into personally making sure the system works. Make them impeach to ask what it means under oath, or form a committee to take personal responsibility.

 

[Stu]

@Ifur

.. as things currently are, DoJ largely does everything "legal" on behalf of the congress, when in reality they should be policing themselves and the president.

Congress is reliant on the DoJ to enforce legal infractions, but I do not think it is constitutionally bound to having the DoJ enforce its subpoenas.

the DoJ, justice has not business doing law enforcement,
because it is the right place for even police and military to do whistleblowing,
but not as long as they do law enforcement on behalf of the courts and investigation on behalf of congress.
Legally speaking, the DoJ is a "wall", they stand on it while doing business on both sides.

I am interested in you unpacking these statements. The DoJ is part of the Executive Branch of gov which is suppose to "execute" the laws mandated by the Legislative branch.

 

[Ifur]

Congress is reliant on the DoJ to enforce legal infractions, but I do not think it is constitutionally bound to having the DoJ enforce its subpoenas.

This may not be within the constitutional principles of seperation of power, checks and balances.

I am interested in you unpacking these statements. The DoJ is part of the Executive Branch of gov which is suppose to "execute" the laws mandated by the Legislative branch.

This is a mistaken, its the executive branch of congress and therefore the federal state.
The congress is also divided between upper and lower hosues which is very common.
Where congressmen are elected, senators are often chosen due to there being expectation of the wiser and more experienced and knowledgeable to have these seats due to different roles for the upper and lower hosues. Down there being a higher age requirement for senators.

Each state have their own legislative, judicial and executive branches where these congressmen are coming from, expected to mirror much of the same mechanics.

The DoJ works for the judiical branch, that have its own seperation of power, judges, advocates and attornies. Here there is a mess of terminology, but to make the distinction clearer.
The District Attorny defends the police and their actions. Judge Advocate argues judicial matter beyond civil law enforcement. An Attorny General is outside of the police, courts and government/state due to working at the FEDERAL.
As there is a seperation of power between courts, police and state. Much like military, country/government, constitution. Like Military, Congress and Supreme Court. The executive branches of congress and the military that answer to the people or the independent legal system, the supreme courts.

Congress may be relying on the DoJ, but each member comes from a state they should be able to rely on in addition to this being a violation of these principles.

There are principles involved, but unfortunately there aren man clear definitions so its always murky.

Like an Advocate Attorny that may do lobbying for example and business law.
An Attorny General working on constitutional matters.
Judge Advocate that makes sure administration is working for the reliability of oaths, checks and balances to avoid conflicts of interests so that there is a checks and balance that needs to work for the judges and those with an oath of office to keep their promises.
And there is District Attorny for the local government, and Defense Attornies where the courts apoint to make sure all of the above is in order.

Should be possible to unleash an attorny storm in the US and tighten these things.
Perhaps including Judge Advocate Generals in the military to check and balance DoJ.

Where whats really missing seem to be DoJ being distracted, as this is federal lawyers needed to check agencies for the public at state level especially.

Everything under DoJ can be done at state level with pretty much automatically and logged transfer of authority between states where the DoJ than can say no.

Because the difference here is civil or government, and pretty much only that.
Where right to bear arms and being able to have militia or home guard and whatnot is a kind of check for the armed forces, where courts should be able to use either with Marshalls.
Usually an armed soldier has higher authority than police, and deputized militia by a Marshall equally so. No need more authroity and means to arrest a police station than this, or a local government or what not.

Because of this, all paths seem to lead to JAG Corp, or judge advocate generals in the branches of the military. As federal agents are also Marshalls..... A level of authority you don't need to investigate civilians within a state, but do for government.

Like for businesses and finance fraud, don't actually need much more than a single Marshall, Attorny and Judge Advocate to order raids on an office in any state on behalf of any stock exchange.

 

[Stu]

The DoJ works for the judiical branch, that have its own seperation of power, judges, advocates and attornies. Here there is a mess of terminology, but to make the distinction clearer.

This is false.The department of justice is a cabinet level agency under the jurisdiction of the attorney general who is appointed by the executive and approved by the legislature. You seem to be projecting your own system onto the us gov.

 

[Ifur]

This is false.The department of justice is a cabinet level agency under the jurisdiction of the attorney general who is appointed by the executive and approved by the legislature. You seem to be projecting your own system onto the us gov.

Various efforts, none entirely successful, have been made to determine the original intended meaning of the Latin motto appearing on the Department of Justice seal, Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur (literally "Who For Lady Justice Strives"). It is not even known exactly when the original version of the DOJ seal itself was adopted, or when the motto first appeared on the seal. The most authoritative opinion of the DOJ suggests that the motto refers to the Attorney General (and thus, by extension, to the Department of Justice) "who prosecutes on behalf of justice (or the Lady Justice)".[19]

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

Sure dude, the department of justice is under the cabinet of the President of the US, and the DoJ has nothing to do with the judicial branch of government.

The core of your argument is that it is a cabinet for the diplomatic role of the White House, and not a department for the executive branch of congress dealing with justice for the judicial branch, do I understand you correctly?

The US constituon clearly states the White House is for diplomacy, where the phrase "friends of this nation" is used. Meaning everyone that gives a damn, good or bad.

This implies the DoJ is not the cabinet of the White House.

It also implies, this is not where congress votes, it's where trust is ensured that complaints gets filed and followed in the federal and supreme court on behalf of congress and the people.

What I am saying is that the White House needs to call the JAG in the military and go "check" for balance.

 

[Wyote]

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

Sure dude, the department of justice is under the cabinet of the President of the US, and the DoJ has nothing to do with the judicial branch of government.

The core of your argument is that it is a cabinet for the diplomatic role of the White House, and not a department for the executive branch of congress dealing with justice for the judicial branch, do I understand you correctly?

The US constituon clearly states the White House is for diplomacy, where the phrase "friends of this nation" is used. Meaning everyone that gives a damn, good or bad.

This implies the DoJ is not the cabinet of the White House.

It also implies, this is not where congress votes, it's where trust is ensured that complaints gets filed and followed in the federal and supreme court on behalf of congress and the people.

What I am saying is that the White House needs to call the JAG in the military and go "check" for balance.

This is the most coherent thing I've ever seen you write

 

[Stu]

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

Sure dude, the department of justice is under the cabinet of the President of the US, and the DoJ has nothing to do with the judicial branch of government..

the DOJ is an angency created by congress and under the jurisdiction of the executive branch. congress funds it and sets the laws by which it abides, the executive determines how it operates within the law.

The core of your argument is that it is a cabinet for the diplomatic role of the White House, and not a department for the executive branch of congress dealing with justice for the judicial branch, do I understand you correctly?

I don' t understand this (i didn't read the wiki article so maybe that's why

The US constituon clearly states the White House is for diplomacy, where the phrase "friends of this nation" is used. Meaning everyone that gives a damn, good or bad.

This implies the DoJ is not the cabinet of the White House.

It also implies, this is not where congress votes, it's where trust is ensured that complaints gets filed and followed in the federal and supreme court on behalf of congress and the people.

What I am saying is that the White House needs to call the JAG in the military and go "check" for balance.[/QUOTE] If wyote is right then...i am just too dumb to understand this. Its not that its too radical, it just ignores what the executive of this republic is and is not responsible for.

 

[Ifur]

the DOJ is an angency created by congress and under the jurisdiction of the executive branch. congress funds it and sets the laws by which it abides, the executive determines how it operates within the law.

I don' t understand this (i didn't read the wiki article so maybe that's why

The DoJ is a department on behalf of the congress that operates under the oath of office of the president of the usa.

Given it's domain, area of responsibility, the pinrciples of the consitution.

The means by which one can have a a legal department in the federal states above the federal courts underneath the office of the president is limited to the following:

That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not, perhaps, to be expected; but each will, doubtless, consider, that had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that Country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.

On behhalf of justice, the DoJ is now longer the least to be expected, but the maximum possible violation of the principles and get away with it while not PERSONALLY being criminal while holding this office.
The DoJ is the MAXIMUM exception possible within what is allowed in the US constitution.

Here are the upper and lower bounds you need to deal with to be within the constitution.

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 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 during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Only Marhsals are covered in the constutution as law enforcement.
Any other federal agent must abide within a specific branch of government that is accountable.

The supreme court is not accountable for the DoJ.

 

[Wyote]

If wyote is right then...i am just too dumb to understand this. Its not that its too radical, it just ignores what the executive of this republic is and is not responsible for.

I meant in a linguistic sense, not a logical/factual one necessarily.
Most of his writing is confusing. It just struck me as incredibly clear.

 

[Ifur]

I meant in a linguistic sense, not a logical/factual one necessarily.
Most of his writing is confusing.

@Stu butchered the quotation from my side of things at least. The grammar is however not the issue here, there are rigid concepts and a logic involved.

I can "unpack" this, and am glad he asked.

However, it is the underlying principles we should be discussing. Seperation of power, checks and balances.
These are the principles where any interpretation can be given a yay or nay.

The supreme court does not need the DoJ as an organisation of laywers to do law enforcement as much as the federal states need it to be an organisation of lawyers that keep things in line on behalf of the public.

In principle, within any one state, a Senator holds the same oaths and central responsibility as the president of the usa.
All problems not of a federal or diplomatic nature can more easily be dealt with at a state level.
To the same extent that the local police can have a few federally mandated cooporation agreements concerning some areas of responsiaiblity and transfer of state authority.

 

[Wyote]

The grammar is however not the issue here

I didn't say it was an issue, I said the exact opposite

 

[Ifur]

I didn't say it was an issue, I said the exact opposite

Thanks, and my grammar and spelling can often be terrible.
But not so bad that the core principles and logic of the statement cant be resuced.

Given that I should have a hotline for "help Ifur with spelling an grammar", principles, logic and semantics for moral purposes I love to discuss, so I got a bit self defensive!

 

[Ifur]

Also somthing to point out, within philosophy of law, what happens when you get arrested is the following:

The police have mandate to enforce the law, so they CHARGE you.
An attorny on behalf of the police DEFEND the charge and advocate the need for further judicial action.
You are given an attonry to defend your RIGHTS.
If the problems are severe, and ADVOCATE gets involved to argue the case on HIGHER principles.

If you have money, you pay immediatly for an ADVOCATE and not a DEFENSE attorny.

As a side not, I told the police appointed attorny to fuck off, but not in so many words.
Give me a contract that says I'm the client and not the government, and he refused.
Violating my human rights for someone to advocate my case as there was no evidence to prosecute, and as such requiring a cooperating lawyer to do nothing.

Case never made it to court and was dismissed, what was the case you may ask?
I was drunk, pissed off, discriminated against and the police had previously refused to look into the matter and enforce the law, so I lost it an broke windows in the front door of the police station.

Principles matter.

Now, I could have been convicted with this lawyer, or I could have gotten a good one and gotten the case dismissed. I however argued well enough, and asked for the right things without expensive lawyers that it was never brought before court.

And now I need a lawyer that cannot be harassed by the police, because it's become a clear case of constitutional violations in my country that nobody except me want to reach the courts as it now may inolve jailtime for police due to other circumstances.

So being an argumentative bastard that is often right has its downside.
And I'm white male in his late 30's so its pretty much fuck all for political gain.

This I gess is the Si part of my insights, it really does matter these fine logical lines.
So I did this:
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks...nmeldelse-knuste-ti-vinduer-paa-politistasjon

And it never went to court because of the things I've said, what do you think about Trump within the same principles?

Actually, I may go for a D.Philos to put the forensic psychatrists I didn't talk to in jail, as that is one of the excuses used to deny my case heard in court, with or without a lawyer to argue my case.
Which is part of the reason I'm bruishing up on psychology, but was hoping to do something like a D.Philos in psychology whole getting paid, rather than putt a Professor in jail for incompetence and breaking the law....

End of Rant.

This being said, I asked for "aaremaal" which is the scandinan version of being able to say.
"Oars for your Oaths", for truth and right, which in the US would mean, "I will file and argue a constitutional case, get me an attorny general".
Which in my case also means, gross negligence lead to this, creating an outrage from pressure and frustration that could have been avoided. The offices and their oaths have not been kept in accordance to law required for the priviledges awarded to law enforcement.

This made me realise, that as a conseuqnces of police appointed, in my country enforcement controls both sides of a legal matter. And the concepts of "oars for your oath" meaning at the very least court appointed, but ideally somone that can prosecute the police on my behalf. That the concept is only used in the other direction, to row cases in favour of political agenda, which is a constitutional violation by itself. Arrested 4 times and only given one fine sucessfully while others have been attempted, I'm sure they wont give up on helping me into the proper care they think I need before I build a case that eventually can lead to them being tried for treason. My hopes are high, because I know that this is a route where I may get peopled hanged for their violation of reason, it's actually treason where I'm from.

Started four years ago before moving home where I required this to be kept:
https://www.wipo.int/patent-law/en/treaties.html
https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/summary_paris.html

Summary of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883)
...

(3)
....
(a)
...
The inventor has the right to be named as such in the patent.

Wonder if I can have my country kicked out of the agreement for this, as it's the nations oaths that are supposed to guarantee this.

A dollar for every concern and thing someone didn't understand does not compared to how I am becoming a curse for all the neglect and dereliction of duty by those not interested in asking questions.

This has become an adendum where I also get to express fury concerning these princiiples of law and reason. Am not kidding however, I'm confident I can get at least my own father hanged for these offences, eventually, while I should have had a say in the invention more than 10 years ago, jail isn't good enough unless its the worst one among the 161 countries where it is valid. Or some such, somone needs to pay for this mess and the last 30 years of my life, chief architect is my wealthy and influential father.

Best of luck with Trump, but suspect in this case that the person itself isn't the problem, and that he may take his oath and be willing to fall on the sword against congress if need be.

And I do wonder If can break Norway over this and get us to stop doing Oil.

This also means I can say I kept my Oath about climate and coal especially given towards this person around 1990, when she came to meet my dad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro_Harlem_Brundtland does she remind anyone about someone?

The world is funny if you are me sometimes, and I'm told there was one such thing and encounter, my interests aside, it was for fish, your welcome for the fish?


Sorry for this and my Si "demon", right so, impeach Trump and especially everything else leading up to all of this being a problem for diplomacy.

 

[Stu]

 

[Stu]

https://jesusrepublic.org/impeachment-investigation-is-underway-judiciary-committee-says/

 

[Skarekrow]

​

 

[Stu]

+
ok, so this "Highly partisan" whistle blower is doing his/her job within the confines of the law. This person has alerted the proper governing authorities of perceived mishandling of US intelligence. What is s/he gonna get for her/his efforts?, probably fired. Any American who can turn a blind eye to this really needs to question their allegiance to our great but imperiled nation. https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/09/...-complaint-shoes-dropping-all-over-the-place/

 

[Stu]

 

[Wyote]

Drumpf called the whistleblower a person who is possibly committing treason, and in my mind that just seals him as a real life Palpatine.

 

[Skarekrow]

Drumpf called the whistleblower a person who is possibly committing treason, and in my mind that just seals him as a real life Palpatine.

He is essentially threatening his/her life and the lives of any potential family the whistleblower may have...which should be considered criminal witness intimidation.
There are definitely Trumpkins out there who would seriously harm or kill said person.
They need witness protection - with no way of Trump or Barr being able to find out where they are.