Category Archives: Law

Court Blocks DACA Phaseout Because Of Trump Administration’s Constant Contradictions

Donald Trump, IMMIGRATION, Law, Logic

At the video’s 2 minutes and 17 second mark, Judge Andrew Napolitano, who’s obviously rather for a DACA reprieve, explains why a “federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s plans to phase out protections for undocumented “dreamers”:

“President Trump’s statement in tweets and elsewhere—like ‘I love the Dreamers. I want the Dreamers to stay’—was so inconsistent with what his own Justice department was arguing before the deciding justice that the government appears to be speaking out of both sides of its mouth.”

“Napolitano to Trump After DACA Ruling: ‘If Judge Gives You a Lemon, Make Lemonade‘”

Cannabis And The Constitution

Constitution, Drug War, Individual Rights, Law, libertarianism, Regulation, States' Rights

Ron Paul is synonymous for principle. He has called on Jeff Sessions to resign over his marijuana putsch.

Principled libertarians are with Ron—and are never confused about the devolution of power away from the Federales to states and to individuals. Libertarians ought not to support the federal goons’ drug war.

As for the prattle about a constitutional amendment. There’s no need for further Constitutional centralization. Letting states and individuals decide: Now that’s in THE CONSTITUTION.

Cannabis is not in the Constitution because … look up the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

UPDATED (12/19): Who’s Gonna Bust Robert Mueller’s Sham Proceedings? Meek Weak Jeff Sessions?

Constitution, Donald Trump, Law, Russia, The State

There is no limit, seemingly, to the power of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In contravention of a quaint thing called the Fourth Amendment, Mueller has taken possession of “many tens of thousands of emails from President Donald Trump’s transition team.”

Jonathan Turley, of George Washington University in Foggy Bottom, D.C., said the legal territory Langhofer waded into is “a somewhat ambiguous area.”

“Why take the risk?” he asked of the Mueller team’s decision to go about obtaining the documents the way it did.

Turley said Langhofer is correct as far as claiming the documents are not the property of the General Services Administration, where Mueller’s team obtained them.

He said Mueller and his deputy, Andrew Weissmann, have a history of an aggressive style of handling cases, with the latter being accused of “prosecutorial overreach” by critics of the Enron scandal’s proceedings.

Turley said Mueller is possibly legally allowed to obtain documents this way, but that perception of the actions may affect the way the investigation is considered.

“Why do something this risky?” he asked.

Risk, Jonathan Turley, Esquire? What risk? There is no risk to Deep State operatives. Name one who has paid the price for taking us to war in Iraq or igniting the “Russia monomania.”

Who’s going to bust Robert Mueller’s sham, kangaroo proceedings? The meek, weak Jeff Sessions?

Of course, dumbo Napolitano claims differently than Turley.

Dumbo Napolitano’s BAB archive.

UPDATE (12/19): Contra Dumbo Napolitano, Dershowitz, no dummy, “Says Mueller ‘Playing Into Trump’s Hands,’ Should Have Obtained Warrant for Emails.”

Comments Off on UPDATED (12/19): Who’s Gonna Bust Robert Mueller’s Sham Proceedings? Meek Weak Jeff Sessions?

Written by on

UPDATED (12/8): Flynn’s ONLY Sin Was Lying To Liars, Not Colluding With Russians

Ethics, Government, Law, Natural Law

THE NEW COLUMN, “Flynn’s ONLY Sin Was Lying To Liars, Not Colluding With Russians,” is now on WND.com. An excerpt:

Retired US Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn’s sin was lying to liars, not colluding with Russians.

When he spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, following Donald Trump’s 2016 election, former National Security Advisor Flynn was discharging a perfectly legal and patriotic duty to the electorate.

In a fit of pique, then-President Barack Obama had expelled Russian diplomats from the United States. K. T. McFarland, Flynn’s deputy in the Trump transition team, worried that Obama’s expulsion of the diplomats was aimed at “boxing Trump in diplomatically,” making it impossible for the president to “improve relations with Russia,” a promise he ran on. For her perspicacity, McFarland has since been forced to lawyer-up in fear for her freedom.

To defuse President Obama’s spiteful maneuver, Flynn spoke to Ambassador Kislyak, the upshot of which was that Russia “retaliated” by … inviting US diplomats and their families to the Kremlin for a New Year’s bash.

A jolly good diplomatic success, wouldn’t you say?

Present at the Kislyak meeting was Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. Kushner likely instructed Flynn to ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the UN Security Council’s favorite pastimes: passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements. Kushner, however, is protected by Daddy and the First Daughter, so getting anything on Jared will be like frisking a seal.

One clue as to the extent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s violations, here, is that Flynn had committed no crime. Laying the cornerstone for the president-elect’s promised foreign policy—diplomacy with Russia—is not illegal.

Perversely, however, lying to the US Federal Government’s KGB (the FBI), a liar in its own right, is illegal.

The US Government enjoys a territorial monopoly over justice. If you doubt this, pray tell to which higher judicial authority can Flynn appeal to have his state-designated “criminal” label reconsidered or rescinded? Where can he go to recover his standing?

Nowhere.

By legislative fiat, the government has turned this decent man and many like him into common criminals. …

… READ THE REST. “Flynn’s ONLY Sin Was Lying To Liars, Not Colluding With Russians” is now on WND.com.

UPDATE (12/8): READER writes at WND about the punchline to the column:

“‘Is this the rule of law, or the law of rule?’ READER writes: “Bastiat could have written that. Magnificent conclusion to your article. Prose of a poetic quality. Terrifically written.”