Patterico's Pontifications

6/12/2017

Ninth Circuit Agrees with Patterico

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:03 pm



The Ninth Circuit has shot down Trump’s latest executive order on immigration. You can read the opinion here.

One fascinating aspect of the opinion is that it directly addresses a topic I have discussed at this blog at length: the non-discrimination ban of 8 U.S.C. section 1152(a) and its interplay with 8 U.S.C. section 1182(f). Consistent readers may recall that I got into an exchange with NRO’s Andrew McCarthy about this issue, and I still believe I got the better of him in the exchange. Trump’s supporters uniformly cited section 1182(f) and mocked my argument that section 1152(a) superseded it. Today, the Ninth Circuit agrees with my analysis — um, not a phrase that would normally cause me to feel much pride, by the way.

(Frankly, it’s a policy result I don’t like, and I’m sure the Ninth Circuit opinion will be derided as the work of leftist goons. However, I believe their analysis here is correct.)

The interested reader might look at the analysis on pages 48-56 of today’s opinion and compare it with my analysis, in this post and the links cited therein. I am short on time but here is one fun comparison. This is me from February 2:

But section 1182(f) can’t be an exception to section 1152(a) — because section 1152(a) lists specific exceptions, and section 1182(f) is not one of them. Section 1152(a) says the nondiscrimination provision applies “[e]xcept as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title.” Guess what’s not listed there as an exception? If you said “section 1182(f),” you get the kewpie doll.

Since McCarthy cites canons of construction, the reader will hopefully forgive me if I cite one of my own: “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius” — a Latin phrase that means “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.” By explicitly listing certain provisions as exceptions to the ban on discrimination by nationality or place of residence, section 1152(a) shows a Congressional intent to exclude any other contrary provision as an exception.

And today’s Ninth Circuit opinion, with my emphasis:

Second, §1152(a)(1)(A) specifically identifies exemptions from the non-discrimination mandate, implying that unmentioned sections are not exempted. See United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States, 532 U.S. 822, 836 (2001)(“The logic that invests the omission with significance is familiar: the mention of some implies the exclusion of others not mentioned.”). Section 1152(a)(1)(A) explicitly exempts three different INA provisions fromits application—8 U.S.C. §§1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153—all of which deal with giving preference to certain immigrants, such as family members of current citizens and permanent residents. Had Congress likewise intended to permit §1182(f) to override §1152(a)(1)(A)’s non-discrimination requirement, it would have done so in the same way it did for the other provisions.

TL;DR: It’s the same analysis in different words.

There are other similarities between my post and today’s opinion. If you were steeped in the technicalities at the time, I recommend reading today’s opinion.

[Cross=posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

445 Responses to “Ninth Circuit Agrees with Patterico”

  1. swc hardest hit

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Mueller agrees too:

    Robert Mueller Stocks Staff with Democrat Donors

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/robert-mueller-stocks-staff-democrat-donors/

    harkin (42c195)

  3. when i grow up i wanna be a lawyer or a mixologist but i don’t wanna have to get any tattoos

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  4. Plus oddly it ignore the omnibus language from 2016, but lets pretend because its not like we might suffer anyone coming from those 6 countries , well except London bridge Manchester and brighton

    narciso (d1f714)

  5. So having the 9th Circuit agree with you is now a good thing?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  6. The courts simply have no business (standing) getting involved if POTUS acts within reason. It is that simple.

    DJT acted WELL within bounds and he did not discriminate beyond states – which is as basic as it gets in creating immigration policy.

    This is becoming the Roe of this century. Rights undreamed for non-citizens are now discovered.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  7. So having the 9th Circuit agree with you is now a good thing?

    Reading is fundamental.

    Today, the Ninth Circuit agrees with my analysis — um, not a phrase that would normally cause me to feel much pride, by the way.

    (Frankly, it’s a policy result I don’t like, and I’m sure the Ninth Circuit opinion will be derided as the work of leftist goons. However, I believe their analysis here is correct.)

    Patterico (364a29)

  8. Ed from SFV,

    The problem is, I think Congress has tied the executive’s hands here. And they can.

    Patterico (364a29)

  9. One hopes it will go like thiscase:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kerry-v-din

    narciso (d1f714)

  10. But yea, I know, the actual law is not supposed to matter, just which side wins. I know that’s how most people feel.

    Patterico (364a29)

  11. Actually the law does matter, that why we rely o. Durable precedents like kleideust and the case I linked earlier. But this is the sores strategy to make any discretionary measure suspect

    narciso (d1f714)

  12. 6.The courts simply have no business (standing) getting involved if POTUS acts within reason. It is that simple

    So you would argue that the President only has to meet a rationale basis test for any decision, even if the law specifically says he can’t do something or that he has to meet a higher standard to do something?

    DRJ (d35869)

  13. This site is dead to me. Tired of the fake conservative posturing. Bye.

    John (b1fcb0)

  14. if a bunch of sleazy ivy league trash judge-fascists wanna be responsible for terrorists from the countries that even george soros’s slimy turdboy barack obama identified as having no screening capabilities killing a bunch of people and young art students and unborn fetuses

    they need to get their freak on

    at least President Trump tried

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  15. I think this is the only time John has commented here.

    DRJ (d35869)

  16. Personnel is policy, hopefully the sg’s office wontlet another errant partner from a participating firm, create a conflict

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. By John, don’t let the door…..

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  18. Seeing as one of the defendants in boumeddiene popped up in relation to an Islamic state cell the other day, as the dissent suggested.

    narciso (d1f714)

  19. Mr. Spardapus our friend John has quite likely lurked about for many many moons

    it’s a lot like icebergs don’t you know

    the ratio between readers and commenters

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  20. John,

    Do you realize Trump has reversed course and is letting in Obama’s refugees from Iran and other terrorist countries? The courts didn’t make him do this. He did it, and he’s letting them in even faster than normal vetting.

    We could even say Trump was engaging in fake conservative posturing when he tried to get the travel ban, couldn’t we?

    DRJ (d35869)

  21. and you know it might not be that bad

    Trump’s still the best we’ll ever have

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  22. Yes and I thought that was a bad call on his part, specially after we discovered the justice department was covering up a prima facie example of insurgents entering this coybtry.

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. Trump is the best fake conservative we’ll ever have?

    DRJ (d35869)

  24. (A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. (emphasis mine)

    “Immigrant visa” has a specific meaning. It means a visa for a person to reside permanently in the United States.

    So, okay, Trump’s EO could not apply to green card holders (and not only for Section 1152(a) reasons but also for Constitutional reasons). I said that from the start, and I was under the impression that the second EO did not include them.

    I don’t see 1152(a) as applying in any way to non-immigrant visas — holders or applicants. How does that go? “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius” — if Congress wrote “immigrant visa” it excluded the non-immigrant visas. But maybe that’s why Bill Clinton did not appoint me a judge in the Ninth Circuit.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. DRJ my friend a feisty bird in the hand is worth seven snooty harvardtrash teds and their grimacing sackies all up in that bush by the side of the freeway

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  26. Its a whole other volume of Blackstone, as I pointed our at the time, they dint want any durable screening its better to continue the kabuki that does us no good.

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. I thought this was an appeal of the first EO.

    DRJ (d35869)

  28. 15 –” I think this is the only time John has commented here.”

    Lots of lurkers here – welcome to the interwebs

    harkin (42c195)

  29. I know you liked Scott Walker, hf, and he is feisty. He or Ted would have been fine.

    DRJ (d35869)

  30. Lurkers are great but it’s hard to know when they leave if they don’t comment. It’s strange to make a point of commenting just to say you will no longer lurk. By definition, lurking is something you do when you don’t want to be noticed, isn’t it?

    DRJ (d35869)

  31. In IRS the second but that treat it like the first eon like the kabuki re the detainee cases hamdan was too host, hamdi still need to cool down. And even boumedienne too much to pick up the spoon.

    narciso (d1f714)

  32. Not to mention that it’s a little bit of a stretch to read the EO as discrimination “in the issuance”, i.e. a retroactive interference, but it’s not really worth arguing about given the a) clarity of “immigrant visa” and b) the Due Process concerns.

    nk (dbc370)

  33. Meanwhile, the Resistance continues….

    There was civil unrest in Russia Monday, as anti-corruption protestors took to the streets all across the country during a national holiday celebration. Roughly 1,500 people were arrested for gathering to denounce their government. The White House came out strong and condemned Russia for cracking down on the peaceful protestors. All of the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) reported on the mass arrests during their evening broadcasts, but they all ignored the White House’s condemnation of the Russian government.

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2017/06/12/nets-blackout-white-house-condemning-russia-arresting

    harkin (42c195)

  34. 12 – DRJ – No, of course not. In the realm of immigration policy national security implications, he does enjoy near-absolute power. I apologize for not being more clear.

    I fully agree that Congress could choose to modify such powers, although again, POTUS simply must be given wide latitude in matters of security and non-citizen actors.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  35. The statute seems pretty clear. Any reason why Congress can’t repeal it?

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  36. Congress did almost two years ago, but the basenghi caucus is loath to point it out. What Seth frantzman told us about in the course ofvhis traveld

    narciso (d1f714)

  37. 30 – Lurking is coming here to read posts and comments, he grew fed up but decided he wanted to say something.

    I would say this adds value but trash him if you must.

    harkin (42c195)

  38. DRJ you’ve no idea how ardently yet also tenderly I would have embraced a presidency of a Ted Cruz or a Scott Walker

    just to have a president that didn’t hate America!

    it was a dream i dared not dream

    but here we are!

    and yet again there lives the dearest freshness deep down things

    not unlike ferdinand i am very happy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  39. When it comes to though crime, S the sjw clerks at the 9th circus has discerned there’s no need to consider the argument Chinese exclusion act is all you need.

    narciso (d1f714)

  40. Ah and they are relying in that leaked dhs memo, as durable as miss winners little foraging yielded.

    narciso (d1f714)

  41. My only hope is the terrorists target the Left.

    Always believed people should suffer the consequences of their choices.

    Rest is a perversion of the Civil Rights Act and Welfare Provision.

    fubar’ed

    Blah (44eaa0)

  42. Inthe 80s the legal wizards realize you couldn’t do a direct assault I t the death penalty so they come up with the baldas study which suggested the arbitrary application if same. Won’t matter what language is employed , the end is doybleunplusgood.

    narciso (d1f714)

  43. My only hope is the terrorists target the Left.

    Always believed people should suffer the consequences of their choices.

    Despicable doesn’t quite cover it.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  44. First that is a cruel wish, second you see when such things happen they target latubis and gays there is a remarkable ability to disasiciate like iutr thracian stalker displays

    narciso (d1f714)

  45. harkin,

    Why do you think it’s commendable for someone to read a website for free, perhaps for years, and then make a point of insulting the host when he decides to leave?

    DRJ (15874d)

  46. “Why do you think it’s commendable for someone to read a website for free, perhaps for years, and then make a point of insulting the host when he decides to leave?”

    Not sure if serious. He gave his opinion. If he supported the site financially it would make a difference?

    The host and countless others here have insulted people plenty of times. I was told I was not welcome in the living room for a comment which was not even mildly offensive, get a grip.

    harkin (42c195)

  47. “My only hope is the terrorists target the Left.

    Always believed people should suffer the consequences of their choices.”

    Wtf

    They target indiscriminately – an Islamist gunned down 49 people in Orlando a year ago and I doubt 10% were conservative.

    Did you celebrate?

    harkin (42c195)

  48. They are coming for us whether you like it or not.

    Again, when they (terrorists) hit us, just hope the apologists (left) get the brunt.

    Up to me, borders would be closed by now and measures in place to toss the crazies out and criminals.

    All for protecting the homeland, 9th Circuit not so much. Not their asses likely to get bombed in a Subway Station like me. They get car service prolly …

    Blah (44eaa0)

  49. 48 not at all, I wept.

    Indiscriminate is the point.

    Why must I suffer the idiocy of the left?

    So i say what say … when it unfortunately happens may it strike those who apologize for terror and enable it.

    You can be all upset bu nothing odd about the sentiment.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  50. 7… they are known flakes, Patterico, in the main. If/when it goes to SCOTUS, it will be upheld. The POTUS has that discretion.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  51. Just one more terrible decision from an appeals court that is known for them.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  52. Frankly, I am tired of the fake outrage over terrorism many have.

    Fact is many Americans support it when it suits them and apologize for it.

    Look at the FALN terrorist celebrated in NY by DeBlasio and his ilk.

    So strike me as a bad guy for wanting shaaat heads like that to be on the receiving end of Alluh Akbar when it unfortunately happens.

    Heck Obola freed the dude.

    So yeah, many Americans have fake outrage over terror nor are concerned about their fellow citizen, Lefty Judiciary right there with DeBlasio and Obama sucking up to terrorists.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  53. 50 – “not at all, I wept.

    Indiscriminate is the point.”

    Today’s winner of the Arguing With One’s Self award.

    harkin (42c195)

  54. @41. Blah, blah, blah:

    “My only hope is the terrorists target the Left.” They did: September 11, 2001.

    “Always believed people should suffer the consequences of their choices.” You are: Donald Trump.

    “Dingbat!” – Archie Bunker [Carroll O’Connor] ‘All In The Family’ CBS TV, 1971-1979

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  55. And Americans from Left support it cuz they don’t care since it is a far away problem.

    911 made it real for like 2 years, then they went back to calling Bush evil and stuff.

    It is why ISIS grew up ….. fake concern by POTUS and Left.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  56. @DRJ- question: knowing what you’ve read, heard and seen -putting his status as POTUS aside- would you take Trump on as a client?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  57. Sept 11 was no target of the Left, not in the least.

    Harkin, u can chose to get the point or wrap ourself in knots.

    Point is unfortunately it will happen, innocents will be lost, and I only hope God finds a way to punish not only those who do it, but those who enable it and apologize for it and excuse it. In this case, the Left.

    So…… tough medicine

    Blah (44eaa0)

  58. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/image.png

    “Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.”

    — Dr. Thomas Sowell

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  59. “Harkin, u can chose to get the point or wrap ourself in knots.”

    Pardon me for pointing out after your wish that terrorist target the left that a terrorist massacred a bunch of lefties a year ago.

    To which you replied “I wept”

    You seem to be the expert at wrapping one’s self in knots.

    Let it go or keep digging, it’s up to you.

    harkin (42c195)

  60. Actually, this is one of Blah’s more intelligent comments. Didn’t you see in the Court’s opinion that the government argued that the EO should be stayed only for the plaintiff states and not nationwide? Judges don’t say “You’ve got to be f***ing kidding us”, but that’s how they ruled in different words.

    My opinion is that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” about as much as he wanted to “Lock her up!”. Not at all except as red meat campaign rhetoric for the mouth-breathers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the poison pills in the EO are purposeful, and not merely incompetent, and he is secretly thanking the Courts for making him look good to his idiot base when he’s not doing spit.

    nk (dbc370)

  61. 80 Percent overturned.

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  62. 55 – “Always believed people should suffer the consequences of their choices.” You are: Donald Trump.”

    Realizing the consequences of your actions is part of becoming an adult.

    Implying that statement means Trump endorses murder moves you into first place for dumbest comment in this thread, and that’s saying something.

    harkin (42c195)

  63. harkin,

    Had John contributed something here — not money but if he had spent time talking to people and engaging in discussion — it would make more sense for him to explain why he was leaving. But I think you like that he is angry at Patterico or events or whatever, so you like what he did.

    DCSCA: No.

    DRJ (15874d)

  64. For us to care that we’re dead for John, we first had to know John. I knew him not.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  65. @63- ?? That’s pretty funny as the only idiot linking the two is you dummy. Now that’s saying something.

    “You blockhead! ‘Lucy’ ‘Peanuts’ comic strip by Charles Schulz, 1950-2000

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  66. @64- DRJ, supposed you believed in his case/position even w/knowledge of his character– would that factor in the decision?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  67. http://deadspin.com/alex-honnolds-ropeless-ascent-of-el-capitan-is-nerve-wr-1795818350

    If this is true it’s historic.

    I used to climb rocks. And fight seas. Now I live in North Texas. Probably the biggest flattest place I could get away from an ocean.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  68. @48 Did you celebrate?

    Did you, Comrade harkin? A rhetorical question, of course, to a purveyor of fake news.

    “пропагандист”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  69. Wow.

    “пропагандист”

    Cyrillic.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  70. its over- trey gowdy head of oversight committee. This hack has never heard of the awan brothers. Deep State be kicking booty.
    united states of b.s.

    mg (31009b)

  71. So, both Patterico and the 9th Circuit are saying that, even in time of war the United States cannot summarily exclude persons from a belligerent country, because that’s not on the list?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  72. So you would argue that the President only has to meet a rationale basis test for any decision, even if the law specifically says he can’t do something or that he has to meet a higher standard to do something?

    No, he would have to show a rational basis for doing it via one of his inherent powers (that the Congress cannot alter). Say, as Commander-in-Chief. Pretty sure that the Congress, having declared war, cannot pass laws limiting it’s conduct to, say, Fridays.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  73. *its

    Kevin M (752a26)

  74. The republican party happens to be a group of people who are the worst people in the world. And obviously horrible lawyers. How many more will go free, Mr. Speaker?
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/obama_and_holder_lied__brian_terry_died.html

    mg (31009b)

  75. Issa and his performance in Fast and Furious was pathetic.

    mg (31009b)

  76. Then they brought in Deep State toady Gowdy to use delay tactics to nowhere.
    When will we voters learn you can’t vote for anyone who has been in Washington?

    mg (31009b)

  77. Mueller/Comey/2020

    mg (31009b)

  78. The statute seems pretty clear. Any reason why Congress can’t repeal it?

    AZ Bob,

    That’s what I have said all along should be what happens. It’s a stupid law IMO and if people were to acknowledge that it exists, getting rid of it would be child’s play. Instead people just want to pretend it doesn’t exist and get mad at the judges (and me) for not going along with the pretense.

    Patterico (364a29)

  79. John is the type who ignores the fact that I say I agree with Trump’s policy and focuses on winners vs. losers. Process does not matter to him. The law does not matter to him.

    When people like that leave, I smile a big smile. I wish every John would leave.

    You can disagree with me on what the law says — many do — and still recognize that I have a sincrerely held position and that I agree with you on the policy. But if you’re going to be a jerk and ignore the law, why on Earth would I be sad to see you go?

    Patterico (364a29)

  80. So, both Patterico and the 9th Circuit are saying that, even in time of war the United States cannot summarily exclude persons from a belligerent country, because that’s not on the list?

    In time of actual war, Article II power becomes pretty strong. I don’t think it’s an easy question but I tend to think that it becomes an issue of war powers at that point, and not general immigration powers. I’m uneasy with the way presidents use wars to do things they can’t otherwise do, but this is one instance where I think it makes sense.

    Where Congress can tie a President’s hands on how to handle immigration, I don’t think Congress can tie a President’s hands on how to conduct an actual shooting war. (Not a phony War on Drugs or War on Terror but an honest to goodness constitutionally declared war.)

    Patterico (115b1f)

  81. Prior to questioning Comey, the republicans should have thought about how democrats interrogate witnesses. Supreme Court Justice Thomas interrogation made my stomach turn. When will we elect people who ask the tough questions like the democrats have? No tough follow up questions on Comey at all.

    mg (31009b)

  82. Let Trump suspend all immigration to the US and wait for the subversive the 9th circus pinheads to piss their pants.

    ropelight (f923af)

  83. This is,why I linked up Eldon, the 9th circus went to bat for the wife of a Taliban, different code but same m.o.

    narciso (acc2e6)

  84. Full disclosure: I once drove four non-immigrant visa holders in a 1987 Cutlass Supreme Classic.

    nk (dbc370)

  85. Female non-immigrant visa holders.

    nk (dbc370)

  86. We were all fully clothed. It was late November in Chicago and we were going to a blues bar. They had their visas in their purses.

    nk (dbc370)

  87. 307 V8, four-on-the-floor, low-ratio rear end, chrome wheels, two-tone silver and gray. The Cutlass, not the non-immigrant visa holders.

    nk (dbc370)

  88. “But if you’re going to be a jerk and ignore the law….”

    If our laws were applied in an even-handed manner, I’d agree with this quaint notion. “Winners and losers” are determined by one’s power and ability to subvert the law, not abiding by it and any adherence to principle. Arguing the finer points of the law is akin to fighting a battle that will have no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the war.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  89. 260 V8, maybe, 307 was never an option in the Olds.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  90. Calls your veracity into question, counselor.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  91. Sigh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Cutlass_Supreme#Fourth_generation_.281978.E2.80.931988.29

    “1987 was the final year for the rear-wheel drive sedan, and both coupe models received a restyled header panel with composite headlights. A Buick 231 was the base motor alongside the Oldsmobile 307. For its final year, the 442 package was moved to the Supreme model.”

    Picture.

    Oldsmobile 307 engine.

    nk (dbc370)

  92. Stick to things you know about, Haiku. Like public men’s rooms where you’re likely to find Milo Yiannopoulos lookalikes.

    nk (dbc370)

  93. ropelight,

    I guess you missed my comment 20 that Trump is not only letting in Obama’said Iranian refugees, he’s doing it in an expedited manner. I don’t think he cares about immigration. No wall, no vetting, no fixing the system to make meaningful deportations, and now bringing in refugees from terrorist countries on an even faster timetable.

    Maybe he blew the EO on purpose to create a diversion. A big court diversion, since we know he hates lawyers and judges (probably more than the media).

    DRJ (15874d)

  94. 93… you clearly have no knowledge about what you were driving. A real man’s man, ain’tcha.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  95. huge numbers of persians come and go from iran to failmerica all the time

    we knew tons of these people in LA

    With population estimates between 300,000 and half a million, Southern California boasts the largest concentration of Iranians in the world, outside of Iran.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  96. DCSCA: No. Both firms I worked at had policies that we did not take new clients or accept new matters from past clients who routinely disputed or did not pay their bills (for no reason, other than not wanting to pay), or had a reputation for doing that with other firms. It was hard enough to get lawyers to bill their time each month, let alone to not get paid. Sometimes clients had legitimate concerns about bills and adjustments would be made in what they owed. This happens and it’s not a problem. Sometimes good clients have hard times and can’t pay. Lawyers understand that happens, too. But the last thing we wanted was to knowingly take clients who routinely disputed or refused to pay bills. I imagine most law firms and most businesses do this, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  97. “It was produced by Chevrolet from 1968 until 1973, and was used in passenger cars … let’s just see what casting numbers were available on factory built 307 engines…”

    http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/puttin-perfume-on-a-pig-307-tech.45615/

    “Check out the history of the small block Chevy engine which dates back over 50 years ago. Only at … Production of the 307 ran until ’73. By the mid-’70s, the …”

    http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engines-drivetrain/0605ch-small-block-chevy-history/

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  98. The only ignorant liar, here, is you, Haiku. The links in my Comment 92 (at 6:25 am) prove it.

    WTF is your problem? Did that syphilitic lump you like to talk about go tertiary to your brain?

    nk (dbc370)

  99. @81. I think I finally understand your position. America is not at war. Executive actions by 3 presidents under the AUMF may be lawfully restrained by the judiciary unless specifically authorized by Congress but not if Congress has formally declared war on another nation(s).

    crazy (d3b449)

  100. Ok, hf. Want to take one of these Iranians that haven’t been subject to the normal vetting timeline as a boarder? They need homes.

    DRJ (15874d)

  101. While Cruz talked about the border wall and renegotiating NAFTA, these are not priorities for Cruz this year.

    He said his “four big priorities” for 2017, are: repealing the Affordable Care Act, or so-called Obamacare, reducing federal regulations, tax reform, and insuring any Supreme Court openings are filled by “principled constitutionalists.”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  102. yes yes but only if they cook

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  103. Hate to go full Steve57 but …

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine#LV2

    LV2
    Oldsmobile used the popular LV2, a 307-cubic-inch (5.0 L) engine, commonly known by the VIN code “Y”, from 1980-1990. It was used by every domestic GM automobile marque. Roller lifters, floating piston wrist pins, and swirl port intake runners were added in 1985.
    The 307 “Y” produced 148 hp (110 kW) and 250 lb·ft (340 N·m) in 1980-1984 models and 140 hp (100 kW) and 250 lb·ft (340 N·m) in 1985-1990s. All LV2s feature a 4-barrel carburetor.
    Y-version applications:
    1980–1985 Buick Lesabre
    1980–1985 Buick Riviera
    1986–1987 Buick Regal
    1986–1990 Chevrolet Caprice
    1980–1985 Oldsmobile Delta 88
    1980–1984 Oldsmobile 98
    1980–1985 Oldsmobile Toronado
    1980–1990 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser
    1980–1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass
    1982–1988 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
    1982–1986 Pontiac Parisienne VIN “Y”
    1988–1990 Cadillac Brougham VIN “Y”

    nk (dbc370)

  104. 24. nk (dbc370) — 6/12/2017 @ 7:47 pm

    So, okay, Trump’s EO could not apply to green card holders (and not only for Section 1152(a) reasons but also for Constitutional reasons). I said that from the start, and I was under the impression that the second EO did not include them.

    I don’t see 1152(a) as applying in any way to non-immigrant visas — holders or applicants.

    The second EO did not apply to green card holders – i.e. permanent residents who had temporarily left the country – but it did apply to people who applied for immigrant visas.

    Green card holders don’t get, or need, a visa to re-enter the country.

    Immigrant visas are used only for the first entry into the United States.

    By the way, I don’t think there’s any constitutional problem with denial by nationality. That’s distinct from the wisdom, as well as the question as to whether all of this is both an abuse of discretion (even if that abuse is legal, it still would be an abuse of discretion) and political posturing (which is a big reason why it is an abuse of discretion.)

    How does that go? “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius” — if Congress wrote “immigrant visa” it excluded the non-immigrant visas. But maybe that’s why Bill Clinton did not appoint me a judge in the Ninth Circuit.

    I think you could have a point there. Let’s see the opinion and how they deal with the question of how does it apply to student visas, for instance.

    I guess what that means is that if 9th circuit judges can get what they want with a good analysis they’ll use that rather than a faulty analysis, but if not… (anything goes, any port in a storm)

    61. nk (dbc370) — 6/12/2017 @ 9:46 pm

    My opinion is that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” about as much as he wanted to “Lock her up!”. Not at all except as red meat campaign rhetoric for the mouth-breathers.

    I think that’s right.

    One sign that it’s all politics is that he didn’t abandon the case and substitute new regulations, but instead stuck with this. On its own terms this was an emergency measure designed to last for 90 days until the DHS could recommend something else, including perhaps to make it permanent for certain countries that didn’t do things the U.S. requested. They’ve had the 90 days and more, but done nothing to revise this. Of course it’s been stayed, but that doesn’t prevent DHS from working on this matter.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the poison pills in the EO are purposeful, and not merely incompetent, and he is secretly thanking the Courts for making him look good to his idiot base when he’s not doing spit.

    I don’t think he deliberately put in problems, though. I think he tried to do as little as possible, but he did want it to go through and not be overturned. If he wanted it to be overturned, he could have just let it go, and he wouldn’t have fought so hard for it. Now maybe at some point he will give up, perhaps thinking he’s done enough to look good for his base. Any poison pills are in theer as a byproduct of trying to seem “tough.”

    My opinion is that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” about as much as he wanted to “Lock her up!”. Not at all except as red meat campaign rhetoric for the mouth-breathers.

    Sammy Finkelman (1df645)

  105. I don’the blame you if you don’t. What I don’t understand is why Trump wants America to take them in as boarders.

    DRJ (15874d)

  106. Yes, hf. Cruz is senator. He is focusing on things Senators can accomplish. It’s up to Trump to fix immigration and build the Wall he promised.

    DRJ (15874d)

  107. President Trump is preparing to accept hundreds of refugees from Iran and other terrorist-connected countries, taking them from camps being maintained by Australia under a deal his predecessor struck, without putting them through the long vetting that usually takes place, according to a report being released Monday.

    A staggering 88 percent of the refugees have some level of mental illness or disorder, according to a U.N. health inspection last year. And the center’s report documents incidents of rape and sexual assault perpetrated by the refugees on locals.

    Australia has been looking for a landing place for the refugees for years, and President Obama agreed to take them. Mr. Trump criticized the “dumb” deal in February, and shared a testy phone call with Australia’s prime minister, but has since relented and is moving quickly to welcome the refugees.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  108. Oops. I re-quoted some words (the last two lines.) But I agree with that except for the characterization of some people as mouth breathers.

    Sammy Finkelman (1df645)

  109. if smarmy border state senators don’t care enough about border security to make it a priority, it makes it really hard for President Trump to sustain momentum on this issue 🙁

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  110. But I agree with that except for the characterization of some people as mouth breathers.

    Mouth breathing can arise from such things as a broken nose to heavy exertion to a high state of passion, Sammy. And Trump did incite his followers to a spittle-foam frenzy.

    nk (dbc370)

  111. Poor Donald. Maybe he should have thought about that before he ran for President.

    DRJ (15874d)

  112. Patterico laid out this tid-bit:

    You can disagree with me on what the law says — many do — and still recognize that I have a sincrerely held position and that I agree with you on the policy. But if you’re going to be a jerk and ignore the law, why on Earth would I be sad to see you go?

    I take from that reply ignoring the law is a no-no to Patterico. How about a bad law? An unjust law. How about a law that is itself criminal? Must all these laws be upheld because not to do so would be acting like a jerk and ignoring laws? I ask that because any law that can stop the Executive or Congress from barring any person or group of persons from entering the United States for any reason deemed by them to be in the nations best interest is legal. That includes barring people because of race, religion, color, ethnicity, sex, net worth, education level, and halitosis. We need not admit any one into our house for whatever reason we want and if we lose that right we have lost our freedom, our borders and our country. Therefore, any law cited by the 9th circuit in that respect is illegal and should not be obeyed.

    Now, how do we get rid of a judge on the 9th Circuit?

    Then Lenny replied thusly:

    If our laws were applied in an even-handed manner, I’d agree with this quaint notion. “Winners and losers” are determined by one’s power and ability to subvert the law, not abiding by it and any adherence to principle.

    Lenny points out the reason many people can’t stand lawyers: they profess “ethics” while earning a living by bypassing and/or subverting the law. I happen to believe a great deal of the reason America is on the crap ride it’s on today is because of that fact. Not the entire reason, but some of it. I still find it hard to believe that nobody seems to think it’s a conflict of interest (a legal term applied to others) for lawyers to make and pass the laws that lawyers make a living off of.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  113. Although I disagree that Cruz doesn’t care about the dangers refugees pose. He offered legislation that would let States refuse to accept dangerous refugees. Trump should support it, don’t you think? Because he cares so much about our safety.

    DRJ (15874d)

  114. i think it is good

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  115. Sigh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Cutlass_Supreme#Fourth_generation_.281978.E2.80.931988.29

    “1987 was the final year for the rear-wheel drive sedan, and both coupe models received a restyled header panel with composite headlights. A Buick 231 was the base motor alongside the Oldsmobile 307. For its final year, the 442 package was moved to the Supreme model.”

    Picture.

    Oldsmobile 307 engine.

    nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2017 @ 6:25 am

    No bizarre. I used to own an 87 442 Cutlass Supreme, and it’s still in the family and in pretty decent shape. Wish it had the T-Top and really wish it had a less anemic motor.

    Absolutely did come with a 307 cubic inch displacement engine, the LG8 engine. It had less than 200 horsepower, and of course, a 4 barrel carb.

    At any rate, I will never understand what Haiku’s problem is. But he always seems to have one!

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  116. Hoagie,

    What you’ve described, in your typical lawyer-hating way, is called nullification. Patterico has written several posts on the topic of nullification. He opposes it. You should read them if your concerns are sincere.

    DRJ (15874d)

  117. Wikipedia is far from an indisputable source. They don’t compare to other more car-focused sources. Just google and you’ll see various car-focused resources who will correct your misunderstanding. The 307 was a variation of the small block V8, and although the small block still carries on, the 307 variation’s production run was fairly brief. I know, because I owned a ’68 Chevy Nova with a 307, bench seat and a 4 speed for a few years. And I consider myself a car guy.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  118. Someone could ask but that would actually entail a response unlike this garbage weface on the hill. Every day.

    narciso (acc2e6)

  119. My first car was a 1972 Olds Cutlass Supreme. I have no idea what size the engine was but it was blue with a white top and white leather interior. What a great car that was.

    DRJ (15874d)

  120. From a 2006 Patterico post:

    Radley Balko says of jury nullification: “Not only is this your right as a juror, some would say it’s your obligation.”

    And some would say it’s jury misconduct.

    In a competent judge’s courtroom, all jurors are asked if they are willing to follow the law, regardless of whether they agree with it. They must answer this question in the affirmative or they cannot sit as jurors. And they must answer this question under oath.

    How would you answer that question, Radley Balko? Would you lie under oath to protect what you believe to be your “right” and “obligation” to disregard the law?

    UPDATE: I’ll have much more on this in coming days. I see a parallel between nullification and judicial activism. Both are “doing what’s right” at the expense of the law — and as such, both pose a similar peril to the rule of law.

    DRJ (15874d)

  121. Took me about 5 seconds to find it.

    nk (dbc370)

  122. Thank you DRJ, I shall. I told you I don’t hate lawyers. Mine are GREAT! They always find a way to twist the law in my favor and screw the hell out of the other guy.

    A lawyer is a gentleman who rescues your estate from your enemies and keeps it for himself.
    Lord Brougham

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  123. I have a problem with ’87. With the Iranians, And I believe I have the better claim.

    https://news.usni.org/2017/05/17/the-attack-uss-stark-at-30

    Like I couldn’t have a problem with them after the embassy thing.

    But I know people who are still removing the remnants of their nylon shorts from their unmentionables.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  124. There was a Chevy 305 that you could tell apart from the Olds 307 because the oil cap was in the head cover instead of a filler tube. Maybe some Oldsmobiles came with it. Not mine.

    nk (dbc370)

  125. It tells me a lot about you that you like your lawyers to be hired guns who do anything to win.

    DRJ (15874d)

  126. Ethics are for the other guy, right, Hoagie?

    DRJ (15874d)

  127. It’s as if the omnibus bill that was passed in 2016 didnt happen, maybe frantzman imagined it.

    narciso (acc2e6)

  128. Haiku, you have bragged about that Fiat. Car guy?

    Trust me, it’s a geeky politics blog overrun with alt-right trolls. there’s no reason, none at all, to pose as a macho gearhead when you clearly aren’t one. No one cares.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  129. After just browsing the first four posts at your link DRJ, I realized the subject is very deep and quite detailed. I thank you again and I have saved it for future perusal. However, I am not a lawyer and just from my initial peek you guys seem to get very specific and very detailed. It’s gonna take me some time to read all of that and try to understand it. As a layman. Best I can.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  130. There was a Chevy 305 that you could tell apart from the Olds 307 because the oil cap was in the head cover instead of a filler tube. Maybe some Oldsmobiles came with it. Not mine.

    nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2017 @ 7:29 am

    There was a Chevy 307. It was, I believe a 283 block with a 327 crank.

    It wasn’t a performance engine. I drove to school in a ’68 Nova with a 307.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  131. I told you I don’t hate lawyers. Mine are GREAT! They always find a way to twist the law in my favor and screw the hell out of the other guy.

    I had clients who thought I was a fixer because the case turned out, every step of the way, exactly the way I told them it would. They didn’t know they had a good case and that all I did was what any competent lawyer would. But that’s why I was the lawyer and they were not.

    nk (dbc370)

  132. Yes, there was a 305. It was a different, ****ier engine.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  133. DRJ, I did read your comment at #20 prior to offering my flippant suggestion at #83.

    Unfortunately, I’ve come to regard you and others here as much too biased against Trump to take your opinions on matters related to him and his policies as anything but partisan misinformation.

    Forgive me for being so direct, but your long and faithful service here, and the good sense and reasoned insight which almost invariably inform your comments, deserves a straight response.

    I respect you as much or more than most commenters here put toghter, except when it comes to matters involving Trump. There, you seem incapable of anything approaching an evenhanded observation – in my opinion – which should go without saying.

    ropelight (f923af)

  134. Dustin, I’ve owned more cars that the number of brain cells you are currently left with, so don’t tread where you clearly can’t compete.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  135. Dustin, I’ve owned more cars that the number of brain cells you are curren

    Oh, hey, it’s Haiku being ugly instead of just saying ‘oops, I was mistaken’ like a normal nice person might.

    Bless your heart! Being Alt-right hasn’t been easy for you, that’s for sure. Just don’t grind your teeth too much.

    and congratulations on owning so many cars! That’s a boast only a Trump fan could come up with! Personally, I’ve not owned too many because I make good decisions, such as not voting for Donald Trump or buying a pink convertible Fiat Prius or whatever.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  136. 127.It tells me a lot about you that you like your lawyers to be hired guns who do anything to win.
    DRJ (15874d) — 6/13/2017 @ 7:29 am

    128.Ethics are for the other guy, right, Hoagie?
    DRJ (15874d) — 6/13/2017 @ 7:30 am

    Okay, so now you want to attack me personally. I see. Where did I say I want them to “do anything to win”? Have I stated they broke the law? Murdered someone? Had a person beaten? Or is this just your way of attacking me for pointing out I hire the best people for the job and you don’t like that?

    Do you hire a lawyer to loose? I don’t. And “Ethics” are for the lawyer. He knows the legal ethics, not I. He trusts me to prepare a Saltimbocca with just enough wine, prosciutto and basil to be fabulous. I trust him to use his good sense and ethics within the law to win my case. So far we both have been happy with the results.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  137. Not addressed is the question “why didn’t you do this in Dearborn?”

    http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/06/12/iraqi-christians-ice-raids-deportations/388743001/

    kishnevi (ca2172)

  138. And I will point out that at 55, the Court simply dances past the problem created for its analysis by 1152(a)(1)(B), where it throws in one sentence, with no supporting citation, and ignores the case from the DC Circuit which led Congress to come back around to 1152(a)(1) and modify the categorical on nationality discrimination.

    The Government also argues that the President may engage in discrimination
    on the basis of nationality because of the exception provided in § 1152(a)(1)(B).
    Section 1152(a)(1)(B) provides, “[n]othing in [§ 1152(a)(1)(A)] shall be construed
    to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the
    processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications
    will be processed.” However, this provision governs the Secretary of State’s
    manner and place for processing applications, not the President’s asserted ability to
    deny immigrant visas on the basis of nationality

    .

    The problem with this analysis is that the DC Cir. case which led to the passage of 1152(a)(1)(B), said that forcing all Vietnamese visa applicants living in Hong Kong to return to Vietnam to apply for a visa was a violation of 1152(a)(1)(A) because it singled them out on the basis of nationality, when other foreign nationals in Hong Kong were allowed to apply for visas through the US Embassy without returning to their home countries to do so.

    In response, Congress created 1152(a)(1)(B) – thereby allowing the enforcement of the rule requiring Vietnamese living in Hong Kong to return to Vietnam to seek visas through the US Embassy there as opposed to in Hong Kong. Other nationals living in Hong Kong were allowed to continue applying at the US Embassy in Hong Kong.

    The import of Congress’ action is that it VALIDATED use of national origin as a basis to discriminate in the visa application process. So the 9th’s complete whiff on this issue with the bolded language is simply laughable. The statute doesn’t say “manner and place” – the statute says “procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications.”

    Fail.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  139. ropelight,

    I don’t trust Trump because of his history. That is not bias. That is using reason and experience to evaluate character, and to forecast Trump’s future behavior based on his past behavior. However, I realize that not everyone agrees with me, and I accept that they may be right and I may be wrong. People can change, even at 71. I think it’s unlikely but it can happen.

    I hope you are right about Trump. I had hoped he would deliver on the Wall and immigration because I live in a border state and I don’t like what I see happening. But I’ve given up my last faint hope that Trump will do something about immigration.

    I appreciate you telling me you don’t care about my opinions. I won’t bother you again, and please don’t bother to respond to anything I write.

    DRJ (15874d)

  140. Wikipedia is far from an indisputable source.

    Well, go correct it. The edit tab is at the top of every Wikipedia page.

    kishnevi (ca2172)

  141. wWell, coronello, I can’t compete. I’m thinking of giving my new son in law (who knew I would live so long!) a confederate Navy sword.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  142. Hoagie,

    You are the one who keeps bringing your lawyers into the conversation, instead of generally discussing lawyers. You made it personal because you’ve said you only like your lawyers, and I responded based on what you said. But I am gratified you expect your lawyers to be ethical. I hope they explain what they are doing, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  143. I am pleased as punch with the 2.7 liter four cylinder built by the commercial version of Toyota.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  144. There was a time when lawyers were viewed as counselors who informed clients about legal issues and gave advice about how to handle legal issues. Then the standard changed and Lawyers became “zealous advocates,” which is more like a hired gun. Some lawyers stopped explaining things and just handled things. It’s similar to what happened in medicine with ever-increasing specialization where patients don’t even try to understand what the doctors are doing.

    But I’ve found that clients can understand the legal issues if both lawyer and client take the time to try to address them, and clients are much happier because they don’t feel so helpless.

    DRJ (15874d)

  145. I think it’s the same reason people used to come here to read Patterico’s blog. People want to understand the legal issues, and they can.

    DRJ (15874d)

  146. I didnt know that shipwrecked, i fugured the ninth left out some part of the statutory record.

    narciso (acc2e6)

  147. I had business clients like Hoagie. Including restaurant owners. They’d get served with complaints listing a dozen violations and with a big scary notice: Each violation is punishable by a $500.00 fine and each day it continues is a separate offense.

    Well, yeah. If 1) there is an inspector out there every day to swear that he saw the violation each day; AND 2) each violation was brought as a separate complaint because conservation court rules allowed the imposition of a maximum $500.00 per complaint not per violation.

    So, I would tell them to remedy the violations and call the inspector to come back to reinspect for compliance. Then we would go to court, I’d check in with the city attorney, he’d talk to the inspector and confirm there was compliance and, nine times out of ten, the city attorney would be moving to dismiss the complaint on account of compliance as I was still walking up to the bench. Because the court was not there to punish business owners but to protect the health and safety of their customers. (The tenth time was when there was minimum mandatory penalty for something like no smoke detector and it would be more like $50.00 than $500.00.)

    But in my clients’ minds, “My lawyer, Mr. nk, put in the fix”.

    nk (dbc370)

  148. I left the part out about the outlaw period.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  149. And to draw a distinction between the President EO and the Secretary of State’s power to determine procedures borders on constitutional ignorance — which, of course, the Panel is not. So, their throw-off line is simply a bald and inartful escape from the predicament created for their pre-ordained outcome by Congress’ action AUTHORIZING discrimination in the visa application process based on national origin. That FACT is simply to inconvenient for them, so they just skip over it and move on.

    Since the SOS only exists by virtue of being put in place by the Article II Executive, I imagine a conversation such as this:

    POTUS: Mr. SOS — I want you to impose procedures in the processing of immigrant visas from these six specific countries that ensures potential terrorist threats to the residents of the US are screened out from any persons who seek to come to the US. You have 180 days to get those procedures in place, but I direct you to immediately adopt the most draconian screening process possible during the next 180 days until you have procedures in place which meet the parameters I have given you. I do not want a single potential terrorist plotter to come through any port of entry with a visa in hand. Make sure your procedures are effective in reaching that standard.

    So, now the SOS is going to — through his “manner and place” procedures for processing visa applications — preclude for 180 days the issuance of visas to persons from those 6 countries.

    What say you 9th Circuit and Patterico?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  150. What other “outdated” laws are on the books that are suddenly void if they run counter to the agendas of patterico and the 9th circuit? You’ll let us know as they come up or can you show us the list today?

    Jcurtis (55668e)

  151. Now, now, DRJ, no need to get testy. A more careful reading of my comments at #135 will assure you I do “care about (your) opinions.”

    It’s only when the topic is related to Trump that your emotions override your ability to employ reason instead of knee-jerk negative reaction. In fact, your response at #142 proves my point.

    ropelight (f923af)

  152. Before you answer, remember that the language of 1152(a)(1)(B) says: NOTHING in (a)(1)(A) “shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications.”

    The plain import of that language is that NATIONAL ORIGIN considerations shall NOT limit the SOS authority in setting procedures for processing applications.

    That’s pretty friggin categorical.

    And, oh by the way, (a)(1)(B) is the most recent in time statutory provision as passed by Congress and signed by a President into law.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  153. 125… Steve… the attack on the Iranians a few days ago was a terrible thing – I watched some LiveLeak on some of what transpired – but there was definitely a chickens-coming-home-to-roost aspect of it. Undoubtedly.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  154. So, you are for unlimited Muslim immigration.

    Got it.

    Mike K (f469ea)

  155. So, you are for unlimited Muslim immigration.

    Got it.

    If you call 675,000 total number of immigrant visas issued worldwide per year, and assume all 675,000 are Muslims, unlimited. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works

    nk (dbc370)

  156. 1, 2, 3, … 674,997, 674,998, 674,999, unlimited! Is it a new numerical system?

    nk (dbc370)

  157. Not to quibble DRJ, because I’ll loose after all you’re a lawyer (it’s a joke), but I don’t believe saying I like my lawyers but not lawyers in general is making anything personal. If I were to insinuate you were a “hired gun” or you believed “Ethics are for the other guy” then that would be personal. Kinda what you intimated about me. Saying I like my lawyers but not other people’s lawyers is just stating I like the guys who are on my side. I happen to like my car better tan other cars too. Same with my wife.

    But please notice when lawyers go on TV to attract clients they don’t say: “Hi, I’m Jay Rothenberg THE ethical lawyer”. They say: “Hi, I’m Jay Rothenberg THE PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER and I’ll get you ALL THE CASH YOU DESERVE”. Ethics are not only not prominent, they aren’t even mentioned. Hell, they aren’t even on the radar. When was the last time a client walked in and asked you if you were ethical?

    And while one may say lawyers provide a valuable service to society by assuring big bad companies don’t get away with stuff, who makes sure the lawyers don’t get away with stuff? Other lawyers? Riiiiight. There’s the fox guarding the henhouse. Just try and find a lawyer who specializes in suing other lawyers for malpractice. And why is it such horrible, horrible idea that looser pays? That’s okay, we know why. In every other facet of life the looser pays for his failures but in law everybody celebrates at the after party. Well, everybody but the loosing client who just paid a lawyer NOT to win. Does one pay at a restaurant NOT to be served food? Or at a car dealer not to be given a car? And if you’re a doctor and loose a patient there are a thousand lawyers ready to take your practice, your home and your Mercedes. But if you’re the doctor’s lawyer you pocket a cool 50k for loosing and go home. Next!

    But the law is such that whether you like’m or hate’m when one is in trouble the first thing to do is call the lawyer. I guess that’s why America has 70% of all the lawyers in the world. In the world! And every year 40,000 new ones leave college. That’s a crap load of sharks after one bucket of chum yet somehow the prices never seem to go down. And yet I still never, ever see an ad for “The Ethical Lawyer”. Maybe someone should try that. hehe.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  158. They don’t care that’s why I mentioned boumedienne and effendi lahmar.

    narciso (acc2e6)

  159. I’m sorry that I said that, Hoagie. My point was that I think you have zealous advocates and while that is what lawyers are supposed to be now, it’s not something I like about lawyers when taken to extremes. I suspect you agree a little since that’s similar to what you’ve described on the lawyer ads on TV. Lawyers are seen as hired guns, not advisors, to the average person.

    DRJ (15874d)

  160. By the way, we have a lot of lawyers because people get to decide what they do in America, which isn’t true of many other countries. In addition, unlike medicine that has limited accredited schools in order to limit the number of doctors, there are lots of law schools. The market and the individual decide how many lawyers we have.

    DRJ (15874d)

  161. @97- DRJ- Interesting. Just wondered if belief in the clients case overrode reputation of same but that appears a variable. So given Trump’s rep, why would any attorney take him on as a client? Publicity? There’s an ‘inside baseball’ story about Trump and the ad biz in NYC in the ’80s that wrecked his rep as a client as well as many NYC shops. Long story but the short of it is in NYC ad circles Trump is ‘blamed’ for breaking the back of the agency fee structure left over from ‘Mad Men’ days. He believes in self promotion and sees low to no ROI in ‘advertising.’ His campaign was a reminder.

    @120– DRJ,- mine was a ’69 Olds Cutlass Supreme- silver, black top. Sold my coin collection to get it; deep trunk and most importantly then: held two kegs. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  162. Hoagie, “legal malpractice” is an recognized specialty

    https://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyers/legal-ethics-malpractice/pennsylvania

    Obviously, being in Florida and never having been involved in such a case, I have no idea of how good those guys actually are….

    Because the laws governing claims against lawyers are complex and evolving, potential plaintiff and defendant lawyers and law firms need to carefully select their counsel.

    While former clients are the most common plaintiffs, lawyers, and law firms also can be sued by individuals or entities that they never represented. Former clients typically bring claims for legal malpractice (also known as professional negligence), alleging that a lawyer or law firm failed to properly handle a business transaction, lawsuit, or some other matter. Depending on the circumstances, the former client also may assert claims for breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty. Persons who were never clients of a lawyer may be able to bring a professional negligence or breach of fiduciary duty claim against the lawyer if they can show that they were expected to receive the benefit of a lawyer’s services or were otherwise owed a duty by a lawyer. Lawyers also can be sued for allegedly aiding and abetting torts committed by their clients, such as fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or malicious prosecution.

    Lawyers who sue or defend lawyers and law firms need to have the experience and judgment to assess the strengths and weaknesses of these claims and efficiently manage their litigation. Because legal malpractice plaintiffs are obligated to prove that a lawyer’s conduct fell below the standard of care, which is often the subject of expert testimony, lawyers prosecuting and defending legal malpractice claims must understand the applicable law and make effective use of expert testimony. They must also understand, and critically analyze, the plaintiff’s burden of proving that the lawyer’s or firm’s conduct resulted in actual harm, which in many jurisdictions requires a plaintiff to prove “the case within a case.” Some available defenses are unique to legal malpractice cases. Lawyers handling legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims should also have a firm grounding in the ethical rules governing lawyers’ conduct, since such claims often arise from alleged violations of those rules and their assertion may implicate a lawyer’s ethical obligations.

    (from here: http://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/legal-malpractice-law-plaintiffs/overview)

    kishnevi (ca2172)

  163. @148- DRJ- then readers should flock back soon– this is shaping up to be a lawyer’s battlefield- a la Watergate. The key to Trump is protecting the brand; he’s an easy read on this; at his core he’s suckering the country; he only cares about Trump. And if his gut tells him Mueller’s investigation is endangering the Trump brand, he’ll order him fired. Protecting the brand is everything.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  164. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, Hoagie, and it shines through every comment you make with the light of a thousand suns.

    The ethical code governing the conduct of lawyers is far more intensive and far more readily enforced than the ethical codes of most other professions – insofar as such codes even exist in other professions.

    What ethical code did you agree to uphold, while you were preparing your fabulous saltimbocca? Who monitored your compliance with that ethical code and sanctioned you when you violated it? You would say that lawyers are just in it for the money in one instant, then trumpet “the market” as your governing ethical principal in the next (as though the same considerations didn’t govern the business of law).

    You trust your attorney to use his good sense and ethics within the law to win your case. So do 90% of the other clients out there. Do you believe that your lawyer does what you trust him to do?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  165. Take long earwig John Morgan behind events in sanford and pushing the marijuana dispensaries his bete noire is the insurance companies but all they always in the wrong,? You would think that if you listened to him

    narciso (acc2e6)

  166. And if his gut tells him Mueller’s investigation is endangering the Trump brand, he’ll order him fired.

    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/337567-deputy-ag-rosenstein-no-good-cause-to-fire-mueller

    kishnevi (ca2172)

  167. He doesn’t need good cause to fire Mueller, he only needs to determine that the investigation which Mueller is pursuing is not, on balance, in the best interests of the US when taking into consideration other competing policy goals.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  168. I hope he doesn’t fire Mueller, DCSCA. I have no love for Mueller or special prosecutors, but I think doing that would hurt Trump far more than it would help.

    Daily, we see companies grovel to protect their brands, but Trump has sold himself as the person who won’t grovel or kowtow to anyone. As a result, instead of seeing firing Mueller as a way to protect his brand, it would send the signal that he has something illegal to hide. Even if he doesn’t.

    DRJ (15874d)

  169. @69- =yawn= All that means is as of this morning’s Senate hearing, Rosenstein doesn’t see cause and would not act– so if directed to do so by Trump, he’d likely be put in the position to pull an Elliot Richardson. And Trump would do a Nixon and go down the food chain until he found a ‘Bork’ to carry out his directive. Protecting the brand is everything.

    “So?” – Dick Cheney

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  170. after what the corrupt dirty fbi’s done to Trump, Flynn, Sessions, etc, cowardly DoJ trash like Rosenstein aren’t going to put themselves in the line of fire

    people have families to protect

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  171. “Four members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team on the Russia probe have donated to Democratic presidential campaigns and organizations, according to Federal Election Commission filings.”

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337428-four-top-legal-experts-on-muellers-team-donated-to-democratic-causes

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  172. mueller wants to send a signal he knows what side his bread is buttered on

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  173. @171- DRJ- LOL I actually hope he does– or tries!

    You see what most of us see, but Trump wouldn’t see it like that– he’d just see his brand under threat–he sees his own reality, moment to moment. But what a show it would be!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  174. I’m for zero immigration till at least the end of Trump’s 2nd term as POTUS.

    We need the time to sort out the complexities of what contributions we demand of our natural born citizens as opposed to what we refuse to tolerate from prospective immigrants, including a requirement that no first or second generation immigrant ever have access to any social welfare safetynet program.

    The US would then signal to the world that it is only open to immigration from individuals who have the skills and the where-with-all to contribute to our natiomal welfare and are willing to prove it by demonstrating generational self-sufficiently.

    No more deadweight, no more parasites, the land of the free can only fufill it’s destiny to lead the world’s civilized nations toward democratic self-rule as the land of demonstrated personal responsibility.

    Love it, or keep your distance, we’re much too busy here working toward our national goals of preserving the personal safety and improving the quality of life for all hard working Americans to be distracted by the crocodile tears of bloodsuckers and terrorists pretending to be downtrodden political refugees and peaceful immigrants who are really here to commit murder and mayhem.

    ropelight (f923af)

  175. I thought you wanted people to be loyal to Trukp, Haiku. Aren’the you glad that Republicans aren’t joining Mueller’s team?

    DRJ (15874d)

  176. New rumor… Dennis Rodman is a new secret ambassador For Trump…

    What could go wrong!?!?!

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  177. Speaking of dispensaries, I am surprised Sessions hasn’t been asked to resign or lower priority over his enthusiasm for the old-school version of the War on Drugs. His role in the Russia probe might be the fake reason for a resignation. My first car was a 1980 Cutlass LS Sedan, V6, Dark Blue.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  178. Who is this mysterious Trukp, DRJ?

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  179. @171- Just a while ago Trump was rattling off a list of ‘accomplishments’ to the teevee camera conservative commentators quickly took to ground noting none were based in reality- it was just hype. That brown-nosing Cabinet meeting yesterday was embarrassingly pathetic; even Tillerson was disappointing- expected better from him– a Texan no less. 😉 .

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  180. why does useless weak-ass sessions need to resign?

    they’ve already sidelined him

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  181. sleazy comey was very clear that the corrupt dirty fbi’s been blackmailing sessions for some time now

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  182. Trukp: son of Covfefe — Goddess of Myth & Madness.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  183. The oddest thing Rosenstein stated was there is no written document outlining the parameters for Sessions’ ‘recusal.’ So it appears subjective.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  184. Sunday SUNDAY!!! Sunday

    Battle of teh Networked Lawyers!

    A Grudge Match… No Holds barred! No Holes Barred!!!

    Texas Rules Apply… Stinging! Slapping! Biting! Punching! Sucking!!!

    They’ll approach Teh Bench! Teh Stench Will Make You Clench!

    Be there BE THERE!!!! Be there

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  185. 186 Ha!

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  186. Heh. I was hurrying to answer the phone and didn’t proofread. Want to answer my question? Do you or don’t you want loyalty to Trump?

    DRJ (15874d)

  187. 188 was for the drag racing fans…

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  188. That is funny, DCSCA 186.

    DRJ (15874d)

  189. Blackmailing for what – its gotta be beyond simple Klan or White Nationalist membership which would surprise no one and endear him to elements of the Trump coalition, maybe some live boy action like Hastert?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  190. Not a phony War on Drugs or War on Terror but an honest to goodness constitutionally declared war

    Congress defined what is required for the President to have war powers, in the War Powers Resolution: Congress had to pass an authorizing resolution. There was no requirement that the words “We Declare War on _____” be used, nor anything similar.

    This is good because the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS and other enemies are not structured as states, and other potential enemies where war powers might be needed aren’t either, or aren’t recognized as such by the US. At the time the WPR was passed, mainland China’s government wasn’t recognized by the US.

    Now, one could argue that neither the 2001 nor 2002 AUMF is applicable, but that argument hasn’t been made. Both were, for the purposes state therein, Declarations of War, according to the body whose power it is: Congress.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  191. Answer: I want the folks who consider themselves to be on the right of the left to wake up and smell the coffee and stop providing assistance to the soft coup that has been underway since around November 12, 2016.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  192. BTW, why does having the 9th Circuit agree with you bolster your case?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  193. John Morgan our chief eating is not the most ethical fellow

    narciso (0ee51f)

  194. It’s a thing, Kevin. New thing. Not the old way of looking at decades of terrible decisions. A new thing.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  195. 108. happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/13/2017 @ 6:53 am

    A staggering 88 percent of the refugees have some level of mental illness or disorder, according to a U.N. health inspection last year.

    Since when do you believe anything the United Nations says?

    The idea is that they acquired a mental illness from being confined in bad conditions, plus maybe what happened to them in their own country and on the voyage, so now they almost all have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

    Trump accepted them as grandfathered in. And most are not Iranian.

    Sammy Finkelman (1df645)

  196. Interesting update out of small town Ohio…

    “Interestingly, the conservatives I speak with do not really consider Trump one of them. Rank-and-file Republicans tend to view Trump more as an independent who ran under the Republican banner.
    But for the most part, they’re still with him. They appreciate Trump’s “America first” agenda, not because they believe in isolationism, but because they believe the U.S. and its citizens should be the government’s top priority.

    The president’s tweets can be as annoying to his supporters as to his opponents, and if there is a common criticism it is that he should tweet less. But his inability so far to overhaul health care, enact tax reform, destroy the Islamic State or “drain the swamp” is largely blamed on overreaching courts and the open “resistance” that appears dedicated to opposing anything Trump wants.”

    http://www.startribune.com/we-took-major-heat-for-backing-trump/427547013/

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  197. i’m sorry i should have done better

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  198. 187. DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/13/2017 @ 9:57 am

    The oddest thing Rosenstein stated was there is no written document outlining the parameters for Sessions’ ‘recusal.’

    I seem to recall a written statement, plus a press conference.

    Google cache of Attorney General Sessions Statement on Recusal

    have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/02/transcript-of-jeff-sessionss-recusal-press-conference-annotated

    Now Trump did not ask Sessions: Should Comey be fired because of the way he has been conducting the Russia investigation>

    But something like:

    A) Are there any [other] reasons [besides Russia or his attitude toward my election] that you know why Comey should be fired?

    OR

    B) Are there any people in DOJ who want Comey fired? Bring them in.

    And later:

    Have Rosenstein write up what he just told me

    Sammy Finkelman (1df645)

  199. Haiku,

    It is clear that the Democrat Party has utterly no intention of transferring power peacefully.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  200. “… But his inability so far to overhaul health care, enact tax reform, destroy the Islamic State or “drain the swamp” is largely blamed on overreaching courts and the open “resistance” that appears dedicated to opposing anything Trump wants.”

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  201. Yes, as clear as it can be.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  202. “No more deadweight, no more parasites, the land of the free can only fufill it’s destiny to lead the world’s civilized nations toward democratic self-rule as the land of demonstrated personal responsibility.”

    – ropelight

    I wonder which government benefits, subsidies, and contracts you’ve received over the years? Dead weight and parasitism is in the eye of the beholder, clearly.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  203. So either Small Town America is out of step and not understanding the current lay of the land, or they are on to something and clearly understand what is at stake.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  204. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/13/2017 @ 9:35 am

    He doesn’t need good cause to fire Mueller, he only needs to determine that the investigation which Mueller is pursuing is not, on balance, in the best interests of the US when taking into consideration other competing policy goals.

    It has the potential for interfering with Congressional investigations, and delaying action to counter Russian penetration. And anything he finds out that will not be used to indict, will be kept secret.

    The premise, in effect is, the most likely thing is that Trump was bribed. Which is silly. He could maybe be bribed by the presidency, but why would he think Putin could get him elected?

    In reality, the most likely thing, in part. is that Mike Flynn and others were bribed, to mislead Trump about politics and the best policy, and the fact that he got into the position in the Trump campaign that he did is evidence of other Russian bribery, which he needs to know about and act on, and not wait two years. Everybody needs this actually.

    There’s a good argument for given Flynn immunity, even from charges of treason, (I mean he postponed the fall of Raqqa by several months, although probably on spec) in exchange for truthful testimony, especially oif he isn’t indicted within a few months. But again, anything Mueller finds out will be kept secret and Mueller is only looking for criminal liability.

    If Flynn does reveal things it needs a lot of follow-up. We need to know wo recommended him and why. A vigorous investigation isn’t always consistent with getting the most number of criminal convictions.

    Sammy Finkelman (1df645)

  205. Today, I will defend Trump. Tomorrow I will be attacking his competence again. This “enemy of my enemy” thing is so convoluted.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  206. if you can’t be with the one you love Mr. M

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  207. Another “all hat, no cattle” day for the Demoncrats…

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  208. To be absolutely precise: The federal regulation which authorizes the appointment of special counsel by the Attorney General (or Acting AG in his absence) also locates the responsibility for discharging a special counsel with the AG: Section 600.7(d) specifies that the AG must have and explain his good cause for so doing:

    The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

    The POTUS can override the regulation — he has the constitutional power — but the fact that he has the constitutional power doesn’t immunize him from political consequences of its misuse. This is a federal regulation that went through all the public notice & comment drill of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it’s part of the “Constitution and laws” of the United States. Revoking 28 CFR part 600 to override its provisions and fire Mueller directly (rather than indirectly, by ordering Rosenstein to do it) would be another particular added to the list of his high crimes and misdemeanors in any impeachment proceedings, since it’s a conspicuous and undeniable example of the POTUS failing to faithfully execute his oath.

    There’s no meaningful distinction between the reaction that Trump should expect and that which Nixon would have gotten if he’d tried to fire Jaworski: It would dramatically accelerate and make inevitable his impeachment in the House, conviction in the Senate, and removal from office.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  209. lil marco was clearly in charge of setting up the table for sessions

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  210. Warner starts in with the moronic “interactions with the Russian” allegations and the firing of St. Comeytose.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  211. @203- Yes, Sammy, but in the hearing today the senators were perplexed while questioning that there was no written document outlining the parameters of his ‘recusal.’ It was just left hanging as generally subjective. They wanted something more definitive.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  212. “a shocking statement from one of our nation’s top law enforcement officers [and top leakers]…”

    — Sen. Mark Warner (D-Freedonia)

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  213. I’ve linked this here before, but:

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions Statement on Recusal, dated March 2, 2017, as released to the press.

    It explains, albeit in generalities, why Sessions recused himself, and it also explains in very specific language that which is within the scope of the recusal:

    … I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.

    There will be additional internal confidential memoranda within DoJ to set up the appropriate Chinese walls and screens to ensure that the recusal is effective. I seem to recall seeing a written order as well, tracking the terms of the press release, but if so, I can’t find that again at the moment.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  214. sessions is trying to make like he’s not corrupt and skeevy

    nobody’s buying it he’s clearly a russian cat’s paw

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  215. In fact the fraudulence behind the dossier and the crowdstrike report, the fmr is akin to those cables Howard hunt tried to slice together, there is no overt act except on the part of Brennan rice and comey and their underlings like price and prietap commandering the surveilance apparat

    narciso (7134b2)

  216. Here’s Andy McCarthy’s insightful analysis of the Sessions recusal press release’s precise language.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  217. Sessions:

    I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/13/2017 @ 11:52 am

    Yes, Sammy, but in the hearing today the senators were perplexed while questioning that there was no written document outlining the parameters of his ‘recusal.’ It was just left hanging as generally subjective. They wanted something more definitive.

    They want ore words?

    The parameters are:

    any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.

    The thought occurs to me that Rosenstein took the matter of any role in picking the new FBI Director out of that category by appointing a special counsel.

    Sammy Finkelman (b99a92)

  218. @219- Per this mornings hearings, apparently senate committee members can’t find ‘it’ either. It was their question to Rosenstein and he stated to his knowledge there wasn’t a definitive written document outlining the parameters. It was their question, we just watched.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  219. sessions shows up wearing a red tie cause he’s a stinkin red and he’s just taunting these senate losers with impunity

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  220. @223- Take it up w/t committee, Sammy. They asked about it– could get an answer other than to Rosenstein’s knowledge, there was no definitive document. Take it up w/them. Seemed a fair question.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  221. ^could=couldn’t

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  222. here’s no meaningful distinction between the reaction that Trump should expect and that which Nixon would have gotten if he’d tried to fire Jaworski

    Not sure this is true. Nixon had a 49-state electoral victory with well over 500 electoral votes and a 23% margin. No one has topped his 60.7% as yet (not even Reagan).

    Nixon had immense political capital to burn (and did).

    Trump, OTOH, squeaked by with former Presidents and candidates in his own party opposing him. Trump starts from where Nixon fell to.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  223. DRJ, my 1972 Olds Cutlass (acquired 2-years’-used, when I was a junior in high school) was yellow with a brown landau top. I put over 150k miles on that car, kept it through college and law school and well into my law practice. At one time or another, I took it from El Paso to Amarillo to Brownsville to Texarkana, and I was very fond of it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  224. 225, arent you missing a syllable on the “red” after “stinkin”?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  225. That line from the 14th brumaire about comedy and tragedy comes to mind.

    narciso (7134b2)

  226. @ Kevin M: You’re right about Nixon’s political capital through the 1972 election cycle, but you’re also right about how thoroughly he lost it so soon thereafter. That’s why I specified Jaworski rather than Cox. Trump already had his analog (albeit only in a rough and macroscopic 40,000-feet flyover sense) to firing Cox, when Trump fired Comey. Trump firing Mueller now would be like Nixon firing Jaworski.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  227. maybe

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  228. The biggest macroscopic difference between their situations is that Nixon, despite his sweeping popular and electoral college victory in 1972, still faced overwhelming Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, majorities that would swell to veto-proof size in 1974.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  229. General sessions is an honorable man, not in the sense Mark Anthony meant it all though there are some candidates for Brutus and csuusius in that room.

    narciso (7134b2)

  230. “……nobody’s buying it he’s clearly a russian cat’s paw”

    They clearly are not used to dealing with an honorable man.

    Also keep in mind that the Democrats are still adjusting to the switch from declaring Russia paradise on earth to now seeing Russians in third place as threats to human life behind only white males and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

    harkin (42c195)

  231. 20. It seems like many of those are from Iran, although others are from Iraq and Afghanistan. Those from Bangladesh went back and those from Burma maybe came more recently.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38837263

    Australia announced in November 2016 that the US had agreed to a one-off deal to resettle refugees currently being held on Nauru and Manus Island, in Papua New Guinea (PNG). ..

    …A total of 1,254 people were being held in the two camps, 871 on Manus Island and 383 in Nauru, as of 30 November 2016, according to Australian government statistics.

    Mr Trump’s tweet incorrectly labelled refugees as illegal, and recast the number who might be resettled as “thousands”.

    Australia refuses to accept refugees who arrive by boat, under a tough deterrent policy. It has already struck resettlement deals with Cambodia and PNG, but only a handful of refugees have been resettled. Critics say the two nations are completely ill-equipped to resettle refugees…

    Who are the refugees?

    Official figures show that about 80% of those held on Manus Island and Nauru have been found to be genuine refugees (those found not to be are not eligible for the US deal).

    All of the occupants of Manus Island are male. By far the largest number are from Iran, followed by Afghanistan and Iraq. There are also sizeable contingents from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar.

    The Nauru camp holds men, women and children. Again the largest number come from Iran, followed by Sri Lanka and those who are stateless.

    Some of those being held have spent several years in the camps awaiting a decision on their fate.

    Fear of terrorism was not the reason they were sent there.

    This gives some of the hisory:

    http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/Offshore#_Number_of_asylum

    Sammy Finkelman (b99a92)

  232. Narciso – beat me to it, he personifies honor.

    harkin (42c195)

  233. What then – the recusal is unofficial?

    Sammy Finkelman (b99a92)

  234. @228. After the Saturday Night Massacre and the bloodbath resulting by firing Cox, it was the subsequent negative blowback from the public that drove Nixon to replace Cox w/Jaworski who he wasn’t about to try to fire in that climate. He was bleeding public and congressional support; political capital was evaporating. Revisited the American Experience/PBS doc on Nixon last night; the miscalculations by Nixon and his legal team ‘in the bubble’ just compounded one on top of the other.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  235. this greasy mark warner twat way bad wants to do a soundbite to where he’s on the cnn jake tapper fake news today

    he’s coming across as kinda desperate though

    but nevertheless vastly more articulate than senile doddering torture victim john mccain

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  236. whoever catered this clearly didn’t make enough for everybody

    i haven’t even seen a cheese plate

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  237. @239- Sammy, from what the senators were asking, they seemed to want to know what the specifics of it was and they couldn’t get a definitive answer– at least as of this morning.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  238. 236. Russians are a subset of the 1st reason, the great white defendant of superpowers.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  239. @87 nk

    You have a pretty good start to a Jack Reacher book right there.

    We were all fully clothed. It was late November in Chicago and we were going to a blues bar. They had their visas in their purses.
    nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2017 @ 5:38 am

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  240. It’s reassuring to hear Jefferson Beauregard keep insisting he was ‘aware of no collusion.’ ‘Course he could easily have been unaware he was being drawn into it– which the Carter Page spin.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  241. Sessions tetsimony is on CBS and NBC at least. Sessions, to Senator Feinstein’s surprise, just said he could not answer the question of whether he discussed Comey’s handling of the Russian investigation.

    Both yes and no would be improper.

    Sammy Finkelman (b99a92)

  242. 260 V8, maybe, 307 was never an option in the Olds.
    Colonel Haiku (db083c) — 6/13/2017 @ 6:11 am

    260. 261. Whatever it takes.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  243. Y’all need to understand how lawyers, especially government lawyers, approach these issues. There’s a regulation on recusal of DoJ personnel, 28 CFR § 45.2, entitled “Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.” So that’s the starting place, a question that must be answered by every DoJ employee, from AG on down, every time he confronts a new matter: “Do I need to recuse myself?” And the answer is always, “Well, let’s look at section 45.2 on recusal.”

    So you go to section 45.2, and it says:

    (a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section [providing that high-level supervisors can give waivers downstream sometimes], no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

    (1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

    (2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

    ….

    (c ) For the purposes of this section:

    (1)Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof ….

    So when you write your recusal press release or other documentation, you track the regulation’s language. That’s why the recusal is in terms of “campaigns for President of the United States” — it’s a very direct use of the phrasing from section 45.2(c )(1), using the most inclusive of the listed alternatives (the “campaign” rather than just Trump, which is deliberately very inclusive), and including both the Clinton and Trump campaigns (and yeah, Evan McMullen and the other minor candidates too). When you’ve touched this legal base, you don’t need to say more, and if you say more, people will accuse you of ignoring the regulation.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  244. Senator Marco Rubio. (Sessions does not want to talk about verbal communications with teh president.

    Rubio is asking him about whether he wanted to stay.

    Sammy Finkelman (b99a92)

  245. Leaving Comey alone w/Trump: “It didn’t seem to me to be a major problem.” – Jefferson Beauregard.

    Odd– or incompetent response.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  246. 229… Beldar, there’s no denying the emotional attachment one can have with coal… cars of a lifetime. I have so many memories that are associated with my cars.

    ’69 VW
    ’64 GTO
    ’68 Ford Falcon
    ’68 Chevy Nova
    ’74 Fiat X1/9 (my first new car)
    ’78 Buick Regal Sport Coupe (2nd new car purchase)
    ’81 Honda Accord (3rd)
    ’71 Pontiac Catalina
    ’84 Toyota Camry (4th, family hauler)
    ’86 Suzuki Samurai (5th… a rolling death trap!)
    ’87 Dodge Caravan (6th, family hauler)
    ’91 Plymouth Colt (7th)
    ’97 Ford Windstar (8th, family hauler)
    ’97 Ford Escort (9th)
    ’01 Toyota Highlander (10th, for my wife, still have this gem)
    ’92 Mazda Miata ( gave to my oldest son upon his HS graduation, he still has it)
    ’86 Bertone X1/9
    ’76 Fiat X1/9 (gave to #2 son, while he was in HS to help him learn how to wrench)
    ’04 Honda Civic Si (11th)
    ’81 Fiat X1/9 (bought from a very knowledgeable Fiat guy who built the hottest streetable motor for it)
    ’07 Nissan 350Z (12th… this one attracted law enforcement like a shiny object attracts crows along with speeding tickets)
    ’12 Fiat 500 Abarth (13th… most smiles per mile yet)
    ’13 MB E350 BlueTec (14th… my first diesel… bought for my wife… great cruiser and car so far)

    I know I’m leaving less memorable cars out here… again, so many fond memories with each of them… and a few lessons with some of them!

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  247. Sessions sounds angry at innuendo.

    Sammy Finkelman (b99a92)

  248. @253. Not an innuendo man, eh.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  249. Dems… plenty of harrumphing, posturing, mincing and a ton o’hat…

    No Cattle.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  250. sessions is basically saying that the upper ranks of the DoJ understands that the fbi’s become sloppy and corrupt

    this is heartening

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  251. Moar Click and Clack The Tappet Brothers please.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  252. Dang it… forgot a ’70 Plymouth Road Runner… wedged in there.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  253. Coronello, just curious. Do you remember fooling with the torsion bar front suspension?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  254. Jefferson Beauregard’s a stonewall, Jackson.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  255. Col. H, one reason I was fond of that car was that it had become locally famous in my hometown.

    When I was a high school senior, I dated a girl from Hearne, Texas, outside College Station — a long drive from Lamesa, where I lived. One Friday afternoon, as I was rushing to get to the band hall to catch the band bus for an out-of-town game, I was reaching back behind me to stuff some just-picked-up-but-as-yet-unread love letters from this girl, and my car drifted to the right and jumped the curb, probably at about 15 mph. I looked up, saw that I had plenty of distance between me and an upcoming telephone pole to guide the right-side wheels back onto the street without wrenching the steering wheel too hard. But what I didn’t see in that split second was the guy wire stretching down from the pole toward me. It caught just inside my front right wheel as I was decelerating, progressively lifting that side of the car higher as I got closer to the pole — and in a neat bit of stunt driving, the car rotated on its longitudinal axis, so slowly and gently that when it came to a stop, lying on its left (driver’s) side, it didn’t even scratch the paint against the asphalt. But it left my car looking like it had just done some dramatic roll-over.

    My stepmom took me to the band hall — they’d been holding the busses, the director needed me to be there because I was first chair trumpet, and the others would be too timid without me — while my dad assured me he’d get my car taken care of. He did; the car was unharmed once set back upon all four wheels. But in the interim, a reporter from the local newspaper had snapped a picture, which appeared on the front page the next day. I got a lot of teasing, which I didn’t resent because it was well and truly deserved, and I didn’t hold it against that car, but rather gave it credit for a balletic performance.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  256. medicine that has limited accredited schools in order to limit the number of doctors, there are lots of law schools.

    There is no evidence for this. You may not be aware of all the small medical schools a]that are now open and graduating doctors. My wife’s new general internist in Tucson is a graduate of St George’s Medical School in Grenada,. That’s the school that Reagan sent the troops to rescue the American students.

    This business of “Limiting the number of doctors” is an old canard by people who think the AMA runs medical schools.

    It’s bunk.

    Law School LSAT scores are falling.

    Mike K (f469ea)

  257. (The girl broke up with me a week later — not because of the car rolling on its side, but because having an out-of-town boyfriend becomes less cool and more problematic as the homecoming weekend, with its dance and king-and-queen selection, etc., gets closer. But that car outlasted quite a few more girlfriends and all the way through most of my courtship of my eventual wife.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  258. Beldar, I continue to have a soft spot for the 440 Mopar.

    Despite the 426 Hemi.

    For a street car the wedge was better.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  259. I’m still beating myself up for selling that car.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  260. lankford’s kinda slobbery

    and not a particularly inquisitive man

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  261. 259… no, I did not, Steve. Too busy pouring down bleach on asphalt and laying fiery burn-outs down!

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  262. 261… great story, Beldar! Very understanding parents!

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  263. My dad was newly remarried, and he and my new step-mom had a tender spot in their heart for romantics, which run in the family. But there were consequences — just not to the car.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  264. Sessions filibustered Warner very effectively. The man knows how to work the time limits.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  265. I’m trying not to read ahead but I can’t wait till nk leaves the bar and is confronted by four large Italian or Russian gentlemen. He will headbutt the first one. Throw a scything elbow to the second one’s throat that rebounds to the third guy’s temple. Then he will shrug off a punch to his left shoulder and give the last guy a huge right hook that fells him like an oak tree in a hurricane.

    If Jack Reacher just served people papers that would be lame.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  266. The most effective countermeasure to a filibustering witness is to ask better, shorter, more specific questions, without making speeches or introducing big complicated predicates. That’s an art, though.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  267. Our first car was a Plymouth Valiant.

    I loved that car. Slant Six and all.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  268. The slant 6 is one of the most “tunable” for more power motors evah…

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  269. Our first new car.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  270. Coronello,

    http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hyper-pak.html

    I am so screwed up.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  271. That’s the ticket, Steve!

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  272. 262.

    DRJ: medicine that has limited accredited schools

    Mike K (f469ea) — 6/13/2017 @ 1:09 pm

    You may not be aware of all the small medical schools a]that are now open and graduating doctors. My wife’s new general internist in Tucson is a graduate of St George’s Medical School in Grenada.

    Why is it located in Grenada and not, say, in Louisiana? Grenada is not in the United States and that school is probably not accredited. That’s only an argument that the policy of liiting the nuber of doctors isn’t working so well – people have found a way around it. Gradiates of such schools have amuch lowere rate of getting internships, but one in Australia has a special relationshop with some place and a 95% success rate.

    Sammy Finkelman (b99a92)

  273. @270. He should given the years he spent on the other side of the microphone as a senator. He makes it a bit obvious, too. Managed to get his irate soundbite for the evening news and cablers w/Wyden. But he’s been tripped up a few times. To a citizen watching at home there appears a bit of the befuddled McCain in him–it doesn’t enhance any existing confidence in him as AG. Might be close to the time to take his car keys away, too.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  274. If McCain and Sessions hurry up and finish, they still have time to make the Early Bird special at Applebee’s off Dupont Circle.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  275. 1959 Plymouth Wagon

    mg (31009b)

  276. Kevin M – the United States has been at war for an absolute majority of the time of its existence. Not a declared war, but then again we’re not in a declared war now.

    If adherence to the text of statute and the text of the Constitution can be set aside whenever we’re at war, then there is no such thing as adherence to the text of statute or the text of the Constitution, because we’re *always* at war.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  277. Warner is so proud of himself.

    mg (31009b)

  278. Warner is a Class “A” tool.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  279. @167 Leviticus

    I’m fine with lawyers provided they don’t spit on my paperwork.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  280. Senator McCain was mch better today. He took the tack that Sessions had said he met with the Russian Ambassador in his capacity as a member of the Senate (and Armed Services Committee) He tried to say Sessions had not discussed anything about problems with Russia,

    Sessions did say he talked about Ukraine, (as he has said before) but not Syria or any of these otehr matters. Sessions said he’d met he day before wth the Ambassador from Ukraine.

    I don’t think Sessions realized what McCain was getting at. McCain also said sessions had not concerned himself much with issues while on the committee. That seems borne out. At the MAyy

    Sammy Finkelman (b99a92)

  281. Buick Estate Wagon.

    Have you ever seen anything more ’70s than this?

    But you could have it with a 455.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  282. Ron Wyden and Kamala Harris made themselves look like idiots and accomplished nothing.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  283. Wyden and King are utter chickensh*ts. They both certainly know who executive privilege belongs to — duh, the Executive — and they also knows that no lawyer or other subordinate has the power to make a decision whether or not to invoke it, and he knows that blurting out privileged information would be a breach of the lawyer or subordinate’s duties to his principal — just as it was when Saint James Comey leaked the substance of such a communication with the POTUS to reporters via a cutout.

    The hypocrisy is really sickening.

    I wish Sessions had said to one of them: “Look, quit pretending. If you’re right, you should be able to get a judge to agree with you. Argue to your fellow committee members that you should all go to court, try to cite me for contempt of Congress, and let’s see how badly you get chastised — not by the courts, but by your more sane Democratic colleagues who know how badly you’d get laughed out of court for your dishonesty.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  284. yes I screwed up.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  285. I haven’t got to Harris yet in my delayed playback, swc, but your comment (#288) is still no “spoiler” for me. 😉

    Beldar (fa637a)

  286. 288… shocker!

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  287. Iron Lawyer:

    Todays secret ingredient…WHIPLASH!!!

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  288. They got Sessions to the point where he said he was not dicussing conversations with the president, that the rpresident had not already discussed, before the president could decide whether or not he wanted to invoke executive privilege.

    Sammy Finkelman (b99a92)

  289. @289- Yes but it’s the pattern of ‘stonewalling’ surrounding these ‘conversations’ by Sessions and other officials testifying in the past few weeks that has a stink to it. Doesn’t enhance their integrity in the public eye.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  290. @288- On the contrary: they made the top soundbites for the network news and cablers. The ol’Goldwater trick.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  291. My Lieutenant mobile, ’68 Corvette Stingray, 327 small block – last year it was stock, 1st year of the mako shark body. Sold is to pay cash for law school.

    Steve Malynn (1d5593)

  292. @178 ropelight

    Americans should want to protect the Constitutional Republic brand.

    It’s like they say, if you smashed Idaho flat it would be the size of California but then it wouldn’t be Idaho anymore.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  293. i got the sense his appetite for appearing at these hearings may not be as robutht ath thenator wyden would like

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  294. @184 happyfeet

    Is Sessions in a rubber room doing crossword puzzles all day or what? If I had to do that I’d take a walk to Ft Marcy Park.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  295. Cotton got a great sound bite. Good job, man.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  296. Robutht ath thenator: father of Covfefe — Goddess of Myth and Madness

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  297. i didn’t get to watch very much

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  298. 299… why happyfeet… are you making fun of Wydenth lithsping?

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  299. 297… suhweet, Steve!

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  300. No more deadweight, no more parasites, the land of the free can only fufill it’s destiny to lead the world’s civilized nations toward democratic self-rule as the land of demonstrated personal responsibility.”

    – ropelight

    I wonder which government benefits, subsidies, and contracts you’ve received over the years? Dead weight and parasitism is in the eye of the beholder, clearly.
    Leviticus (efada1) — 6/13/2017 @ 10:43 am

    You didn’t build that.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  301. Senator Kamalatoe Harris out boxers Boxer.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  302. Harris went into this with the deliberate intention of being so rude that she would indeed be cautioned by the chair.

    She will include this clip in her 2020 POTUS campaign fundraising, as an example of how she was oppressed as a black woman by the white men. You can make book on it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  303. @209 Sammy

    My new clothing company is called Raqqa Wear. The line looks a lot like Def Leppard ca 1986. Or more specifically, Rick Allen Dec 31st 1984.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  304. @87 nk

    You have a pretty good start to a Jack Reacher book right there.

    I write a lot better than Lee Child.

    nk (dbc370)

  305. But then again, who doesn’t?

    nk (dbc370)

  306. I have read a Jack Reacher short story by Lee Child all the way to the end. That’s all I remember of it. It was a Jack Reacher short story by Lee Child and I read it all the way to the end.

    nk (dbc370)

  307. @203- Yes, Sammy, but in the hearing today the senators were perplexed while questioning that there was no written document outlining the parameters of his ‘recusal.’ It was just left hanging as generally subjective. They wanted something more definitive.
    DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/13/2017 @ 11:52 am

    It’s in the safe hands of a Columbia Law professor.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  308. I confess to having read the Reacher books, but I don’t hold him up as anything more than guilty-pleasure pulp you can read almost as fast as you can turn the pages of. He’s gotten predictable and repetitive. It’s fair to summarize all his books as having one theme: Don’t mess with military policemen. That’s his angle, he’s made good money from it (including some from me), but yeah, there are other and better popular fiction writers.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  309. So word is that Comey leaked docs re: his conversations with Prez Trump to the Law Prof who has provided them to Mueller.

    Conspiracy of Tools.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  310. Put it this way: Having read the books, I was sufficiently invested to be off-put when Tom Cruise was cast in the movie role. I’m sure the one short story you read to the end of, nk, included some references to how tall the guy is. That’s his second-most distinguishing aspect, behind the MP stuff.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  311. @ Kevin M: You’re right about Nixon’s political capital through the 1972 election cycle, but you’re also right about how thoroughly he lost it so soon thereafter. That’s why I specified Jaworski rather than Cox. Trump already had his analog (albeit only in a rough and macroscopic 40,000-feet flyover sense) to firing Cox, when Trump fired Comey. Trump firing Mueller now would be like Nixon firing Jaworski.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/13/2017 @ 12:19 pm

    Jeux sans frontieries.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  312. Senator Kamalatoe Harris out boxers Boxer.

    You see why we voted her out of the state.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  313. I was listening on the radio and James Lankford from Oklahoma sounded as if he were on our side. Cotton sounded good as well.

    mg (31009b)

  314. Not a declared war, but then again we’re not in a declared war now.

    Why is the Afghan war, in so far as the Taliban were part of the 9/11 attacks, not a declared war?

    Does it have to say “We Declare War” or similar?
    Does it have to name a government we are at war with?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  315. I’ve only heard one spontaneous laugh and it was in response to Cotton’s “James Bond” Q&A. He’s the only one who got Sessions to contradict himself, laughingly, over whether he does or doesn’t like James Bond. But the Q&A on either side of that was a really good moment for Sessions and Cotton.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  316. 259… no, I did not, Steve. Too busy pouring down bleach on asphalt and laying fiery burn-outs down!
    Colonel Haiku (db083c) — 6/13/2017 @ 1:22 pm

    Some people install CO2 tanks in their cars and jets in their wheel wells for that effect. Some gay people.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  317. 315. Colonel Haiku (db083c) — 6/13/2017 @ 3:07 pm

    So word is that Comey leaked docs re: his conversations with Prez Trump to the Law Prof who has provided them to Mueller.

    No, he leaked a copy of one memo only – that dealing with February 14, where Trump may discussed the New York Times story that day (which he didn’t write about in that memo – he wanted to keep it unclassified he says) and also that he hoped he would let Mike Flynn go. Comey maintains that he did nothingand the investigation move dahead at full speed, but he also says he interoreted Trump to be spoeaking only of the investigation of Mike Flynn in connection with false statements about hios conversations with the ambassador – and only lying in Jqan 24 interview with the FBI could be acrime – aqnd the very next day FBI sources leaked to CNN taht taht investigation had been closed and Mike Flynn was not a liar.

    https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/832013102413660160

    Jim Sciutto‏
    @jimsciutto

    Breaking: FBI NOT expected to pursue charges against #MichaelFlynn regarding phone calls w/Russian Ambassador, reports @evanperez

    3:45 PM – 15 Feb 2017

    ————————–

    Jim Sciutto‏Verified account @jimsciutto · Feb 15

    Replying to @jimsciutto

    More: FBI says Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers

    Comey gave Richman only a copy, and Dan Richman may still have it, and has disappeared and is maybe avoiding subpoenas.

    Comey may have told Richman to darkly hint of Trump trying to stop the entire Russia investigation.

    Comey kept possession of the originals of the memos or his copies, which he says is personal and not a government record, although the FBI may have copies, and he used`them to prepare his prepared statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee – then he turned them over to Mueller.

    .

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  318. And, no, we are not always at war. There was no legal basis for military action (except for UN-sanctioned peacekeeping inside Iraq) during the Clinton administration. That he went and fought a war over Kosovo notwithstanding; he did so against the express wishes of Congress (the House voted NO).

    In any event, being “at war” only applies to the situations that touch upon said war. In WW2, press freedoms were curtailed regarding ship movements. This would not have been tolerated in the Iraq wars or Afghanistan. Nor Korea or VietNam, except possibly for capital ships.

    In the present case, one should AT LEAST touch upon the degree that the proposed exclusions touch upon an active and authorized military campaign. Since Congress hasn’t seen fit to authorize action in Syria, Iran, etc, or against ISIS, you may have a point. But not until you acknowledge mine.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  319. Kevin M, at 320: I think that to be a declared war, the authorization needs to name a specific *state* that we are at war with.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  320. * No, he leaked a copy of one memo only – that dealing with February 14, where Trump may discussed the New York Times story that day (which he didn’t write about in that memo – he wanted to keep it unclassified he says) and also that he hoped he would let Mike Flynn go.

    Comey maintains that he did nothing, and the investigation move dahead at full speed, but he also says he interpreted Trump to be speaking only of the investigation of Mike Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the ambassador.

    Only his lying in his Jan 24 interview with the FBI could be a crime.

    The very next day FBI sources leaked to CNN that that investigation had been closed and Mike Flynn was not a liar.

    http://ktla.com/2017/02/16/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-against-michael-flynn-law-enforcement-officials/

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  321. 323… Herridge just confirmed this info this afternoon. Heard it in the background but I think I captured what she was saying. This is new info.

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  322. You’ve got two parts of the Constitution involved here. From what I think is a generally accurate summary about <a href=""War Powers:

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. These provisions require cooperation between the President and Congress regarding military affairs, with Congress funding or declaring the operation and the President directing it.

    The Article III branch of government — the federal courts — have almost no proper role in coordinating the interplay of the other two branches as they wield, or decline to wield, their respective roles.

    If this POTUS, or the last one, or the last several before that, have overplayed their constitutional hand, the Congress certainly hasn’t fought back effectively, using either its impeachment remedy or the power of the purse. But it could: Ask any Vietnamese-American refugee of the fall of South Vietnam, after a war that was already won if only the U.S. could and would maintain the non-boots-on-the-ground support (materiel, air power, sea power) it had promised our treaty allies, but which Congress brought to a screeching halt in late 1974-early 1975, leading directly and inevitably to the overrun of the South by the North, the Boat People, the resulting power vacuums in Laos and Cambodia, and other ugly but predictable consequences.

    If you feel that this Executive or his predecessors have overstepped, the remedy is: Write your congressmen.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  323. The day after Trump’s feb 14 conversation with James Comey (which may mostly have concerned the New York Times story that day that Comey shortly afterwards informed Senators (and possibly Trump also) was mostly false

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?_r=0

    and which Trump also mentioned Mike Flynn, and Cmey says he thought Trump was only talking about the possible lying to the FBI charge, things turned on a dime:

    At 6:25 am February 15, Zero Hedge has this: (that’s Feb 15 in spite of the URL saying Feb 14)

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-14/mike-flynn-may-face-felony-charges-lying-fbi

    But by 10 pm Zero Hedge reports:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-15/fbi-reportedly-will-not-pursue-charges-against-cooperative-and-truthful-mike-flynn

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  324. Sorry, blew the link to that War Powers article.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  325. 326.Kevin M, at 320: I think that to be a declared war, the authorization needs to name a specific *state* that we are at war with.
    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/13/2017 @ 3:29 pm

    Why does it need to be a *state* as you put it? That sounds like leftist speak for “in a world without borders there is no war”. Or “we can’t be at war with Islam eve though they declared war on us because they are not a *state*”. Sounds like an Old World definition to me when now we have *ideologies* that go to war.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  326. Mr. Finkelman, please don’t spread ridiculous rumors. Richman hasn’t “disappeared,” despite the dramatic New York Post headline to the contrary. The article only says he left his home for part of a day and has since avoided taking phone calls or unannounced visitors. That’s not the same at all as “going into hiding” or “disappearing,” and certainly doesn’t suggest he’s trying to flee the jurisdiction.

    I assure you that the man knew and appreciated the possibility that he’ll sometime be obliged to testify pursuant to a subpoena about his participation. He didn’t go buy plane tickets for Venezuela, he just stopped talking anymore to the press, which seems quite prudent and understandable.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  327. It is easy to like Jeff Sessions.

    And Tom Cotton.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  328. Rev. Hoagie: because war against something abstract (like drugs, poverty, cancer, or terror) has no definable end condition.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  329. Herridge? Anyway Comey testified on Thursday June 8 that he kept the memos till he prepared his statement and he turned over the memos to Mueller.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/senate-hearing-transcript.html?_r=1

    LANKFORD: Let me — let me walk through a couple things with you. Your notes were obviously exceptionally important, because they give a very rapid account of what you — what you wrote down and what you perceived to happen in those different meetings.

    Have you had the opportunity to be able to reference those notes when you were preparing the written statement that you put — for us today?

    COMEY: Yes, I — yes. I think nearly all of my written recordings of my conversations — had a chance to review them before filing my statement.

    LANKFORD: Do you have a copy of any those notes, personally?

    COMEY: I don’t. I turned them over to Bob Mueller’s investigators.

    LANKFORD: The individual that you told about your memos, that then sent on to the New York Times — do they have a copy of those memos, or were they told orally of those memos?

    COMEY: Had a copy — had a copy at the time.

    LANKFORD: Do they — do they still have a copy of those memos?

    COMEY: That’s a good question. I think so. I guess I can’t say for sure, sitting here, but I — I — I guess I don’t know, but I think so.

    LANKFORD: So the question is, could you ask them to hand that copy right back to you, so you could hand them over to this committee?

    COMEY: Potentially.

    LANKFORD: I would like to move that from “potential” to “see if we can ask that question,” so we can have a copy of those. Obviously those notes are exceptionally important to us to be able to go through the process so we can — we can continue to get to the facts as — as we see it. As you know, the written documents are exceptionally important.LANKFORD: Are there other documents that we need to be aware of that you used in your preparation for your written statement that we should also have, that would assist us in helping with this?

    COMEY: Not that I’m aware of, no.

    It could be he turned them over before he composed the statement and he reviewed notes that were in somebody else’s possession.

    Comey is tricky.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  330. We’ve always had “ideologies” which have gone to “war”. The late nineteenth and early twentieth century was replete with violent anarchists who fought on behalf of their beliefs — but that doesn’t mean that it was possible to have an *officially declared war* against them. They were too diffuse and structureless for that.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  331. > If this POTUS, or the last one, or the last several before that, have overplayed their constitutional hand, the Congress certainly hasn’t fought back effectively

    I completely agree!

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  332. Mike K 262: An article from 2009 — The Evil-Mongering of the AMA

    But how has the AMA managed to get away with such princely remuneration that ordinary mortals in other professions–even ones such as law and engineering that also require arduous training–can only dream of? After all, in a functioning market, a profession offering such handsome returns would become a magnet for more people who, over time, would bid down “excess” wages.

    But that’s not how it has worked in medicine since 1910 when the Flexner report, commissioned by the AMA, declared that a surplus of substandard medical schools in the country were producing a surplus of substandard doctors. The AMA convinced lawmakers to shut down “deficient” medical schools, drastically paring back the supply of doctors almost 30% over 30 years. No new medical schools have been allowed to open since the 1980s.

    Still, the AMA along with other industry organizations until recently had issued dire warnings of an impending physician “glut” (whatever that means beyond depressing member wages), even convincing Congress to limit the number of residencies it funds to about 100,000 a year. This imposes a de facto cap on new doctors every year given that without completing their residencies from accredited medical schools, physicians cannot obtain a license to legally practice medicine in the U.S. Even foreign doctors with years of experience in their home countries have to redo their residencies–along with taking a slew of exams–before they are allowed to practice here.

    The upshot of all this is that now the country is facing an acute shortage of doctors that even the AMA and its sister organizations cannot deny anymore. Indeed, the Association of American Medical Colleges, a private nonprofit industry advisory group whose forecasts effectively determine how many new doctors will be allowed at any given time, reversed itself in 2002 issuing this belated apology: “It now appears that those predictions [of a glut] may be in error.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  333. 332. Well, yes I think I relied on the New York Post.

    I didn’t understand that to mean he fled the jurisdiction, just that he may be avoiding subpoenas, which people can do for a while. If reporters can’t find him, probably a process server can’t also.

    He may be avoiding a subpoenas from Congress. And that he may turn them over to Mueller before he can get subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. But we’ll see.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  334. I thought it was the slant 6 what killed Walt Koslawski.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  335. I confess to having read the Reacher books, but I don’t hold him up as anything more than guilty-pleasure pulp you can read almost as fast as you can turn the pages of. He’s gotten predictable and repetitive. It’s fair to summarize all his books as having one theme: Don’t mess with military policemen. That’s his angle, he’s made good money from it (including some from me), but yeah, there are other and better popular fiction writers.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/13/2017 @ 3:06 pm

    Jack Reacher doesn’t raise objections…

    He walks through them.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  336. Give Comey enough credit to know that he could not conceal his memos by turning them over to a third party.

    nk (dbc370)

  337. Some Senators were obviously trying to get Sessions to say that Trump had talked to him, or in his presence, about firing Comey because of something to do with the Russia investigation, and if he did, to then argue that Sessions had violated the terms of his recusal by participating any more in any decision to fire Comey.

    What they would gain then, I’m not 100% sure. I guess they could then step up demands for Sessions’ resignation and maybe get a someone not loyal to Trump who would conspire against Trump, in the A.G. position.

    Sessions, speaking in general, argued that the Russia investigation was only one case, and shouldn’t preclude involvement in deciding who would be the person in charge – also that Comey’s firing didn’t affect the investigation.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  338. But he doesn’t want them concealed, does he? He wants them leaked strategically.

    nk (dbc370)

  339. 342. nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2017 @ 4:12 pm

    Give Comey enough credit to know that he could not conceal his memos by turning them over to a third party.

    Not if that third party was a special prosecutor.

    He could keep them under wraps for two or three years till (he hopes) it no longer matters.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  340. By the way, Mike K, I’m familiar with St Georges. I know someone who went to vet school there. They have established medical and vet schools. It is one of the older Caribbean schools. (Did you know the accreditation process is different for the Caribbean schools than it is for US and Canadian med schools? I bet you did but I didn’t.) You might want to correct Wiki if it wrong but it says the Liaison Committee of the AAMC and the AMA accredits medical schools. When was St Georges accredited? It started in 1976 but it wasn’t accredited until later, was it?

    DRJ (15874d)

  341. Mr. Finkelman, with due respect, as someone who’s hired lots of process servers to serve lots of subpoenas:

    There’s a difference between refusing to open your door to a reporter and refusing to open it for a process server, properly identified. You’re conflating two things that are wildly dissimilar. Don’t accuse a man of ducking a subpoena until there’s a subpoena issued, perhaps.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  342. 344. nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2017 @ 4:15 pm

    .But he doesn’t want them concealed, does he? He wants them leaked strategically.

    He did that already.

    One of his leaks was for the purpose of creating the special counsel (he says)

    COLLINS: And finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the Department of Justice?

    COMEY: Yes.

    COLLINS: And to whom did you show copies?

    COMEY: I asked — the president tweeted on Friday, after I got fired, that I better hope there’s not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might be a tape.

    And my judgment was, I needed to get that out into the public square. And so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.

    COLLINS: And was that Mr. Wittes?

    COMEY: No, no.

    COLLINS: Who was that?

    COMEY: A good friend of mine who’s a professor at Columbia Law School.

    The name of that person, who had possibly already been mentioned in some forum somewhere by Comey, came out later.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  343. Apparently the med school was accredited in 1996.

    DRJ (15874d)

  344. Now why would it be that Comey thought it was importaqnt to get the content, or some of the content, of the Feb 14 conversation, out into the public square.

    One thing that doesn’t make sense here is tghat having a tape would make it important to get it out. I could unserstand safe to get it out.

    It would be “important” would be if a tape, of this or another conversation (like the Jan 27 “loyalty” one he’d already leaked about?), undermined him. If it helped him, the word would be “safe.”

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  345. This professed super-keen interest in Russian “hacking” by the Democrats and their media operatives with bylines is a fairly recent occurrence. They aren’t fooling anyone…

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/14/ted-kennedy-made-secret-overtures-to-russia-to-prevent-ronald-reagans-re-election/

    Colonel Haiku (db083c)

  346. 349. It’s not about nothing. It’s about creating an argument for Sessions to resign on the grounds taht he’d violated the terms of his recusal or to start an argument about covering things up.

    Of course the question is, what would collusion exactly consist of? How would that work? I can see penetration of his campaign by Russia and influencing Trump, (which Democrats don’t seem to be so interested in, and maybe also not Republicans) with both (false) politically cynical and (false) national interest policy arguments, but I can’t see Trump himself being bribed or blackmailed.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  347. Same reason he leaked the “stone cold silence” from Lynch last night – it shapes the news coverage and congressional questions. Trump ripped off Comey’s mask and revealed the crap weasel beneath.

    crazy (d3b449)

  348. Comey takes credit for forcing the appointment of a special counsel.

    But Rod Rosenstein, who actually did that, hasn’t ever said that, nor did the appointment make any reference to Comey, nor to anything more specific than a general reference to the “public interest” component of the appointment regulation (as distinct from the “we might have an internal conflict” prong of the regulation).

    So why does anyone accept as gospel Comey’s self-interested, egotistical assertion, made without a bit of proof and in fact based entirely on Comey’s speculation?

    I think in fact it’s overwhelmingly likely that Rosenstein had already decided to appoint a special counsel even before Comey was fired, because before he made any public announcement of such an appointment, he would have to (i) contact the prospective special counsel, who’d have his own questions that would have to be answered before announcing a decision to take the appointment, including a consideration of his own potential conflicts of interest, and (ii) then get the DoJ internal ethics specialists’ independent evaluation of the prospective new special counsel’ fitness. Now, it’s true that these kinds of decisions are often, of necessity, compressed into a very tight time-frame. But it’s one measured in days, not minutes or hours.

    Regardless, why take Comey’s self-aggrandizing version of events?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  349. How Flynn may ahve postponed the fall of Raqqa, the capital of ISIS, for 2 or 3 months:

    (now this is leaks that tried to shift the blame to Trump, like Trump knows everythibng Flynn is doing)

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/13/juan-williams-more-questions-than-answers-on-flynn.html

    Most alarming, in the days before Trump became president, the Obama administration advised Flynn that they planned to take the fight against the terrorists to Raqqa. Susan Rice, then the national security advisor to President Obama, spoke to Flynn because the fight was certain to continue under the Trump administration.

    And what did Flynn tell Rice?

    The Washington Post reported Flynn said bluntly: “Don’t approve it.” The attack was delayed from January until last week.

    Why did Flynn and the incoming Trump team delay the offensive?

    As Vera Bergengruen reported for McClatchy newspapers last month, Flynn’s stand-down order to Rice and the Pentagon was “consistent with the wishes of Turkey, which had long opposed the United States partnering with Kurdish forces — and which was his undeclared client.”

    i think it is incorrect to say the attack was delayed from January to June. It wouldn’ty have started tilll February or March.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  350. For that matter, we don’t even know that Mueller was the only potential special counsel that Rosenstein approached.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  351. And still it seemed to catch Comey by surprise. If Mueller kept Rosenstein’s inquiries from Comey maybe he’s keeping other things from him as well…

    crazy (d3b449)

  352. #207, Liviticus, a more careful reading of my comment at #178 would have revealed a sharp distinction between the benefits available to natural born citizens and the inappropriate access thereto for legal immigrants. No safety net benefits should ever be extended to illegal aliens.

    ropelight (f923af)

  353. 355. Beldar (fa637a) — 6/13/2017 @ 4:35 pm

    Comey takes credit for forcing the appointment of a special counsel.

    But Rod Rosenstein, who actually did that, hasn’t ever said that, nor did the appointment make any reference to Comey, nor to anything more specific than a general reference to the “public interest” component of the appointment regulation (as distinct from the “we might have an internal conflict” prong of the regulation).

    That wasn’t fuilly explained, but might be based on the idea that his leak(s) created a public controversy about Trump possibly wanting to impede the Russain investigation. And we don’t know whqat Comey was telling people to say privately within DOJ.

    Now, it’s true that these kinds of decisions are often, of necessity, compressed into a very tight time-frame. But it’s one measured in days, not minutes or hours.

    Rosenstein mighty have bene considering it, but was not decided.

    Regardless, why take Comey’s self-aggrandizing version of events?

    Because I thought this might be a confession he felt compelled to make because of what other people knew.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  354. If you ever drove an old car that stalled at red lights it’s easier to get used to a hybrid.

    Pinandpuller (fe6b08)

  355. Damn, that stall at stoplights situation experience also prepares you for stick because of having to shift into P or N instead of staying in D. Had that happen with a friends’ Delta 88 while driving a date back to her apartment from a fraternity formal.

    urbanleftbehind (68fba7)

  356. So, you are for unlimited Muslim immigration.

    Got it.

    Mike K (f469ea) — 6/13/2017 @ 8:32 am

    Are you talking to ME, Mike K?

    Surely not.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  357. I’ll refrain from letting you have it with both barrels until I know for sure.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  358. He wasn’t confessing, Mr. Finkelman, he was bragging about something as if he’d caused it, with there being no evidence that he’s right. Whenever the decision was made, it was announced after he was fired, though, so even you credit him with being able to read Rosenstein’s mind, you’ll have to account for their physical distance. Or do you think Comey views Rosenstein as a chum? Do you think Rosenstein was leaking to Comey, after writing the memo expressing the opinion that he gave to Sessions to give to Trump?

    You’re lost in twigs and leaves. Step back and look at some trees, then at the forest.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  359. For the intellectually honest among you, “it’s a policy result I don’t like” is a very simple concept articulated in very simple words.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  360. From the court decision:

    The parties dispute whether EO2 falls clearly within the President’s congressionally delegated authority. To be sure, § 1182(f) gives the President broad authority to suspend the entry of aliens or classes of aliens. However, this authority is not unlimited. Cf. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 129 (1958) (“[I]f that power is delegated, the standards must be adequate to pass scrutiny by the accepted tests.”); J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928) (“[L]egislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power” if Congress provides an “intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized . . . is directed to conform.”). Section 1182(f) requires that the President find that the entry of a class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.11 This section requires that the President’s findings support the conclusion that entry of all nationals from the six designated countries, all refugees, and refugees in excess of 50,000 would be harmful to the national interest. There is no sufficient finding in EO2 that the entry of the excluded classes would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

    Footnote: because § 1182(f) specifically provides for the President’s authority to suspend entry, our analysis proceeds under § 1182(f), understanding that the “reasonable rules, regulations, and orders” the President prescribes would need to, at a minimum, align with the President’s authority under § 1182(f).

    We construe the term “detrimental” to have its common-sense, dictionary definition. Detrimental is defined as “causing loss or damage; harmful, injurious, hurtful.” Detrimental, Oxford English Dictionary, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/51332?redirectedFrom=detrimental#eid. Throughout the opinion, in addition to the term “detrimental,” we also use its synonyms “harmful” and “injurious.”

    In oher words they hold that president’s “findings” are subject to review.

    Sammy Finkelman (b99a92)

  361. This nothing short of a rolling coup by the intelligence services, the Democrats and their operatives with bylines. They are trying to overturn the election.

    And I just heard and watched Catherine Herridge confirm that the sh*tbird law prof is providing info to the Special Counsel.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  362. Perhaps, if there’s to be further discussion of the Ninth Circuit decision (which I still haven’t read), we could get a new open thread on the Sessions testimony.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  363. What would Richman know except what Comey told him?

    crazy (d3b449)

  364. Patterico, at 366: for the intellectually honest among us, “it’s a policy result i don’t like AND it’s the correct reading of the law” is the kind of argument which garners respect.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  365. As is the opposite, “it’s a policy result I love AND it’s an incorrect reading of the law.”

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  366. 370… bingo, crazy.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  367. We declare war like Michael Scott declares bankruptcy.

    Pinandpuller (fe6b08)

  368. I wish when they were pounding Sessions about his refusal to answer and the basis for it, and were asking him to cite something written, he’d simply said: “You can go back farther if you’d like, but if you’re interested in executive privilege you might start with the Nixon tapes case and work your way forward through SCOTUS decisions, innumerable policy statements by executive department heads, dozens of different sections in the Code of Federal Regulations, and hundreds of past appearances by executive officials before Congress just like the one I’m making here today.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  369. That’s what Sessions will say to himself in the shower tomorrow morning, I’ll bet.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  370. We’re well beyond a dumbass rejection of a lawful policy decision, we’re taking an extended tour through Coupland, where democracy dies via a thousand spitwads thrown against the wall to see what sticks.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  371. Thanks, narciso. I think I’ll check out David Ignatius since Sessions mentioned him twice.

    Yeah, that’s my answer to “Do you like James Bond or Jason Bourne movies?”, too. “No”, today, “Yes”, another day. Kind of like Taco Bell burritos. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  372. @375- The last thing any of these witnesses want to do in any of their answers is make any reference or analogy on national television to Nixon, his tapes– and thus Watergate. They’re even straining to avoid saying ‘executive privilege’– the turn of phrase is ‘inappropriate to discuss.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  373. Just watched one of the worst appearances by a person on Carlson’s show that I have seen… some “National Security Analyst” clown named Arash Aramesh. You’d have to see it to believe it. What a douchebag.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  374. Kevin M, at 320: I think that to be a declared war, the authorization needs to name a specific *state* that we are at war with.

    How 20th century. And not even that. When the “War Powers Resolution” was adopted, Red China was not recognized as a state by the US, which pretended that Taiwan rightfully ruled. By your argument, the US could not have gone to war with the People’s Republic, even though they had hydrogen bombs.

    And today, ISIS is not a state but we may be at war with them soon.

    The Barbary Pirates, as such, were also not a state, but were sponsored and quartered in Ottoman satrapies.

    Where does it say they have to be “states” anyway? There’s lots of room between “states” and “poverty.”

    Kevin M (752a26)

  375. Patterico, at 366: for the intellectually honest among us, “it’s a policy result i don’t like AND it’s the correct reading of the law” is the kind of argument which garners respect.

    That is my argument, and it’s actually garnering me more derision than respect. But I care more about respect from someone like you than I do about derision from many others.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  376. If younwant the British angle read Matthew dunn OT Alex dryden, for the American Jason Matthews all he might be too much for your puritan sensibilities.

    So the plumbers are the people not in the room who have been feeding Schmidt entous Harris it al, its a bearded Spock universe.

    narciso (d1f714)

  377. The ninth circus certainly took a shortcoming innproclaiming there doctrine.

    narciso (d1f714)

  378. Having said that, however, I argued on 9/12 for a formal declaration of war against al qaeda and the Taliban BECAUSE I wanted the war demarked. Becasue it gives powers to the CIC, I want those powers GONE in peacetime.

    What we got was an AUMF which is pretty close, but seems to have more fuzzy boundaries. I blame Congress for its muddled War Powers Resolution, and I blame several (Democrat) Presidents for ignoring even those rules.

    But this is all a digression, because there has been no attempt by the courts to separate out wartime actions from peacetime, when the reasons for Trump’s actions are at least colorably with respect to an ongoing military danger from unlawful combatants. Trump’s assertions as to security needs shouldn’t be ignored by a court that needs to respect the other branches.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  379. Beldar

    I just noticed your confession in the Reacher “matter” wasn’t signed so I’m going to see it gets tossed.

    Pinandpuller (fe6b08)

  380. Wait, this isn’t talk like a TV Lawyer Day?

    Pinandpuller (fe6b08)

  381. Thevproblem is this war is we are targeting primarily non state actors in the .in Aq and Islamic stat, they have added by Saudi gen intelligence Syrian mukharabat Pakistani iris but were spot explicitly targeting them.

    narciso (d1f714)

  382. Wyden and King are utter chickensh*ts. They both certainly know who executive privilege belongs to — duh, the Executive — and they also knows that no lawyer or other subordinate has the power to make a decision whether or not to invoke it, and he knows that blurting out privileged information would be a breach of the lawyer or subordinate’s duties to his principal — just as it was when Saint James Comey leaked the substance of such a communication with the POTUS to reporters via a cutout.

    The hypocrisy is really sickening.

    I wish Sessions had said to one of them: “Look, quit pretending. If you’re right, you should be able to get a judge to agree with you. Argue to your fellow committee members that you should all go to court, try to cite me for contempt of Congress, and let’s see how badly you get chastised — not by the courts, but by your more sane Democratic colleagues who know how badly you’d get laughed out of court for your dishonesty.”

    I’m confused by this. Is Sessions allowed to refuse to answer questions even though Trump has not invoked executive privilege, on the grounds that he *might* invoke it? So a President never has to invoke the privilege, yet it can apply in perpetuity on the idea that it could be invoked? Or am I misunderstanding your position? This is not a challenging question but one seeking information.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  383. We child was a unemployed panatoma writer the folks who think the BBC is too right wing, his animus toward institutions is quite clear in the books

    narciso (d1f714)

  384. Are blog comments the new poor man’s copyright? Can I get a witness?

    Pinandpuller (fe6b08)

  385. No Puritan would say that I have Puritan sensibilities. I have come to the conclusion, though, that the porn filler in otherwise good action stories is intended to extend their appeal to women. I should have realized it earlier — the ginormous romance novel market which is now mostly X-rated (and I mean more than 50 Shades of Gray) should have been a clue.

    nk (dbc370)

  386. So we couldn’t do a traditional war declaration more like our campaign against the Barbara pirates.

    narciso (d1f714)

  387. In joshing red sparrow is well you know what sparrows are in russia, an adder filliphe has a recipe for every chapter.

    narciso (d1f714)

  388. Are blog comments the new poor man’s copyright?

    Yes. Keep your paws off my comments.

    The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.

    nk (dbc370)

  389. I’m confused by this. Is Sessions allowed to refuse to answer questions even though Trump has not invoked executive privilege, on the grounds that he *might* invoke it? So a President never has to invoke the privilege, yet it can apply in perpetuity on the idea that it could be invoked? Or am I misunderstanding your position? This is not a challenging question but one seeking information.

    That appears to be the pitch these witnesses have been throwing in these hearings over the past few weeks; asserting a privilege the President has not asserted but might someday. Go figure.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  390. So when the matter concerned a danegeld to the sepah it was all good

    http://www.independentsentinel.com/democrats-obama-met-russian-ambassador-kislyak-schumer-met-putin

    narciso (d1f714)

  391. Steve57 (0b1dac)

  392. With respect to Session’s testimony today, he said on several occasions it would be inappropriate to discuss conversations with the President as he may not have reviewed the full content of the conversations and thus it would compromise the President invoking ‘executive privilege’ some time in the future. Coats and Rogers had similar responses last week.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  393. Maybe Sessions is Ghost Dog and Trump is his retainer. That would explain a lot like why pigeons delivered his recusal letter.

    Pinandpuller (fe6b08)

  394. Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 6/13/2017 @ 3:25 pm

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  395. I don’t need my client by my elbow to tell me not to discuss privileged communications I’ve had from him. It’s enough to know that the privilege exists and that it is his, not mine.

    nk (dbc370)

  396. Kislyak is Ukrainian by birth, fwiw, his successor antonov u
    Is a real hardliner

    narciso (d1f714)

  397. “No Puritan would say that I have Puritan sensibilities. I have come to the conclusion, though, that the porn filler in otherwise good action stories is intended to extend their appeal to women. I should have realized it earlier — the ginormous romance novel market which is now mostly X-rated (and I mean more than 50 Shades of Gray) should have been a clue.”

    nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2017 @ 6:03 pm

    He was on his 137th bodice-ripper before it hit him.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  398. Ashcroft didn’t have to recluse either

    http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/448615/jeff-sessions-recusal-unnecessary

    You notice the deems never have such hangups

    narciso (d1f714)

  399. I think confidentiality can only be waived by the client, not the lawyer. Maybe executive privilege can only be waived by the President, not his agent.

    DRJ (15874d)

  400. Our host asked (#390):

    Is Sessions allowed to refuse to answer questions even though Trump has not invoked executive privilege, on the grounds that he *might* invoke it? So a President never has to invoke the privilege, yet it can apply in perpetuity on the idea that it could be invoked?

    To the first question: Yes, absolutely, he can and should refuse to answer. By appearing voluntarily, he did not necessarily consent to waive privilege on any potentially privileged communications.

    I face this every time I take the witness stand to prove up my fees. Some jackass inevitably will try to get behind the redactions in my time records (which I’ve been obliged to provide through pretrial discovery), and to try to force me to answer questions like, “What did your client tell you on May 7th when you had this 0.75-hour conference? You’ve redacted the subject of the conversation, and I want to know.” If I’m there with a colleague, he can object to preserve the objection, and if the client is there, he can take instruction on the spot about whether to voluntarily waive privilege as to that Q&A. If (as is more often the case) I’m there by myself, I have to do that even from my witness chair.

    But the privilege belongs to the principal, not the agent, and the agent’s duty as a fiduciary includes doing everything reasonably practicable to preserve the principal’s confidences, and to avoid accidentally waiving them by blurting them out, and to give the principal the best opportunity possible to assert the privilege.

    There may have been some past occasions on which POTUSes have nevertheless decided, in advance, in anticipation of particular lines of questioning, to instruct an AG to answer questions on that topic, even if they would thereby disclose confidential communications exchanged between the POTUS and AG. My impression is that that’s quite rare, however.

    Likewise, when the POTUS has already himself released something as to which privilege might have been claimed — e.g., the text of the Rosenstein memo and Sessions cover-letter about Comey, which the POTUS deliberately put into the public domain — the AG can certainly acknowledge that. He need not pretend the POTUS hasn’t done so, or that the substance of the communications contained in those documents are still privileged.

    To the second question: No, the refusal to answer won’t shield the POTUS in perpetuity. I wish that Sessions had said:

    Let’s cut out the posturing here, which is only Democratic members are engaging in. If you think you’re entitled to compel my testimony on that, go back and ask your ranking member to insist that your committee subpoena me, make your record, and then go to court to try to cite me for contempt of Congress, whereupon the POTUS can (probably through the WH counsel’s office) renew his appropriate formal objections on grounds of executive, attorney-client, pending investigation, work product, or any other legal privileges, and a court can resolve them, as in the Nixon tapes case. Put up or shut up, Senator. We all know the responsible members of your own committee won’t let this get that far.

    But it could, if there were any real doubt about whether this invocation of privilege, if formally asserted in that setting, were or weren’t valid. (I don’t think there’s any doubt.)

    Indeed, if these senators were serious about trying to pierce or challenge executive or other privileges, they’d have started with a subpoena, and probably been obliged to put their questions into written form as a result. They aren’t serious about overcoming privilege, this is just the best thing they can think to whine about today.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  401. I’m rank amateur compared to this fellow who had been on this issue for a dozen years:
    https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/06/12/one-year-after-pulse-night-club-attack-orlando-sentinel-gaslights-omar-mateens-motive/

    How many more known wolves are out there, that should be the subject of a hearing or two.

    narciso (d1f714)

  402. (And in fact, usually most judges won’t wait for any objection, whether from me or a colleague back at counsel table, when some jackass tries to delve into obviously privileged communications. Especially if done in front of a jury, it’s a good way to get your knuckles rapped sharply and an admonition to sin no further or face worse.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  403. You are right, narciso. The Dems decline requests to appear and – through the magical collusion of the Democrat operatives with teh bylines – wait out the scandal, which disappears after a week or two. Rinse. Repeat.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  404. One one winders who is actually expediting the transfer if the Iranians. Ft. Austrakia, who is looking the other way on other issues as shipwrecked pointed out, the president is well within discretion.

    narciso (d1f714)

  405. I was in a situation, though, where I was called as a witness in a case against a former client. He had a new attorney to represent him. The judge told me, in a nice way, that as a witness on the stand I could not interpose the objection that a question by opposing counsel asked for privileged communications. My client’s new attorney would need to do that.

    nk (dbc370)

  406. Opposing counsel did abandon that line of questioning, however.

    nk (dbc370)

  407. I Imagine how hard it is for sessions to keep a civil tongue when what might be warranted is a major slave approach.

    I think trumps major falling was to give up general flynn everything else stems from that move. Was pence really going to resign over that

    narciso (d1f714)

  408. I think the problem folks are having with the privilege issue is that you are trying to transpose a courtroom privilege into a non-courtroom setting.

    First, Sessions isn’t testifying before the Senate as a private citizen. He’s testifying as an Executive Branch Cabinet Officer — he’s testifying as a representative of the President.

    With respect to his refusal to answer, the only questions that he refused to answer had to do with questions about his conversations with the President. I think he rightfully took the position that the President is entitled to have the advice of his cabinet officers on all manner of subjects, and there is a separation of powers problem that arises if the Congress could simply drag Cabinet officials into hearings and ask the to divulge the substance of the conversations.

    Because the privilege belongs to the Executive — it can’t be waived by a subordinate. So if Sessions was to answer questions about his conversations with Trump, he would be committing an unauthorized disclosure — like Comey did when he distributed his memos.

    The Senators can submit follow-up questions to the WH and AG, and ask if the President is going to invoke Exec. Privilege or not. If he chooses not to, then the questions can be answered in writing, or the AG can testify again.

    But until the questions are asked, its hard to predict whether or not the Pres. might want to keep the conversations privileged, or whether he’s willing to allow Sessions to answer.

    The WH may now come back and say “We are invoking Exec. Priv. on all matters concerning AG Sessions’ discussions with Pres. Trump re Comey.” Its not enough that Congress wants to know what they talked about — Congress is going to need a good reason to invade the privilege because at the core of the issue is a dispute between co-equal branches of government.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  409. He wore tie. You just don’t see that anymore.

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/tues%20above%20the%20fold.jpg

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  410. This is the way santos got rid of arias a prospective rival.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-panamanian-ricardo-martinelli-president-detained-in-u-s-1497325702

    narciso (d1f714)

  411. I like all the handwringing over his “I don’t recall” answers.

    I love those in a courtroom because its impregnated with an ambiguity.

    When you ask a witness about an event, and the response is “I don’t recall”, that is open to 2 interpretations unless it is cleaned up with another question or two.

    “I don’t recall” can mean the witness currently has a failure of recollection about the event in question, and the subject of the question posed might have happened, the witness just doesn’t remember as of the date of the question being asked.

    The second “I don’t recall” is a definitive “I don’t recall that happening”, meaning I was there, I remember the event in question, and my memory is such that what your are suggesting did not happen.

    One is a failure of memory, the other is my memory is fine and that did not happen.

    Which answer did Sessions give?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  412. Sessions is indeed invoking executive privilege, then. His honest position (as an attorney would take) is: until the holder of the privilege waives it, I am invoking it.

    I don’t think, however, that a lawyer could get away with taking the position: “I am not answering the question, but I am not invoking attorney-client privilege.”

    The issue here is that the President could pay a political price for invoking executive privilege. But I do not care about his political price. If the refusal to answer is based on executive privilege, then that privilege should be cited or the witness should be held in contempt.

    Where am I wrong here? It seems to me they are trying to eat their cake and have it too.

    Patterico (364a29)

  413. He admitted ambassador kisyak was there, but he didn’t recall. Meeting him at the mayflower hotel there is no proof he did, its just thrown out there like chum in the water

    narciso (d1f714)

  414. They held Holder in contempt and what did that get anyone?

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  415. In other words, he can claim executive privilege even if Trump has not explicitly relied on it — but he can’t pretend he is not invoking executive privilege. And if he tries such a dishonest strategy, I get to mock him, and he should arguably be held in contempt.

    Patterico (364a29)

  416. They held Holder in contempt and what did that get anyone?

    Nothing, which annoys me.

    If they want their proceedings to be treated as real, they have to enforce sanctions for thumbing one’s nose at the process.

    Patterico (364a29)

  417. No he just finds tedious and not worth his time, I wouldn’t have gone to the hill, you get nothing out of feeding these crocodiles so you want be eaten next

    narciso (d1f714)

  418. This is stupid I am opening a new thread

    Nobody cares about the Ninth Circuit decision

    Patterico (115b1f)

  419. And that was about a real matter, fast and furious weapons keep popping up, most recently in Guzman loeras layer,

    narciso (d1f714)

  420. Take your comments about Sessions and executive privilege here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  421. Its about lawfare, I illustrated tube boumeddien example earlier:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/omriceren/status/874589937970159616/photo/1

    narciso (d1f714)

  422. The issue here is that the President could pay a political price for invoking executive privilege. But I do not care about his political price. If the refusal to answer is based on executive privilege, then that privilege should be cited or the witness should be held in contempt.

    Where am I wrong here? It seems to me they are trying to eat their cake and have it too.

    Right, Patterico. You’ve nailed it exactly. I’m not a lawyer but that seems to be the way it is supposed to tumble.

    But it won’t.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  423. Moving to new thread for comments responding to recent ones here from swc and our host, thank you!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  424. “I wish that Sessions had said:

    ‘Let’s cut out the posturing here, which is only Democratic members are engaging in. If you think you’re entitled to compel my testimony on that, go back and ask your ranking member to insist that your committee subpoena me, make your record, and then go to court to try to cite me for contempt of Congress, whereupon the POTUS can (probably through the WH counsel’s office) renew his appropriate formal objections on grounds of executive, attorney-client, pending investigation, work product, or any other legal privileges, and a court can resolve them, as in the Nixon tapes case. Put up or shut up, Senator. We all know the responsible members of your own committee won’t let this get that far.’

    That’s might make you feel good it’s a foolish.

    The last thing any of these witnesses want to do in any of their answers is make any reference or analogy on national television in a congressional hearing to Nixon, his tapes– and thus introduce discourse about Watergate into the Q&A. The blow back in the responses would be a PR disaster.

    Get in, get through and get out w/minimal damage– that’s what Jefferson Beauregard did.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  425. ^ typo. That’s might make you feel good but it’s a foolish idea.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  426. I care about the Ninth Circuit decision, but I haven’t read it, or the statutes, closely enough to have an opinion that I’d care to share about it here. If SCOTUS takes it, I’ll probably look then. I’m not minimizing the importance of this topic, nor even of this case, but I’m inclined to lump this for now into the category of “disputes that are likely to be mooted by events or further act of Congress or a change in direction by the administration,” so until proved otherwise I’ll probably not invest the time.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  427. , he just stopped talking anymore to the press, which seems quite prudent and understandable.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/13/2017 @ 3:46 pm

    How do you say “Who will leak for the leakers” in Latin?

    Maybe he’s feeding birds at the beach.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  428. They should have a process server cam at Yankee Stadium.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  429. Damn, that stall at stoplights situation experience also prepares you for stick because of having to shift into P or N instead of staying in D. Had that happen with a friends’ Delta 88 while driving a date back to her apartment from a fraternity formal.
    urbanleftbehind (68fba7) — 6/13/2017 @ 4:52 pm

    Before they put a switch in the clutch I used the starter motor of my ’80 Toy to pull me out of an intersection when I ran out of gas.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  430. It probably is worth noting that this panel consists of three Clinton appointees.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  431. That said, I still agree with them.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  432. “You’ve got a subpoena! And you’ve got a subpoena! And you got served! And you’ve got a bench warrant!”

    Coming in August: Oprah Winfrey Process Server

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  433. The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.
    nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2017 @ 6:07 pm

    Sounds like a conflict of interest.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  434. June 13, 2017: Watergate scandal stages a TV comeback amid the crisis facing Trump

    http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-watergate-news-nostalgia-20170609-story.html

    DCSCA (797bc0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2625 secs.