Trump's Tweets - De-ranting Washington's Rules of Civili-Tweeting.

Ok, so... as my Monday rant on the furor over Trump's Tweets has faded from my blood pressure, some questions have surfaced about it - sorry, but rants being what they are, it may not have been too clear on who or what my rant was directed at in the wake of Trump's tweets.

No, I was not ranting against Trump... directly. I was more ranting over how the ludicrous offendocrats (Left, Right & Center), have dutifully ignored ALL of the instances of truly anti-American, racist, mendacious, tyrannical and ideological norms that've run amuck in our Politically Correct world today (I'd hoped that the many links in the rant would point ya'll's attention that-a-way). Outrages which they've  so easily and entirely ignored for decades, and yet these same flustered pearl-clutchers come wide awake and fully aroused, when Trump tactlessly points out some harsh opinions, flawed facts and obvious truths, causing themselves, the media, and the various 'spheres (Twitter, Blogger, etc) to spaz out with an:

"Egads! The Orange Man has failed to be a shining example of George Washington's Rules of Civility! Burn him! And everyone who agrees with him!"

They vent their outrage over Trump's Tweets, while ignoring the fact that they themselves not only utterly fail to live up to that ideal (in everything from Pink Pussy Hats & Slut Walks, to violently silencing Free Speech & fascist antifa terrorism and thuggery, etc), but it's a standard that they've been actively ridiculing for decades (again, see my rant's links).

To give the short answer first, before getting into the details of why, no, Trump's Tweets were not racist, and what is most upsetting about the the outrage over Trump's Tweets, is that there's nothing, nothing, to be upset about in them - the outrage you find there, is your own. And by focusing on these four, the outrages of thousands of others, are ignored. But if racist is what you're looking for, I'll be happy to direct you to a select few of the many comments of Omar, Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, and more, that are racist, and biggoted, and anti-Semitic and anti-American. That being said though, Trump's Tweets were worded in such a way as to guarantee an uproar, and as bad as that is, what's worse is that it's very likely the only way that We The People of today would take notice of what desperately needs being taken notice of, and now. Sad.

To be clear about what direction I'm coming at this from, as I've said too many times before, I'm not a Trump Supporter (though I most definitely used Trump's name on my ballot to counter the greater threat to the nation in the Pro-Regressive Hillary presidency posed), but I'm also not a Trump Hater, I'm simply not a fan, and haven't been since the 1980's (even in his "Art of the Deal", he showed a willingness to use govt to aid his own ends, which I'm opposed to, and his personal style in doing so, doesn't appeal to me), but I've never had reason to think him to be a fool, or a racist, or a fascist, or a [insert idiotic blank here], and while I've been unsurprised at the number of his missteps, loose comments, self-inflicted tweets, etc., that's he's made, I've also been pleasantly surprised, and pleased by the majority of his actual actions in office, especially those which involve reducing regulations, making generally good use of the military, and the judiciary - mostly in the lower courts, as Kavanaugh is about what I expected of him, yet Gorsuch was a very pleasant surprise.

What I do support politically, is our Constitutional form of representative, limited govt, where Govt's powers are limited to upholding and defending Individual Rights and (and that last 'and' is only

Mitt Romney blows a sour note on his Trumpet

Some people, especially NeverTrumpr’s, are wondering why people haven't been especially welcoming to Mitt Romney’s ‘op-ed’ attacking Trump’s character flaws.

Personally, I'm more surprised about how those NeverTrump'rs who identify as being 'conservatives', and especially those veterans of the Tea Party, who see themselves as being level headed, reasonable, people, somehow find credibility and justification for the actions of a self described 'progressive conservative' who never met a political principle he wouldn't bend or break, a political machinist who often belittled and undermined the Tea Party movement, a voter defined 3+ time loser of the POTUS races, who has now decided to make his entrance into the legislative body as a Junior Senator from Utah (again, conveniently), by penning an attack piece in the hostile pages of the Washington Post, upon the successfully elected President of the United States and leader of his political party.

This is really someone you want to hear from?

His op-ed purports to be making an important statement, yet states only banal baselines and personal beliefs (often at odds with his own history) that amounts to little more than a slew of three year old warmed over obviousness (at best), providing no new or courageous insights, nor anything else that is new to anyone in the English speaking world (and beyond). On top of that, he's doing this in the midst of negotiations over a 'govt shutdown' concerning border policies that have been central to his party's politics (and his own recent senatorial campaign), which can only serve to undercut both the POTUS and the political aims of his entire party.

Who's interests, besides his own, did this op-ed serve? What is there in this that is admirable? Anyone? Bueller?

For those NeverTrump'rs who do somehow wonder at the response to Romney's op-ed, I wonder if they've considered the possibility that people’s displeasure with the very moral Mitt's musings, might have something to do with their own very clear memories of how his idea of showing 'character' in politics, in practice, has repeatedly meant his demonstrating a spineless RINO'ism and affinity for appealing to media favor by making politically correct statements and gestures, often in support of policies that the 'conservative' wing of his party has traditionally been in deep opposition to, rather than by demonstrating the character and effectiveness required for taking actual principled stands? SoOo... maybe they simply have less than zero interest in hearing yet another ration of Mitt's self-serving 'Cap'n Obvious' preachings to them, about anything whatsoever at all?

One former Tea Party NeverTrumpr friend of mine, deploying all of his famously persuasive skills, actually expressed his surprise over the op-ed's reception, in this manner,

"... It’s fascinating to see the trump apologists and cultists not address a single point Romney made, but rather go 110% ad hominem on him. It’s almost like they can’t bear to admit he’s right about their infantile and malicious Idol....."

That particular rhetorical flair, which NeverTrump'rs in general take great delight in applying to those who either support Trump, or who don't knock him enough, demonstrates a skill which I personally blame as being at least partly responsible for Trump winning the GOP nomination to begin with. When I noted some of the above as possible reasons for their dislike of Romney's opinion, my friend replied that Romney’s

"... a stand up family man with good character."

And ...? And so? Just in case anyone takes that as a relevant point, I'll point out that the character which one displays towards family and friends is of course very important, and laudable, but a political candidate is not running to be your family or friend, and if the character in question fails to effectively extend his positive character traits into the field which he is busily preaching to everyone else about... he really shouldn't be preaching about others  not having the full package of admirable character traits, when he himself is lacking more than a few (much more relevant) character traits himself.

My position on Romney is not a new one. Although I’ve had a general dislike for Trump since the 1980’s, I’ve been much more pointedly opposed to Romney's lack of political principles and political character since I first caught wind of his 'Massachussettes Miracle' and of course RomneyCare. I opposed him in the 2008 election, and in the primaries of 2012, when there were rumors that Romney was again working the establishment machine to become the GOP's nominee, I said:

"...Pardon my shocked look of surprise, but seriously, during a time when Mitt Romney can be considered a conservative... do you really expect actual conservative candidates and issues to come to the fore?

Sorry, but I don't, and I'm not shocked by how this campaign is shaping up...."

, he famously slung underhanded and 'unmannerly' political shenanigans in that, and every one of his other failed efforts to become President of the United States - what character is he now demonstrating in trying to present himself as some sort of conservative conscience? Too bad we can't call John McCain for a comment.

But for those who do want to have a point-by-point response to Romney's op-ed, I’m more than happy to oblige, I picked these points out on my first skim of his op-ed:

"...and the president’s thoughtless claim that America has long been a “sucker” in world affairs all defined his presidency down..."

This, from a man who's often and nearly always enthused about international treaties that limit and prescribe restrictive 'trade' rules upon America, while giving advantages and benefits to its 'allies', under the name of promoting the 'free market', is one of the reasons why Trump won.

"...To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation...."

That has the rancid odor of pro-regressive conceit & the 'nudge' of political correctness about it of the typical Pro-Regressive republican who believes that govt can 'help you' by making better decisions for you - which is also one of the reasons why Trump won. Preferably, of course, an American President should be of solid and admirable character, as well as experienced in demonstrating a solid understanding of, and willingness to defend, the concepts and principles that America was founded upon. Lacking that though (and pretending you don't lack that, because you don't want to admit it, is not an acceptable option), a candidate's unapologetic lack of that stature while demonstrating effectiveness in some relevant practical matters, is a far more preferable option, than a posturing and ineffective candidate who's prone to sucking up to the corrosive political correctness (Hello RomneyCare (which was not just a foolish ‘seems fair’ remedy option, ala Trump, but a vile legislative effort that reflected Romney's concerted thought and effort to devise – IOW there is no excuse for his assault upon basic American concepts and principles of govt), his nearly every public comment, etc) that a RINO fraud such as Romney exudes from his every inauthentic pore.

"...In a 2016 Pew Research Center poll, 84 percent of people in Germany, Britain, France, Canada and Sweden believed the American president would “do the right thing in world affairs.” One year later, that number had fallen to 16 percent...."

Those who after 8 years of the Obama administration, held an 84% confidence in the U.S.'s willingness and intention to 'do the right thing', are not the ones that I'm going to look to for an assessment of the U.S.'s intentions and ability to 'do the right thing'. Neither am I going to put much stock in those who do look to them for an opinion on the same.

"...we must repair failings in our politics at home. That project begins, of course, with the highest office ..."

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that our current problems and failings can begin to be repaired from the top-down by starting with the office of the POTUS, rather than by starting from the bottom-up with the American people, is, on that account, a fool.

"......America is strongest when our arms are linked with other nations. We want a unified and strong Europe, not a disintegrating union..."

As long as those nations we are to be linked with are aligned with supporting and enhancing America's best interests, rather than serving as a means of continuing their decades long demonstrated intention of pulling us down and climbing up onto our backs. That Romney, and other establishment types of the Left and Right, think that the E.U. is more aligned with American interests and values, than are those of those supporting Britain's Brexit, is yet another reason why Trump won.

"...I do not intend to comment on every tweet or fault...."

Except, no doubt, when it's useful to him, as he’s demonstrated again and again since his failed interview to be hired into Trump’s administration.

"...But I will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions..."

Or otherwise at odds with the media loving Politically Correct vision of being a 'statesmen-like' 'maverick!' - another reason why Trump won.

"...More importantly, noble instincts live in the hearts of Americans. The people of this great land will..."

The American people demonstrated in the 2012 election, that they would rather rebel over the expectations of those (such as Romney) who posture as being Pro-American, while in practice prefer groveling and kissing up to those ideals that are perniciously anti-American at their heart and core (again, RomneyCare demonstrated not only unprincipled political expediences, but directly reflected his pointed assessments and intentions), than be lectured to by them. Another reason why Trump won.

If we want a president that is better than Trump – and I do - we'd do well to stop making such opportunistic shows of giving regard and political respect, to those who've embodied the very failings that are at the root of the reasons for why Trump won. Maybe we should put more effort into promoting an understanding of those ideals, than with pumping up those who’ve repeatedly shown a lack of regard for and understanding of those ideals, just so they can try to deliver a public slap to Trump.

President Trump's terrible no good bad presser - Unless you actually read what was said, that is.(Update: Now with even more Treason!)

[Update below: Now with even more Treason!] SoOo... Trump & Putin's presser - quite the dust-up over it, eh? Hey... did you actually listen to the entire thing? Or just the reports of it? Huh. Well I hadn't seen or heard any of the press conference during the day, and I was at practice for the evening, but when I turned on the radio on my way home, I caught some of NPR's 'special coverage' of their summit, and I can't describe their attitude, comments, tonality, as anything other than comically over the top, even chortling with glee over Trump's comments which they more than hinted at being utterly inept, disgraceful and seemingly approaching 'treasonous', that I couldn't take them seriously, at least not without actually hearing the press conference.

When I got home, I googled up some news stories on it, and the Leftist side of the media aisle was fully compatible with NPR's take. And the view from the Right wasn't all that different. Fox's Trish Regan (sorry, no idea who she is... or much of anyone else still on the channel) had a clip saying:

"This was clearly not [President Trump's] best performance. He's done a whole lot better than this. He should have defended us. He should have defended his own intelligence community."

, and it went downhill from there. Again, lots of exuberant commentary, but... not much substance.

It was getting late, and I really wasn't in the mood, but... this seemed like something I'd better bother with, so I pulled up the full uncut video, from CNN, and the transcript from NPR, and watched.

WTH? I was promised weakness, ineptitude, 'treasonous statements!', and all of that was supposed to come out of this? Seriously? Worst of all, late as it is, here I'm at it, once again, having to stick up for someone that I've dislike since the 1980's, someone I'd much rather had lost the primaries in 2016, but... this spiel is not only wrong, but these wrongs are consequential to our lives, and so... here I go again, seeing to it that the wrongs are addressed. Sheesh.

From his prepared statement, I took issue with one statement, which I'll note below, that I think improperly brought domestic political disputes into an a discussion of international affairs, which was unwise and bad form. But... it wasn't all that. Or, IOW, Trump. Go figure. And the other issue was less a problem with what he said, but that he said it in the midst of a larger comment, that was way too easily one to be taken out of context. He knows better than that.

But first, from his statement, he made several decent points, and made the usual statements about the importance of good dialogue between America and Russia, and that,

From the earliest days of our republic, American leaders have understood that diplomacy and engagement is preferable to conflict and hostility.

A productive dialogue is not only good for the United States and good for Russia but it is good for the world. The disagreements between our two countries are well-known and President Putin and I discussed them at length today.

But if we're going to solve many of the problems facing our world, then we're going to have to find ways to cooperate in pursuit of shared interests. Too often in both recent past and long ago, we have seen the consequences when diplomacy is left on the table....

, and also that,

"... But our relationship has never been worse than it is now.

However, that changed, as of about four hours ago...."

Which you'd think would be encouraging, but which was unfortunately followed by what I mentioned above as an actual fault on his part:

"...As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics, or the media, or Democrats who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct..."

, that statement should have ended at "or the media", full stop. He never should have brought in issues of domestic politics into his statement at the press conference after an important international discussion. Yes the press was going to, but he should have left that to their own bad form. Bad Trump.

But that too, was followed shortly after by quite a good line, one that you'd think would be appreciated by all concerned,

"...Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia afford the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world.

I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics.

As president, I will always put what is best for America and what is best for the American people...."

On the issue that plagues the minds of media and NeverTrump'rs Left & Right, 'Russian interference!' in our elections, Trump stated that,

"...During today's meeting, I addressed directly with President Putin the issue of Russian interference in our elections.

I felt this was a message best delivered in person. I spent a great deal of time talking about it and President Putin may very well want to address it and very strongly, because he feels very strongly about it and he has an interesting idea...."

Given the fact that our own investigations into the alleged issue are still ongoing, and that zero evidence has been presented of actual the dread 'Russian Collusion!', that was all I, and I think most people needed or cared to see. Repeating: The investigation is still ongoing, there are no charges to be made, until there are charges actually made.

President Trump went on to mention other issues that might take some precedence over the medias preferred 'Russia!" narrative, like nuclear proliferation, the denuclearization of North Korea, and radical Islamic terrorism, and also that,

"...As we discussed at length, the crisis in Syria is a complex one...."

, keeping in mind that Trump has already bombed Putin's best mid eastern bud, Assad, and that,

"...I also made clear that the United States will not allow Iran to benefit from our successful campaign against ISIS. We have just about eradicated ISIS in the area...."

, and keeping in mind that Trump cancelled the Iran 'treaty'(an unsigned, pitiful, agreement), and  concluded with

"...This was a very constructive few hours that we spent together.

It's in the interest of both of our countries to continue our conversation and we have agreed to do so...."

That was on the whole a solid statement of the situation, and a reasonable expectation for starting towards improving relations. I've no problem with it, other than what I noted. Do you? If so, could you add a comment which references what in particular you have issue with?

Then the press dove in. The first made an effort to stir the pot, concluding with,

"And the second question, before the meeting with President Putin, you called him an adversary, a rival, and yet you expressed hope that you will be able to bring this relationship to a new level. Did you manage to do this?"

And for those who wanted Trump to 'STAND UP TO PUTIN!!!", I think he corrected the reporter, and set the right tone for that,

TRUMP: No, actually I called him a competitor and a good competitor he is.

And I think the word competitor is a compliment. I think that we will be competing, when you talk about the pipeline. I'm not sure necessarily that it's in the best interest of Germany or not but that was a decision that they made.

We'll be competing. As you know the United States is now or soon will be, but I think it actually is right now, the largest in the oil and gas world...."

Then we got a delightful does of Reuters:

REUTERS: Thank you. Mr. President, you tweeted this morning that it's U.S. foolishness, stupidity, and the Mueller probe that is responsible for the decline in U.S. relations with Russia. Do you hold Russia at all accountable or anything in particular? And if so, what would you what would you consider them that they are responsible for?

Not only was that a misstatement and conflation of what Trump said, but it ignored the fact that Trump already stated in his statement, that they had discussed points of deep disagreement over, and which he hoped progress would be made.

WTH else did they expect? Did they want Trump to curse Putin out, and maybe shove him off his podium? Did they want Trump to behave as the thug like to fantasize about him being?

Instead he answered, in part:

TRUMP: Yes I do. I hold both countries responsible. I think that the United States has been foolish. I think we've all been foolish. We should have had this dialogue a long time ago, a long time frankly before I got to office. And I think we're all to blame.

I think that the United States now has stepped forward, along with Russia, and we're getting together and we have a chance to do some great things...

, and,

"...But I do feel that we have both made some mistakes. I think that the, the probe is a disaster for our country. I think it's kept us apart, it's kept us separated. There was no collusion at all. Everybody knows it...

, for those who are upset that he said that we've made mistakes, I'm sorry, but I remember Bush doing nothing when Putin ransacked Georgia, and I remember Obama doing virtually nothing with Ukraine/Crimea - those were major mistakes of U.S. policy. He went on to give his very well known positions on the matter. The reporter continued,

REPORTER: For President Putin, if I could follow up as well. Why should Americans and why should President Trump believe your statement that Russia did not intervene in the 2016 election, given the evidence that U.S. intelligence agencies have provided? And will you consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a U.S. grand jury?...

Trump replied, but if you've heard him discuss the matter at all, it was more of his known opinions on the matter. But Putin's response was interesting:

PUTIN: As to who is to be believed and to who is not to be believed, you can trust no one – if you take this — where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him?

He defends the interests of the United States of America. And I do defend the interests of the Russian Federation. We do have interests that are common.

We are looking for points of contact. There are issues where our postures diverge and we are looking for ways to reconcile our differences, how to make our effort more meaningful....

This is not only gold,

"where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him?"

, but it should be the starting point of every one's thoughts on such issues, and if it isn't, if it's too much for you to grasp or consider, you really ought not to be discussing the matter at all. Putin is an ex-KGB officer, if you think that we can trust him, or that he has our best interests at heart, then you are a fool. He doesn't trust us, and we shouldn't trust him. But unfortunately he is the thug who's the ruler of the nuclear power of Russia, and to the extent that we can find areas where our interests align, then we do need to try and find a way to work together on them. Calling him names, isn't going to be helpful in that regard. But he also went on to make a couple other statements, that I suspect infuriate the media and talking heads a lot more than anything that Trump said, and which Trump is catching the heat for:

",,,We should be guided by facts. Could you name a single fact that definitively prove that collusion? This is utter nonsense.,,,"

, and to answer that with the extent of information that the Mueller investigation has so far revealed, the answer is: No, you cannot name a single fact that proves 'collusion'. Period. But it gets better. Putin went on to note that we do have existing treaties for extradition and interrogation of witnesses, and that of his 12 intelligence officers that Mueller recently indicted,

"...We can offer the appropriate commission headed by special attorney Mueller.

He can use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal and official request to us so that we would interrogate, we would hold the questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some crimes and our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States.

Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can make another step. We can actually permit official representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can lead them into the country and they will be present for this questioning...."

, but the kicker, to the heads of the NeverTrump'rs Left & Right, was that he 'is aware' that some of Russia's official 'colluded' with American officials, including Hillary:

...we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.

For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over one and a half billion dollars in Russia. They never paid any taxes, neither in Russian army in the United States and yet the money escaped the country, they were transferred to the United States.

They sent huge amount of money - 400 million - as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Well, that's their personal case, it might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal.

So we have a solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have an interest of questioning them. That can be a first step and we can also extend it. Options abound.

And they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

That's kinda a big deal. Even after you de-Pravadize it... that's a big deal. And it's my guess that that is what most of the uproar over this summit has really been about.

There was then some interesting (in a non-sensational way) geo-political questions and answers, until the AP Reporter brought us back to as much sensationalism as he could muster, and which prompted the excessive answer from Trump, that was easily taken out of context to make it sound like he was taking Putin's word, over U.S. Intelligence agencies:

REPORTER, AP: President Trump, you first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you sir is, who do you believe? My second question is would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016 and would you want him to never do it again?

And Trump of course jumped in with both feet, beginning with,

TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?

I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months..."

, and he continued on with more questions about missing servers and emails, and with this being followed by his previous statement that "...I addressed directly with President Putin the issue of Russian interference in our elections..." and that "...I spent a great deal of time talking about it and President Putin may very well want to address it and very strongly...", with that in mind, he then said a few lines, of which only the middle two are taken note of, sans that context:

"...With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.

My people came to me, Dan Coates, came to me and some others they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia.

I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be. But I really do want to see the server but I have, I have confidence in both parties...."

The obvious meaning of that, to me, and to most who don't have an abscess on their conspiracy glands, he's saying in essence, that "I've already told him that I'm pissed off about this, and such stuff had better end. I've told him that, he's denied involvement, whadoyouwannametodo, slap him around some?! We've accused him, he's denied it. Until we've got facts, we can go no further. But there are facts out there, and believe you me, I want those servers full of facts found!'

If you're able to view that entire press conference, and come away from it as President Trump saying he's best buds, lackey even, to Putin... well unless you can point to me the comments, in context, from the transcript that backs you up, then I've gotta say, that you have zero credibility in what you are saying.

But, hey. I could be wrong. How about you prove it?

Treason update:
For those who're still on the 'Treason!' kick, it might be worth your while to look into, you know, what Treason is defined as in our Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2, which is this:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

, and if you're curious why they came to that definition (which, interestingly, relies heavily on how an English King from the 1300's, Edward III, defined it), you can 'listen' to the framers discussing and debating what our Constitution would define as being treasonous, here,which begins with,

"Mr. Madison, thought the definition too narrow. It did not appear to go as far as the Stat. of Edwd. III. He did not see why more latitude might not be left to the Legislature. It wd. be as safe as in the hands of State legislatures; and it was inconvenient to bar a discretion which experience might enlighten, and which might be applied to good purposes as well as be abused.


Mr Mason was for pursuing the Stat: of Edwd. III.

Mr. Govr Morris was for giving to the Union an exclusive right ..."

Hopefully, if you're interested in bandying about charges of 'Treason!', you'll take the few minutes necessary to give that a look over.

And if you really care about how that applies to the real world, as my friend Jim asked: "Contextually, what is considered Aid and Comfort?", which is a very good question, and it seems that our Supreme Court has generally concluded that such a thing requires actions be taken, which... personally, I'm not so sure giving a press conference qualifies there, but that may just be me. But see for yourself, in this interesting commentary on the matter from a SCOTUS opinion during WWII, CRAMER v. UNITED STATES:

' "...Treason of adherence to an enemy was old in the law. It consisted of breaking allegiance to one's own King by forming an attachment to his enemy. Its scope was comprehensive, its requirements indeterminate. It might be predicated on intellecutal or emotional sympathy with the for, or merely lack of zeal in the cause of one's own country. That was not the kind of disloyalty the framers thought should constitute treason. They promptly accepted the proposal to restrict it to cases where also there was conduct which was 'giving them aid and comfort.'

Aid and comfort' was defined by Lord Reading in the Casement trial comprehensively, as it should be, and yet probably with as much precision as the nature of the matter will permit: '* * * an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemies of the King in the conduct of a war against the King, that is in law the giving of aid and comfort' and 'an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the King and of the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the King and the country * * * is * * * giving of aid and comfort.' Lord Reading explained it, as we think one must, in terms of an 'act.' It is not easy, if indeed possible, to think of a way in which 'aid and comfort' and be 'given' to an enemy except by some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation.

Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy—making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason...."

Hope that helps!

Judge Kavanaugh: Better than good - less than great - so much winning!

Before giving you my two cents on President Trump's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to fill the seat on the Supreme Court that's been left by the departing Justice Kennedy, here are a few links that give good overviews. This one gives a good, brief, synopsis and links to his own opinions and further information, "8 Things to Know About Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh", and this one by legal-eagle Johnathan Adler, (H/T Dana Loesch) "Justice Kavanaugh (Updated)" , gives a much more detailed overview, and a rich bevy of links for those who'd like to really dig into Kavanaugh's opinions. And for the deeply committed, here's a marvelous compilation of links to his opinions and snippets of them. But the one which I think gives the best insight into what makes Kavanaugh 'tic' judicially, is this, from "The Faculty Lounge": "A Window into Brett Kavanaugh’s Judicial Philosophy", which I'll pull from at the bottom of this post.

There's a link in Adler's post to a lecture that Kavanaugh gave, on "The Courts and the Administrative State", and "Separation of Powers During the FortyFourth Presidency and Beyond", which are tops on my reading list, but there's also a video of that lecture by Kavanaugh, which is quite interesting.

The lecture itself is not what I was hoping for, such as his commentary on what basis the 'Administrative State' has in the Constitution (IMHO, none that isn't tortuously stretched), but instead was instead his observations on the day to day realities of ruling on questions of law and regulatory law, and on that count it was interesting as commentary on Kavanaugh himself, and positively, I think.

One anecdote he related might be seen as a judicial restatement of the old Real Estate maxim, that "The three most important considerations in Real Estate are 'Location!, Location! and Location!", which as Kavanaugh relates:

"...Justice Felix Frankfurter used to describe as the three rules of resolving these kinds of cases: “(1) Read the statute; (2) read the statute; (3) read the statute!”

, which Kavanaugh later sums up as "Don't believe the hype that the words of the document don't matter", and that the letter of the law very much matters to judges who are attempting to interpret it, which is of course, reassuring.

The second point of his that stuck out to me, was this observation, that:

"Legislation is never one person sitting down and writing out a piece of legislation. It is the House, the Senate, and the executive branch—different parts of the House and Senate, different political parties—which write these laws together, and it is a compromise. When you read a statute and say this doesn’t make any sense, it is not because the person drafting it did not know what he or she was doing; it is because it was not a he or she drafting; it was a they drafting it.

So what does that mean? That means that the legislation’s precise terms were a compromise among multiple actors, and, as judges, if we do not adhere to that compromise, if we do not adhere to the text of the provisions, we are really taking sides and upsetting the compromise that was reached in the legislative process. So functionalists have come to agree with the importance of the text. I want to emphasize that the text is not the end-all of statutory interpretation. But the statutory text is very important in determining how to resolve questions whether the agency has violated statutory constraints on it."

I think that is a vital nugget, about the Law, and about Judge Kavanaugh's understanding of it... which is mostly, but not entirely, a good thing.

You see, what concerns me, and gives me pause about Judge Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy, is illustrated by this opening to one of his papers, 'Brett M. Kavanaugh, Keynote Address: Two Challenges for the Judge as Umpire: Statutory Ambiguity and Constitutional Exceptions,'

"Justice Scalia believed in the rule of law as a law of rules. He wanted judges to be umpires, which ordinarily entails judges applying a settled legal principle to a particular set of facts. I agree with that vision of the judiciary. But there are two major impediments in current jurisprudence to achieving that vision of the judge as umpire. The first is the ambiguity trigger in statutory interpretation. The second is the amorphous tests employed in cases involving claimed constitutional exceptions. We should identify and study these issues. Inspired by Justice Scalia’s longstanding efforts to improve the law, we all must continue to pursue the ideal of a neutral, impartial judiciary."

That also sums up why, although I greatly appreciated Justice Scalia, I was never really able to be a fan of his, as such Textualist/Originalist views comes far too close to viewing the law as a 'Rule of Rules', which is a very different thing than a 'Rule of Law'. While cautioning that I'm still in the early stages of studying up on Judge Kavanaugh, the impression I get is of a legal technologist, which is similar the mindset that guided Judge Bork to describe the 9th & 10th Amendments as 'judicial ink blots' on the constitution, and was a perspective which Scalia often similarly expressed in his opinions (which I addressed a few years back, in "What Would the Founders Do? Common Sense says WHO CARES!"), and which textualists, originalists and functionalists, express in ways that are disturbingly autistic towards the principles of Natural Law that our Constitution was derived from, and which those jurists I do admire, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, still stand up for.

And so, to get back to the post I mentioned above, from 'The Faculty Lounge', rather than just another laundry list of his opinions and inclinations, it offers a much better look into the judicial philosophy of Judge Kavanaugh, of how he views the Constitution, our Founders and (in its absence from his views) the concepts of Natural Law that drove them to frame, adopt and ratify our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In "A Window into Brett Kavanaugh’s Judicial Philosophy", the author, largely drawing from a roundtable "A Dialogue with Federal Judges on the Role of History in Interpretation" that Kavanaugh participated in with a number of other Federal Judges,, notes that,

"...Although the roundtable’s topic was the importance of history in judicial interpretation, Judge Kavanaugh took a contrarian view, indicating that he does not think historical context is all that helpful to judges. During the dialogue, he pointed out that the framers were not “all of one mind” and in fact had “wildly different views.” As an example of the diverse viewpoints expressed at the Constitutional Convention, Kavanaugh noted the stark contrast between how Alexander Hamilton of New York and George Mason of Virginia viewed the proper role of the federal government.

According to Kavanaugh, the framers’ diverse and often conflicting opinions should make judges skeptical of historical evidence, even in the case of a document as renowned and influential as the Federalist Papers. As the judge explained during the roundtable:

“The point being, be careful about even The Federalist . . . point of view. That’s not the authoritative interpretation of the [Constitution’s] words. You’ve [also] got to be careful about some of the ratification debates. You’ve got to be careful about different people at the Convention itself. They had different views.”

For Kavanaugh, the most pertinent historical fact is that the Constitution came about as the result of political compromise. He thus warned that it is a mistake to rely on historical evidence that might give one framer’s interpretation of the Constitution’s meaning more weight than others. As he stressed to the roundtable:

That view is, as far as it goes, true... but it is only meaningful, if you approach those arguments and compromises, from a point of view that is informed by the concepts of Natural Law with which those differing opinions were formed, and debated. Absent that, Kavanaugh, like Scalia, and many other 'Conservative!' jurists, often deliver opinions that are strangely tone deaf, in regards to our Individual Rights, seeing in areas that are absolutely critical to their defense, only 'ink blots' upon our Constitution.

But, do not forget that President Trump could have done so much worse in his pick to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court, and I think it's unfair for me to refer to Judge Kavanaugh in that manner. My first and cold read on Kavanaugh, at this point in time, is that he is a better selection than most, and will be very much better than Justice Kennedy, even as his decisions will more likely fall somewhere on a line between Justices' Scalia, Alito and Roberts, in his opinions, than with those of Justices Thomas & Gorsuch.

But in this day and age... that's still winning!

President Trump lands an ace of a speech, and shows off his mad Political-Fu skills

A couple quick thoughts before bed, on Trump's speech to a joint session of Congress.. Although I had a positive response to it, overall, especially in the 'political-fu' of it, there were several things that I liked, and several that I disliked about Trump's speech, and some I was delighted to be surprised by.

Being that eliminating the Administrative State is my highest political priority, on the road to returning us to a nation of laws dedicated to upholding individual rights under the rule of law, and defending our people from all enemies, foreign and domestic, you can probably guess what 'sent a thrill up my leg'.

His comments about

"...creating a deregulation task force inside of every Government agency..."

, was music to my ears. As were those geared towards seeing to our military and law enforcement, and the various 'draining the swamp' measures. For those asking the easy question 'If reducing regulations is good, why not just eliminate the agencies?' There are no magic means of doing that, and as frustrating as it is, government can only be reduced by governmental means. Baby steps. It took us 140+ years to get here, no president is going to rid us of them armed only with a phone and a pen.

The surprises, were he didn't go for bombast, he didn't call out congress or the press, and, amazingly, he turned several promising 'Do a shot when you hear___' Memes into a dry, temperance fest of an evening, by not saying "Believe me!" or "let me tell you!" a single time.

But there were a number of things that were disturbing. What seems to be his idea of handling several issues, from infrastructure, to education, by means of "Public/Private partnerships", those alarm me. Such partnerships are conduits for politically driven favoritism, corruption, and expanding the reach and depth of the administrative state - the very things I'm thrilled that he is intent upon reducing.

While removing barriers to selling health insurance between states is a big plus, and repealing ObamaCare is a HUGE plus, when he appends '... and Replace' to the 'Repeal', it disturbs and infuriates me just as much today, as it did when I first heard Boehner floating it, years ago.

Trade Deficits are protectionist bogeymen, and pursuing them is very likely to damage the economy he is intent upon aiding... and so on, see-sawing back and forth through the speech.

So yes, overall it was an excellent speech, he completely disarmed and flummoxed the foolish democrats in their white dresses and sour faces. There was much in it to raise hopes, but also a fair measure to warrant heightened alarms.

So, ok, off to bed, more to come on this later, but for now, we'll watch, hope, and see what we see.

Would Judge Gorsuch on the Supreme Court be some of that promised 'Winning'? Maybe so!

Well. I'm late to the SCOTUS party and just getting started on looking into Judge Neil Gorsuch's legal opinions, but... suffice to say that for the moment, it's looking good. While skimming various bios of him last night, my attention was caught by this bit from the Atlantic,

"...The most remarkable thing about the book is its measuredness. Gorsuch is a Jesuit-educated Episcopalian, but he does not rely on theology to make his argument. In fact, he takes pains to ground his work in “secular moral theory,” laying out a careful case based on the writings of thinkers from Aquinas and Epicurus to contemporary scholars Peter Singer and Ronald Dworkin. His work reads more like a philosophy paper than a legal brief, which is appropriate given his background: He holds a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford.

Gorsuch reveals a few interesting lines of thinking in his book. First, it’s clear that he’s deeply interested in fundamental moral principles. The common wisdom around his nomination is that he’s an originalist, reading laws and the Constitution based on their authors’ intended meaning. During his nomination announcement, he emphasized this principle: “I respect … the fact that in our legal order it is for Congress and not the courts to write new laws,” Gorsuch said. “It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives.”..."[emphasis mine]

This was especially timely, in that I was just grousing to folks, about how, with the rare exception of someone like Justice Clarence Thomas, few in our courts have much, if any, regard for the concepts of Natural Law that our Constitution was drawn out of in our Founder's Era. Instead, we've had to settle for, at best, the more primitive modernist 'Originalists' and 'Textualists' - and now here this fellow Gorsuch is sounding as if I may have to, well, not quite 'eat my words', but I may possibly have to nibble on them a bit. Around the edges.

And frankly, that's the kind of crow I'd gleefully chow down on all day long - fingers crossed!

Then this evening, in the first opinion I selected, his concurring opinion (starting on about pg 15) in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016), which focuses upon how Administrative Agencies have been allowed to overstep their power (to say the least (which the 'Chevron' case is referring to), the concurring portion starts with a Bang! and keeps getting better, and better.

"There’s an elephant in the room with us today. We have studiously attempted to work our way around it and even left it unremarked. But the fact is Chevron and Brand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth..."

, and they just keep coming,

"...Even more importantly, the founders considered the separation of powers a vital guard against governmental encroachment on the people’s liberties, including all those later enumerated in the Bill of Rights. What would happen, for example, if the political majorities who run the legislative and executive branches could decide cases and controversies over past facts? They might be tempted to bend existing laws, to reinterpret and apply them retroactively in novel ways and without advance notice. Effectively leaving parties who cannot alter their past conduct to the mercy of majoritarian politics and risking the possibility that unpopular groups might be singled out for this sort of mistreatment — and raising — along the way, too, grave due process (fair notice) and equal protection problems. Conversely, what would happen if politically unresponsive and lifetenured judges were permitted to decide policy questions for the future or try to execute those policies? The very idea of self-government would soon be at risk of withering to the point of pointlessness. It was to avoid dangers like these, dangers the founders had studied and seen realized in their own time, that they pursued the separation of powers. A government of diffused powers, they knew, is a government less capable of invading the liberties of the people. ..."

, and,

"...But however that may be, none of it rescues us from our riddle. For whatever the agency may be doing under Chevron, the problem remains that courts are not fulfilling their duty to interpret the law and declare invalid agency actions inconsistent with those interpretations in the cases and controversies that come before them. A duty expressly assigned to them by the APA and one often likely compelled by the Constitution itself. That’s a problem for the judiciary. And it is a problem for the people whose liberties may now be impaired not by an independent decisionmaker seeking to declare the law’s meaning as fairly as possible — the decisionmaker promised to them by law — but by an avowedly politicized administrative agent seeking to pursue whatever policy whim may rule the day. Those problems remain uncured by this line of reply"

, and,

"...Even supposing, too, that we could overlook this problem — even supposing we somehow had something resembling an authentic congressional delegation of legislative authority — you still might wonder: can Congress really delegate its legislative authority — its power to write new rules of general applicability — to executive agencies? The Supreme Court has long recognized that under the Constitution “congress cannot delegate legislative power to the president” and that this “principle [is] universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the constitution.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692 (1892). Yet on this account of Chevron we’re examining, its whole point and purpose seems to be exactly that — to delegate legislative power to the executive branch..."

, and,

"...Even under the most relaxed or functionalist view of our separated powers some concern has to arise, too, when so much power is concentrated in the hands of a single branch of government. See The Federalist No. 47 (James Madison) (“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”). After all, Chevron invests the power to decide the meaning of the law, and to do so with legislative policy goals in mind, in the very entity charged with enforcing the law. Under its terms, an administrative agency may set and revise policy (legislative), override adverse judicial determinations (judicial), and exercise enforcement discretion (executive). Add to this the fact that today many administrative agencies “wield[] vast power” and are overseen by political appointees (but often receive little effective oversight from the chief executive to whom they nominally report), and you have a pretty potent mix... "

My initial reaction to all of this?

I'm feeling like I'm in judicial heaven, or at least the Court Candy Store... but... that's a first impression. And yes, I've heard some folks complaining that he didn't come out with a full throated defense of the 2nd Amdt in another case - worrisome, but it's a bit difficult to see how that gibes with the ideas put out in this case - if he is stays consistent with the ideas dealt with here, having this judge on the Supreme Court, would be a big step back onto the road to restoring the Rule of Law.

Still though, I've got quite a bit more reading to do before I really buy into it - good or bad.

But so far? This is the kind of 'Winning!' that I could get used to.