is it a stretch to say barr is guilty of coverups?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

My reading was that it was vacated before SCOTUS could react. Anywhere near correct? 

Any interaction between branches automatically goes back to Constitutional Empowerment, and I am choosing those words precisely. Congress is not empowered to censure a President and that is why Clinton never got censured. 

Pretty much. The call for censure was abandoned after Clinton's acquittal in the Senate. No matter how bad one wants to argue in its favor because of the Clinton years, his Presidency establishes absolutely no valuable precedent of the permissibility of censure, and obviously does not override the relevant historical, jurisprudential, and constitutional framework underlying censure. This goes as far back as the constitutional debates, specifically George Mason's on the Impeachment Clause. And again, Jackson never challenged his censure on proper grounds.  

The SCOTUS opinion in Nixon is a good example of the standard of review the Court will use when determining when Congressional action amounts to a Bill of Attainder. I cannot even hypothecate a scenario where Congress may censure the current President and it not amount to a Bill of Attainder.  

[homersapien 11,393]

24 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Pretty much. The call for censure was abandoned after Clinton's acquittal in the Senate. No matter how bad one wants to argue in its favor because of the Clinton years, his Presidency establishes absolutely no valuable precedent of the permissibility of censure, and obviously does not override the relevant historical, jurisprudential, and constitutional framework underlying censure. This goes as far back as the constitutional debates, specifically George Mason's on the Impeachment Clause. And again, Jackson never challenged his censure on proper grounds.  

The SCOTUS opinion in Nixon is a good example of the standard of review the Court will use when determining when Congressional action amounts to a Bill of Attainder. I cannot even hypothecate a scenario where Congress may censure the current President and it not amount to a Bill of Attainder.  

First, I have always assumed a motion of censure to be nothing more than an expression of disapproval - a criticism.  In other words, censure has no legal significance. It has no punishment associated with it. 

Presumably, the legal significance of a bill of attainder is that it involves punishment or penalty (by definition). Is this not a key aspect?

So what makes a motion of censure equivalent to a bill of attainder?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

First, I have always assumed a motion of censure to be nothing more than an expression of disapproval - a criticism.  In other words, censure has no legal significance. It has no punishment associated with it. 

Presumably, the legal significance of a bill of attainder is that it involves punishment or penalty (by definition). Is this not a key aspect?

So what makes a motion of censure equivalent to a bill of attainder?

 

In this case, what would be the purpose and operative effect of the censure?

[homersapien 11,393]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

In this case, what would be the purpose and operative effect of the censure?

To express official disapproval. 

As I understand it, such a censure has no "operative effect" legally speaking.  It's purely political. 

Am I wrong?

Are you going to address my questions? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

To express official disapproval. 

As I understand it, such a censure has no "operational effect" legally speaking.  It's purely political.  Am I wrong?

Are you going to address my questions? 

"So what makes a motion  of censure equivalent to a bill of attainder?"

Censure, in this case, serves no purpose other than to punish an alleged blameworthy or guilty Executive, and this is unequivocally reinforced via Congressional actions of punishing its own members. The Constitution grants each house the power "to punish its Members for disorderly Behavior." On the basis of this power, Congress has censured its own members. Additionally, SCOTUS described the power as "a judicial power," thus underscoring the conclusion that censuring the President is attaining him. If Congress is censuring its very own members according to its express power to punish them under the Constitution, then, a fortiori, censure of the Executive is punishment as well.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

As I understand it, such a censure has no "operative effect" legally speaking.  It's purely political.

What are the political effects? This is more of a rhetorical question. 

 

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Am I wrong?

You raise intelligible questions worthy of discussion, and I commend you for it. 

I think you may need to look at it through a constitutional/jurisprudential scope, and consider the relevance of historical perspectives. I've certainly diluted it down to a basic context of one branch censuring another, for simplification. There are various law review articles written on the subject. Compelling authority weighs against its permissibility as it would be applied to the Executive. Happy to send you sources for arguments from both sides of the aisle.   

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

"So what makes a motion  of censure equivalent to a bill of attainder?"

Censure, in this case, serves no purpose other than to punish an alleged blameworthy or guilty Executive, and this is unequivocally reinforced via Congressional actions of punishing its own members. The Constitution grants each house the power "to punish its Members for disorderly Behavior." On the basis of this power, Congress has censured its own members. Additionally, SCOTUS described the power as "a judicial power," thus underscoring the conclusion that censuring the President is attaining him. If Congress is censuring its very own members according to its express power to punish them under the Constitution, then, a fortiori, censure of the Executive is punishment as well.

I understand how congress can punish it's own members by doing such things as taking away committee memberships, etc. in conjunction with a censure, but the censure alone doesn't constitute real punishment.

What's the nature of the "punishment" if they censure a president?

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

1) What are the political effects? This is more of a rhetorical question. 

 

You raise intelligible questions worthy of discussion, and I commend you for it. 

I think you may need to look at it through a constitutional/jurisprudential scope, and consider the relevance of historical perspectives. I've certainly diluted it down to a basic context of one branch censuring another, for simplification. There are various law review articles written on the subject. Compelling authority weighs against its permissibility as it would be applied to the Executive. Happy to send you sources for arguments from both sides of the aisle.   

1) Considering today's hyper partisan political climate, nil.  I doubt there's anyone in the country that would be influenced one way or the other.  It's just a way for politicians to go on record.

2) You said an act of censure was legally equivalent to a "bill of attainder".  A bill of attainder is essentially punishing someone without the benefit of a trial. A motion to censor the president (in this case) has no element of punishment. 

That, to me, seems like a critical difference from a legal standpoint. 

I can see how a motion to censure with some sort of associated punishment is the same as a bill of attainder but, without that element of punishment, it's nothing more than a statement of disapproval.  Thus it could not be equivalent to a "bill of attainment", by definition.

If you have any law articles addressing the significance of that difference,  I'd certainly like hear them - or at least the relevant parts.

You have been discussing this without resorting to immature ad hominem insults, and I commend you for it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I understand how congress can punish it's own members by doing such things as taking away committee memberships, etc. in conjunction with a censure, but the censure alone doesn't constitute real punishment.

What's the nature of the "punishment" if they censure a president?

Homer, it's a form of punishment carried out on the basis of those explicit powers. 

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

1) Considering today's hyper partisan political climate, nil.  I doubt there's anyone in the country that would be influenced one way or the other.  It's just a way for politicians to go on record.

2) You said an act of censure was legally equivalent to a "bill of attainder".  A bill of attainder is essentially punishing someone without the benefit of a trial. A motion to censor the president (in this case) has no element of punishment. 

That, to me, seems like a critical difference from a legal standpoint. 

I can see how a motion to censure with some sort of associated punishment is the same as a bill of attainder but, without that element of punishment, it's nothing more than a statement of disapproval.  Thus it could not be equivalent to a "bill of attainment", by definition.

If you have any law articles addressing the significance of that difference,  I'd certainly like hear them - or at least the relevant parts.

You have been discussing this without resorting to immature ad hominem insults, and I commend you for it.

Perhaps your understanding of "punishment" is misplaced. Read the law review article link below and put your mind at peace. It is but just one example laying out why censure of the President is an arguably unconstitutional attainder. Start on the page number "1001" for insight on the "nature" of the punishment (don't worry, that doesn't mean there are thousands of pages). 

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/70410/OSLJ_V61N2_0979.pdf 

[homersapien 11,393]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Homer, it's a form of punishment carried out on the basis of those explicit powers. 

Perhaps your understanding of "punishment" is misplaced. Read the law review article link below and put your mind at peace. It is but just one example laying out why censure of the President is an arguably unconstitutional attainder. Start on the page number "1001" for insight on the "nature" of the punishment (don't worry, that doesn't mean there are thousands of pages). 

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/70410/OSLJ_V61N2_0979.pdf 

What exactly is the punishment associated with censor?

Are you saying the censure itself is a form of punishment?  How so?

And I am asking you - as a law student - to explain this.  The law is your area of expertise, not mine.  Can you not explain it in plain, easy to understand language?   If not, just say so.

But if you can't, I would suggest it is you whose understanding is "misplaced".

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What exactly is the punishment associated with censor?

Are you saying the censure itself is a form of punishment?  How so?

And I am asking you - as a law student - to explain this.  That's your area of expertise, not mine.  Can you explain it in plain language?   If not, just say so.

Constitutional and statutory law as applied to interactions between branches of government is not my area of expertise.

I refer you to the link I posted. The author of the law review article, as an example of the "nature" of censure as punishment, grounds a portion of his analysis on a comparative standpoint (beginning at page 1001) including traditional understandings of punishment, particularly as it comports with notions of retribution and deterrence. He points out notable effects of censure, including shaming and stigmatization of the recipient. The article is also complete with citations which can refer you to relevant precedent.  

[DKW 86 7,431]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Constitutional and statutory law as applied to interactions between branches of government is not my area of expertise.

I refer you to the link I posted. The author of the law review article, as an example of the "nature" of censure as punishment, grounds a portion of his analysis on a comparative standpoint (beginning at page 1001) including traditional understandings of punishment, particularly as it comports with notions of retribution and deterrence. He points out notable effects of censure, including shaming and stigmatization of the recipient. The article is also complete with citations which can refer you to relevant precedent.  

Just like the Congressman from NY Charles Rangel, who sato on the Ways and Means Committee got caught flat footed evading taxes and had to sit and endure public shaming and ridicule and scorn when he was Censured. Now, absolutely nothing came out of it long term. It was just the Public Shaming of a Very Public Man.

https://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/house-censures-defiant-rangel-045883

Quote

 

The ordeal was over in about 45 seconds, bringing a surprisingly anti-climatic end to a long battle that cost Rangel his gavel at the Ways and Means Committee and $2 million in legal fees, and nearly jeopardized his four-decade hold on a Harlem congressional district.

“By its adoption of House Resolution 1737, the House has resolved that Rep. Charles B. Rangel be censured, that Rep. Charles B. Rangel forwith present himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure, that Rep. Charles B. Rangel be censured by the public reading of this resolution by the speaker, and that Rep. Rangel pay restitution to the appropriate taxing authorities for any unpaid taxes … on income received from his property in the Dominican Repbublic and provide proof of payment to the [House ethics] committee,” Pelosi intoned.

It marked the first time in 27 years that the House had censured a member and only the 23rd time a lawmaker had been subject to that sanction that in the past 180 years. But for all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the censure ritual, that’s basically the end of the process for Rangel, who will return as a member of Congress in the next session.

 

fwiw, Rangel laughed it off at the time. Censure literally means nothing. You censure someone when you run out of options and the people want someone punished. It literally means next to nothing. 

[homersapien 11,393]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Constitutional and statutory law as applied to interactions between branches of government is not my area of expertise.

I refer you to the link I posted. The author of the law review article, as an example of the "nature" of censure as punishment, grounds a portion of his analysis on a comparative standpoint (beginning at page 1001) including traditional understandings of punishment, particularly as it comports with notions of retribution and deterrence. He points out notable effects of censure, including shaming and stigmatization of the recipient. The article is also complete with citations which can refer you to relevant precedent.  

This is what I wanted to hear you say Nola. (I've been mostly messing with you to get you here.)

I accept you understand the legal precedent for making such a claim and I appreciate you providing the references to support it. (And I did read it.)  But I was curious if you would concede the nature of "punishment" associated with censure is based on nothing more than "shaming" or "stigmatizing" the subject.

Now, let's apply that to Trump: 

How in hell do you shame someone as shameless as Trump?!   

Here's a guy who made fun of a handicapped reporter, on TV!  He brags about being able to commit sexual assault on women because he's rich and famous. He walks into a dressing room of teenage girls because he has the power to do so. 

And stigmatize?  Puuuuleeeze!  Trump's MO is to insult anything and everything.  (Crooked Hillary, Pocahontis, Crazy Bernie, Pencil Neck Schiff.) Trump has established a new "norm" for presidential civility. (We can only pray it doesn't last.)

So Nola, while you are probably correct in your legal analysis, that history, that precedent, is total BS in our modern political reality.  The very idea that Trump is punished by shaming or stigmatizing is ******* HILARIOUS!!!

I understand why you were reluctant to respond directly - I give you credit for realizing how absurd it is to say that Trump would be materially punished by the "shame" a censure would expose him to, regardless of legal precedent or no.

I apologize for messing with you. You were just doing what lawyers do.  And I actually did learn something about the legal aspects of this. 

Your friend, Homer

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

This is what I wanted to hear you say Nola. (I've been mostly messing with you to get you here.)

I accept you understand the legal precedent for making such a claim and I appreciate you providing the references to support it. (And I did read it.)  But I was curious if you would concede the nature of "punishment" associated with censure is based on nothing more than "shaming" or "stigmatizing" the subject.

Now, let's apply that to Trump: 

How in hell do you shame someone as shameless as Trump?!   

Here's a guy who made fun of a handicapped reporter, on TV!  He brags about being able to commit sexual assault on women because he's rich and famous. He walks into a dressing room of teenage girls because he has the power to do so. 

And stigmatize?  Puuuuleeeze!  Trump's MO is to insult anything and everything.  (Crooked Hillary, Pocahontis, Crazy Bernie, Pencil Neck Schiff.) Trump has established a new "norm" for presidential civility. (We can only pray it doesn't last.)

So Nola, while you are probably correct in your legal analysis, that history, that precedent, is total BS in our modern political reality.  The very idea that Trump is punished by shaming or stigmatizing is ******* HILARIOUS!!!

I understand why you were reluctant to respond directly - I give you credit for realizing how absurd it is to say that Trump would be materially punished by the "shame" a censure would expose him to, regardless of legal precedent or no.

I apologize for messing with you. You were just doing what lawyers do.  And I actually did learn something about the legal aspects of this. 

Your friend, Homer

Unfortunately this is not a sufficient rebuttal and you undoubtedly know that a “well this is all BS” argument is not a proper refutation - thus, I won’t waste time entertaining it nor will I address the endless assumptions you made pertaining to my “realizations” or alleged “reluctance.”

Maybe I expected too much civility and maturity from you. Now I know better than to raise the bar.

 

[homersapien 11,393]

31 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Unfortunately this is not a sufficient rebuttal and you undoubtedly know that a “well this is all BS” argument is not a proper refutation - thus, I won’t waste time entertaining it nor will I address the endless assumptions you made pertaining to my “realizations” or alleged “reluctance.”

Maybe I expected too much civility and maturity from you. Now I know better than to raise the bar.

 

Awww, I didn't mean to hurt your fweelings. 

Throw some insults at me and maybe PT will tell everyone about how you are eating my lunch.

I think maybe I overestimated you.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

46 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Awww, I didn't mean to hurt your fweelings.

My feelings are very hurt

46 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Throw some insults at me and maybe PT will tell everyone about how you are eating my lunch.

You're ugly. 🖕

 

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Unfortunately this is not a sufficient rebuttal and you undoubtedly know that a “well this is all BS” argument is not a proper refutation - thus, I won’t waste time entertaining it nor will I address the endless assumptions you made pertaining to my “realizations” or alleged “reluctance.”

Maybe I expected too much civility and maturity from you. Now I know better than to raise the bar.

 

OK, let's cool down and discuss this like adults.

I'll start with the easier point first, which is the assumption I made about your reluctance to simply answer my question.  First I will admit it was an assumption - though hardly "endless" . 

Here's why I thought you were reluctant to simply answer the question:

I asked - more than once - sincerely and in simple, plain language, what was the punishment associated with a motion of censure?  In each case you avoided a direct response, instead suggesting a reading list for me (which comes across as very patronizing btw). 

When I finally got around to actually reading the reference you provided (p. 1001), the answer to my question was the punishment was "shaming and/or "stigmatization". 

So I asked myself, why in hell didn't he just say that? The only reasonable assumption I could make was that you were reluctant to do so because it's so lame. It wasn't an argument you were willing to back and understandably so. 

So, if you had simply answered my question directly - a generally good practice IMO - we would have avoided that misunderstanding.  Besides, simply providing a direct answer would have been the "civil" and "mature" thing to do.

Now, before you start branding my rebuttal as "insufficient" and not a "proper refutation" let's clarify your argument I am supposedly rebutting. Here's what I think it is:

You are arguing there is a legal case to be made that a congressional censure of Trump is unconstitutional because it is equivalent to a Bill of Attainder.

If that's your argument, I am not disagreeing with you.  You provided the references to back that assertion.  So I am fine with that and not trying to "refute" it.

Now my argument is the idea - legal precedent aside and considering the change in culture - that shaming someone as shameless as Trump constitutes punishment.  It's  ipso facto absurd, hilariously absurd. 

I don't place any value on the legal argument, which is, to me, about as relevant as the Dred Scott opinion in today's culture.

But, if you agree that the potential of "shaming" or "stigmatizing" Trump via a motion of censure represents real punishment sufficient to make a resolution of censure unconstitutional, then we have a severe disagreement. (And what a snowflake argument that would be. )

So, we OK now?

 

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

So, we OK now?

We were ok before and we are ok now. Thanks. I love you.

[japantiger 4,051]

On 4/19/2019 at 1:52 PM, AUDub said:

Were he not president, he’d likely be under indictment for obstruction right now. Make of that what you will. 

Were he not President, there never would have been an attempt to turn the full weight and power of the United States loose on him.   If I were him; just like with some of these ridiculous subpoena's, I'd sue the US Gov't under civil rights statutes.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

I'll start with the easier point first, which is the assumption I made about your reluctance to simply answer my question.  First I will admit it was an assumption - though hardly "endless" . 

Here's why I thought you were reluctant to simply answer the question:

I asked - more than once - sincerely and in simple, plain language, what was the punishment associated with a motion of censure?  In each case you avoided a direct response, instead suggesting a reading list for me (which comes across as very patronizing btw). 

When I finally got around to actually reading the reference you provided (p. 1001), the answer to my question was the punishment was "shaming and/or "stigmatization". 

 So I asked myself, why in hell didn't he just say that? The only reasonable assumption I could make was that you were reluctant to do so because it's so lame. It wasn't an argument you were willing to back and understandably so. 

So, if you had simply answered my question directly - a generally good practice IMO - we would have avoided that misunderstanding.  Besides, simply providing a direct answer would have been the "civil" and "mature" thing to do.

Now, before you start branding my rebuttal as "insufficient" and not a "proper refutation" let's clarify your argument I am supposedly rebutting. Here's what I think it is:

You are arguing there is a legal case to be made that a congressional censure of Trump is unconstitutional because it is equivalent to a Bill of Attainder.

If that's your argument, I am not disagreeing with you.  You provided the references to back that assertion.  So I am fine with that and not trying to "refute" it.

Now my argument is the idea - legal precedent aside and considering the change in culture - that shaming someone as shameless as Trump constitutes punishment.  It's  ipso facto absurd, hilariously absurd. 

I don't place any value on the legal argument, which is, to me, about as relevant as the Dred Scott opinion in today's culture.

But, if you agree that the potential of "shaming" or "stigmatizing" Trump via a motion of censure represents real punishment sufficient to make a resolution of censure unconstitutional, then we have a severe disagreement. (And what a snowflake argument that would be. )

Question. Despite that it has been demonstrably shown that your position is patently wrong and lacks anything substantively meaningful, why do you try so hard to twist this whole thing? Clearly, the only position you place value on is the one you conjured up in your mind - which, for reasons articulated above, is void of significance. By your own admission, substantive arguments don’t even matter to you, despite your prior inquiries.

Your questions have been addressed with absolutely no reluctance, and your arguments have been obliterated. But, at the end of it all, you reiterate erroneous assumptions about me, and essentially discard all reasonable standards and replace them with your own.

@DKW 86 can you help me understand his tactics. 

[channonc 466]

On 4/19/2019 at 4:24 PM, DKW 86 said:

I agree, 100%. But i think that the outcome is already guaranteed. We get him out of office, he gets arrested and tried before all this gets past statute of limitations. If he makes the second term, almost everything will be off the table.

On the other hand, I dont think he really ever thought he would get elected in the first place and with his crazy policies lately, i wonder if he really wants to get re-elected. 

I think he gets elected, and I don't think it will be close. Of course, I hope I am wrong...

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Question. Despite that it has been demonstrably shown that your position is patently wrong and lacks anything substantively meaningful, why do you try so hard to twist this whole thing? Clearly, the only position you place value on is the one you conjured up in your mind - which, for reasons articulated above, is void of significance. By your own admission, substantive arguments don’t even matter to you, despite your prior inquiries.

Your questions have been addressed with absolutely no reluctance, and your arguments have been obliterated. But, at the end of it all, you reiterate erroneous assumptions about me, and essentially discard all reasonable standards and replace them with your own.

@DKW 86 can you help me understand his tactics. 

How can my opinion that shaming Trump is ******* hilarious be "wrong"?

I can verify that is my true and accurate opinion. 

And BS on you answering my questions "with absolutely no reluctance".  You damn well knew when I asked that the "punishment" associated with a motion of censure is based on shaming and stigmatization.  You could have just said that instead of providing me sources to read up on it.

And I don't know what you mean by saying "substantive arguments mean nothing to me". 

Did I not concede you were correct in stating the legal precedent? So what exactly are you referring to by "substantive arguments"?

You need to be more thoughtful in your statements.  As a student of law, I can only assume you have it in you. You have a lot more in common with David that I would have imagined. I expect more from a law student. (I hope you aren't flunking out.)

 

So, back to the discussion:  Are you now arguing that "shaming" Trump with a motion of censure is actual, real punishment and therefore, such a motion of censure is equivalent to a bill of attainder and  should be ruled unconstitutional? 

Is that your argument?  Please try to answer directly without obfuscation.

Like

 

[DKW 86 7,431]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Question. Despite that it has been demonstrably shown that your position is patently wrong and lacks anything substantively meaningful, why do you try so hard to twist this whole thing? Clearly, the only position you place value on is the one you conjured up in your mind - which, for reasons articulated above, is void of significance. By your own admission, substantive arguments don’t even matter to you, despite your prior inquiries.

Your questions have been addressed with absolutely no reluctance, and your arguments have been obliterated. But, at the end of it all, you reiterate erroneous assumptions about me, and essentially discard all reasonable standards and replace them with your own.

@DKW 86 can you help me understand his tactics. 

It just is what it is.....

[DKW 86 7,431]

2 hours ago, channonc said:

I think he gets elected, and I don't think it will be close. Of course, I hope I am wrong...

I hope you are very wrong. The folks I listen to about DNC inner workings are very concerned that the Elites are not getting the chosen few to the top of the polls. They are taking out political contracts on BS, Buttigieg, etc.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

It just is what it is.....

He cannot stand it when someone pokes holes in his contentions. LOL