". . . Congress shall, immediately upon our inauguration, initiate amendments to the Constitution providing (a), that the President shall have the authority to institute and execute all necessary measures for the conduct of the government during this critical epoch; (b), that Congress shall serve only in an advisory capacity, calling to the attention of the President and his aides and Cabinet any needed legislation, but not acting upon same until authorized by the President so to act; and Cabinet any needed legislation, but not acting upon same until authorized by the President so to act; and (c), that the Supreme Court shall immediately have removed from its jurisdiction the power to negate, by ruling them to be unconstitutional or by any other judicial action, any or all acts of the President, his duly appointed aides, or Congress. . ."
". . . The fate of Trump's presidency, his re-election hopes, the makeup of the next Congress and the ability of the three branches of government to check and balance power under the Constitution all hang in the balance as the Judiciary Committee opens its first hearing Wednesday. . ."
". . . it was the threat, not the fact, of impeachment that drove Nixon from office, and that the two other impeachments in U.S. history — of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton — couldn’t gain the three-quarters Senate vote required to remove a president from office. . . All Americans ought to be deeply fearful about what this portends for the future. If those responsible for illegal and corrupt acts don’t pay the price for their flagrant disregard of our laws and the U.S. Constitution — and if new laws and institutions are not created to prevent their happening again — the nation’s future is not bright. . ."
(from https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/no-quid-pro-quo-why-trump-s-impeachment-defense-sounds-ncna1070866)
". . . impeachment isn’t about the federal criminal code, as much as Trump wants it to be. Impeachment is about abuse of power. Impeachment is about trading foreign policy for personal gain. Trump’s behavior — pressuring a foreign government to launch a sham investigation into a political rival for the purpose of disrupting a U.S. presidential election — is precisely the kind of self-dealing behavior the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they crafted the impeachment clause. . ."
". . . in his January Oval Office address on immigration. . . (Trump said) “This is about whether we fulfill our sacred duty to the American citizens we serve,” he said. “When I took the oath of office, I swore to protect our country. And that is what I will always do, so help me God.” (In fact, Trump swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”). . . But Trump sees tough border policy as a political winner. He sees Russian interference, meanwhile, as a political loser—and challenging it as a personal affront. Suddenly, he’s not so interested in his “sacred duty” to protect the country. . . "
(from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/judge-denies-trump-bid-block-financial-records-n1007971)
". . . "It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry," (U.S. District Judge Amit) Mehta wrote. . . "Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a President, before and after taking office. This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history," he added. . ."
Other Ray Jozwiak Offerings
(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser: http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)
". . . The term “other high crimes and misdemeanors” was understood by the Constitution’s drafters to not refer only to criminal activity. In pre-revolutionary England, the term was used to refer to various forms of official misconduct, including maladministration, that did not (and could not) carry criminal consequences. The Constitution’s drafting history similarly reflects the Founders’ view that the remedy was not limited to those crimes Congress had elsewhere proscribed. . . As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 65, impeachable offenses arose from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”. . . As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 65, impeachable offenses arose from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” And James Madison himself, during a crucial debate in the middle of the First Congress, invoked as an example of an impeachable offense a president who wantonly dismissed government officers for no good reason. As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found in a 2015 report, “[m]any of the impeachments approved by the House of Representatives have included conduct that did not involve criminal activity. Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term ‘crime.’”. . . "
(Trump recently stated that) ". . . Robert E. Lee was a great “American” general, who attended West Point, led American soldiers to victory as a commander in the Mexican War and was beloved by his men . . . Until 1862, that is, when he turned traitor and gave up his commission in the US Army for a stint as commanding general of the “Confederate States of America” after South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, South Carolina in April 1861, as an act of war. A devoted son of Virginia, Lee returned home and took up arms against the United States of America whose Constitution he had sworn to protect and defend. . . What Trump does not get is that but for the grace of President Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and their whole posse should have been hanged for treason. . ."
(from Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson by Gordon S. Wood)
". . . He was skeptical about the character of his fellow Americans as well. Even before he knew of the outbreak of the French Revolution, he had worked out a chilling assessment of the moral fiber of his own countrymen, one that prepared him to see the worst of people everywhere. . . Right from the beginning of his own American Revolution, Adams had deep misgivings about whether his fellow citizens had the proper moral character needed to sustain their republican governments. "The only foundation of a free Constitution," he said on the eve of America's declaring independence, "is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a greater Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. . . "
Other Ray Jozwiak Offerings
(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser: http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)
". . . Barr, asked if Mueller intended for Congress, not the attorney general, to decide whether Trump obstructed justice: “Well, Special Counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not his view. ... I didn’t talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision.”
THE FACTS: Mueller’s report actually does indicate that Congress could make that determination.
The report states that no person is above the law, including the president, and that the Constitution “does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice.”
VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: “Today’s release of the Special Counsel’s report confirms what the President and I have said since day one: there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and there was no obstruction of justice.”
KELLYANNE CONWAY, White House counselor: “What matters is what the Department of Justice and special counsel concluded here, which is no collusion, no obstruction, and complete exoneration, as the president says.”
THE FACTS: No. The special counsel specifically leaves open the question of whether the president obstructed justice. . . “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment,” the report states. . . The report identifies 10 instances of possible obstruction by Trump and said he might have “had a motive” to impede the investigation because of what it could find on a multitude of personal matters, such as his proposal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. . . “The evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns,” the report states. . . In explaining its decision, Mueller’s team said reaching a conclusion on whether Trump committed crimes would be inappropriate because of Justice Department guidelines indicating that a sitting president should not be prosecuted. It nevertheless left open at least the theoretical possibility that Trump could be charged after he leaves office, noting that its factual investigation was conducted “in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary material were available.”
BARR: “These reports are not supposed to be made public.”
THE FACTS: He’s not going out on a limb for public disclosure. . . Justice Department regulations give Barr wide authority to release a special counsel’s report in situations it “would be in the public interest.” Barr had made clear during his Senate confirmation hearing in January that he believed in transparency with the report on Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference during the 2016 campaign, “consistent with regulations and the law.”
BARR, saying it was “consistent with long-standing practice” for him to share a copy of the redacted report with the White House and president’s attorneys before its release: “Earlier this week, the president’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an independent counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication.”
THE FACTS: Actually, Barr’s decision, citing the Ethics in Government Act, is inconsistent with independent counsel Ken Starr’s handling of his report into whether President Bill Clinton obstructed and lied in Starr’s probe.
. . . and how LONG will we (U.S. Congress) allow this to continue??? (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution)
(from https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/17/opinions/snl-trump-emergency-declaration-obeidallah/index.html?fbclid=IwAR1xTEoJQRgPSVcix7awbo9F3tQtL2SzrSq2wMaN8 Dychh8qdo_QxpOZoO8)
". . . He (guess who?) first tweeted Sunday morning, "Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC! Question is, how do the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs without retribution? Likewise for many other shows? Very unfair and should be looked into. This is the real Collusion!". . . Then four minutes later, he tweeted in all caps -- telling us how he apparently now views the iconic comedy show as part of those threatening our nation: "THE RIGGED AND CORRUPT MEDIA IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!". . .Could Trump be laying the ground work to declare another national emergency to silence SNL?! Aside from the absurdity of the idea, it also violates the First Amendment right to free speech, as the American Civil Liberties Union was quick to point out. . . But before you dismiss the idea entirely, keep in mind two things. First, an Ipsos poll in August found that 44% of Republicans believe Trump should be able to close news outlets for "bad behavior." Do you have any doubt that if Trump called for comedy shows to be more "fair and balanced" in their criticism of Republicans, his base would not cheer? We might even see a majority of Trump fans support silencing "SNL," especially since the right has long viewed Hollywood and the entertainment industry as anti-Republican. (Of course, Trump and his base would undoubtedly never support forcing Fox News to truly be "fair and balanced."). . . "
(https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/judge-brett-kavanaughs-impeccable-record-of-constitutional-conservatism/)
". . . Judge Kavanaugh in 2010 wrote a lengthy concurrence drawing on American historical tradition and the original meaning of the Constitution to defend the invocation of God and the practice of prayer at official government ceremonies, such as the presidential inauguration and Supreme Court sittings. The Supreme Court adopted a similar approach several years later in upholding prayer before a town meeting in New York. . ."
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". . . (and in a) letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. . . "
Do you still doubt the efficacy of invoking the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, or have you grown too accustomed to such behavior from elected officials?
Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump
The Fake News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war. They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I’ll probably have a good relationship with Putin. We are doing MUCH better than any other country!
6:59 AM - Jul 19, 2018
Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump
The Fake News Media is going Crazy! They make up stories without any backup, sources or proof. Many of the stories written about me, and the good people surrounding me, are total fiction. Problem is, when you complain you just give them more publicity. But I’ll complain anyway!
6:37 AM - Jul 19, 2018
Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump
The Summit with Russia was a great success, except with the real enemy of the people, the Fake News Media. I look forward to our second meeting so that we can start implementing some of the many things discussed, including stopping terrorism, security for Israel, nuclear........
9:24 AM - Jul 19, 2018
Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump
....proliferation, cyber attacks, trade, Ukraine, Middle East peace, North Korea and more. There are many answers, some easy and some hard, to these problems...but they can ALL be solved!
9:30 AM - Jul 19, 2018
Nearly 800 mental health professionals have joined a coalition asserting that they are so alarmed by Trump’s mental health that they feel a duty to warn the public. (Jonathan Ernst / Reuters)
Please do something to rid our nation of this problem.
(from https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conway%E2%80%99s-husband-blasts-trump-tweet-calling-special-counsel-%E2%80%98unconstitutional%E2%80%99/ar-AAydy3E)
". . . Trump's . . . (asserted last week). . . that the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee the Russia probe "is totally unconstitutional.". . . "
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor#Constitutionality)
". . . The appointment of a special prosecutor raises inherent separation of powers questions under the U.S. Constitution. Since the special prosecutor is a member of the executive branch, it has been argued that the special prosecutor is ultimately answerable to the president, and can therefore be fired by them. Richard Nixon, for example, argued that he could not be compelled by a subpoena issued by his own subordinate. . . The constitutionality of the independent counsel law was affirmed by a 7–1 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Morrison v. Olson (1988). . ."
