Archive for the ‘Russian interference in US election’ Category

General Counsel Unconstitutional?

This is more of a question than a statement, but since the Fourth Amendment has a specificity requirement wouldn’t a remit to just go forth and investigate violate that?

The fact that the Mueller Investigation is turning up evidence of thinigs beside Russian Collusion, which was its remit reminds me of a general warrant. General warrant wereissued by the English Secretary of State for the arrest of the author, printer, or publisher of a seditious libel, without naming the persons to be arrested. Such warrants were banned by Parliament in 1766.

Here is the black letter law on one.

A general warrant refers to a warrant providing a law-enforcement officer with broad discretion or authority to search and seize unspecified places or persons. A general warrant lacks a sufficiently particularized description of the person or thing to be seized or the place to be searched. General warrants are unconstitutional because they do not meet the Fourth Amendment’s specificity requirements..

The Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1}

It seems to me that if the investigation related to Russian Interference than the remit can’t be to go forth and find evidence of crimes without that being in violation of the Fourth Amendment. As the court pointed out in U.S. v. George,  975 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1992): the language any other evidence relating to the commission of a crime was unconstitutional. That’s because it was ” plainly is not sufficiently particular with respect to the things to be seized because it effectively granted the executing officers’ “virtually unfettered discretion to seize anything they [saw].”

it seems to me that any investigation would have to have specific limits or it violates the Fourth Amendment.

Footnote:
[1] this from the North Carolina Constitution:

General warrants, whereby any officer or other person may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the act committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and shall not be granted.

No, I haven’t given up on gun control

Yeah, it’s a decided issue, but unfortunately the politicians need to catch up that the US needs to follow Australia.

On the other hand, the US is filled with climate change deniers. OK, filled is relative, but one of them is one too many given that the prognosis for the environment is pretty bad. It will take a culture change in the US that would make a gun ban look like giving up drinking piss–not at all difficult.

I find it interesting that two subjects that should be no brainers are a problem for people in the US. Then again, these are people who somehow believe that Russians put trump in office. Add in that my vote for Jill Stein was somehow influenced by Russian bots.

Do these people know that Russians are the other country that is having a problem with Climate Change deniers? Why would the Russians push a candidate who is addressing this issue?

I have a broad range of issues I support, but the environment is top of the pile right now since it’s one that we can’t wait on.

On the other hand, give out Darwin Awards if the gun nuts want to shoot themselves or their kids. There is a reason for the Federal Funding Freeze on “Gun Violence Research”.

As is the case with climate change denial, the facts are also “anti-gun”.

Is is true what they say about Catherine the Great?

Was Catherine the Great Killed by a Horse?

And did she actually fuck a Donkey 237 years after she died?

 

The Infamous Donkey comment or RUSSIANS!

I couldn’t help myself.

Donkey Comment redacted

OK, maybe it isn’t true how she died, but it seems she is now being accused of figuratively fucking a donkey.

Penigma, Catherine the Great, and Russian Interference in the 2016 Election

Catherine the Great! (Oh, the temptation to make a comment about Donkeys!)

Yep, you got that correct, Catherine II, also known as Catherine the Great (Екатери́на Вели́кая, Yekaterina Velikaya),  Empress of Russia from 1762 until 1796.

That’s because the only thing which made Donald Trump president was the electoral college, an institution created by the US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2-4).  So, if there really WAS any “Russian” influence in the process that made Trump president of the US, it would have had to have been produced during the reign of Catherine the Great!

The Fact is Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 65,853,516 (48.5% votes) to Trump’s 62,984,825 (46.4% votes), but lost in the electoral college by receiving 232 (43.1%) of the electoral votes to Trump’s 306 (56.8%) votes.

Of course, it is far easier to blame the Russians for this defeat than it is to address the real issues behind Clinton’s loss.

Although, that is a strategy that is sure to backfire since any claims of “Russian” interference result in the faults of the Clinton Campaign: her being a weak candidate, DNC misconduct, and pretty much everything that was common knowledge to Sanders’ supporters and Clinton opponents.

Any real discussion of Clinton’s loss must include the faults of the US system of elections: especially the radical overhaul of the electoral college, which was supposed to have prevented foreign interference in the US presidential process ( The Federalist Papers, No 68).

It is blatantly obvious that the Electoral College serves no useful purpose, but that won’t be addressed as long as people refuse to address the real cause of Trump’s becoming president.

Then again, any real investigation of the US election would be a threat to the current Democrat-Republican duopoly. The duopoly thrives on the illusion that US elections are somehow “democratic”, but it is hard to make that claim when an institution designed to be anti-democratic is allowed to continue its existence.

See also:

Abolish the Electoral College

I am amazed that this institution has not gone away long ago, or at least been reformed.  This past election has demonstrated that most of the reasons for its existence are fatuous.

lets start with:

It prevents foreign interference in US elections

This reason comes from The Federalist Papers, No 68:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

This seems to make  any allegation of foreign interference (read Russia) absurd if the reasoning behind this institution is sound.  I am surprised this hasn’t been brought up as a reason that any investigation into this is just silly.

It prevents an incompetent from becoming president

The 2016 US election was one of duelling idiots. While one may defend Hillary Clinton as Threat not chicebeing well educated, she certainly lacked the knowse to deal with the election process (I refer you to Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign for documentation of her lack of political savvy, but that was pretty obvious to anyone watching the campaign). [1]

On the other hand, the US has been saddled by someone who appears to believe he wouldn’t have won.  I could get into Trump’s  candidacy, but this is a really bad one if this is one of the reasons for having the electoral college.  I’d toss in the 2000 election as another example of the wrong person becoming president.

More reasons

I found Richard Posner’s Slate article defending this anachronism.  In defence of Posner, his article was written in 2012 before this past election fiasco.  Posner gives the following reasons to keep this:  Certainty of Outcome, Everyone’s President, Swing States, Big States, and Avoiding Run-Off Elections. I have to admit that the learned judge seems to be offering confused reasons.

Certainty of Outcome is a bad one for the learned judge to begin with since Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes in 2000 and Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes (2,868,691).  I found it hard to find  a graph which gave the popular votes in the 2016 election, as opposed to graphics that showed the electoral vote, since this number is so disparate it makes this argument risable. [2] It would seem more certain in a truly democratic society, or at least one that likes to pretend to the rest of the world how great its democracy is.

Or is that pretence a relic of the cold war?  Now that democracy is no longer an issue the US can get rid of its pretending its democracy is somehow better than the rest of the world.[3]

Everyone’s president is a truly laughable assertion under Trump.  How many people DIDN’T vote in the last election? Then there are people like me who voted for third parties.

The reality of the “everyone’s president” argument made by Posner is silly is that he then goes on to “Swing States” and “Big States”.  Posner is trying to use the founder’s belief that somehow the Electoral college prevents regionalism.  Then he goes into the glaring examples of regionalism.  It was Clinton’s failures in swing states that cost her the election!

Bottom line on those three arguments: you can’t claim that somehow the electoral college prevents regionalism when regionalism is what ended up costing the election of someone who won the popular vote by 48.5% (as opposed to the electoral college winner who won by 46.4% of the popular vote).

Reading Posner’s article, the 2016 election points out the flaws in his arguments: the electoral college serves no point other than to be anti-democratic, which gets into “run off elections”.

Those would be small prices to pay if they would be the cost of having the democracy the US has presented to the rest if the world through the last part of the 20th Century and the beginning of this one.

The problem is the electoral college is an anti-democratic institution which is an extreme danger to the electoral process.  The sad part is that the travesty caused the electoral college is again being ignored.  I noticed that the democrats were blaming everything except this fossil for their loss.  Now, the silliness of foreign influence in US elections overlooks a reason given for this artefact.

The 2016 Presidential election has demonstrated that this institution needs to be abolished, or drastically reformed.  Its existence has led to a constitutional crisis (not that the US hasn’t been on the verge of one since its inception).  But this one is one of proportions that can no longer be ignored.

The real bottom line here is that the US system of elections is in drastic need of an overhaul: does it take a Constitutional crisis to force this to happen?

notes:

[1] disclaimer: I voted for Jill Stein for many reasons other than just the “democratic” party running Clinton, but her choice was one of many sickeners the party gave me.  The entire US election process makes me sick, but the duopoly really disgusts me.

[2] I knew Clinton was going to lose when the election results focused on the electoral votes as opposed to the popular votes.

[3] there is little difference between a republic and a democracy in modern political science.  Besides, the French Revolution pretty much put paid to most of the anti-democratic v republican beliefs of the founders.

[4] Here is my wish list of changes to the US system of elections.  Only Jill Stein and the Greens seems to be willing to mention them:

open debates run by an impartial body like the League of Women Voters, shorter election cycles, open primaries, ranked choice voting, return of the fairness doctrine and equal time rule (Trump used the lack of it to get shitloads of free publicity), campaign finance reform–if not publicly funded campaigns, easier access to the ballot for parties, reform or abolish the electoral college, end gerrymandering, handcounted paper ballots or receipts, and I am sure that is only the beginning.