Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Professors Testify

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Really? I was born in 1952 and I have used sources for the study of Germany in American, British, and German source material, in a variety of sources. I have also been stationed in Germany and was last there two years ago.
    But you remained an American, what is not a bad thing, and to paraphrase Kipling :America is America and Europe ( here : Germany ) is Europe ,and never the twain shall meet .
    America's heritage is Britain,the heritage of the continent is not Britain .
    Both are different worlds .
    Americans are adoring their constitution while Europeans do not know what a constitution is and do not care about it .
    Americans are convinced that they have a mission,while Europeans are convinced that it is better not to have a mission .
    Americans are in awe before a court of justice, while for Europeans,judges and lawyers are on the same level of politiciand and criminals .
    Americans want to be liked,Europeans want to be respected, to be feared .
    Americans have no linguistic knowledge, Europeans know more than one language .
    Americans are naive, Europeans are realistic.
    Americans want to change the world, Europeans know that you can't change the world .
    Of course this is a generalisation, but generalisations are not wrong .
    Kissinger was an European, and he became American's best Secretary of State .
    You,as a liberal American, you can't understand that the Weimar parties, communists including, approved Hitler's foreign policy .
    You can't also understand that there was nothing new in national socialism : racism existed before Hitler, eugenics and euthanasia also,socialism also, its cousin ( liberalism ) also.
    You,as an American,will never admit that liberal democracy is for most people on earth a luxury they can't afford and that for most people freedom/liberty is subordinated to material progress .
    You can't change the world , that's reality and there is no need to change the world . That's why the anti China resolution of US Congress is a summum of stupidity .

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
      It was the choice of the Germans to live in a dictatorship,while it was the choice of the Americans to live under an other regime .
      And the Germans had the RIGHT to choose their own political system and FDR had not the right to forbid this .
      That this dictatorship was aggressive and oppressive to its own people was NOT the business of people outside Germany .
      Or,are you denying other people the right to choose their own political system ?
      Maybe you want to impose your political system by force on the rest of the world ?
      I noticed that you tried to put a specific chronological limit on the Nazi period. So, you talk about the 1930's only in an effort to avoid the problem of justifying the liquidation which came later since you believe that the Nazi society is no better or worse than ours.

      But let's talk only about the 1930's:

      Was it a choice of the German Jews to live in that dictatorship too?

      Was it their choice to be detained in concentration camps together with political dissenters, mentally ill and gays in the 1930's?

      Was it their choice to see the looting of their property?


      People with your mentality who believe that our society is no better than the Nazi ones, are the real threat of modern democracies. Their belief conditions them to tolerate eve the worst atrocities since they do not see any justification for making a moral judgment when we compare a modern western democracy to the Nazi German one.
      I really do not know if your post is an attempt to troll us or if it just expresses a genuine sociopathy, and frankly I do not care.
      I spent too much time talking to you.
      Last edited by pamak; 11 Dec 19, 15:33.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pamak View Post

        I noticed that you tried to put a specific chronological limit on the Nazi period. So, you talk about the 1930's only in an effort to avoid the problem of justifying the liquidation which came later since you believe that the Nazi society is no better or worse than ours.

        But let's talk only about the 1930's:

        Was it a choice of the German Jews to live in that dictatorship too?

        Was it their choice to be detained in concentration camps together with political dissenters, mentally ill and gays in the 1930's?

        Was it their choice to see the looting of their property?


        People with your mentality who believe that our society is no better than the Nazi ones, are the real threat of modern democracies. Their belief conditions them to tolerate eve the worst atrocities since they do not see any justification for making a moral judgment when we compare a modern western democracy to the Nazi German one.
        I really do not know if your post is an attempt to troll us or if it just expresses a genuine sociopathy, and frankly I do not care.
        I spent too much time talking to you.
        There were no German Jews ,but Jewish Germans . German Jews is an anti-semitic concept .
        I repeat again : the overwhelming majority of the German population welcomed Hitler's dictatorship in 1933,although they knew what would come. The fact that opponents and people considered as enemies were persecuted,does not change this fact .It was the choice of the Germans, and non Germans respected this choice in 1933, and there is no reason why 86 year later we should condemn their choice .
        It is typical of this present arrogant generation that it arrogates to itself the right to condemn the past,instead of trying to remediate its own very big shortcomings .
        But, if you want to wast your time with condemning the past, let's start .
        Condemn
        the Founding Fathers
        Athens and Sparta
        Rome
        the advent of the Islam
        the advent of Christianity
        the advent of the Jewish culture
        the Mayas
        the Incas
        the collaboration of African chiefs in slave trade
        Napoleon
        etc,etc,
        And what will be the benefit of all this ? NOTHING .
        We can't undo the past and we have no right to condemn the past because past generations did things we do not agree with .

        Comment


        • It wasn't a dictatorship when Hitler became Chancellor. His 'actions' afterwards made it one.

          Comment


          • What the ‘Expert’ Panel Should Have Told You About Impeachment—But Didn’t

            ...
            This short essay does what the House Judiciary Committee’s panel of “expert witnesses” didn’t successfully do.

            First, it explains the meaning of the Constitution’s “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” standard. Next, it discusses how that standard applies to President Donald Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Finally, it details the kind of evidence the House Judiciary Committee should gather to determine whether the president committed an impeachable offense.

            Many phrases in the Constitution—such as “necessary and proper,” “Privileges and Immunities,” and “Convention for proposing Amendments”—carry specialized 18th-century meanings not obvious to the modern reader. Recall that most of the leading Founding Fathers were lawyers and the Constitution is a legal document. Some of these phrases derive from 18th-century law.

            Therefore, to understand them you have to consult 18th-century legal materials in addition to better-known sources such as the 1787 convention debates or the Federalist Papers.
            Unfortunately, most of the scholars called by the House Judiciary Committee to address the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” were not able to do so accurately.

            According to the authoritative Westlaw database, two of the three Democratic-appointed witnesses have published no scholarly work on impeachment: Their specialties are in other areas. None showed any familiarity with 18th-century fiduciary standards—which (as explained below) are part of the law of impeachment. All of the witnesses voted against Trump, and several have been involved in anti-Trump activity.

            It’s not surprising, therefore, that, except for professor Jonathan Turley’s heavily footnoted 53-page written statement, the testimony was biased and superficial.

            What Is the Standard?

            Impeachment law isn’t for amateurs. It rests on English parliamentary history extending at least as far back as the 1300s. Furthermore, impeachment standards evolved over time. To understand the Constitution’s rules, we must know what the standards were when the Constitution was adopted. We can do so by consulting 18th-century parliamentary records and legal materials.

            Here’s some of what they tell us:
            ...
            We can assume the president might benefit from a Ukrainian investigation, but that doesn’t mean asking for an investigation was self-dealing as defined by fiduciary, and therefore by impeachment, law. There’s nothing unusual or improper about a president asking a recipient of U.S. foreign aid to address corruption. As for seeking political advantage: If we punished every politician who did that, they would all be swinging from the yardarm.

            This is as true in foreign as in domestic affairs. When President Barack Obama told the Russian president he would have more flexibility after his reelection, he was saying (1) an agreement now would benefit both Russia and the United States, but (2) I’m going to sacrifice our mutual interests for the present because such an agreement might hurt my reelection campaign. Was this impeachable self-dealing? Almost certainly not.

            So where is the divide between “normal” conduct and impeachable conduct? To answer this, we need to weigh at least three factors: impeachment precedent, the national interest, and the practice of other presidents.
            ...
            Another part of the answer lies in whether Trump violated the national interest. As a general rule, self-dealing generally isn’t just enriching yourself. It’s enriching yourself at the expense of your employer. If Trump’s interests were aligned with those of the country, there was no fiduciary breach.

            Despite Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s complaint that Trump violated “the consensus of the interagency,” the question of whether Trump acted contrary to the national interest is a difficult one to answer.

            Perhaps we had a national interest in not asking Zelensky to investigate. But we also had a national interest in asking, because it would be useful to know if Ukrainian officials were trying to meddle in our presidential elections. And it would be useful to know whether the family of a leading presidential candidate is engaged in corruption. Remember: the president asked only for an investigation, not for a pre-determined result.

            Thus, you can argue the “national interest” issue both ways. It looks more like a policy question than a clear case, such as theft of public funds.

            Still another part of the answer lies in how similar officials act in similar circumstances. In the absence of a crime, if you want to determine whether a banker handled funds properly, you should investigate how bankers usually handle funds. If you wish to determine whether an investment adviser gave reasonable advice, you should consult what other reputable advisers recommend in the same circumstances.

            Similarly, to decide whether Trump engaged in impermissible self-dealing, we need testimony about how other officials conduct themselves. We know, for example, that then-Vice President Biden explicitly made aid to Ukraine conditional on firing a Ukrainian prosecutor. If that conduct wasn’t impeachable (and I don’t believe it was), then Trump’s more tepid conduct certainly isn’t impeachable.

            Thus, the Judiciary Committee should ask for testimony from officials of prior presidential administrations, and preferably from the former presidents themselves. Did they ever make foreign aid conditional? What were the conditions? Why? And so forth.
            ...
            It was a good idea to empanel academic experts to provide guidance on the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It should be done again, and this time correctly.

            The next panel should include presidential historians, parliamentary historians, and experts on fiduciary law. It shouldn’t consist primarily of law professors, who are notorious for engaging more in advocacy than in true scholarship.

            Every panelist should have published research on impeachment, fiduciary law, or related areas. No panelist should be enmeshed in pro-Trump or anti-Trump political activity. They should be limited to discussing constitutional impeachment standards without expostulating on evidentiary testimony. Weighing the evidence is the job of the committee members, not of academics with little judicial or “real life” experience.
            ...

            https://www.theepochtimes.com/what-t...t_3166413.html
            Last edited by G David Bock; 12 Dec 19, 20:40.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
              What the ‘Expert’ Panel Should Have Told You About Impeachment—But Didn’t

              ...
              This short essay does what the House Judiciary Committee’s panel of “expert witnesses” didn’t successfully do.

              First, it explains the meaning of the Constitution’s “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” standard. Next, it discusses how that standard applies to President Donald Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Finally, it details the kind of evidence the House Judiciary Committee should gather to determine whether the president committed an impeachable offense.

              Many phrases in the Constitution—such as “necessary and proper,” “Privileges and Immunities,” and “Convention for proposing Amendments”—carry specialized 18th-century meanings not obvious to the modern reader. Recall that most of the leading Founding Fathers were lawyers and the Constitution is a legal document. Some of these phrases derive from 18th-century law.

              Therefore, to understand them you have to consult 18th-century legal materials in addition to better-known sources such as the 1787 convention debates or the Federalist Papers.
              Unfortunately, most of the scholars called by the House Judiciary Committee to address the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” were not able to do so accurately.

              According to the authoritative Westlaw database, two of the three Democratic-appointed witnesses have published no scholarly work on impeachment: Their specialties are in other areas. None showed any familiarity with 18th-century fiduciary standards—which (as explained below) are part of the law of impeachment. All of the witnesses voted against Trump, and several have been involved in anti-Trump activity.

              It’s not surprising, therefore, that, except for professor Jonathan Turley’s heavily footnoted 53-page written statement, the testimony was biased and superficial.

              What Is the Standard?

              Impeachment law isn’t for amateurs. It rests on English parliamentary history extending at least as far back as the 1300s. Furthermore, impeachment standards evolved over time. To understand the Constitution’s rules, we must know what the standards were when the Constitution was adopted. We can do so by consulting 18th-century parliamentary records and legal materials.

              Here’s some of what they tell us:
              ...
              We can assume the president might benefit from a Ukrainian investigation, but that doesn’t mean asking for an investigation was self-dealing as defined by fiduciary, and therefore by impeachment, law. There’s nothing unusual or improper about a president asking a recipient of U.S. foreign aid to address corruption. As for seeking political advantage: If we punished every politician who did that, they would all be swinging from the yardarm.

              This is as true in foreign as in domestic affairs. When President Barack Obama told the Russian president he would have more flexibility after his reelection, he was saying (1) an agreement now would benefit both Russia and the United States, but (2) I’m going to sacrifice our mutual interests for the present because such an agreement might hurt my reelection campaign. Was this impeachable self-dealing? Almost certainly not.

              So where is the divide between “normal” conduct and impeachable conduct? To answer this, we need to weigh at least three factors: impeachment precedent, the national interest, and the practice of other presidents.
              ...
              Another part of the answer lies in whether Trump violated the national interest. As a general rule, self-dealing generally isn’t just enriching yourself. It’s enriching yourself at the expense of your employer. If Trump’s interests were aligned with those of the country, there was no fiduciary breach.

              Despite Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s complaint that Trump violated “the consensus of the interagency,” the question of whether Trump acted contrary to the national interest is a difficult one to answer.

              Perhaps we had a national interest in not asking Zelensky to investigate. But we also had a national interest in asking, because it would be useful to know if Ukrainian officials were trying to meddle in our presidential elections. And it would be useful to know whether the family of a leading presidential candidate is engaged in corruption. Remember: the president asked only for an investigation, not for a pre-determined result.

              Thus, you can argue the “national interest” issue both ways. It looks more like a policy question than a clear case, such as theft of public funds.

              Still another part of the answer lies in how similar officials act in similar circumstances. In the absence of a crime, if you want to determine whether a banker handled funds properly, you should investigate how bankers usually handle funds. If you wish to determine whether an investment adviser gave reasonable advice, you should consult what other reputable advisers recommend in the same circumstances.

              Similarly, to decide whether Trump engaged in impermissible self-dealing, we need testimony about how other officials conduct themselves. We know, for example, that then-Vice President Biden explicitly made aid to Ukraine conditional on firing a Ukrainian prosecutor. If that conduct wasn’t impeachable (and I don’t believe it was), then Trump’s more tepid conduct certainly isn’t impeachable.

              Thus, the Judiciary Committee should ask for testimony from officials of prior presidential administrations, and preferably from the former presidents themselves. Did they ever make foreign aid conditional? What were the conditions? Why? And so forth.
              ...
              It was a good idea to empanel academic experts to provide guidance on the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It should be done again, and this time correctly.

              The next panel should include presidential historians, parliamentary historians, and experts on fiduciary law. It shouldn’t consist primarily of law professors, who are notorious for engaging more in advocacy than in true scholarship.

              Every panelist should have published research on impeachment, fiduciary law, or related areas. No panelist should be enmeshed in pro-Trump or anti-Trump political activity. They should be limited to discussing constitutional impeachment standards without expostulating on evidentiary testimony. Weighing the evidence is the job of the committee members, not of academics with little judicial or “real life” experience.
              ...

              https://www.theepochtimes.com/what-t...t_3166413.html
              His argument about how one can characterize the crime from a legal perspective makes sense.
              When he goes to the political aspect, he does not make sense, even though in the end he does not want to come to a conclusion one way or another.

              We heard from the experts that in the 18th century there was no federal statute to define high crimes and misdemeanors. We also know that even though the Americans got many legal concepts from the English, impeachment does not require a link to such statute. And ALL experts (including the two experts whose credentials apparently satisfy this author's requirements) said so.

              We also know that the King could not be impeached while the president could. It is therefore obvious that one cannot JUST use English standards of the time and apply them to evaluate every action by the head of the US State. The latter has much more latitude and power (and thus opportunity to abuse it) compared to the lower level political officials in England who were potential targets of an impeachment.

              Also, all the available career witnesses testified that what they witnessed with Giuliani and the attempt to condition a WH meeting and a foreign aid to the investigation was unprecedented, and all of them said that it was improper to ask Zelensky to investigate Biden. Now if somebody is willing to come out and argue that he does not have a problem to trust the next president who asks such type of investigation, I want to hear it clearly. nobody dared to imply something like this, and this expert also does not come forward with such claim.

              In addition, the requirement to make a public announcement for starting an investigation does not fit with his statement that "There's nothing unusual or improper about a president asking a recipient of U.S. foreign aid to address corruption."The same is true with the absence of the DOJ in this request and with the general contradictions between the understanding of the official channels and the behavior of the unofficial one.

              It is also weird that he did not feel the need to say anything about the obstruction of Congress impeachment article when even Nixon had permitted his chief of staff to testify before the House Committees.






              Last edited by pamak; 12 Dec 19, 22:59.
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X