The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
President Trump Did Not Obstruct Justice
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Alan M. Dershowitz
.
Buffett's Cogent, but Shortsighted, Point on Health
Care
The New York Times this week published an article on billionaire Warren Buffett's sentiments regarding corporate roadblocks. According to Buffett, Republican lawmakers and company officials are too fixated on corporate tax rates, the lowering of which he contends would do little to propel economic growth. (We strongly disagree, but that's another topic.) Buffett's justification is this: "If you go back to 1960 or thereabouts, corporate taxes were about 4 percent of GDP. ... And now, they're about 2 percent of GDP." Meanwhile, a half-century ago, "[H]ealth care was 5 percent of GDP, and now it's about 17 percent." His statement is comprehensive, meaning he's referring to the health care system in its entirety. Consequently, he surmises, "Medical costs are the tapeworm of American economic competitiveness."
Someone should ask him why he helped finance Burger King's corporate inversion to lower its tax bill if corporate taxes don't matter so much.
Buffett is right to pinpoint how ridiculous health care costs are today. In fact, it would be laughable if it weren't so absurd. Providing these benefits is a huge financial burden for most businesses, particularly small ones. And yet an excerpt from the Times underscores the shortcomings of Buffett's solution: "Mr. Buffett is a Democrat, but his business partner, Charles T. Munger, is a Republican — and a rare one who has advocated a single-payer health care system. Under his plan, which Mr. Buffett agrees with, the United States would enact a sort of universal type of coverage for all citizens — perhaps along the lines of the Medicaid system — with an opt-out provision that would allow the wealthy to still get concierge medicine."
Simply stated, Buffett would rather the government take on most of the cost of health care. Well guess what may be needed to help pay for it? Even higher taxes on corporations. And even then, a single-payer system would set us up for even worse national debt problems in the future (as if the outlook isn't bad enough). Health care costs need to be reduced significantly. As Star Parker put it, "Health care markets are distorted from top to bottom by government, regulations and bureaucrats. Nothing is more personal than health care; sadly, in no marketplace are individuals less in control of their own selves." The whole system needs to be revamped. If done properly, businesses can be saved from drowning in health care costs. As for tax reform? Well, that would just be icing on the cake. Regardless of Buffett's point on GDP, you can't reasonably argue that reducing the current 35% rate won't result in far-reaching, very positive changes. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Acting FBI Director Linked To Podesta, liar-Clintons, McAuliffe – Hid $700K Campaign Donations
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Lou Dobbs has a few thoughts on “James Comey, Andrew McCabe and the liar-Hillary and Bill liar-Clinton case... Andrew McCabe, good friend of John Podesta, married to a Democrat candidate, an unsuccessful Democrat Candidate, testifying about the FBI’s decision, or at least James Comey’s decision, not to prosecute liar-Hillary Clinton and the reaction within the agency.” The same guy who gushed to Senator Heinrich (D-NM) that most FBI employees “enjoyed a deep, positive connection with Comey” was forced to admit, in the interest of appearing objective and remotely truthful, the other side of that argument. He said, “There were folks within our agency who were frustrated with the outcome of the liar-Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about that, uh, those concerns.” The highly placed deep state Democrat operative McCabe should be aware that it wasn’t just folks inside the agency who were frustrated. Most believe the fix was in and would have remained that way as long as Comey and McCabe were a team. AG Sessions might want to position round the clock guards on the evidence...http://rickwells.us/dobbs-acting-fbi-director-linked-podesta-clintons-mcauliffe-hid-700k-campaign-donations/
.Trump Has Vowed to Eradicate MS-13.
What You Need to Know About the Gang
by Josh Siegel
{dailysignal.com} ~ In describing its effort to enforce immigration laws aggressively, the Trump administration repeatedly has invoked the threat of MS-13, a violent international gang with ties to Central America... Responding to a recent surge of violence linked to MS-13 on Long Island, New York—punctuated by the April 13 discovery of four men killed near a public park—U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions visited with local law enforcement late last month, and vowed to eradicate the gang by cracking down on illegal immigration. “The MS-13 motto is kill, rape, and control,” Sessions said at the U.S. Courthouse on Long Island. “Our motto is justice for victims and consequences for criminals. That’s how simple it is...http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/11/trump-vowed-eradicate-ms-13-need-know-gang/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRWaE16STVPR1F4TnpJeSIsInQiOiJSeFpTemhQdXdQaE5ZR2ZyakttMUFZaW1oc0IyZ2VaTURwbnd3RENvM2hYd2VCQ3REMmloN3RVNDBTOUptWVhwSGtFSlNSYzBJRTJYdVBjelBKVkgyVUltQkU1aW8xTkthXC85Y1JYakNyK1JieFRLMlo5ais3WTFaNTZKOWkzY3MifQ%3D%3D.
Here Are 12 Possible Comey
Replacements at FBI
by Fred Lucas
{dailysignal.com} ~ There’s no shortage of familiar names floating to be the next FBI director, after President Donald Trump’s controversial firing of James Comey earlier this week... But it appears former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan could be an early favorite among current and former agents. Other names in the mix are Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.; Judge Merrick Garland; former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; and former New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly... http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/11/12-possible-comey-replacements-fbi/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRWaE16STVPR1F4TnpJeSIsInQiOiJSeFpTemhQdXdQaE5ZR2ZyakttMUFZaW1oc0IyZ2VaTURwbnd3RENvM2hYd2VCQ3REMmloN3RVNDBTOUptWVhwSGtFSlNSYzBJRTJYdVBjelBKVkgyVUltQkU1aW8xTkthXC85Y1JYakNyK1JieFRLMlo5ais3WTFaNTZKOWkzY3MifQ%3D%3D.
Friedman to Trump: Not much
chance for Israel-PA peace deal
David Friedman
by David Rosenberg
{israelnationalnews.com} ~ While President Donald Trump has expressed his “personal commitment” to help reach a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority... senior advisors are less than optimistic such a deal can be brokered, and have made their skepticism clear to the president. President Trump is scheduled to arrive in Israel in 10 days, a trip that will likely kick off his much-anticipated effort to bring Israel and the Palestinian Authority back to the negotiating table. A week before Trump arrives, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman will land in Israel and present his credentials to Israeli President Reuven Rivlin... http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/229550?utm_source=activetrail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl.
Rebellion grows against Muslim
indoctrination in schools
by Art Moore
{wnd.com} ~ From coast to coast, parents are rebelling against what they describe as Islamic indoctrination of their children in public schools... In Florida, for example, parents are protesting a newly approved textbook they say whitewashes Islam’s violent history of conquest and subjugation, while in San Diego, an angry father confronted the city’s school board about its partnership with the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations in an “anti-bullying” program. The Brevard County School Board in Florida has revised a history textbook that had been condemned by some parents for its selective treatment of Islam, but the new edition still has its critics...http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/rebellion-grows-against-muslim-indoctrination-in-schools/
.
.
President Trump Did Not Obstruct Justice
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Alan M. Dershowitz
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ A dangerous argument is now being put forward by some Democratic ideologues: namely that President Trump should be indicted for the crime of obstructing justice because he fired FBI Director James Comey. Whatever one may think of the President's decision to fire Trump as a matter of policy, there is no legitimate basis for concluding that the President engaged in a crime by exercising his statutory and constitutional authority to fire director Comey. As Comey himself wrote in his letter to the FBI, no one should doubt the authority of the President to fire the Director for any reason or no reason.
It should not be a crime for a public official, whether the President or anyone else, to exercise his or her statutory and constitutional authority to hire or fire another public official. For something to be a crime there must be both an actus reus and mens rea – that is, a criminal act accompanied by a criminal state of mind. Even assuming that President Trump was improperly motivated in firing Comey, motive alone should never constitute a crime. There should have to be an unlawful act. And exercising constitutional and statutory power should not constitute the actus reus of a crime. Otherwise the crime would place the defendant's thoughts on trial, rather than his actions.
Civil libertarians, and all who care about due process and justice, should be concerned about the broad scope of the statute that criminalizes "obstruction of justice." Some courts have wrongly interpreted this accordion-like law so broadly as to encompass a mixture of lawful and unlawful acts. It is dangerous and wrong to criminalize lawful behavior because it may have been motivated by evil thoughts. People who care about the rule of law, regardless of how they feel about President Trump, should not be advocating a broadening of obstruction of justice to include the lawful Presidential act of firing the FBI Director. Such an open ended precedent could be used in the future to curtail the liberties of all Americans.
So let's put this nonsense behind us and not criminalize policy differences, as extremists in both parties have tried to do. Republican and Democratic partisans often resort to the criminal law as a way of demonizing their political enemies. "Lock her up," was the cry of Republican partisans against liar-Hillary Clinton regarding her misuse of her email server. Now "obstruction of justice" is the "lock him up" cry of partisan Democrats who disagree with President Trump's decision to fire Comey. I opposed the criminalization of policy differences when Texas Governor Rick Perry, Congressman Tom Delay and Senator Bob Menendez were indicted, and I strongly oppose the investigation now being conducted against Prime Minister Netanyahu. The criminal law should be used as the last resort against elected officials, not as the opening salvo in a political knife-fight. There is no place in a democracy for elastic statutes that can be stretched to fit lawful conduct with which political opponents disagree. If they are allowed to be stretched today to cover your political enemies, they could be stretched tomorrow to go after your political friends.
The debate over the proprietary of the President's actions, about which I have opined repeatedly, should continue but let's take the allegations of criminal obstruction of justice out of this important debate. There is more than enough fodder for a debate over the merits and demerits of the President's actions without muddying the waters with politically motivated charges of criminality.
Partisanship seems to have no limits these days. Both parties are equally at fault, as are extremists among the public and within the media. It is getting harder and harder to have a nuanced debate about complex political issues. Everything is either evil or good. Nothing has elements of both. Actions either deserve criminal indictment or the Nobel Prize. Nobody benefits from this kind of ideological shouting match. So let's agree to disagree about important issues, but let's not distort the debate with extremist slogans like "lock her up" or "obstruction of justice." We are better than that.
It should not be a crime for a public official, whether the President or anyone else, to exercise his or her statutory and constitutional authority to hire or fire another public official. For something to be a crime there must be both an actus reus and mens rea – that is, a criminal act accompanied by a criminal state of mind. Even assuming that President Trump was improperly motivated in firing Comey, motive alone should never constitute a crime. There should have to be an unlawful act. And exercising constitutional and statutory power should not constitute the actus reus of a crime. Otherwise the crime would place the defendant's thoughts on trial, rather than his actions.
Civil libertarians, and all who care about due process and justice, should be concerned about the broad scope of the statute that criminalizes "obstruction of justice." Some courts have wrongly interpreted this accordion-like law so broadly as to encompass a mixture of lawful and unlawful acts. It is dangerous and wrong to criminalize lawful behavior because it may have been motivated by evil thoughts. People who care about the rule of law, regardless of how they feel about President Trump, should not be advocating a broadening of obstruction of justice to include the lawful Presidential act of firing the FBI Director. Such an open ended precedent could be used in the future to curtail the liberties of all Americans.
So let's put this nonsense behind us and not criminalize policy differences, as extremists in both parties have tried to do. Republican and Democratic partisans often resort to the criminal law as a way of demonizing their political enemies. "Lock her up," was the cry of Republican partisans against liar-Hillary Clinton regarding her misuse of her email server. Now "obstruction of justice" is the "lock him up" cry of partisan Democrats who disagree with President Trump's decision to fire Comey. I opposed the criminalization of policy differences when Texas Governor Rick Perry, Congressman Tom Delay and Senator Bob Menendez were indicted, and I strongly oppose the investigation now being conducted against Prime Minister Netanyahu. The criminal law should be used as the last resort against elected officials, not as the opening salvo in a political knife-fight. There is no place in a democracy for elastic statutes that can be stretched to fit lawful conduct with which political opponents disagree. If they are allowed to be stretched today to cover your political enemies, they could be stretched tomorrow to go after your political friends.
The debate over the proprietary of the President's actions, about which I have opined repeatedly, should continue but let's take the allegations of criminal obstruction of justice out of this important debate. There is more than enough fodder for a debate over the merits and demerits of the President's actions without muddying the waters with politically motivated charges of criminality.
Partisanship seems to have no limits these days. Both parties are equally at fault, as are extremists among the public and within the media. It is getting harder and harder to have a nuanced debate about complex political issues. Everything is either evil or good. Nothing has elements of both. Actions either deserve criminal indictment or the Nobel Prize. Nobody benefits from this kind of ideological shouting match. So let's agree to disagree about important issues, but let's not distort the debate with extremist slogans like "lock her up" or "obstruction of justice." We are better than that.
Comments