- EphBlog - http://ephblog.com -

A Heads-Up …

Louis+XIV+(r.+1643-1715)+Personal+rule+began+in+1661+with+the+death+of+Cardinal+Mazarin.+L+État,+c+est+moi+(the+state+is+me)

It must have been difficult for the Bourbons to go from Louis XIV The Sun King and cited expounder of “L’État c’est Moi” to devolve to Louis XVI The Restorer of French Liberty who died by the guillotine as plain old Louis Capet.

I think Williams Professor Susan Dunn‘s book The Deaths of Louis XVI and her course Sister Revolutions in France and America would be interesting to read and take during this time when an American President can equate the raid on his lawyer to an attack on America.

The Bourbon timeline from XIV to XVI was 149  years.  How quickly things may work in our time and without the guillotine.

Facebooktwitter
Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "A Heads-Up …"

#1 Comment By David Dudley Field ’25 On April 10, 2018 @ 4:55 pm

Interesting stuff! (I added some formatting and links.)

Pulling out relevant sections from Dunn’s book might make for some interesting reading this summer . . .

We need more history books at EphBlog!

#2 Comment By frank uible On April 10, 2018 @ 6:04 pm

Today public beheading might be more fun than the UFC.

#3 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 10, 2018 @ 9:17 pm

The Bourbon timeline from XIV to XVI was 149 years. How quickly things may work in our time and without the guillotine.

Too true. The Constitution just got shredded – especially parts of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments – on the say so of an agency known to have repeatedly misled FISC judges on warrant applications for many years.

So much for equal protection under the law.

#4 Comment By abl On April 10, 2018 @ 10:44 pm

Too true. The Constitution just got shredded – especially parts of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments – on the say so of an agency known to have repeatedly misled FISC judges on warrant applications for many years.

So much for equal protection under the law.

Elaborate, please!

#5 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 11, 2018 @ 3:31 am

The FBI has repeatedly misled FISC judges on warrant applications, and it has a history of so doing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/23/us/secret-court-says-fbi-aides-misled-judges-in-75-cases.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/02/trump-nunes-memo-russia-investigation-fbi-congress-bovard-column/1088740001/

It is on the strength of the FBI’s assertions that the warrant to raid Cohen’s offices was issued. Also, if the responsible parties hadn’t withheld pertinent facts in their FISA re-application (the initial application having been thrown out) to Judge Contreras there most likely would not have been an investigation in the first place.

The raid on Cohen’s offices strikes at the concept of attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege is thought to exist “in necessary and intimate relationship” with the Fifth Amendment (against self-incrimination) and Sixth Amendment (the right to counsel) – an argument is laid out here (see especially pages 726-727):

https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1815&context=hlr

Where the attorney-client privilege is violated, the violation also undermines the protections afforded under the Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

#6 Comment By Fendertweed On April 11, 2018 @ 11:38 am

If you’re trying to concoct a fishing expedition to protect Trumps crimes, goo luck!

There is a mountain of evidence and more than probable cause.

#7 Comment By abl On April 11, 2018 @ 11:56 am

Alum-Anon,

I’m very glad to hear that you’re concerned about state abuses of power, about violations of civil rights and civil liberties, about the FBI investigating based in part on politics, and about FISC (and, hopefully, other similar courts). These are all things about which we should be deeply concerned. I trust that your concern will continue unabated when the possible issue is the targeting of some politically powerless minority, and I’ll look forward to your next post on the subject when that happens.

#8 Comment By Fendertweed On April 11, 2018 @ 12:10 pm

Indeed, I spent years in and around state and federal prosecutions and investigations and the publicly available information alone points to criminal conduct and no privilege.

#9 Comment By frank uible On April 11, 2018 @ 1:39 pm

I am one politically powerless minority! Please protect me – for the nonce from the IRS and its greed.

#10 Comment By ZSD On April 11, 2018 @ 2:01 pm

The Laws of My Administration can be clearly elucidated, enunciated, and appreciated!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSsUoxlSADk

#11 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 11, 2018 @ 4:59 pm

I’m very glad to hear that you’re concerned about state abuses of power, about violations of civil rights and civil liberties, about the FBI investigating based in part on politics, and about FISC (and, hopefully, other similar courts). These are all things about which we should be deeply concerned. I trust that your concern will continue unabated when the possible issue is the targeting of some politically powerless minority, and I’ll look forward to your next post on the subject when that happens.

I have in fact written about two such issues in this forum alone – namely the Gina McCarthy EPA enacting the worst environmental damage ever to watersheds impacting Navajo and Pueblo tribes in 2015, and the unbelievable harassment inflicted on Cliven Bundy and the Hammonds (not to mention their neighbors) over several decades by out-of-control petty bureaucrats.

I am equally certain that you will never credit me with such views, because it does not dovetail with your cartoon characterization of what you think I should be about – in much the way that you demonstrated steep confusion by my attitude on the overuse of the Communist Manifesto in college curricula.

#12 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 11, 2018 @ 5:25 pm

Fendertweed says:
If you’re trying to concoct a fishing expedition to protect Trumps crimes, goo luck!
There is a mountain of evidence and more than probable cause.

When a lawyer specializing in constitutional law that happens to be liberal and didn’t even vote for Trump publicly (and angrily) states his concerns about constitutional violations in the raid on Cohen’s office, you should consider there are issues here that strike at very basic principles.

A special counsel and investigation are launched on the basis of falsified evidence purchased by your party from a foreign intelligence operative, the origin of which is withheld from the FISC judge in the application for the relevant FISA warrant, said investigation bumbles along for a year and fails to turn up anything relevant to the express purpose of the warrant, but generates “spin off” investigations into unrelated matters, and there substantive conflicts of interest found with these – and you accuse me of “concocting a fishing expedition?”

#13 Comment By abl On April 11, 2018 @ 6:27 pm

I have in fact written about two such issues in this forum alone – namely the Gina McCarthy EPA enacting the worst environmental damage ever to watersheds impacting Navajo and Pueblo tribes in 2015, and the unbelievable harassment inflicted on Cliven Bundy and the Hammonds (not to mention their neighbors) over several decades by out-of-control petty bureaucrats.

If you only care about government overreach when it impacts white men and conservative causes, it’s not government overreach that you care about but white men and conservative causes. That said, I’m unfamiliar with the EPA issue, but it sounds like you do deserve some limited kudos for calling that out. Are you similarly critical of the Trump EPA, which has promulgated a substantial number of policies bad for the environment in general and tribes specifically? It’s easy to criticize the administration of a president you don’t support for doing something crummy. The real question is whether you have the scruples to criticize your own party for similar (or worse) practices.

I am equally certain that you will never credit me with such views, because it does not dovetail with your cartoon characterization of what you think I should be about – in much the way that you demonstrated steep confusion by my attitude on the overuse of the Communist Manifesto in college curricula.

I’ll credit you for holding consistent views motivated by a sincere concern for the underlying issues rather than shallow political tribalism when your comments warrant such credit. You assume unfairly that I won’t. If you are, indeed, highly critical of the Trump EPA’s environmental practices (as well you should be if you truly care about things like “environmental damage [] to watersheds” and the environmental impacts of government policies on tribes), then I’ll look forward to a soon-upcoming post on the subject. Likewise, if you’re so concerned with civil rights/liberties violations and FISC/FBI overreach that the potential issues with President Trump prompted you to post here despite the topic only being tangentially related, I’ll look forward to seeing many future posts from you on these issues–including in the disproportionately common circumstances in which they negatively impact traditionally liberal constituencies.

Finally, I’m not sure what any of this has to do with your earlier posts about the Communist Manifesto.

#14 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 11, 2018 @ 6:35 pm

Yeah, exactly what I expected to hear from abl – highly partisan insults masquerading as a condescending concern with what abl tries to characterize as someone else’s partisanship.

#15 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 11, 2018 @ 6:42 pm

Finally, I’m not sure what any of this has to do with your earlier posts about the Communist Manifesto.

Because now as then, you have chosen to misrepresent my position – either because it doesn’t coincide with your stereotypes, or because it is easier to impugn through mischaracterization. At this point I am convinced your libsplaining is the latter.

#16 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 11, 2018 @ 7:10 pm

If you only care about government overreach when it impacts white men and conservative causes, it’s not government overreach that you care about but white men and conservative causes.

This is deeply insulting. “Smear” is the word.

#17 Comment By abl On April 11, 2018 @ 7:29 pm

Yeah, exactly what I expected to hear from abl – highly partisan insults masquerading as a condescending concern with what abl tries to characterize as someone else’s partisanship.

Re-read my comment. Nothing in there should be insulting to you if, in fact, you are motivated by the issues. I apologize if you nevertheless feel insulted: that was not my intention. (I also don’t think there’s anything in there that’s partisan, but that’s less important.)

Because now as then, you have chosen to misrepresent my position – either because it doesn’t coincide with your stereotypes, or because it is easier to impugn through mischaracterization. At this point I am convinced your libsplaining is the latter.

Again, re-read my comment. I haven’t represented your position let alone mis-represented it. My genuine hope is that you do care about the issues, as they are incredibly important. We need more people in society willing to hold people on both sides of the aisle accountable for things like civil rights/civil liberties violations, and I would welcome an earnest conversation about what reform in that area might look like.

I also don’t recall the particulars of our earlier conversation about the Manifesto well enough to say much besides if I mischaracterized your position, it was entirely unintentional.

Believe it or not, but I do see this board–probably foolishly–as an opportunity to have real conversations about important issues. I’m not interested in “winning” arguments, let alone through cheap tricks like mischaracterization, because I see these as conversations and not some sort of scored rhetorical game — and so if I ever mischaracterize you or anyone else here, it’s unintentional.

#18 Comment By abl On April 11, 2018 @ 7:38 pm

<<If you only care about government overreach when it impacts white men and conservative causes, it’s not government overreach that you care about but white men and conservative causes.>>

This is deeply insulting. “Smear” is the word.

It’s a conditional statement, not a smear. I also think it’s generally accurate, as a descriptive matter. Again, though, my sincere hope is that you also care about government overreach when doing so involves critiquing conservative heroes or promoting traditionally progressive interests.

I also want to make clear that this same general line of criticism applies to many liberals: if you are only “concerned” about extrajudicial killings when they are committed by Bush II, but not Obama, your concern is probably not really about extrajudicial killings.

#19 Comment By sigh On April 11, 2018 @ 7:46 pm

wait, wait, wait…are you talking about Dershowitz here? Cuz, if so…LMFAO

When a lawyer specializing in constitutional law that happens to be liberal and didn’t even vote for Trump publicly

From politico, for one:

The role of Trump legal ally is a surprising turn for the lifelong Democrat – that is, if you haven’t been watching Fox News for the past year. Dershowitz has become one of the president’s most reliable TV defenders, routinely attacking the legal grounds for Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and defending Trump’s right to fire former FBI Director James Comey….
But the president, who has followed Dershowitz’s legal commentary on television and cheered him on in real-time on Twitter, has increasingly turned to him privately as his stable of lawyers has dwindled. He has spoken with him about a range of issues, including his escalating legal troubles, people familiar with the conversations said. Top White House advisers said they view Dershowitz as an important legal asset, even if he’s not officially on the payroll.

#20 Comment By sigh On April 11, 2018 @ 7:50 pm

Also, this is factually untrue:

A special counsel and investigation are launched on the basis of falsified evidence purchased by your party from a foreign intelligence operative, the origin of which is withheld from the FISC judge in the application for the relevant FISA warrant,

Fact: the investigation was launched based not on the Steele dossier but before it was known to the FBI.

Fact: the special counsel was appointed because Trump fired Comey and Comey accused Trump of undue pressure to drop an investigation.

Fact: the Steele dossier was disclosed to the judge as part of the FISA warrant application and the court knew there may have been a political motivation behind the dossier (though that is similarly overstated).

#21 Comment By JCD 📌 On April 11, 2018 @ 8:01 pm

One of the most satisfying things about being a conservative is that our realistic, take the world as it is, perspective makes it extremely easy to quickly identify smears even if they are couched in faux concern and to recognize untruthful statements even if they are compulsively labeled as facts.

#22 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 11, 2018 @ 8:04 pm

It’s a conditional statement, not a smear. I also think it’s generally accurate, as a descriptive matter.
/blockquote>

It is in fact both. The implication is extremely insulting, and inaccurate, and you have just doubled down on it.

#23 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 11, 2018 @ 8:12 pm

wait, wait, wait…are you talking about Dershowitz here? Cuz, if so…LMFAO

Why LMFAO? He seems to be one of the few Democrats who recognizes the potential problems the raid on Cohen’s office creates.

Dershowitz: Targeting Trump’s lawyer should worry us all

“I have been widely attacked for defending the constitutional rights of a president I voted against. In our hyperpartisan age, everyone is expected to choose a side, either for or against Trump. But the essence of civil liberties is that they must be equally applicable to all. The silence among most civil libertarians regarding the recent raid shows that we are losing that valuable neutrality.”

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/382459-dershowitz-targeting-trumps-lawyer-should-worry-us-all

#24 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 11, 2018 @ 8:53 pm

Fact: the investigation was launched based not on the Steele dossier but before it was known to the FBI.

Fact: The dossier – consisting of falsified evidence purchased by the DNC, formed an integral part of the initial Carter Page FISA application (October 2016), and the circumstances of its origin were withheld from the application as well as the three subsequent renewals.

Fact: the special counsel was appointed because Trump fired Comey and Comey accused Trump of undue pressure to drop an investigation.

Fact: This is not in dispute and not inconsistent with the paragraph you claim as factually untrue. Mueller’s appointment post-dated the dossier, already an integral part of the investigation, by several months. It is ludicrous to claim his mandate had nothing to do with it.

Fact: the Steele dossier was disclosed to the judge as part of the FISA warrant application and the court knew there may have been a political motivation behind the dossier (though that is similarly overstated).

Fact: Again, your reading was sloppy. I stated that it was the origins of the dossier that were withheld from the court.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/full-text-nunes-memo-fbi-transcript-385057

#25 Comment By Dick Swart On April 11, 2018 @ 9:50 pm

Gentlemen!

Please go to neutral corners and emerge to discuss Steve Bannon’s new legal strategy for the President involving previous statements being declared privileged communications and therefore null and void. WAPO https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bannon-pitches-white-house-on-plan-to-cripple-mueller-probe-and-protect-trump/2018/04/11/1ec5b1b2-3d9f-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html?utm_term=.9b9d4dec953d

I am glad to be almost 84 and probably won’t have to live in the decline of the American Dream. When I had my three years in Janesville, WI, Paul Ryan and his grandmother were neighbors. It was a nice neighborhood of older homes.

#26 Comment By sigh On April 12, 2018 @ 8:06 am

Out of respect for Dick, I’ll stop. I strongly encourage people to read the actual timeline, the full public information, and make decisions for themselves. I do echo abl’s belief that people who are enraged by this as an overreach of justice should also be deeply concerned by police shooting unarmed men, misuse of stop and frisk, and the misuse of our social media data by political actors.

#27 Comment By Fendertweed On April 12, 2018 @ 11:41 am

@Alum-Anon,

I, too, am a Constitutional lawyer, non Trump voter, “constitutional conservative ” (I.e., “liberal” on some things. “Libertarian-ish” on some, “conservative ” on others though most might wrongly peg me as “liberal” (can’t stand Bernie Sanders, for ex.) …..

And, yet, I don’t buy in to your line for various reasons.

Even a blowhard like Dershowitz, who’s right about much of what he says, fails fatally when ignoring the crime fraud exception, etc., re: Cohen’s conduct. Nothing new or Earth shaking there. Fair game for a warrant given the history of evasion and, apparently, obstruction.

Much of your umbrage relies on assumptions and leaps that simply don’t hold up under scrutiny. I’m not going to parse them all in this forum.

#28 Comment By abl On April 12, 2018 @ 11:48 am

Alum-anon:

I’m genuinely unsure what you find either insulting or incorrect about the above conditional statement. Regardless, I am sorry, as upsetting you was not my intention. There are many serious civil rights / civil liberties issues (most of which disproportionately impact liberal constituencies or overlap with liberal causes — not that it really matters), and the last thing I intended was to alienate an ally in the fight to make important civil rights / civil liberties reforms.

#29 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 12, 2018 @ 1:23 pm

Out of respect for Dick, I’ll stop. I strongly encourage people to read the actual timeline, the full public information, and make decisions for themselves.

Sounds reasonable. I will note that I provided a link to supporting documentation, and you provided no such link while in effect calling me a liar.

I do echo abl’s belief that people who are enraged by this as an overreach of justice should also be deeply concerned by police shooting unarmed men, misuse of stop and frisk, and the misuse of our social media data by political actors.

Well, I did allude to a case in which an unarmed individual was shot while surrendering to federal and state law enforcement, but that seems to have escaped your attention in your rush to lecture me about the topics with which I should concern myself.

#30 Comment By sigh On April 12, 2018 @ 3:46 pm

I’ll provide links:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/24/democratic-memo-fbi-trump-423447

and

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier

It is telling to me that the one unarmed man you reference by name was Zachary Hammond (and Bundy…woo boy…)

#31 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 12, 2018 @ 4:56 pm

It is telling to me that the one unarmed man you reference by name was Zachary Hammond (and Bundy…woo boy…)

Wrong. Not mentioned by name, and not Zachary Hammond.

“Bundy …woo boy?” It may interest you to know that he was exonerated and that the federal government’s case against him was dismissed with prejudice – by a Latina judge who happened to be an Obama appointee, no less. Turns out that not only did the BLM and the DoJ lie repeatedly about aspects of the case, but the DoJ was found to have withheld relevant exculpatory evidence. Furthermore the Bureau of Land Management agent who started the conflict, Dan Love, was officially fired for misconduct in an unrelated case.

#32 Comment By JCD 📌 On April 12, 2018 @ 5:31 pm

Alum-Anon is on fire. It is normal of leftists to underestimate the power of the government to do wrong to its citizens. The nation’s founders were wiser than that. They saw government as a necessary evil.

#33 Comment By sigh On April 12, 2018 @ 6:39 pm

What shooting? I’ll happily admit my mistake, but I can’t find it here and I’ve looked multiple times.

I’m perfectly comfortable saying the government is often a hot mess of over-reaching (hi COINTELPRO, what’s good?) and we should not give it the benefit of the doubt, we should give citizens the benefit of the doubt. I’m also perfectly comfortable saying that this is primarily true for citizens who are not wealthy and whose politics are far afield from the government from both the right and the left. We should be vigilant about government overreach against citizens.

President Trump is not a non-wealthy citizen. Michael Cohen is not a non-wealthy citizen. The Nunes memo is a travesty of misrepresentation. Both Trump and Cohen have acted in clear ways that warrant investigation and I agree with Fendertweed on your arguments. While there is often a there there with regard to government overreach, in this case there doesn’t appear to be a there there. But this forum is not the place for this debate for me. forgive me for engaging unduly.

#34 Comment By JCD 📌 On April 12, 2018 @ 7:01 pm

Thankfully, Mueller’s aggressive actions to take down an elected U.S. president have backfired on him. Public opinion on Mueller has shifted downwards even as more of us are supporting Donald Trump. This must be a nightmare for the left.

Poll: Robert Mueller Loses Majority Support After FBI Raids Trump’s Lawyer

I think it is obvious to all but the most ideologically blinded that going after Trump’s lawyer was a big mistake. It is difficult to understand how, if at all, that Mueller’s original mandate could be stretched to include an invasion of the president’s attorney’s office and residences. This is frightening stuff.

#35 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 12, 2018 @ 7:32 pm

What shooting? I’ll happily admit my mistake, but I can’t find it here and I’ve looked multiple times.

That of LaVoy Finicum – yet another example of FBI misconduct:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/06/fbi_agents_indictment_resulted.html

#36 Comment By sigh On April 12, 2018 @ 7:55 pm

FFS, I was really hoping that wasn’t the example. So of the 1000+ people killed by police in 2016, the one you reference as a government overreach is a guy who was part of an armed right-wing takeover of a wildlife refuge and one of the few cases in which any officer was indicted for lying.

FFS.

(also, he was armed. they recovered a semi-automatic pistol from his pocket)

#37 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 12, 2018 @ 8:23 pm

JCD 📌 says:

Alum-Anon is on fire. It is normal of leftists to underestimate the power of the government to do wrong to its citizens. The nation’s founders were wiser than that. They saw government as a necessary evil.

Thank you, Dr. Drew.

#38 Comment By abl On April 12, 2018 @ 9:00 pm

JCD — the search of Cohen’s law office and home was authorized by the USAO for the SDNY (and approved by a federal judge), and not by Mueller.

Also, I am very glad to hear that you are also concerned about “the power of the government to do wrong to its citizens,” and I look forward to many future brief moments of agreement in which you and I each decry violations of civil rights / civil liberties of people of various races and political persuasions.

#39 Comment By Alum-Anon On April 12, 2018 @ 9:28 pm

sigh says:

FFS, I was really hoping that wasn’t the example. So of the 1000+ people killed by police in 2016, the one you reference as a government overreach is a guy who was part of an armed right-wing takeover of a wildlife refuge and one of the few cases in which any officer was indicted for lying.
FFS.
(also, he was armed. they recovered a semi-automatic pistol from his pocket)

Well, for starters, we are discussing government overreach and DoJ misconduct, not “people killed by police in 2016,” and that is why I brought up Bundy and the Hammonds – as examples of government overreach and DoJ misconduct.

If you bothered to look at the article from the Oregonian you would have seen that the agent in question was found to have fired two shots as Finicum walked out from his vehicle with his hands raised. It seems probable that his decisions to fire had an impact on Finicum’s subsequent reactions and the decisions of OSP troopers to fire on him. You would also have seen that the agent apparently not only lied to his superiors about firing his rifle, but also concealed the fact from Oregon state investigators, and may have removed pertinent evidence from the scene.

Four other FBI investigators were or are under investigation for making false statements in the related cover-up.

It is true that Finicum had a Ruger – in his *inside* jacket pocket. Obviously he was ready to shoot it out when he emerged from his truck (sarcasm fully intended).

And “FFS” – you had no idea to whom I was even referring and said as much.

#40 Comment By Dick Swart On April 12, 2018 @ 9:37 pm

Gosh guys, I thank you for the informed points of view of these current happenings offered by Ephs with the necessary backgrounds and experience. I regret that some of the comments approached the ad hominem level. However, this post is ending (above) with some wishes for future debate on matters of common interest.

Thank you!

My own back-and-forth occasionally appears in the Hood River News. It is our small-town local published Wed/Sat. Here is a recent exchange.

Fiction City

No doubt by now you’ve noticed how the forces of our everlasting bureaucracy are using their powers to undermine and oppose the duly-elected president of the United States. It seems “Sore Losers Syndrome” is alive and raising hell in Swampville.

And happy to help is the phony-baloney media … and that’s a shame because many Americans who lead busy lives and only have time for the news briefly each day are being kept in the dark or deliberately misled to “Fiction City.” Instead of drumming up truthful, factual information, the “Fake News Hounds of Hate” keep growling and snapping at the president’s ankles. How productive. Donald, keep kicking them away, then toss them into the Trumpster Dumpster.

Bill Davis
Hood River
HR News April 7, 2018

… and my reply …

Get the Right News

In response to the Bill Davis letter “Fiction City” in the April 7 issue: I agree!

I get my news from Fox, Breitbart, and the voices that speak to me through my hip replacement!

Dick Swart
Hood River
HR News April 11, 2018

This is why I try to limit my appearances on Ephblog to ‘post only’.