Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Vladimir Putin Follows Legal Blogs

Gerard N. Magliocca

One remarkable portion of Chris Wallace's interview with the Russian President yesterday is that Putin explained that he was aware of the argument that Special Counsel's Mueller's appointment is unlawful. (Presumably Putin was referring to Steve Calabresi's argument, as I'm unaware of another.) President Putin proceeded to misstate that argument, as he said Mueller's appointment "by Congress" might be illegal under "American legislation." Perhaps Putin didn't have time (with the World Cup and all) to read George Conway's reply to Calabresi.

Who knew constitutional law professors had such a global reach.


This comment has been removed by the author.

Calabresi made the argument in the WSJ and Fox News discussed it as well.

Intelligence agencies routinely consume the news product of other nations and send summaries up the chain of command, the vast majority of which does not reach the top.

I am truly impressed Putin went this far into the weeds to prepare for his summit with Trump.

Hat tip.

Maybe Trump follows legal blogs and during the private two hour* one-on-one with Putin perhaps Trump told him about this claim. In fact, Trump had weeks earlier commented via tweet about this claim. I assume Putin gets all of Trump's tweets.

If Putin does follow legal blogs, especially Balkinnization, Putin would be aware that comrades-in-arms SPAM and Brett have Putin's BFF Trump's back. But as a practical matter, did Putin really have to prepare for Trump who was obviously lost in his own weed-bed?
*It has been reported on one network that this was 1 hour and 58 minutes longer than Trump spent with Stormy Daniels.

"President Putin proceeded to misstate that argument"

Sounds a like a blog reader.

I believe that a defendant in one of Mueller indictments (perhaps a Russian company) has argued that Muller’s appointment was unconstituional because it wasn’t authorized by statute as required under the Appontments Clause. At first blush, this strikes me as a stronger argument than Clabresi’s, which seems obviously wrong.

Another argument was raised on the Law and Liberty blog, which asked whether Mueller had been commissioned as an officer of the US.

By the way, this blog makes it very difficult to leave comments.

"By the way, this blog makes it very difficult to leave comments." The problem appears to be soluble to Arab spammers.

Just ignore the preview function. Check, and post.

I understand a new Moscow musical is in the works on the Helsinki Summit called: "MY FAIR TRUMP" (Subtitle: "THE MAKING OF A PRESIDENT") with the lead Trump role singing: "'Wouldn't' It Be Loverly" followed by his recognition of what he would be "Without You." While they didn't "Dance All Night" who knows what they did during those two private hours?

Coming soon: the action thriller of 2018 "Con Law", starring Harrison Ford or George Clooney as Jack Balk, a recently retired professor of law and as it happens former Green Beret> Balk engages in the usual desperate manoeuvres (fights on the roofs of trains, parachuting on to aircraft carriers, etc) to foil a dastardly ploy by Mr. Bad, a corruptly elected President, to make a colossal coup in gold by having SCOTUS declare the Federal Reserve and fiat money unconstitutional. Obligatory female sidekick played by Scarlett Johannsen. Obligatory cameos by Helen Mirren, Bruce Willis, RBG and Mark Carney (who looks like Sean Connery's Bond).

Brian Cox will play a cranky older professor ... Sandy Levin or some such.

John Malkovich will play a somewhat unhinged former colleague of Jack Balk ... his name will be Jerry something or other.

I gather Mr. Bad's henchman will be from Colorado.

Carl Reiner will have a cameo as a joke cracking liberal to provide comic relief mixed with knowing comments.


Shag: "Pigmalion" is another option.


For a comparison of Trump with VP Nixon in 1958 in representing America, check out:

"Nixon and Khrushchev have a 'kitchen debate'"


Shag, in the conservative movement's bizarro revisionist history Nixon is the most liberal President ever and Russia is now our friend. Anything is possible.

Mr. W:

Richard "We're all Keynesians now" Nixon was the second most progressive post-WWII POTUS after Obama.

The largest regulatory explosion between the FDR and Obama was signed off on and presided over by Nixon. The result was the 1970s stagflation.

In James W.'s movie, of course, there will be a cat.

And amount of regulation = progressive? That's a bizarre measure. I don't think you're going to get a lot of takers on that outside of angry Austrian school enthusiasts. I'd go with Ike as the most progressive Republican post WWII.

SPAM is an "angry Austrian school enthusiast."

Putin is a lot sharper than you think. For example, he told Chris Wallace that "no one in the Russian Government" meddled in US politics, or words to that effect. If you think about it, that isn't really much of a denial.

Lol. Besides ignorance of the concept of relative, regulations under Nixon were equivalent to that under Bush II. I guess Bush was the most progressive President ever!


Blogger Prof_Scott said...And amount of regulation = progressive? That's a bizarre measure. I don't think you're going to get a lot of takers on that outside of angry Austrian school enthusiasts

Rule by absolute bureaucracy (what progressives call the administrative state) and direction of the economy are two cornerstones of progressivism.

I'd go with Ike as the most progressive Republican post WWII.

Why? Eisenhower was Mr. Status Quo.

Mr. W:

Pages in the Federal Register are only rough measure of administrative activity, not necessarily production of new regulation and certainly not a measure of the impact and cost of that regulation. For example, all of Reagan and Trump's deregulation and IRS interpretations of ongoing tax law is all recorded in the federal register.

The absolute bureaucracy exploded in the late 1960s and 1970s, which your federal reserve pages chart does pick up.

The Bushes led the progressive GOP establishment and Dubya signed off on the Democrat Congress's expansion of the absolute bureaucracy's authority over the financial system. However, this was small change compared to, say, unleashing the EPA on the economy.

When SPAM informs us:

"The Bushes led the progressive GOP establishment and ...."

compare this with SPAM's obscene lockstep with the Bush/Cheney Administration through its two terms that closed with their Great Recession. The Archives of this Blog fail to reveal SPAM claiming during such two terms about Bushes progressively. How inconvenient for SPAM are the Archives of this Blog?


By all means, use your retirement to review my Balkinization posts. Maybe you will learn something.

FWIW, the only Dubya domestic policies I supported were the 2003 tax reform and the ban on the form of infanticide popularly known as partial birth abortion. The rest of his domestic polices could have been enacted by Obama.

During the Dubya admin, most of our time at Balkinization was spend debating war policy, whether foreign enemies had rights under our Constitution and the national surveillance state. Good times. I found it very telling this discussion stopped when Obama took office, even though his administration weaponized the national surveillance state and engaged in wars without a farethewell to Congress.

SPAM has both a short and long term memory problem. SPAM describes the failings of Republican presidents by referring to them as progressives.

As I noted at 10:15 PM: "SPAM is an 'angry Austrian school enthusiast.'"

SPAM cannot hide his incestuous lockstep with the Bush/Cheney "Progressive" Administration.

By the Bybee (expletives deleted, despite Gina), is SPAM claiming he was not in favor of the Bush/Cheney 2001 tax cuts? And SPAM ignores the Bush/Cheney 2007-8 Great Recession. Good times?

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts