Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Archive for the 'Trump' Category

    Seth Barrett Tillman: The U.S. has a rich tradition of politicians selling memoirs/books while holding elected federal positions…

    Posted by Jonathan on 6th November 2017 (All posts by )

    On Twitter:

    The emoluments suits represent an attack by the elite, master word-smiths, who claim a monopoly on all the positions of state, against a public who, from time-to-time, elects people who don’t live in the world of words and texts. Instead, these people make things and do deals.

    Seth Barrett Tillman Tweet 20171106

    Also: Tales of the Unexplained. From Plaintiff’s Opp’n to the DOJ’s motion to dismiss in the DDC emoluments case. see page 34 n.24: /1

    Posted in History, Law, Obama, Trump | 1 Comment »

    “If we want an intact Iraq, the price of having one without fostering long-term strife across the Middle East is pushing Iran back out of Iraq.”

    Posted by Jonathan on 27th October 2017 (All posts by )

    J.E. Dyer: Turning point: Iran’s influence in Iraq tipping to dominance:

    In 6 years, Iran has dramatically transformed the operational landscape of Mesopotamia and the Levant. For multiple purposes, she now dominates and/or can use territory more than 200 mi. closer to key locations on the Med. coast. She has also built a formidable outpost in Syria and Lebanon.

    A troubling and I suspect accurate analysis. Worth reading in full.

    Posted in Current Events, History, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Middle East, Military Affairs, Trump, War and Peace | 29 Comments »

    Josh Blackman: DOJ Shifts Position: “The Government Has Not Conceded That POTUS Is Subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause”

    Posted by Jonathan on 26th October 2017 (All posts by )

    Excerpt:

    As it stands now, there is absolutely nothing that the Plaintiffs and their Amici have submitted to the court to rebut our position that the President is not bound by the Foreign Emoluments Clause. (The Legal Historians did make such a claim, but subsequently withdrew it.) Count I concerning the Foreign Emoluments Clause must be dismissed.

    FTW

    (Via Seth)

    Posted in History, Law, Politics, Trump | No Comments »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: Good Lawyers & Good Books: My Personal Difficulties During the Recent Hamilton-Signatures Dispute

    Posted by Jonathan on 19th October 2017 (All posts by )

    These five experts did a very brave thing. They knowingly took on the cause of historical truth in spite of the fact that a social media mob had already descended on me, and in spite of the fact that they don’t (as far as I know) have any particular love for the administration. (Indeed, one of them loathes the President, but nevertheless took on this project because it was the right thing to do.) They have all written extensively on Hamilton, the Constitution, the Founding Era, and/or the Early Republic. As a personal favor to me, and if you value what has been accomplished to date, I would ask you to buy their books. If you cannot buy a book or two, please ask your local library or university library to do so. Of course, cite to their publications in your articles and elsewhere. That’s a valuable thing too. If you want honesty in our courts, in legal practice, and in the wider intellectual marketplace of ideas, then honest researchers have to be able to make a living. So if you can, help.

    Read the whole thing.

    Seth is gracious to people who helped him. He deserves great credit for his original and important scholarship, and for standing firm in the face of scurrilous personal attacks

    Posted in History, Law, Trump | 3 Comments »

    Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman: The ‘Resistance’ vs. George Washington

    Posted by Jonathan on 16th October 2017 (All posts by )

    The conclusion of Seth’s brief piece:

    But for some reason the Trump administration continues to stand by the 2009 opinion, drawn up when Mr. Obama was being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which came with a $1.4 million award. The Office of Legal Counsel concluded Mr. Obama could accept the money, but the opinion simply assumed the Foreign Emoluments Clause applied to the presidency. It was taken as a given with no citations either to judicial rulings or to the practices established by Washington and other founders.
     
    We have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in New York, the District of Columbia and Maryland explaining this argument. At a minimum, the historical record should give Justice pause. But ideally the department would abandon the 2009 opinion and argue in court that the president is not governed by this clause. Mr. Trump’s adversaries are arguing that Washington and Jefferson were crooks.

    (The full column is behind a pay wall but is worth reading if you have access.)

    Posted in History, Law, Trump | 7 Comments »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: Tillman Responds to the Legal Historians Amicus Brief in CREW v. Trump Emoluments Case

    Posted by Jonathan on 20th September 2017 (All posts by )

    From the post:

    I stand entirely behind the above footnote: behind every sentence, every phrase, every word, and every syllable. I have made no mistake, intentional or inadvertent. I retract nothing, and I do not intend to retract anything.
     
    Recently, my amicus brief and scholarship has been criticized by the Legal Historians Brief, other academics, some litigators, and by the press. Here I respond. This document is my declaration submitted as an exhibit to a motion responding to the Legal Historians Brief.

    See also the comment by Glenn Reynolds here.

    My money’s on Seth.

    Posted in History, Law, Politics, Trump | 1 Comment »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: Karl Popper’s Falsifiability: The Foreign Emoluments Clause—A Debate Between Constitutional Eloi and Constitutional Morlocks

    Posted by Jonathan on 21st August 2017 (All posts by )

    https://ssrn.com/abstract=2996412

    Abstract
    How should we understand the Foreign Emoluments Clause? The debate has been presented to the public as a choice between idiosyncratic conservatives embracing early practice and liberals embracing intellectual reconstructions of constitutional purpose. That distinction is only the surface. The reality is that this debate is a conflict between constitutional Eloi and constitutional Morlocks.
     
    The ninety-nine percenters are our constitutional Eloi, our beautiful people, our self assured true believers who regularly assume they understand 99% of the Constitution’s original public meaning. For them, figuring out what a yet-to-be adjudicated clause means is easy: it only requires their selecting the most eligible meaning which already fits in with what they already know. And what’s the danger of that strategy—when you already know (or believe you know) 99% of what there is to know?
     
    On the other side, we have constitutional Morlocks. Morlocks are ugly, or, at least, their theories are ugly. Ugly and dangerous. Morlocks don’t believe they know 99% of what there is to know, and, not surprisingly, they don’t believe the Eloi or anyone else knows 99% either. Moreover, Morlocks believe that fitting what you don’t know into what you (think you) know permanently freezes our constitutional theories even when those theories are entirely wrong.

    (Seth adds: The PDF posted on SSRN is my amicus brief in CREW v. Trump.)

    Posted in Law, Trump | Comments Off on Seth Barrett Tillman: Karl Popper’s Falsifiability: The Foreign Emoluments Clause—A Debate Between Constitutional Eloi and Constitutional Morlocks

    To Save the Union

    Posted by Ginny on 14th August 2017 (All posts by )

    Before the Civil War, the two sides often read different authors, saw different newspapers, read different novels. Some northern works were not easily available in the south and the levels of literacy differed. Of course, today, all is open. We choose to narrow our options: a Fox listener is likely to be a Wall Street Journal reader who begins surfing with Instapundit. A CNN listener is more likely to read the NYTimes and check out HuffPost.

    So, we can speak to each other, but anyone listening to the rhythms of Obama and those of Trump, the voices of the average humanities teacher and of the dirty jobs guy, may well wonder if they would understand. (Though, of course, it is a perspective rather than position – Rowe and Victor Davis Hanson, as academically credentialed as they come, understand each other thoroughly.)

    Listening to Trump’s speech on Charlotte, I heard something reporters didn’t mention. The speech’s rhythms came from an emphasis we’ve heard before: in Trump’s inaugural, in Lincoln’s second inaugural – and blended them in Trump’s less rhythmical, less evocative but direct and emotion-driven voice. It lacks the distance and gravitas of Lincoln, but its purpose is similar.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Culture, Current Events, History, Human Behavior, Speeches, Trump | 40 Comments »

    The Pause

    Posted by Jonathan on 26th July 2017 (All posts by )

    Since Trump was elected it seems that anyone I’m speaking with who wants to bring politics into a conversation, and who doesn’t know me well, and who (I’m guessing) doesn’t like Trump, will make a remark about “these days” or “the situation” or something along those lines, and expect to continue (or not) the conversation in a political direction based on my response. At least that’s how it seems to me in my purplish part of the country. I don’t react when this happens. There may be a brief pause in the conversation. We continue with our nonpolitical topic or move on to another one.

    I’d bet that many of the readers of this blog have had similar experiences. My question is whether this type of experience is the inverse of what politically left-of-center people experienced when Obama was president. Is it?

    Discuss.

    Posted in Current Events, Deep Thoughts, Leftism, Obama, Politics, Society, Trump | 11 Comments »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: Bob Bauer’s Free Speech Problem and Ours

    Posted by Jonathan on 24th July 2017 (All posts by )

    We have a free speech problem in America. I have talked about it before. It starts with the judiciary. See Seth Barrett Tillman, This Is What Is Wrong with the American Judiciary, The New Reform Club (Mar. 16, 2017, 4:23 AM), http://tinyurl.com/z4q9f8v. But the wider legal community has embraced the same legal philosophy. They want you to shut up, and if you don’t shut up, there is always punishment. Here is an example…

    An excellent post.

    Posted in Civil Liberties, Media, Rhetoric, Trump | 5 Comments »

    “Full transcript: Defense Secretary James Mattis’ interview with The Islander”

    Posted by Jonathan on 19th July 2017 (All posts by )

    Secretary Mattis responds to an interview request from a high-school student. The interview is worth reading and more informative than much of what appears in the adult press.

    (via Lex)

    Posted in Education, Europe, International Affairs, Media, Middle East, Military Affairs, National Security, Terrorism, Trump, War and Peace | 5 Comments »

    Seth Barrett Tillman and Josh Blackman: Yes, Trump Can Accept Gifts

    Posted by Jonathan on 13th July 2017 (All posts by )

    The NYT elevates itself by printing an op-ed by Professors Blackman and Tillman:

    The Constitution offers several remedies for a president’s improper foreign entanglements. Congress can regulate, by statute, the receipt of presents from other nations or require the president to make disclosures about his foreign commercial arrangements. Of course, as a last resort, the president can be impeached and removed from office for bribery. However, the Foreign Emoluments Clause can provide no redress in relation to a president’s foreign entanglements either in the courts or through the impeachment process, for the simple reason that the clause does not cover the president or any other elected officials.

    The piece is a concise presentation of Seth’s argument about the Emoluments clause. Worth reading in full.

    Posted in History, Law, Trump | Comments Off on Seth Barrett Tillman and Josh Blackman: Yes, Trump Can Accept Gifts

    Seth Barrett Tillman: A Response To Jane Chong’s Reading the Office of Legal Counsel on Emoluments: Do Super-Rich Presidents Get a Pass?

    Posted by Jonathan on 11th July 2017 (All posts by )

    Once this error is noticed, the rest of Chong’s analysis falls apart. Chong can point to other language in Hoyt using “emolument of office.” It is there, and she takes it to mean that “emolument” can be used in a context unrelated to “office” and other employment-like relationships. But she offers nothing akin to proof for that bold claim. It is conceivable that the Hoyt Court added “of office” language to “emolument” because it believed that there were “emoluments” which were unrelated to office, but it is also possible that the Hoyt Court thought all “emoluments” were tied to office-and-employment-type relationships. Without her initial misreading of Hoyt or any other substantial reason to believe the former, the rest of her analysis makes no sense.

    Read the full text of Seth’s post.

    Posted in Law, Politics, Trump | 5 Comments »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: A Response to Fonzone & Geltzer’s Can President Trump Just Leave Key Executive Branch Offices Unfilled?

    Posted by Jonathan on 7th July 2017 (All posts by )

    In a recent post on Lawfare, Christopher Fonzone and Joshua A. Geltzer ask the question: “Is the persistent and deliberate failure to identify candidates [for appointed federal positions] not merely a sign of inept governance and deadlocked politics but also, at least in certain cases, a legal failing as well?” Their answer is basically: yes. Their position is worth pondering. I do think several of their arguments do not work, and several others are not well supported.

    Read Seth’s entire post.

    Posted in Law, Politics, Trump | 1 Comment »

    On and Off Balance

    Posted by Sgt. Mom on 3rd July 2017 (All posts by )

    Here we are, a couple of days past the middle of the year, and almost eight months after the election of Donald Trump to the presidency … and I swear that the lunacy has not died down in the slightest, but is now ratcheted up to eleven, or even twelve. (Gratuitous Spinal Tap reference.) The classical five stages of grief are supposed to be denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, but it’s clear at this point that the Hillary and Bernie partisans are stuck fast at the ‘anger’ stage – and appear to be egging each other into higher, farther, deeper and more intense demonstrations of denial and anger. It’s almost … well, operatic. Like a spectacular ten-car pile-up on the interstate, one can’t even look away from the spectacle – especially the spectacle of establishment news media personalities and institutions losing their freaking minds over Donald Trump.
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Civil Society, Current Events, Elections, Internet, Leftism, Media, The Press, Trump, USA | 17 Comments »

    The Apprentices

    Posted by David Foster on 17th June 2017 (All posts by )

    If anyone would like to discuss President Trump’s proposal for an expanded role for apprenticeship programs in America…and related broader issues of workforce training and skills development…this is the place.  Some useful links:

    Trump’s remarks on signing the executive order

    Text of the executive order

    Comments by Ivanka Trump and Labor Secretary Alex Acosta

    Existing Federal regulations re apprenticeship programs

    (There are also state regulations)

    Thoughts?

    Posted in Business, Economics & Finance, Trump, USA | 12 Comments »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: President Trump’s Reverse Merryman

    Posted by Jonathan on 7th June 2017 (All posts by )

    Interesting thoughts from Seth:

    Trump is doing what Taney did, but he is doing it to the courts. Absent his recent tweets, Trump might very well have won*** the travel ban case: an appeal from the Fourth Circuit’s decision to uphold the trial court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against the (modified) Executive Order. But Trump does not want to merely win. He wants to win Yuuge! He does not want to squeak out a narrow win by a divided court promising more time-consuming, after-the-fact, and morale-draining oversight in the future (e.g., where such future oversight might threaten lower level Executive Branch officers with individual liability).

    Read the entire post.

    Posted in History, Law, Politics, Trump | 5 Comments »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: Two Election Stories: New Jersey, November 7, 2016 & Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, 2013

    Posted by Jonathan on 5th June 2017 (All posts by )

    Please forward [this] to people in Lakewood [New Jersey]. I gave [Rabbi] Yeruchum Olshin [May he live for many good days, Amen], [a] ride this morning and [he] said [that] I [may quote him – that is, Rabbi Olshin] in his name to vote for [candidate] Trump because [the authoritative commentary on Jewish law and practice explains] [King] David [had] 2 [failings] and [David] didn’t lose [his] kingdom, but [King] Saul [had] only one [failing] and lost [his] kingdom. Why? [The] answer is [because] David’s [failures] were in his private life but Saul[’s] [failure] was in [relation to] the [kingship] … [albeit it is all distinguishable] [Rabbi Olshin] said Trump is [low] … in his private life but Hillary [is] corrupt in public office. [quoting Rabbi Aaron of blessed memory]… Forward to everybody!!

    Read the whole thing.

    Posted in Anglosphere, Britain, Deep Thoughts, Elections, Trump | Comments Off on Seth Barrett Tillman: Two Election Stories: New Jersey, November 7, 2016 & Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, 2013

    A Slow Motion Coup d’Etat.

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on 20th May 2017 (All posts by )

    Here is a pretty good article about the Trump phenomenon.

    I disagree with the premise that “Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job.”

    The rest of the article is pretty much on target and follows Angelo Codevilla’s piece on the “Ruling Class.”

    This is pretty much the way I see it.Then there is the spectacle of the country’s financial elites goosing liquidity massively after the Great Recession to benefit themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates over many years, accompanied by massive bond buying called “quantitative easing,” proved a boon for Wall Street banks and corporate America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings accounts. The result, says economic consultant David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer, was “the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind.”

    The news now is 99% Trump 24 hours per day. 97% of it is bad or negative on Trump.

    Analysis: Only 3 percent of reports on CBS, NBC positive for Trump

    A new analysis by a nonpartisan media research firm shows that just 3 percent of the reports about President Trump that aired on NBC and CBS were deemed positive.

    The data comes from an analysis by Media Tenor, an independent media research firm founded in 1993.

    The firm’s analysts watched 370 news stories about Trump on the “NBC Nightly News,” “CBS Evening News” and Fox News’s “Special Report” between Jan. 20 and Feb. 17. Trump took office the day the analysis began.

    Overall the analysis found that on NBC and CBS, 43 percent of stories on Trump were negative, while only 3 percent were positive. Fifty-four percent of reports were considered neutral.

    I’m not sure I would agree on what is “neutral.”

    I am not the only one who thinks a coup d’etat is under way.

    Spengler, who is my #2 go to guy after Fernandez,
    thinks what is going on is a coup attempt.

    A ranking Republican statesman this week told an off-the-record gathering that a “coup” attempt was in progress against President Donald Trump, with collusion between the largely Democratic media and Trump’s numerous enemies in the Republican Party. The object of the coup, the Republican leader added, was not impeachment, but the recruitment of a critical mass of Republican senators and congressmen to the claim that Trump was “unfit” for office and to force his resignation. Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Big Government, Elections, Politics, Trump | 28 Comments »

    The FBI Director Meets Pres. Trump’s Hatchetman

    Posted by Trent Telenko on 10th May 2017 (All posts by )

    The no-leak, no-warning, firing of FBI Director Comey is riling up Washington D.C. like nothing I’ve seen in years. So many powerful people, so many lost minds.

    This Instapundit tweet about covers it, as removing “unwritten limits on executive power” was only supposed to help the Deep State power club, not anyone else.

    This  USA TODAY piece at the following link (James Comey memo: Why his bosses say they fired the FBI director) outlines the five key points in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s firing recommendation memo:

    1. “The FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.”

     

    2. “I cannot defend the director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unifies people of diverse perspectives.”

     

    3. “The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the director to make such an announcement. At most, the director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors.”

     

    4. “Compounding the error: The director ignored another longstanding principle: We do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation.”

     

    5. “Although the president has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former department officials. The way the director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong.”

    Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein was right, whatever way you cut it, Comey violated a basic trust.

    The problem here is that DC is about power, not ethics. And Comey was acting in the mainstream of Wash. DC political deep-state culture of the last 25 years. This was one of the reasons Trump was elected President.

    And please carefully note — Pres. Trump’s firing of Comey was staged in a way to completely cut FBI Director Comey off from all of his political connections and most especially his personal FBI Director eyes-only files with no notice.

    The fact that the Deep State just lost control of America’s chief federal investigative and counter intelligence agency with no warning has made them all lose their collective minds.

    They haven’t had time to coordinate a story because too many are calling their lawyers.

    Posted in America 3.0, Big Government, Culture, Current Events, Trump | 50 Comments »

    The Absolute Far-Frozen Limit

    Posted by Sgt. Mom on 9th May 2017 (All posts by )

    Unaccustomed as I am now, or have any need to casually or professionally involved in the sewer that broadcast television has become in the last decade or two, I still manage to find out about some of the most egregious and offensive violations of good taste, good sense, and good manners, thanks to the internet – like Stephen Colbert’s tasteless and degrading monologue regarding President Trump more than a week ago. There are plenty of viewers and listeners who, like me, are of a conservative-slash-libertarian inclination, and unlike me – do still watch mainstream broadcast news and entertainment. They do take note of these offenses, and post, tweet and comment about them. Since the election of Donald Trump – against all expectations – to the high office of president, an astonishingly large number of public personalities have gone and continue to go stark raving nuts.

    People in the entertainment business seem to be worse-affected, although a couple of Democratic Party politicians like Maxine Waters come close. While Maxine Waters’ unhinged blatherings should only be a matter of concern for those fools in her district who repeatedly return her to national office … the equally unhinged blatherings of figures who for some reason have a pulpit in the world of popular entertainment are somewhat more worrisome. Like the aforementioned Colbert, who is alleged to be a comedian. Honestly, I can’t judge whether he is or not a comedian, since I haven’t watched an episode of the Late Show in a dog’s age – but his unsavory blast of commentary which has ruffled feathers in my conservo-libertarian corner of the blogosphere has left the commetariant decidedly unamused.

    So – Steven Colbert’s monologue has drawn some comment here and there. No, I don’t think that he will be fired for it; a slap on the wrist from the FCC may be about the most penalty that he will suffer. He is, after all, one of those anointed and set into a place in the high firmament of big media entertainment, an establishment which will roll over and go hard-left, rather than admit that … oh, hey -they have insulted, alienated, and pissed off at least half of their audience, the consumers of their product. Obviously, it must be more important to entertainers like Colbert to go along with the popular crowd in demonstrations of contempt for Trump and those who voted for him. Which brings me to the aspect of this which I find to be the most depressing – the motivation for these displays of contempt … no, not only contempt, but outright hatred. The anger and frustration, boiling over. Those of us who voted Trump (often with reluctance and reservation) did not obey the instructions of the elite, and this willful disobedience on our part has maddened them beyond all normal conventions of civility and rational thought. They are choking on their rage and hatred. And so it spills out in a tidal wave like Colbert’s infamous monologue.

    Discuss

    Posted in Civil Society, Just Unbelievable, That's NOT Funny, Trump | 15 Comments »

    Hydrocarbon drilling in national parks

    Posted by TM Lutas on 7th May 2017 (All posts by )

    Here are the basics. There are 59 national parks operated by the National Park Service. 17 are owned both on the surface and subsurface by the Feds with 42 having split ownership with private subsurface ownership of mineral rights. 12 parks currently have oil/natural gas drilling already occurring on them, or more than one fourth of the 42 split rights parks.

    The National Park Service has been ordered to review the rules as to what is necessary to drill for oil and gas within a park, or in certain circumstances next to a park, if the subterranean horizontal section includes NPS administered park lands.

    There’s a lot of confusion about what exactly has changed. Right now it’s only a rule review.

    Posted in Energy & Power Generation, Environment, Trump | 23 Comments »

    Is This Really the Ukraine?

    Posted by Ginny on 2nd May 2017 (All posts by )

    A few years ago, Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands was both popular and esteemed. I found it an uncomfortable but powerful read. I mentioned it and two students – a Russian Jewish student whose grandfather had fought in the Russian army, been tortured in one of the Russian purges, but died loyal to Stalin and a student whose ancestors were from those borderlands ordered it. (My mention was cursory; it was after all American lit; both were hungry to know more about the obscure world of their ancestors.) I gave it to a son-in-law, who had heard Snyder discussing it with intensity and even despair. I can remember discussing passages with colleagues in philosophy and history – especially lies spoken and assented to as the truth stood (and died) before their eyes: families starved, Stalin argued, to sabotage Stalin. Snyder’s aim and success was to make that unreal world and its victims live. He eloquently countered the great arrogance of Stalin’s assumption (so often proved true) that a million deaths was merely a statistic. Of course it was futile – no one person can make millions live on a page. An intense experience to read, Snyder’s research must have truly looked into the abyss. Today, I tracked references at Chicagoboyz; several praised it. I haven’t read his later works. Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Academia, Anglosphere, Anti-Americanism, Arts & Letters, Book Notes, Russia, Trump | 21 Comments »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: Have I Got A Sweet Deal For You …

    Posted by Jonathan on 28th April 2017 (All posts by )

    Are you a law student in desperate search of an interesting topic for a note? … Or, are you a fundamentally burned out and deeply disappointed legal academic tired of writing papers lacking relevance and resonance—papers which no one reads—papers which are never cited and are soon forgotten? … Because if so, have I got a sweet deal for you. You can have this idea—with no money down, and at no cost to you. But you will want to post your work-product on SSRN or otherwise publish prior to May 26, 2017.

    Read Seth’s full post.

    Will Seth get any takers on his generous offer? He should. However, since the emoluments issue is mainly a political bat that partisans use against Trump, that would lose its value if Seth’s argument against its applicability to the President became widely accepted, it seems not unlikely that the answer (at least in the short term) is no.

    Posted in Law, Politics, Trump | Comments Off on Seth Barrett Tillman: Have I Got A Sweet Deal For You …

    Should we renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on 15th April 2017 (All posts by )

    There has been quite a bit of concern about an opposition to the Trump presidency set up in Washington by Obama and his allies.

    Obama used the US intelligence apparatus to spy on Trump’s presidential campaign.

    June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

    October 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

    Why would the FISA court approve such a thing ? Why would the Obama people continue when no evidence was found ?

    The controversy has continued and Susan Rice, the Obama NSC head, seems to be at the center of it.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Big Government, Elections, Politics, Privacy, Trump | 6 Comments »