Everything you say can and will be used against you.

Sunday, May 05, 2019

Another Day On Conlawprof




Professor AAA: To say, therefore, that no one was misled by Barr[’s] [letter] is simply wrong, even if one over generously conceded that there was no intention to do so.

Tillman: Barr’s letter was a summary of principal conclusions. All knew that the full report (less redactions) would come out in a few weeks’ time. The idea that people were too stupid to suspend judgment until the later of the two events or that people who had not suspended their judgment were constitutionally incapable of changing their minds in light of the full report demeans the common sense of everyman. No one was misled. My guess is that no one on this list will admit to being so misled—it is just other people they think were misled. And if a listserv member tells us they were misled but changed their mind in light of the redacted report, why do they think others have not done the same?

The idea that Americans were misled by an Executive Branch letter from a presidential appointee ....

Seth 

Seth Barrett Tillman, Another Day On Conlawprof, New Reform Club (May 5, 2019, 12:16 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/another-day-on-conlawprof.html>.

Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz Readers!


Have a look around New Reform Clubmy co-bloggers do good work! 





2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I posted the following on your 'checks and balances' post, but I really want an answer to my query, so I'm reposting.
AG Barr chose to accept the Report without going into the evidence, stating that it's finished, but the Congress, citing their oversight responsibilities, thinks otherwise. I am confused about the power of Congress to engage in oversight, and would appreciate a clarification. It doesn't exist in the Constitution, unless the power to constitute tribunals means oversight. Wouldn't it be limited to legislative matters? What about separation of powers? Should the power of oversight exist, as it seems to have for some time now, the Congress has no right to violate the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable seizures and searches, requiring them to them limit their inquiries to specific points where they have a basis for concern. Or am I wrong?

Seth Barrett Tillman said...

You should write me off-line. seth