We can no longer remain silent concerning the parading out, before the television audience of popularized, disappointing, and unimaginative, legal “experts.” While we are completely awed by their impressive credentials, we are less than awed by their inability to see and discuss many salient and basic issues confronting, America’s system of laws. For those readers who will respond to this statement with disbelief, or accusations of our presumption, we ask only that they thoughtfully and impartially read, the following typical examples of this unfortunately accurate, declaration. We have categorized and discussed, the most egregious.
(1) It is undisputed that the U.S. Constitution contains an absolute grant of power, to a sitting President, to grant a pardon, and as a corollary, to commute criminal sentences; such as the recent sentence commutation, of that despicable embodiment of evil arrogance, Stone. The crimes for which this wrongdoer had been convicted, were wrongful acts perpetrated, expressly, and unmistakably, for the protection of the President, and are acts, in which the President, knowledgeably participated.
Why haven’t these, legal “Oracles at Delphi” ever raised the question, as to whether the Presidential power of pardon, extends, or should properly extend, to a sitting President, who, himself, has been complicit in the underlying crime?
(2) There were many, apparently, “erudite” television discussions on the subject of the Non-Disclosure Agreements, executed by the various call girls, specifically, for Trump’s protection, Surely, these celebrity legal gurus must know, (as any C student in law school knows) that Contracts dealing with unlawful or societally unacceptable subject matter are entirely (void) and not enforceable. This failure is disappointingly revelatory, of the evident lack of legal acumen, as to the most basic legal principles.
There is no legal or rational reason, why the (witness), participants to the President’s illegal assignations, under American jurisprudence, are constrained from participating as witnesses; certainly not by reason of the explained, so-called “Non –Disclosure Agreements.” The latter, applicably, is a specialized commercial instrument, to protect business secrets or processes. We were disappointed with this lack of basic legal acumen on the part of all of the highly provenanced experts.
(3) The Bush v. Gore, and Citizens United cases, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, inarguably, and obviously, are “political” cases. Yet, eternally, and since the very creation of the Supreme Court, it has been indisputable and inflexible, black letter law and consistent precedent, that cases with any discernable political aspect (even, possible tangential and indirect political effect), will absolutely not, be accepted for determination by the Court. Those knowledgeable in law or even basic civics, would, knowledgeably, explain that this universal roadblock exists to protect the status of the Constitutional, “Separation of Powers.”
Why was this very basic legal problem left essentially undiscussed by those who have been knighted as legal, royalty by the media? These experts could also have weighed in on SCOTUS’s bizarre and irrational reasoning in the Citizen’s Union case to the effect, that Corporations are “persons”; ergo, have the right to vote; when it is mere schoolboy knowledge, that a Corporation is merely a fictional business entity to avoid unlimited liberty, (and not an enfranchised person.)
The Citizen’s case, whose “considered” decision by SCOTUS, can appropriately, be compared to the insane pronouncements of the “Mad Hatter,” in Alice in Wonderland, essentially damaged our Republican Democracy by such inane reasoning, permitting, unlimited and commercially, self-interested large Corporate money to override the wishes of the people (voter) and decide government policy.
We, like “Sportin Life” in Gershwin’s “Porgy and Bess,” legally advise, thatwhen it comes to the value of television legal pronouncements, “it ain’t necessarily so.”
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 
Hi Pliny. I sort of lost you after point one. I’ll reread this and see if it makes more sense.
Regarding the question you raise:
“Why haven’t these, legal “Oracles at Delphi” ever raised the question, as to whether the Presidential power of pardon, extends, or should properly extend, to a sitting President, who, himself, has been complicit in the underlying crime?”
G and I were discussing this last night. We feel this Nation’s forefathers did not conceive of a sitting President who would consider himself above the law and have no regard for the law and for the well-being and safety and voices of its constituents. A failure of imagination? Perhaps.
Thank you for this thought provoking post.
LikeLike
That is not the point; which is that the so-called legal gurus did not have the acumen to raise the problem. The piece is not about the failings of the constitution but the limitations of the purported legal experts; also shown by their lack of understanding of the very elementary subjects referred to in the other paragraphs
LikeLike