Description of your first forum.
Site Admin
Posts: 21671
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:40 p

According to Wikipedia, De Oratore (On the Orator) is a dialogue written by Cicero in 55 BC, and it is set in 91 BC, when Lucius Licinius Crassus dies, just before the Social War and the civil war between Marius and Sulla, during which Marcus Antonius Orator, the other great orator of this dialogue, dies.

During this year, the author faces a difficult political situation: after his return from exile in Dyrrachium (modern Albania), his house was destroyed by the gangs of Clodius in a time when violence was common, and this was intertwined with the street politics of Rome.

Amidst the moral and political decadence of the state, Cicero wrote De Oratore to describe the ideal orator and imagine him as a moral guide of the state.

He did not intend De Oratore as merely a treatise on rhetoric, but went beyond mere technique to make several references to philosophical principles.

Cicero understood that the power of persuasion — the ability to verbally manipulate opinion in crucial political decisions — was a key issue.

The power of words in the hands of a man without scruples or principles would endanger the whole community.

The perfect orator shall be not merely a skilled speaker without moral principles, but both an expert of rhetorical technique and a man of wide knowledge in law, history, and ethical principles.

Now, while I was born here in the United States of America, albeit in a place and century markedly different from this one we are now in, where chaos and confusion reign, that is the tradition that I was raised up in when young, the belief that for a truly democratic society to survive and thrive, it required orators who were skilled speakers with moral principles and a wide knowledge in law, history, and ethical principles, this at the end of WWII, when fascism had been beaten back, but not obliterated or destroyed, and Communism was then on the rise as an existential threat to our American "way of life," which was based on a concept of liberty defined as the "state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

Those skilled orators are needed now more than ever in our sick society in this country, which more and more resembles the times in Rome when Cicero actually wrote those words.

And that brings me to my "screen name" of Livyjr.

In an on-line discussion of the original Livy, who forms the basis for the character that I play in here, it is stated thusly, to wit:

It had been the greatest dream of the Roman orator Cicero that once, there would arise a Roman author who would be able to write a history of Rome that would match the works of famous Greek writers like Herodotus of Halicarnassus and Thucydides.

Had Cicero been able to read Livy's History of Rome from its foundation, he would have been very content.

The Roman historian may have lacked the depth of a Thucydides and the humor of Herodotus, but his description of the birth and growth of the Roman republic is a piece of art indeed.

end quotes

In our day and age today, some 2,000+ years later, where are the Cicero's and Livy's?

And the answer is that they apparently do not exist anymore, especially now that TWEETING on TWITTER has become our main means of mass communication in this country, and that is much to our deficit as a nation and as a people, because on TWITTER, the power of words in TWEETS in the hands of a man or woman without scruples or principles is a danger to the whole community, which has me adding this section to my blog, so that I can editorialize in here on subjects of importance in a timely manner as they arise to help keep a balance in our national political dialogue, which is quite poor and ignorant these days, indeed.

Getting back to that essay on Livy, it continues as follows:

The work (Livy's History of Rome from its foundation) is clearly written by someone who was educated as an orator.

When a Roman boy received rhetorical education, he often had to speak on historical subjects: for example, he had to argue what would had happened if this or that historical event had not taken place, or he had to give arguments for a certain policy in a hypothetical situation, or he had to impersonate a historical figure.

Livy must have been a master in this game, because the speeches are the best parts of the History of Rome from its foundation.

end quotes

There is how education was when I was young, although that classical form of education which was intended to create productive citizens was dying then, to be replaced by a rote system that did away with history, quite literally, other than in a dead sense which separated past from present and future.

As to Livy's history, it has a very simple structure: as I do in here in emulation of him, he describes the events of one year at a time.

After mentioning the magistrates that gave their names to the year, Livy describes the most important events abroad, usually wars, and he then continues with the events in Rome, and finally, Livy describes other events that deserve to be mentioned, such as omens, plagues, food shortages, and building projects.

And like most ancient historians, Livy was a moralist.

He was deeply concerned about the degeneration of the Romans, which had started after the fall of Carthage in 146.

Luxury and decadence had become normal, and Livy often complains about it.

Rich people behaved frivolously and set a bad example to poorer Romans, who no longer kept their place.

They started to make political demands, which had caused the rise of the Gracchi and the civil wars.

In the preface to the History of Rome from its foundation, Livy addresses the reader:

Let him note how, with the gradual relaxation of discipline, morals first subsided, as it were, then sank lower and lower, and finally began the downward plunge which has brought us to our present time, when we can endure neither our vices nor their cure.

end quotes

Like Livy, after having experienced over seventy years of life in this country, I too am a moralist deeply concerned about the degeneration of the Americans, which had started after the end of WWII, when like in the "Roaring Twenties," luxury and decadence had once again become normal, with rich people behaving frivolously and setting a bad example to poorer Americans who like the earlier Romans, are now starting to make political demands, which has caused the rise of the PROGRESSIVES and a looming civil wars.

America has conquered the world but lost its soul.

Thus, having reached a time in my life where after many years of study, I feel that I have finally become enough of a man of wide knowledge in law, history, and ethical principles who can act as a "moral guide of the state," if that is even possible, anymore, like Livy, and Cicero before me, I am going to raise my voice in here in a series of essays on the issues and subjects of the day as they come along, and we will see where this all goes and where it takes us as a people and as a nation.

Site Admin
Posts: 21671
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:40 p

Staying with some background here, in our history as a nation, renowned jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.”

For those unfamiliar with the name, Oliver Wendell Holmes was a United States Supreme Court Judge, along with Louis Dembitz Brandeis, an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939, who said "suppression of ideas worked a great hardship on society," while Holmes put forth the proposition that because we cannot know immediately which ideas are good and true and useful, and which are not, we must let them vie against one another in the faith that after full disclosure and discussion, the truth will win out.

Brandeis saw free speech as an essential aspect of citizenship, and as I was taught when young, both men and women have the duty in a democracy to be good citizens, which means being informed on the issues confronting them.

To Brandeis, the fact that some viewpoints run against the grain or disturb popular sensibilities made no difference.

Brandeis thus provided a positive justification for protection of speech – the necessity for the citizenry to be fully informed about issues and to be aware of all viewpoints, a sentiment I adhere to here in the Livyjr Files.

As do I, Brandeis valued speech as a cultural, social, and educational, as well as a political, value in a free society.

So it will be in that spirit that the essays and commentaries and editorials in this thread will flow from, and I appreciate your participation as a reader.

Site Admin
Posts: 21671
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:40 p

In reading about the original Livy, who was a real person some 2,000 years ago, it is stated that often, Livy inserted orations in his history of Rome, which he had composed himself, much like Cicero did in such of his works as On the Republic, which was written in imitation of Plato’s Republic, taking the form of a Socratic dialogue in which Scipio Aemilianus takes the role of a wise old man, and which work examines the type of government that had been established in Rome since the kings, and that was challenged by amongst others Julius Caesar.

In On the Republic by Cicero, the development of the constitution of Rome is explained, and Cicero explores the different types of constitutions and the roles played by citizens in government.

in here, I intend to do much the same, except to talk about the United States of America, as opposed to the Rome of cicero and Livy.

Getting back to Livy, it is stated in the commentaries that although the presence of invented speeches might strike us as odd today -they are not historical facts and do, therefore, not belong in a work of history - this way to embellish the plain facts was a normal practice in ancient historiography, and in fact, the custom is even older than historiography, because the first historian, Herodotus, introduced speeches in his Histories to emulate Homer.

Speeches usually served to explain why a person acted as he did, and today, in that regard, not a thing has changed, except thanks to the miracle of the internet, we today can have the speeches presented as they happened, thanks to on-line transcripts.

Getting back to Livy, it is said that he had a second motive to write speeches in that he used them to create psychological portraits.

And there is where we have really gone downhill in my estimation in the 2,000 years which have elapsed since Livy wrote the history of Rome and talked about the personalities of the various actors - today, to our detriment as a people, talking about the personalities of our politicians is deemed politically incorrect.

Site Admin
Posts: 21671
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:40 p

And while we are on the subject of citizenship, and the history of the United States of America, the HUGE news out this past weekend, of course, was the upcoming testimony of Special Counsel Robert Mueller before the Democrats in the House or Representatives, and as could be expected, they had all their surrogates like AM Joy on MSNBC faithfully parroting their lines from the script as the Democrats continue to try to beat life into a dead horse, as we can clearly see from an irresponsible, incendiary and hyperbolic (of, relating to, or marked by language that exaggerates or overstates the truth) NBC News article entitled "Mueller hearings to highlight 'shocking evidence of criminal misconduct' by Trump, Democrats say - The former special counsel is set to appear before the Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday" by Alex Moe on July 19, 2019, where we had as follows:

WASHINGTON — Democrats on the House committees set to hear testimony next week from former special counsel Robert Mueller believe the hearings will help Americans understand "the gravity of the president's misconduct," staff members told reporters.

end quotes

And truly people, what a dose of hog **** that is, given that the Democrats have been at this same game since at least March of 2017, over two years ago now, where they keep telling us that everything the Democrats are doing is to "help Americans understand 'the gravity of the president's misconduct,'" which takes us back to March 20, 2017, and the questioning of then-FBI Director Jimmy Comey by Congressman Christopher Douglas Stewart, born July 15, 1960, who currently represents Utah's 2nd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives and who graduated from Utah State University in 1984 before joining the United States Air Force, to wit:

STEWART: Mr. Comey, you confirmed that there's an investigation in the Trump campaign officials.

The fact that there is an open investigation does not indicate guilt though, does it?

COMEY: Certainly not.

STEWART: And in fact many times in an investigation may find that there is no wrongdoing.

COMEY: That's one of the reasons we don't talk about it, so we don't smear people who don't end up charged with anything.

STEWART: I appreciate that and I would say that is especially likely to have, when I say especially talking about have the finding of no wrongdoing when there is a political motive.

And if there's one thing that we've seen here today, I think, from some of the line of questions is clearly been a certain political motive in some of the questions that have been asked to you.

end quotes

Now, there is some understatement, indeed, from Congressman Stewart, one of the few Congressman to sound rational during that hearing on 20 March 2017 that was dominated by Democrats like Congresswoman Jackie Speier, proudly Representing San Francisco, who bills herself publicly as a "fearless fighter for women's equality, LGBTQ rights and the disenfranchised who has dedicated her life to eliminating who has dedicated her life to eliminating government corruption while working to strengthen America’s national and economic security" who asked such inane and downright stupid questions such as "Is it disconcerting to you as the director of the FBI that a U.S. CEO would say publicly that he is very close friends with President Putin and has had a 17-year relationship with him," to which Comey answered, "That's not a question I can answer," and Admiral Rogers responded, as if she didn't have a clue, "Ma'am, lots of American corporations do business in Russia," and Eric Michael Swalwell Jr., born November 16, 1980, who is a member of the Democrat party and American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for California's 15th congressional district since 2013, which district covers most of eastern Alameda County and part of central Contra Costa County who attended Campbell University in North Carolina on a soccer scholarship from 1999 to 2001, but he broke both of his thumbs in 2001, his sophomore year, ending the scholarship, so that he then transferred to the University of Maryland, College Park, as a junior, where in 2003, he completed his bachelor's degree in government and politics at Maryland, and he then enrolled at the University of Maryland School of Law and earned his Juris Doctor in 2006, who asked Jimmy Comey such notable gems as, "Were you aware that Donald Trump tried to market his Trump Vodka brand in Russia," and "Were you aware that Donald Trump ran Ms. Universe 2013 out of Moscow," which questions now serve as the basis for the claims by the Democrats this weekend that Trump is a dastardly criminal, which takes us back to Congressman Stewart on 20 March 2017, as follows:

Mr. Clapper, the former DNI, and we all know who he is, this is someone who should know.

I want to read what he said just a few weeks ago.

Mr. Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.

We did not conclude any evidence in our report and when I say "our report," that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence said anything -- any reflection of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians, there was no evidence of that in our report.

Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?

COMEY: I think he's right about characterizing the report which you all have read.

STEWART: Well, I want you to know I agree with Mr. Clapper.

And at this point, everyone on this dais should agree with Mr. Clapper because we in the committee have seen no evidence, zero, that would indicate that there was collusion or criminal wrongdoing between any members of the previous administration or campaign and Russian officials.

end quotes

And despite that fact of no evidence on 20 March 2017 of collusion or criminal wrongdoing between any members of the Trump campaign and Russian officials, 58 days later, Rod J. Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General, informed the American people in writing that Special Counsel Mullet was authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, which brings us back to the present moment and the NBC article, which continues as follows, to wit:

"It is not that that there will be a big, dramatic new revelation necessarily, we're not expecting that," a Democratic staffer on the Judiciary Committee said Thursday in a briefing ahead of the hearings.

"What's important is there is truly shocking evidence of criminal misconduct by the president — not once but again and again and again — that would result in any other American being criminally charged in a multiple count indictment."

end quotes

And talk about the ability of the Democrats to hurl huge amounts of fresh horse**** in our faces, there is a glaring example of it right there, because you cannot start out with no evidence of criminal misconduct, which was clearly the case over two years ago on 20 March 2017, and then all of a sudden, over 2 years later, end up with, GASP, "truly shocking evidence of criminal misconduct by the president — not once but again and again and again — that would result in any other American being criminally charged in a multiple count indictment," a point that was really being hammered by some distraught woman who was doing a lot of shouting about that on the AM Joy show on MSNBC Sunday morning, but that doesn't faze the Democrats in the least, because the Democrats need neither facts nor evidence to make the false and specious and unsupported claims they make, which is the hallmark of that particular political party here in OUR America.

Getting back to that NBC article:

The committees are anticipating that "not everybody is reading the book (Mueller's report) but people will watch the movie," an aide said.

end quotes

And sorry to bust your bubble, dude, but nobody gives a damn about the book or the movie, and especially they don't care for all these endless re-runs based on nothing but hot air and horse****.

Getting back to NBC:

The Judiciary Committee hopes to show that if any other American had engaged in the same conduct as Trump did as detailed in the 400-plus page Mueller report, they would be charged for obstruction of justice.

end quote


Are these Democrats crazy?

Or are they insane?

There is only one person who could have done what Trump is alleged to have done and that is Trump, as president.

No other American citizen could have done what Trump is alleged to have done, which according to Democratic lawmakers who plan to highlight at least five instances they believe clearly show Trump committed a crime, include:

* repeatedly directing his then-White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller;

* telling McGahn to deny that he had been ordered to fire Mueller;

* asking former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to deliver a message to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the investigation to exclude the president;

* telling Lewandowski to let Sessions know that he's fired if he doesn't meet with Lewandowski; and

* potential witness tampering with Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.

end quotes

Now, according to the logic of the Democrats, if any other American other than Trump had repeatedly directed then-White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, they would be charged with obstruction of justice, but how in hell was any American citizen other than Trump going to make his or her way into the maze of the Washington White House to find Don McGahn to tell him to fire Mueller without ending up in an insane asylum?

The same with telling McGahn to deny that he had been ordered to fire Mueller, or asking former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to deliver a message to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the investigation to exclude the president, or telling Lewandowski to let Sessions know that he's fired if he doesn't meet with Lewandowski?

Getting back to NBC News, which is a real treasure trove here, we have:

Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, for their part, believe the public has a "slanted" view of the Mueller report and plan to highlight interactions involving the Trump campaign and Russia and WikiLeaks, including that the report indicates that Trump himself knew that Wikileaks possessed emails damaging to Hillary Clinton before they were released to the public and then touted Wikileaks during the campaign.

end quotes


How very tedious this all is, after over two years of the same bull**** from the Democrats being hurled and slung at us over and over and over again, which again takes us back to NBC News, as follows:

"We have never prepared for one the way that we have prepared for this," one staffer said about the highly anticipated hearing, noting that Mueller likes to give short answers to questions so the committees are taking that into account as they prepare.

end quotes

Yes, people, show business.

And on that note, we pause for station identification, but don't go away, but the show that never ends is just getting going, and it promises to be a doozy, and lucky you, you have a front row seat, free of charge, and with the price of things today in America, that is a bargain at twice the price!

And that is how American history is made, just as it was back when Rome was dying.

Site Admin
Posts: 21671
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:40 p

Another issue that is being debated on the internet is that of what the word "citizenship" means.

So, at its simplest, citizenship is the status of being a citizen, so that if you have citizenship in a country, you have the right to live there, work, vote, and pay taxes!

And there, I would draw the reader's focus to the words "right to vote," and then I would take us back in time to 1841, which is fifty-one (51) years after the 1790 Naturalization Act people hang their hats on in a futile effort to prove America was intended for white Europeans to be citizens, and the Dorr Rebellion, which was an attempt by middle-class residents to force broader democracy in the U.S. state of Rhode Island, where a small rural elite was in control of government.

As Wikipedia and very basic schoolboy American history tell us, the Dorr Rebellion was led by Thomas Wilson Dorr, who mobilized the disenfranchised to demand changes to the state's electoral rules.

Now, the word "disenfranchise" has as its common meaning to "deprive (someone) of the right to vote."

So, in 1841, we had white-skinned Europeans in this country who were not citizens, despite their being in possession of white skin.

Getting back to the Dorr Rebellion, in 1841 the state of Rhode Island state was still using its 1663 colonial charter as a constitution, which required that voters own land as qualification to vote.

In other words, to be a citizen in Rhode island in 1841, long after Constitutional government was instituted in this country, you had to own land.

Having white skin and fifty cents without land bought you a small latte at Starbucks back then, and nothing else.

So the premise about America being for white Europeans is skating on some pretty thin ice right now.

Under Rhode Island's colonial charter, originally received from a king in England in 1663, only male landowners could vote, and as most of the citizens of the colonies were farmers and held land, that qualification was considered fairly democratic, and by the 1840s, the state required landed property worth at least $134 in order to vote.

So, if in fact citizenship is tied to the right to vote, then it is clear that in the 1840s, not all white-skinned people born in Rhode Island could be considered as "citizens."

They were simply people living there, who although born in this country, were not truly citizens as were those who held land.

Getting back to the Dorr Rebellion, as the Industrial Revolution reached North America and many people left the farms for the cities, large numbers of people could no longer meet the minimum property requirement to vote, which means they in effect lost their citizenship, since the right to vote is intrinsic in citizenship.

By 1829, 60% of the state's free white men were ineligible to vote (women and most non-white men were prohibited from voting).

So, only 40 percent were really citizens then, despite having white skin.

Before the 1840s in Rhode Island, activists made several attempts to replace the colonial charter with a new state constitution that provided broader voting rights, but all failed.

Thus, in 1841, suffrage supporters led by Dorr gave up on attempts to change the system from within and in October, they held an extralegal People's Convention and drafted a new constitution, known as the People's Constitution, which granted the vote to all white men with one year's residence.

Dorr had originally supported granting voting rights to blacks, but he changed his position in 1840 because of pressure from white immigrants, who wanted to gain the vote first.

Late in that year, the People's Convention version was overwhelmingly supported in a referendum in December.

In early 1842, both groups organized elections of their own, leading in April to the selections of both Dorr and Samuel Ward King as Governor of Rhode Island.

King showed no signs of introducing the new constitution and when matters came to a head, he declared martial law.

The "Dorrites" then led an unsuccessful attack against the arsenal in Providence, Rhode Island on May 19, 1842.

Defenders of the arsenal on the "Charterite" side (those who supported the original charter) included Dorr's father Sullivan Dorr and his uncle Crawford Allen.

At the time, these men owned the Bernon Mill Village in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

In addition, among the defenders of Providence were many black men who had supported Dorr before he dropped them from his call for suffrage.

Dorr's cannon failed to fire, no one was hurt, and his army retreated in disarray.

After his defeat, Dorr fled to New York and returned in late June 1842 with armed supporters and assembled his forces on Acote's Hill in Chepachet, where they hoped to reconvene the People's Convention.

Governor King called out the state militia which marched on Chepachet to engage the Dorrite forces.

Charterite forces were sent to Woonsocket to defend the village and to cut off the Dorrite forces' retreat.

The Charterites fortified a house in preparation for an attack, but it never came.

Dorr disbanded his forces, realizing that he would be defeated in battle by the approaching militia, and fled the state.

Governor King issued a warrant for Dorr's arrest with a reward of $5,000.

The aftermath resulted in a new constitution which greatly liberalized voting requirements by extending suffrage to any native born adult male, regardless of race, who could pay a poll tax of $1, which would go to support public schools in the state.

And there is some more American history as it happened here in our America.

Site Admin
Posts: 21671
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:40 p

And as we continue to document and study the contemporary history of the United States of America in the manner of Livy, that thought takes us to a WASHINGTON POST article entitled "Pelosi defends handling of 4 House women as Democrats fume about Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide" by Mike DeBonis, Paul Kane, Rachael Bade on 12 July 2019, where we have the following very incredible scene playing out not only before our eyes, but before the eyes of the whole candid world, to wit:

Several African American and Latino Democrats rallied around House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused her of targeting “newly elected women of color” through a series of public remarks dismissing their political influence inside the House.

end quotes

As was the case at the end of the Roman Republic in the time of Cicero and Livy, where society became fatally fragmented. just as it is again doing in this nation today, this "race war," which assumes quite incorrectly that people with brown skin are a completely different "race" than are people with white skin, is being fomented and agitated by a young generation in America that is filled with hate and is at war with an older generation in America and it has now engulfed and threatens to consume none other than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself, who is being cast into the same trash barrel that American president and author of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson recently got tossed into, him being accused of being a racist rapist as he was, with nobody stepping up to the plate to utter one word in his defense.

Getting back to that Washington Post article:

The suggestion from the outspoken liberal freshman, made in a Washington Post article published Wednesday, stunned those Democrats, and it compounded their lingering anger after Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide publicly accused some colleagues last month of racist actions for supporting a compromise border spending bill.

“What a weak argument, because you can’t get your way?"

"And because you are getting pushback, you resort to use the race card?"


"Unbelievable to me,” Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said of Ocasio-Cortez’s remark.

end quotes

And this is just getting started, so I think this is a show that is going to be on the air for a bit longer, as this AOC accuses people with black skin of being racists as she has done and remains doing.

And that is more American history for the moment, but as always, history doesn't end because we have come to the end of a statement or sentence.

From there, more is sure to follow, so stay tuned for further developments in the decline and fall of the American Republic.

Site Admin
Posts: 21671
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:40 p

Yes, people, contemporary history, which takes us to a Washington Post article entitled "Top Democrat on House Judiciary Committee says Trump ‘richly deserves impeachment’" by Karoun Demirjian on 28 July 2019, wherein was stated that Jerry Nadler, the Democrat chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Sunday that he believes President Trump “richly deserves impeachment,” an explosive statement from the lawmaker whose committee has the power to launch proceedings to remove the president from office, but has failed to do so to date precisely because Jerry Nadler doesn't have a shred of actual evidence that Trump “has done many impeachable offenses, he’s violated the law six ways from Sunday,” which is just posturing on his part, which article continues as follows, to wit:

Nadler’s comments come on the heels of former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s congressional testimony on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Nadler called the testimony “an inflection point, in that it broke the administration’s lie, the attorney general’s lie, that the president was fully exonerated by the Mueller report.”

As the leader of the committee that would launch the impeachment hearings, Nadler is the most important Democrat yet to publicly state his personal support for the cause in no uncertain terms.

But he has been loath to cross House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in his official moves — and gave no sign Sunday that he intended to break with that pattern.

“We’re investigating the corruption of the administration, the abuses of power . . . all the things that might cause us to recommend articles of impeachment,” Nadler said.

“We now have to get further evidence and put it before the American people as we consider articles of impeachment.”

end quotes

And that statement that Nadler has to put evidence before us before he can prepare Articles of Impeachment against Trump takes us back in time to FEDERALIST. No. 63, The Senate Continued, by either Alexander Hamilton or James Madison for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York, as follows:

Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people.

To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.

As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.

end quotes

And right there, when Federalist No. 63 talks about gullible people being misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, in our times today it is talking about Democrats Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff and their Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019, the day RULE OF LAW in OUR REPUBLIC died, which takes us back to Federalist No. 63, as follows:

In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?

What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions?

Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.

end quotes

Getting back to the Washington Post, we have:

On Sunday, Nadler rejected the suggestion that Democrats might be running out of time to launch formal impeachment proceedings because of the approaching 2020 election.

“We have to defend the Constitution against these kinds of unconstitutional and illegal deeds,” he said.

“We have to do this, whatever time frame there is.”

Nadler would not say directly whether he felt Trump should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice or other alleged crimes after leaving office — but hinted he might be in favor of it.

“Anyone else who had done what he did would have been indicted on a charge of at least five different major crimes,” Nadler said.

“And a president who is immune from prosecution by virtue of the Justice Department’s saying that every president’s immune from prosecution should be prosecuted after he leaves office — or at least impeach him and remove him from office, if you can prove those crimes.”

end quotes

Which brings us right back around to the fact that to impeach Trump, Jerry Nadler doesn't need the Justice Department, which has nothing to do with impeaching a president pursuant to OUR Constitution; he doesn't need the FBI, which also has nothing to do with impeaching a president in the United States of America, and he didn't need Mueller - to the contrary, if he has evidence, real evidence, not smoke and mirrors as is the case right now, and the Democrats really do have to defend the Constitution against "these kinds of unconstitutional and illegal deeds,” then let's get the Articles of Impeachment filed and let's get that show on the road, post haste!

And while we are on the subject of RULE OF LAW going right out the window in the United States of America on 24 July 2019 with this Mueller Hearing before the Democrats in the House of Representatives, let's go to a CBS News article entitled "Pelosi stops short of calling for impeachment after Mueller testimony" by Grace Segers on 25 July 2019, where we have as follows concerning this saga, to wit:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shied away from advocating for impeachment in response to former special counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

end quotes

And Nancy did that, people, shied away from advocating for impeachment in response to former special counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, because his testimony was a DUD, which then brings us back to that CBS article for this inane statement from Nancy, as follows:

"The American people now realize more fully the crimes that were committed against our Constitution," Pelosi said in the Capitol of Mueller's testimony.

end quotes

And if there were crimes committed against OUR Constitution, they were committed by the Democrats with this effort to destroy an American president by burying him under a mountain of outright lies and unproven innuendo, which again takes us back to that CBS article, to wit:

"It is a crossing of a threshold in terms of the public awareness of what happened," she later said during a news conference following Mueller's testimony.

But she stopped short of advocating for impeachment right now.

end quotes

And she stopped short of calling for impeachment, people, because she has NO evidence that crimes that were committed against our Constitution, and if she really had evidence that crimes were committed against our Constitution, she should have filed Articles of Impeachment against Trump a long time ago, instead of just standing there twiddling her thumbs while running her mouth about non-existent crimes that were committed against our Constitution.

And such is history in our times today, which very much resembles history in Rome in the time of Cicero and Livy, in the last days of the Roman Republic after the murder of Julius Caesar by a conspiracy of several Roman senators, notably led by Marcus Junius Brutus, Cassius Longinus, and Decimus Brutus, at the end of the Roman Republic.

They stabbed Caesar to death in the Theatre of Pompey on the Ides of March (15 March) 44 BC.

Site Admin
Posts: 21671
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:40 p

As to the times in which Cicero lived when he write De Oratore, in CHAPTER VIII of Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson, entitled CICERO'S EXILE AND RETURN - 58-56 B.C., we are informed as follows, to wit:

CLODIUS entered on his tribuneship on the 10th of December, and on the 1st of January 58 B.C. the consulship of Gabinius and Piso commenced.

end quotes

Clodius is Publius Clodius Pulcher, born c. 93 bc—died January, 52 bc, Bovillae, Latium (Italy), who the Encyclopedia Britannia tells us was a disruptive politician, the head of a band of political thugs, and bitter enemy of Cicero in late republican Rome.

Born into two distinguished families, Clodius served under his brother-in-law L. Lucullus in the war against Mithradates and instigated a mutiny among the troops in the winter of 68–67.

Wikipedia tells us that as tribune, Publius Clodius Pulcher pushed through an ambitious legislative program, including a grain dole, but he is chiefly remembered for his feud with Cicero and Titus Annius Milo, whose bodyguards murdered him on the Appian Way.

Clodius was a Roman nobilis of the patrician Claudian gens and a senator, known as an eccentric, mercurial and arrogant character, who became a major disruptive force in Roman politics during the First Triumvirate, of Pompey, Crassus, and Julius Caesar (59–53 BCE), passing numerous laws in the tradition of the populares known as the Leges Clodiae, and has been called "one of the most innovative urban politicians in Western history."

Getting back to Chapter VIII of Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic:

Cæsar was now proconsul of Gaul, but he delayed his departure and remained with his newly levied legions at the gates of Rome.

end quotes

And Caesar is none other than Gaius Julius Caesar, 12 or 13 July 100 BC – 15 March 44 BC, who was a populist Roman dictator, politician, military general, and historian who played a critical role in the events that led to the demise of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire.

He also wrote Latin prose.

In 60 BC, Caesar, Crassus and Pompey formed the First Triumvirate, a political alliance that dominated Roman politics for several years.

Their attempts to amass power as Populares were opposed by the Optimates within the Roman Senate, among them Cato the Younger with the frequent support of Cicero.

Caesar rose to become one of the most powerful politicians in the Roman Republic through a number of his accomplishments, notably his victories in the Gallic Wars, completed by 51 BC.

During this time, Caesar became the first Roman general to cross both the English Channel and the Rhine River, when he built a bridge across the Rhine and crossed the Channel to invade Britain.

Caesar's wars extended Rome's territory to Britain and past Gaul.

These achievements granted him unmatched military power and threatened to eclipse the standing of Pompey, who had realigned himself with the Senate after the death of Crassus in 53 BC.

With the Gallic Wars concluded, the Senate ordered Caesar to step down from his military command and return to Rome.

Leaving his command in Gaul meant losing his immunity from being charged as a criminal for waging unsanctioned wars.

As a result, Caesar found himself with no other options but to cross the Rubicon with the 13th Legion in 49 BC, leaving his province and illegally entering Roman Italy under arms.

This began Caesar's civil war, and his victory in the war put him in an unrivalled position of power and influence.

After assuming control of government, Caesar began a program of social and governmental reforms, including the creation of the Julian calendar.

He gave citizenship to many residents of far regions of the Roman Empire.

He initiated land reform and support for veterans.

He centralized the bureaucracy of the Republic and was eventually proclaimed "dictator for life," giving him additional authority.

His populist and authoritarian reforms angered the elites, who began to conspire against him.

On the Ides of March (15 March), 44 BC, Caesar was assassinated by a group of rebellious senators led by Gaius Cassius Longinus, Marcus Junius Brutus and Decimus Junius Brutus, who stabbed him to death.

A new series of civil wars broke out and the constitutional government of the Republic was never fully restored.

And that people, is how easily Constitutional Republics like ours can die.

Site Admin
Posts: 21671
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:40 p

Now, as we look back in time to the end of the Roman Republic, it is important to note that Ciceron was to die by violent means, Julius Caesar was to die by violent means, and Clodius, who lived by the sword, was also to die as a resul;t of political violence that was fomented by himself, as we can see by returning to CHAPTER VIII of Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson, entitled CICERO'S EXILE AND RETURN - 58-56 B.C., as follows:

Clodius commanded the streets with gangs of roughs whom he had enrolled under the pretence of founding "collegia," or street-guilds; these were only the advanced guard of his force; behind them were the triumvirs and Cæsar's army.

end quotes

With respect to the political violence that was to cost Clodius his life, in the elections of 53 BC, when Titus Annius Milo Papianus, a Roman political agitator, was a candidate for the consulship and Clodius for the praetorship, violent clashes erupted in the streets of Rome between the gangs of Clodius and Milo, twice delaying the election.

As Wikipedia tells us, on January 18, 52 BC, Clodius was returning to Rome by way of the Appian Way from a visit to Aricia, some 16 miles (25 km) south-east of Rome.

Clodius was travelling lightly with a band of 30 armed slaves and, uncommonly for him, without his wife.

By chance, Milo was travelling the other way with his wife as well as an escort which included gladiators, and the two groups passed each other near Bovillae, 11 miles from Rome.

The encounter between the two groups passed without incident until the last pair at the back of each train began a scuffle.

It was then believed that Clodius turned back and was wounded by a javelin thrown by one of the gladiators in Milo's party.

He was brought to a nearby inn for his wounds, and his slaves were killed or driven off.

Milo made the decision that a live political enemy was more dangerous than a dead one and ordered his gladiators to kill the injured Clodius.

The body was discovered by a passing senator and sent back to Rome.

There, Clodius' wife and two tribunes rallied his supporters to use the Curia as Clodius' funeral pyre, which resulted in the destruction of the Curia Hostilia.

That action and the need to restore order in Rome are cited as the key reasons for the Senate's appointment of Pompey as sole consul.

The later trial of Milo would become famous for Cicero's defense of the accused Milo with his famous speech, Pro Milone, which ultimately failed to save Milo from exile, since the interruptions and catcalls from Clodius's supporters made it difficult for him to be heard.

Additionally, in the presence of the soldiers, the jurors were pressured to decide according to Pompey's wishes.

end quotes

And there for the moment I will rest ...

Site Admin
Posts: 21671
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:40 p

It is said, although it cannot necessarily be proven scientifically, due to the passage of time over generations, that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to have to repeat that same history, over and over, and having studied history, including our own, I would say that it is true that history keeps coming back around, again and again, as if a wheel, where the only things that seem to change are hair styles and what people choose to wear.

And that takes us back to Rome, in the days of the ending in flames of its Republic, to when Clodius brought in a bill "that any one who had put citizens to death without trial should be outlawed."

That bill was as a result of actions that Cicero took while consul to suppress what is known to history as the Cataline Conspiracy.

As Wikipedia tells us, the second Catilinarian conspiracy, also known simply as the Catiline conspiracy, was a plot, devised by the Roman senator Lucius Sergius Catilina (or Catiline), with the help of a group of fellow aristocrats and disaffected veterans of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, to overthrow the consulship of Marcus Tullius Cicero and Gaius Antonius Hybrida.

So, we see in their times much of the same political plotting and maneuvering that we are seeing once again in our own times here in the United States of America, where Donald Trump is essentially accused of being a modern-day Catiline intent on selling out the United States of America to Vladimer Putin and Russia.

Getting back to the original, in 63 BC, Cicero exposed the plot, forcing Catiline to flee from Rome.

As to the conspiracy, it was chronicled by Sallust in his work The Conspiracy of Catiline, and this work remains an authority on the matter.

Post Reply