10 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2023
    1. British historian of science, StaffanMueller-Wille at the Centre for Medical History at the University of Exeter, recently claimedthat Swedish natural scientist Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), the father of modern taxonomy,had “invented” the card index to manage his information storage and retrieval.

      How can Linnaeus (1707-1778) be said to have invented the card index or the index card when there are systems that predate him including Vincent Placcius and Leibnitz?

      Linnaeus' version were all of a standard size at least. Would this have been a shift in the definition or did others have and recommend "cards of equal size" before this?

  2. Oct 2020
    1. The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.

      So the better judgement of others has apparently kept Trump out of trouble?

    2. if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

      TL;DR

      This summary is not what Trump or even Barr have been indicating in their communications.

      Barr's statement on the day of the release of the redacted report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aHPFh2HfSM

    3. Under OLC's analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize ce1tain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions. See Application of 28 U.S.C. § 458 to Presidential Appointments of Federal Judges, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 357 n.11. The Constitution does not authorize the President to engage in such conduct, and those actions would transgress the President's duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. CONST. ART IT, §§ 3. In view of those clearly permissible applications of the obstruction statutes to the President, Franklin's holding that the President is entirely excluded from a statute absent a clear statement would not apply in this context.

      Since the DoJ won't indict a sitting president, here's a direct suggestion of what Congress could do.

    1. “every courageous and incisive measure to solve internal problems of our own society, to improve self-confidence, discipline, morale and community spirit of our own people, is a diplomatic victory over Moscow worth a thousand diplomatic notes and joint communiqués. If we cannot abandon fatalism and indifference in the face of deficiencies of our own society, Moscow will profit.”

      Perhaps the best defense against active measures is a little bit of activism of our own

  3. Mar 2020
    1. The differences between the report and Mr. Barr’s description of it “cause the court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller report to the contrary,” wrote Judge Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

      Serious indictment of Barr.

  4. Apr 2019
    1. 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c)

      PART 600—GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL can be found here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2016-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title28-vol2-part600.pdf

      Part (c) reads:

      (c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

    1. One of the biggest questions of the past two years — something that fueled the news coverage, the federal investigation and congressional scrutiny — is why so many people around Mr. Trump lied, misled and changed their stories
  5. Mar 2019
    1. Weeks later, Trump signed the CLOUD Act into law, which gave US law enforcement more legal pathways to pursue data stories overseas. The provision was tucked into the $1.3 trillion spending bill Trump signed to avoid a federal government shutdown. With the new law on the books, federal prosecutors went back to court in and asked for another warrant to get the materials that Google refused to turn over. In an April 2018 affidavit, the FBI agent argued that "providers are required to disclose data even if it is stored abroad" under the new law. The judge approved the new search warrant later that day, giving investigators access to additional information from Google, including Cohen's emails, attachments, address book and files stored on Google Drive.

      Wow. What if it was a pole got that snuck in the bill for this very reason? Or was it just luck?