Senator Warren made an analogy comparing the current internet market to the steel and railroad monopolies of the late 19th century. The ‘trains and steel’ analogy might work for the ISPs that are positioned best to abuse market power. For them I believe regulation like any utility is appropriate. Concepts of net neutrality should be the law of the land.
But once you leave the brick and mortar market for delivering the data service to the consumer, the way that content is created and marketed is less appropriate to the trains and steel analogy.
First, there are fewer barriers to market entry writing software and producing content compared to creating an ISP.
Second, the US need to regulate our data related providers may not be necessary for the largest internet content providers because the EU will do that for us. For our companies to be safe from EU enforcement and competitive internationally, the US Congress should work to harmonize things like consumer privacy with our cousins across the pond.
Finally, the key to US remaining truly competitive is to create more US workers with skills necessary to exploit the current job markets for technical skills. Computer programing should be something that every US student has access to in high school.
Here is the relevant docket excerpt. Docket
Based on my experience, the court’s minutes entries and orders don’t get a document number because they are not a “document.” So starting with January 22 entry I count 17 missing documents as follows:
522, 523, 525, 526, 529, 530, 531, 532, 534, 537, 539, 540, 542, 546, 547, 548 and 550.
I’ve seen the SDNY use an entry for documents placed in the “vault” that does not give a document number. Based on a review I did in the SDNY Zarrab case (that has a lot of these pending) the “vault” entries turned out to be either related to a secret plea or a superseding indictment before it was unsealed.
For all the folks who are docket watching and in particular those who are concerned Manafort got off too light, I think the one conclusion I can draw for sure about this is that we have not seen the last of Paul Manafort in the DC court.
I think Cindy is Yang Li-Woan and her spouse is Yan Tyng-Lin. NB I could have it backwards.
I’m going to post the corporate materials. This company looks like the stuff Flynn was up to with Bijan Rafiekian aka Bijan Kian and Kamil Ekim Alpekin.
I pulled some of the Yang Enterprises Corporate documents. There doing business at Offut AFB?
Also here is the website. Looks to me like perfect honey pot recruitment op. They pick her up or she’s gonna scoot.
They are operating the Arecibo Observatory.
Here’s a link to a pdf copy of the oft-mentioned DOJ memo:
The 2000 Memo proceeds from he analysis begun in a 1973 DOJ memo written during the early days of the Watergate investigation and addresses it along with the text of the Impeachment Clause:
The OLC memorandum began by considering whether the plain terms of the
Impeachment Judgment Clause prohibit the institution of criminal proceedings
against any officer subject to that Clause prior to that officer’s conviction upon
impeachment. OLC Memo at 2. The memorandum concluded that the plain terms
of the Clause do not impose such a general bar to indictment or criminal trial
prior to impeachment and therefore do not, by themselves, preclude the criminal prosecution of a sitting President.
This is where the “originalist” conservatives justices, who I personally think are peddling snake oil, have to either admit their “intent of the framers” as the sole basis for Constitutional interpretation is invalid or be willing to allow a President to be indicted and tried. If ever the intent of the framers mattered it would be with how to deal with a tyrant because, when they drafted the Impeachment Clause, they had just rid themselves of a tyrant.
The 2000 memo also concedes both it and the 1973 memo did not address whether a state could indict a sitting president:
The Department’s previous analysis also focused exclusively on federal rather than state prosecution of a sitting President. We proceed on this assumption as well, and thus we do not consider any additional constitutional concerns that may be implicated by state criminal prosecution of a sitting President. See Clinton v Jones, 520 U S 681, 691 (1997) (noting that a state criminal prosecution of a sitting President would raise “ federalism and comity” concerns rather than separation of powers concerns)
Clinton v Jones was a civil claim that was allowed to proceed. The logical extension from Jones is that if a sitting President has to deal with a pre-inauguration claim for sexual harassment a President has to deal with a pre-inauguration crime prosecution because a crime is more important than any law suit.
But I always say, the arrest for a state crime is the tricky part.