Welcome to the Los Angeles Free Press!
The Original, 1960s, Counter-Culture Icon, and
still the Best Alternative to the Corporate-Controlled Media.

The LA FreeP~ A Real Head Trip for Smart Minds.



To contribute articles and suggestions, apply for an internship, or create an alliance contact: stevenmfinger@LosAngelesFreePress.com

Category: Phil Drucker’s Rant (page 1 of 11)

Phil Drucker Rants for 1-14-2020: “What Can You Offer to the Senator that Already Has an Aluminum Plant from Russia?”

Can Mitch McConnell be impeached? For those of you who immediately said no, may I humbly suggest you hold your constitutional horses for a moment and consider the following. Article II Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Granted Article II refers to the Executive Branch, but notice the Founders use of the word civil Officers. In the broadest sense, these Officers would include federally elected or appointed members of the government and possibly everyone down to, but not including your local post man or woman. But really, who knows?

Article II cabinet members, heads of the various federal administrative bodies, think ATI, any three initials, FBI, CIA, FCC, FAA, and OMG (kidding there isn’t one but maybe there should be) are included. But here’s where the Article II train starts to jump the tracks. All Article III federal justices and judges are impeachable as well. From the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS all the way down the line (life appointments are let’s say negotiable) are fair game. Logically, if the directives of Article II can be applied to and include (they do) civil Officers under Article III, why not Article I (Legislature) as well?

You might argue Article I has a remedy for wayward members of the Congress and you would be right. Article I Section 5 Clause 2 provides:

“Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.”

This is in addition to the alternate but lesser penalties of reprimand and censure. And while it is crystal clear upon a 2/3rd vote of the Senate Leader and all around bag man McConnell can be expelled, what if he isn’t? Is this where the buck stops? Were the Founders willing to let a rogue presidency continue on-account-of a self-interested, Leader of the Senate of low moral character? intent on conspiring (openly I might add) with the President to defeat the process of impeachment? Leaving in place a conspiracy to continue the actions of a president who in no way, shape or form even tries to act in the best interests of the Country? Unwilling and possibly unable to uphold the oath he swore to the office and invariably the people who elected him to faithfully serve? Perhaps we need to step back and look at the big picture.

If the Constitution stands for any single proposition, it is a document much like Magna Carta that limits the power of a monarchy and works to defeat the rise and/or, if necessary, reality of tyranny generally, and if applied to the presidency, a tyrant. Just so we are clear, in America we REJECT the idea of rule by divine intervention, in favor of a nation ruled by law, and that no one person is above the laws of our land. This is the glue that keeps us together and for the last coming up on 250 years made it possible to have a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. We often seem to forget that no one above the laws means no one, not just the president, but the Senate Leader as well. But here’s more.

Did I mention the very first impeachment and trial was for a no longer sitting US Senator? Beginning in 1797, William Blount, Senator from the newly-minted state of Tennessee, Signor of the Declaration of Independence, and now, almost bankrupt land speculator of dubious moral character was expelled from the Senate for his involvement in a plot to put Spanish controlled lands under the control of the British. If nothing else, Blount’s saga provides proof that corrupt land speculators and builders are not new to American politics.


This is where Blount’s tale gets interesting. After he was expelled, he was impeached by the House of Representatives with his indictment sent to the Senate for trial. Eventually, the Senate did not convict, dismissing the case for one of two reasons. 1. You can’t impeach a US Senator or, 2. It was an unnecessary function because the Defendant was already expelled from office. Here’s the catch. We don’t know the actual reason. It could have been number one, or two, or both. We simply don’t know.

In conclusion, should we leave a despotic, tyrannical murdering psychopath in office because the Senate won’t remove an obviously compromised, aider and abettor, traitorous (you fill in the blank) in office way too long after his expiration date Senator unwilling to fulfill the commands of his office and for some insane reason like being called the “Grim Reaper” but not “Moscow Mitch”? Thereby allowing We the People to further suffer the ill effects of a poorly informed (if at all) man-child’s lack of impulse control and overall unfitness for the job? Or should the House of Representatives, the People’s House have the exigency power, if not responsibility to remove that which allows an individual completely and utterly incapable of leading this nation in place to wreak further damage upon our democracy?

The Founders were pretty-smart guys. I, not nearly as smart or clever as even the least of them, think the answer is rather obvious. How about you?

Did you get your fill of Phil?

Instagram: Philip_Drucker

Phil Drucker Rants for 1-6-2020: “All Words Matter”

In the world of legal and constitutional analysis, words matter. A lot. For instance, have you been wondering whether the assassination or, elimination, neutralization or murder of Major General, or terrorist, or freedom fighter Qasem Soleimani, was authorized, legal or illegal, depends on what military, or non-military classification he falls into under one of several possibly applicable federal statutes. Keep in mind that throughout this article we will be discussing the very same person.

In the 1990s, a string of important cases regarding prisoners from the Middle East detained in Guantanamo Bay detention camp (it’s a military prison) located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, and often referred to as Gitmo, was decided by the US Supreme Court. These cases involved detainees imprisoned by and within US custody, being held indefinitely, without formal charges brought and lacking any meaningful access to evidence, or legal counsel while awaiting battlefield justice (a bullet to the back of the head) a military tribunal (hanging) or, a trial with the prosecution deciding what evidence was admissible and what was “classified” (basically everything) and unavailable to the defendant and his or his not lawyer much less legal team.

In the last case decided, Boumediene v. Bush, it was ruled even high-value prisoners had at least some, however minimal, due process rights. But the amount of rights depends on an analysis of various classifications of status under several different domestic and international laws. But let’s start here. Are we talking about

1. A well-defined conventional war? With conventional soldiers wearing uniforms on a traditional field of battle? Or are we discussing part of the never-ending, vague and amorphous “War on Terror?” An asymmetrical war with no actual “soldiers” and no defined battlefield? If the latter then classify the individual as an “enemy combatant” with no rights under the Geneva Convention and subject to, in most cases, US Military law(s) of which there are several that may apply.

2. Is the enemy combatant (not a soldier) an American Citizen? If so, check the box for more rights, if not, then less rights it is.

3. Is the enemy combatant being held on American soil? Or in Gitmo which conveniently happens to be classified as “foreign territory.” If currently detained, incarcerated, on foreign dirt, its constitutional limbo time as in how low can your rights go? Keeping in mind even if you are “three for three” you still have some due process rights.

And so, keeping all of this in mind, how exactly would you classify the recently assassinated, liquidated, ambushed, attacked, killed, murdered, nothing left but a black smudge on the ground after being hit by a drone strike on Iraqi soil Soleimani?

Who just so happens to carry a military rank the equivalent of an American Major General and as the leader of the “Quds Force” or elite Revolutionary Guard, the second most important person in the Iranian government? The same person and group the Americans have classified as “Terrorists” (see above for not soldiers) and can only be led by a terrorist (see not a soldier on a battlefield and, therefore, an “enemy combatant”.

The reason I ask is because, is it not true that one person’s “terrorist” is another person’s “freedom fighter?” If not, then I imagine we will have to re-classify George Washington as an enemy combatant and subject to something along the lines of military tribunal as opposed to civilian courts with little to no due process rights as part and parcel of the British “war on terror.”

Of course, once you’re dead, you really don’t care what your due process rights were, or at least, could have been. Did I mention that detainees, prisoners, recipients of torture, victims were given a happy meal for their supposed cooperation? Like I said, words matter.

Did you get your fill of Phil?

Instagram: Philip_Drucker

Phil Drucker’s Rant for 12-31-19: “I Read the News Today, Oy Vey.”

Welcome to this week’s edition of “Reading Between the Headlines and Asking Why?”

There was an attack on Jewish New Yorkers almost every day last week. Police are investigating these as possible hate crimes


NYPD Investigating 9th Anti-Semitic Attack Reported This Week


Vigil Held In Skokie After Wave Of Anti-Semitic Attacks In And Near New York City


NYPD to step up presence in Brooklyn after string of anti-Semitic hate crimes


Miami man’s Manhattan assault in broad daylight called hate crime

Police say 65-year-old Jewish man kicked, punched


Suspect pleads not guilty after five stabbed at Hanukkah party at rabbi’s home in New York

The governor called the late-night attack in Rockland County an act of “domestic terrorism.”


Suspect in Monsey Stabbings Searched Online for ‘Hitler,’ Charges Say Officials said the suspect, who is charged with hate crimes, also expressed anti-Semitic views in his journal.


Jewish college student attacked on New York subway


Jersey City Shooting Was ‘Domestic Terrorism,’ Officials Say

The two attackers were “fueled both by anti-Semitism and anti-law enforcement beliefs.”


Hate Crimes



Why? Because…

Trump signs executive order to define Judaism as a race, ethnicity


Or, stated another way…

Trump’s Executive Order and the Rise of Anti-Semitism

The president’s campus intervention ignores the bigger threat of anti-Semitism and threatens free speech.


To protect Jews on campus? This is beyond the alt-right fringe. Reclassification for maximum racist effect and pure Nazi 101. He is a very sick, twisted and evil man and trust me, you’re next.


Did you get your fill of Phil?




Instagram: Philip_Drucker

Phil Drucker’s Rant for 12-24-19: “An Open Letter to Robert Reich”

Dear Mr. Reich:

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Philip Drucker and I am a retired lawyer, Constitutional Law Professor and amateur historian. Recently, I came across an article you had written, Robert Reich: If Impeached by the House, Trump is Literally Unpardonable.

I found it to be of great interest in matters related to the breadth and scope of a successful congressional impeachment proceeding to limit the power of the ExecutiveSpecifically, this part of the Pardon Power in Section II Clause 1:

The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.

It never made sense to me that the Founders intended to leave an impeached but not removed monarch, er, president in office without so much as a hint of punishment, restrictions or restraint on his or her future conduct. I posit this position is anathema to the basic duties of the president as included in Article II Section 3:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

As well as the even more central tenet to our democratic republic that we are a nation not of blood or title, but of law and that no one, not even a president is above the law. If for no other reason that this, we must never let Trump or any other president ever pardon themselves. To do so would be, in effect, to create a tyrant the likes of which there may be no return.

After sufficient research, I completely agree with you on the issue of whether a president, any president, can pardon him/herself, or any other impeached president from the impeachment itself, and any criminal liability that may attach as a result of further prosecution under the laws of the United States of America. They cannot. There is however, and as I suspected, yet another piece to the puzzle that seems to indicate that after impeachment, any other crimes for which the president may be charged with having committed during his/her remaining tenure in office are similarly unpardonable and, hence, will be subject to prosecution for, and if found guilty, appropriate penalties as indicated under the applicable statute(s).

However, for proper authority and guidance, we must look far beyond Ex Parte Garland (1867), a case involving an ex-confederate soldier during the time of Reconstruction, an era generally believed to be a time of Southern forgiveness and unification. How can this case be “settled law” in matters of pardons when it was not challenged for over 100 years, not because of its brilliance, but because there were no other presidential impeachments to which it serve as guidance?

Further, Garland contains no instruction that a sitting president can pardon himself thereby placing him/her above the law. I simply isn’t there and yet somehow turns up again and again as Supreme Court approval for an unlimited Unitary Presidency. This fancy, constitutional sounding term is often employed as a thinly disguised front for the right to anoint an American king in a American monarchy, which in many ways is an abuse of power in and of itself, if employed by the president himself. We must return to an earlier time for guidance and return to the time and place of the American Pardon Power’s historic origins, England.

Without doubt the American Presidential Pardon Power was derived from the royal English Prerogative of Kings. It would also be uncontested prior to the 17th Century, the power to pardon, also referred to as the prerogative of mercy, was unlimited. It was associated with grace and the King’s reflection of the Almighty’s capacity for justice and mercy. Please remember this is a time when the idea of Church and State would have been treated as both treasonous and blasphemous, neither of which would be true today. That is, of course, unless you think he is the chosen one and his orange skin is a result of the holy spirit flowing through him. (You really can’t make this up, can you?)

It is in the late 17th Century when the true inquiry and illuminative history begins. For it was on December 20, 1678 that the House of Commons sought to resolve the conundrum of a royal pardon involving the conviction of Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby, for treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors, ending in a restriction on the pardon power in matters of impeachment.

Leaving the factual history behind, the impeachment as fascinating as it is, the point being, for the first time, Parliament recognized the King’s pardon as irreconcilable with the notion of “constitutional balance”. Particularly, in connection with a somewhat “rogue” and irresponsible monarch often flaunting the Constitution for less than commendable, usually selfish and often traitorous, reasons. Sound familiar? For the most part, members of Parliament believed the power of impeachment was necessary to establish a better government and that after impeachment it was in the best interest of the King and the Nation, particularly in matters involving High Treason, that this person not remain free. Interestingly, Parliament also worried that the wanton use of pardons would silence all testimony and, thus, suppress the truth of any plot. Interesting to note how little treason, bribery, corruption, high crimes and misdemeanors have changed since the days of King Charles II till the time of King Donald the First, isn’t it?

But it is upon deciding that a restraint on pardons in matters involving impeachment was proper and just, that an ancient restraint on the pardon power comes to light. However, I have not heard it discussed at length, In fact, I’ve not heard it discussed at all. Yet it is, seemingly, extremely relevant to today’s conversation. Namely, that the King could not issue a pardon for any felony that deprived a third party of their right to a legal remedy (recognized by judicial tribunal in 1673). In cases of impeachment, the third party, it turns out, was, in fact, the whole Commons of England. Here, We the People.

If nothing else, here would appear to be, at least, one sound basis for Nixon’s resignation prior to impeachment and, now that our 45th President has been impeached, he cannot pardon himself or can any other president pardon him for any of offenses against the United States, including all criminal acts, if it deprives we, us, the American people, of our right to legal remedy. And most assuredly, those particular acts within the articles of impeachment for which there would certainly be a Due Process argument for maintaining a remedy at law for a third party (that would be us).

In an another eerily similar situation, the House of Commons and the House of Lords clashed and, despite the House of Commons issuing numerous resolutions outlining their obviously stronger position, with Charles hemming and hawing the whole time, no actual legislation could be agreed upon. Although he remained fully pardoned, Danby spent the next five years in the Tower of London. But, as the years crept on, more and more restrictions were placed upon the pardoning power while the deprivation of individual third party rights (the same is true in America as part and parcel of Due Process) is still a valid issue for consideration to this day.

Although more research would be an obvious necessity, Due Process third party remedy rights in America of which plenty comes to mind, I would like to recommend, We the American People, start with a simple question. Are we, or are we not smarter today in America than the good people of 17th Century England? At the moment, that question seems to be open for debate.

In closing, I again take the opportunity to concur with your analysis regarding the limitations placed upon the pardon power in matters involving impeachment. I would further argue that in the best interest of the Country and our “King” although he may not realize it, now impeached, Trump cannot be pardoned, by himself or any other president, for any criminal acts under the applicable Federal Statutes for which he has already been impeached, and in fact for any offense against the United States he may violate during the remainder of his time in office. This being true, regardless of whether he is convicted and removed by the Senate, or not.
Humbly, I submit for your opinion and hope to hear from you shortly. Sources and citations available upon request. Thank you for your consideration.

Philip Drucker

Did you get your fill of Phil?

Instagram: Philip_Drucker

Older posts
Archive of Posts