Can a number be illegal?

Can specific numbers be illegal?

Videos on illegal numbers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnEyjwdoj7g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo19Y4tw0l8

Wikipedia article on illegal numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

Well, nearly anything we call information can be put into the form of a number. Any proprietary information, any national security secrets, any computer software, copyrighted material, any video or music performance... each of these can be put into the form of a number, generally a very large number, but a number.

A simple example: the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

I will use a simple code in which every letter is uniquely paired with an integer.

1 = a
2 = b
3 = c
4 = d
5 = e
6 = f
7 = g
8 = h
9 = i
10 = j
11 = k
12 = l
13 = m

14 = n
15 = o
16 = p
17 = q
18 = r
19 = s
20 = t
21 = u
22 = v
23 = w
24 = x
25 = y
26 = z

We'll use the ACSII decimal code for space -- 32 -- which, in binary, is: 00100000

And we translate our decimal strings into binary strings:

2085
100000100101

17219311
1000001101011111011101111

218152314
1101000000001011110101111010

61524
1111000001010100

1021131654
111100110111010011101110000110

1522518
101110011101101010110

2085
100000100101

1212625
100101000000011010001

4157
1000000111101

In decimal, we have the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog written as a number: 208532172193113221815231432615243210211316543261524321021131654321021131654321522518322085321212625324157

Which, in binary, looks something like this (I haven't bothered to check for errors in transcription): 1000001001010010000010000011010111110111011110010000011010000000010111101011110100010000011110000010101000010000011110011011101001110111000011000100001011100111011010101100010000010000010010100100000100101000000011010001001000001000000111101

The above string looks like any old boring computer command. Because computers use the binary (on/off) system. (The problem of overlapping numbers, as in does 117 mean 1,17 or 11,7 -- a, q or k, g -- is solved by various mathematical and computer means, which I do not address here.)

But, suppose a number -- no doubt much longer -- represents a computer program, which runs a movie or a musical performance. Or suppose the number encapsulates copyrighted material. Or what if it encapsulates top secret national security information?

So, can a number by itself be proprietary? Or classified? The difficulty is that, if you publish the raw number of something that is supposedly under information control, you may say that you are publishing a very long integer. Integers aren't intellectual property, are they? The infringement would seem to occur when someone uses that number to run a program that either entertains someone or informs them without the permission of those holding the "property" rights. But surely the number itself isn't property.

Yet, when you publish that number, you give others the means of replicating the desired information, something CIA folks might frown on. Yet, can the CIA and other spook agencies claim to own numbers? Well, I guess so. They say their ciphers and codes are classified secret. But again, people have a right to write down long numbers if they wish to do so, don't they? Had Edward Snowden given only the computer numbers associated with all the NSA surveillance of Americans he exposed, the government would have been in quite a pickle, I'd say. But then journalists, though they may have savvy on apps and technicalities related to their trade, tend to come up somewhat short in the computer science department; it's unlikely they would have known what to do with the numbers.

In any case, there is something philosophically odd about making specific numbers illegal to distribute or even to possess.

ACSII code
https://theasciicode.com.ar/

Smeared for opposing impeachment

Dershowitz: 'liberals' have barred me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCgABIjYhyw

---

So-called liberals don't understand, or don't wish to understand, Alan M. Dershowitz on the rule of constitutional law.

Alan M. Dershowitz

Not only is this so in the current "fake impeachment" case, but also applies on gun control at the federal level.
The site Wikipedia relates that Dershowitz is a strong supporter of gun control and has criticized the Constitution's Second Amendment, arguing that it has "no place in modern society." Though Dershowitz favors repealing it, he vigorously opposes using the judicial system to read it out of the Constitution because it would open the way for further revisions to the Bill of Rights and Constitution by court edict.
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
The 81-year-old constitutional law scholar also draws fire for his support of Israel, with some believing that that stance colors Dershowitz's support of the pro-Israel Trump. But, Dershowitz argues that he has always opposed use of impeachment as a means of settling scores.

---

Where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty. --2 Cor 3:17

---

McConnell to wait out Pelosi, but will that work?

Dems are fishing
for something else
to hurl at Trump

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would be "glad" for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to keep sitting on the articles of impeachment, but that he believes she won't continue the waiting game after Jan. 6, when congressional business resumes.
McConnell told Fox News the Senate cannot act on the articles until the House officially delivers them, adding that "I don't think" the Senate is constitutionally able to proceed without further House action.
Yet it was disclosed today that House Democrats, in their push to break traditional presidential executive privilege, are considering holding more impeachment hearings and adding one or more articles to the two that have already been voted. The House is tussling with President Trump over his order preventing former White House counsel Don McGahn from talking about the advice he gave to Trump and other confidential matters.
Politico reports that House judiciary panel lawyers disclosed today that the House is open to the prospect of impeaching Trump a second time.
House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals into whether Democrats still need testimony from McGahn after the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

As Fox analyst Brit Hume observed, the gambit of Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to pressure McConnell to accept Democrat witness demands shows that the Democrats realize they have a weak case.

A potential problem with McConnell's decision is that the Democrats will, in the waiting period, pile on new articles as they keep hunting for something they can use to hurt Trump severely.

Alan Dershowitz, the noted retired Harvard law professor, argues that Pelosi has no standing in any decision of the Senate to hold a trial. He said that, if she continues to drag her feet, the Senate could begin the trial anyway as soon as Congress returns from the holiday break.

Dershowitz also said the articles do not meet constitutional criteria. The articles, which allege "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress," are based, in the "abuse" charge, on hearsay evidence, much of it contradictory, and, in the "obstruction" charge, on Democrats being rankled that Trump, like many presidents before him, invoked executive privilege, which stems from the doctrine of separation of powers, in order to bar testimony of advisers. Democrats voted to approve that charge even though their case was still pending in court.
Dershowitz said he is not a supporter of Trump and had voted for Hillary Clinton, but that as a civil libertarian he has been consistently chary of impeachment as a means of settling political scores, including in the cases of President Richard Nixon and President Bill Clinton. Dershowitz says that, while favoring Nixon's impeachment, he stood up for Nixon's legal rights.
Trump jibed that Democrats had found no crime and had hit him with "impeachment lite."

---

Where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty. --2 Cor 3:17

---

Set a deadline for Pelosi. If she balks, start Senate trial without House action

If, as Pelosi declares,
Trump is a big menace,
why is she thwarting
impeachment action?

She has told members of the press that her reasons for her no-go order are her secret, pointedly telling them not to ask questions on that subject.

Fake news brings you fake impeachment Fake news brings you fake impeachment

Impeachment sandbagging idea
came from Harvard law professor

Two days before House Democrats voted articles of impeachment against President Trump, a Harvard law professor publicly urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stall further action.

Laurence Tribe, a well-known Harvard law professor, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed:

"For some time now, I have been emphasizing the duty to impeach this president for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress regardless of what the Senate might end up doing. Now that President Trump’s impeachment is inevitable, and now that failing to formally impeach him would invite foreign intervention in the 2020 election and set a dangerous precedent, another option seems vital to consider: voting for articles of impeachment but holding off for the time being on transmitting them to the Senate."

Tribe added that as a "tactical matter, it could strengthen Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) hand in bargaining over trial rules with McConnell because of McConnell’s and Trump’s urgent desire to get this whole business behind them.

Further, "On a substantive level, it would be justified to withhold going forward with a Senate trial. Under the current circumstances, such a proceeding would fail to render a meaningful verdict of acquittal. It would also fail to inform the public, which has the right to know the truth about the conduct of its president."

Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus Harvard law professor, countered that Tribe's recommendation "would withhold the trial until the Senate agreed to change its rules, or presumably until a new election put many more Democrats in the Senate. Under his proposal, there might never be a Senate trial, but the impeachment would stand as a final and permanent condemnation of President Trump."

Dershowitz added, "It is difficult to imagine anything more unconstitutional, more violative of the intention of the Framers, more of a denial of basic due process and civil liberties, more unfair to the president and more likely to increase the current divisiveness among the American people. Put bluntly, it is hard to imagine a worse idea put forward by good people."

The fact that Pelosi followed advice publicly aired by a Democratic professor should not be taken to mean that there is no deep-laid conspiracy to delay impeachment until the Deep Swamp security chieftains can hand something stronger to House Democrats for a third article of impeachment, one that would they hope result in swaying Senate Republicans and ridding them of their nemesis, John Durham. Though Durham's probe would not be officially killed, his position would be gravely weakened, which is what spook Washington is aiming for.

Fake news brings you fake impeachment Fake news brings you fake impeachment

Senate may try impeachment case
even if House Dems refuse to act

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to have telegraphed that she intends to sit on the articles of impeachment, denying the Senate its trial with certain acquittal, while using "impeachment" for Democratic campaign rhetoric.
The tip-off came Friday when she told the Associated Press that President Trump will "be impeached forever. No matter what the Senate does. He's impeached forever because he violated our Constitution." Pelosi also said Trump had witnessed "the power of the gavel" during the full House vote on two articles of impeachment Wednesday.
Being "impeached forever" because someone "violated the Constitution" is constitutionally and legally meaningless. But it makes good rhetoric for her zany base -- and throwing the Senate into her statement is meant as a red herring to deflect attention from what she is or is not doing.
"Power of the gavel" is an interesting turn of speech, and probably means that the impeachment case was finished once Pelosi banged the gavel. That is, the public had seen her bang the gavel and announce that the articles of impeachment had passed. That is, she got the public relations point she wanted, and nothing further is planned.
Such dissimulation signals that Pelosi has no intention of sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate or of organizing a House team to present the Democrats' case.
BUT, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to wait for the House to act. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and judiciary panel chairman Lindsey Graham could order a Senate trial with no official House input. If Pelosi doesn't wish to send people over to present the Democrats' case, so be it! The House's articles of impeachment and its impeachment reports are public record. That's enough for the Senate to act.
After all, if Pelosi can throw a screwball by squelching the impeachment, payback is fair play: The Senate can knock back that screwball by holding a trial with no House input.
Where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty. --2 Cor 3:17

Fake news brings you fake impeachment Fake news brings you fake impeachment

Pelosi un-impeaches Prez

Why the stall? Is Deep Swamp readying 'bombshell' to justify a 3d charge?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, by indefinitely sidetracking the Democrats' articles of impeachment, is nullifying impeachment, according to one legal scholar who testified on behalf of the Democrats.
"If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all," wrote Noah Feldman, a professor of law at Harvard University. A short delay is understandable, but an indefinite shelving of the articles is another matter, he said.
"As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement," Feldman said. "So far, the House has voted to impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn’t impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message."

Feldman's argument
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats
It is possible that Pelosi got a "hold-up" order from the Deep Swamp as security honchos realized the two articles of impeachment wouldn't achieve their objective of overthrowing Trump and derailing John Durham's criminal investigation of big-time swamp rats.
In that scenario, they are busy cooking up some "bombshell" or other that they can feed to their media errand boys and girls, thus sparking the House to add another article of impeachment. Presumably the postulated third article would be sufficient to get the Senate to tell Trump "scram," and all would be well in the Swamp's serpentine corridors of power.