Tag Archives: Department of Justice

My Thoughts … Not What I Expected

Posted on by under Election 2020, Election 2024, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Social commentary, voting rights

Around 5:30 last night came the news we had all been waiting for with bated breath … Special Counsel Jack Smith announced the indictment of Donald Trump on four charges connected with Trump’s attempt to overturn the election, to silence our voices, possibly forever.  Given my thoughts on the matter and given that I’ve had my fingers crossed for this day so long that I may need to have them surgically separated, I was puzzled by my own feelings upon hearing the news.  Yes, I was … pleased?  Relieved?  But I was not by any stretch euphoric, as I had expected to be.

I have read numerous takes on the indictment this morning and recommend the following three for any who are interested, plus I plan to read the entire 45-page indictment, and hope you will do so, too …

Rather than delve into details that you can read for yourself in any of the above articles or the hundred others that are out there, I want to opine just a bit on my own reaction to this whole nightmare.  Why, after months – nay, years! – of waiting for this moment, don’t I feel more joy?  Why didn’t I run outside and dance in the street?  I felt relief, yes, and hope, but I also felt a tinge of sadness.  Not, mind you, sadness for Donald Trump who fully deserves all the grief the Department of Justice and Jack Smith can give him, but sadness for how we came to this point, and for what this is doing and will do to the nation.

Many things have converged to divide the people of this nation over the past decade or so:  the migrant crisis as a result of the Arab Spring movement; the election (not once, but twice) of President Barack Obama; the evangelical movement that refuses to accept that the U.S. is a secular nation; the Covid pandemic; ever-expanding wealth inequality; conspiracy theories about everything from vaccines to climate change … and more.  Donald Trump did not start what I refer to as The Great Divide, but he saw the opportunity to exploit the divisions that already existed and in so doing, to greatly profit both in terms of financial gain and power.

Donald Trump was as surprised as any of us when he won the electoral vote (though not the people’s vote) back in 2016.  But he soon got over his surprise (like, in about 10 minutes) and began what I think of as his reign of lies.  His lies targeted the divisions that already faced us, played on our fears, and benefited one person:  Donald Trump.

We have had presidents before who were less than completely honest, but never before in the history of this nation has there been a president who was as thoroughly corrupt as Trump.  Everything he did was to further divide the nation and to benefit himself … EVERYTHING.  That in itself would be enough to make us a bit sad, but the fact that even today, even atop mounds of evidence that he has stolen from We the People, has endangered this nation and its people, there are still millions of people who want to put him back into the White House – by hook or by crook!  That we are now biting our nails in hopes that Trump’s numerous upcoming trials can be completed prior to the next presidential election in just 461 days because of the fear that Trump might win the election, replace the Attorney General immediately, and quash all charges against him.  It is sad and it is maddening that he is even allowed to be on the ballot while under indictment.

But what makes me most sad, I think, is that it feels as if our system of checks and balances is crumbling.  Our society is crumbling.  And I can’t help but wonder where we will land next year or in 5 years.  Will we learn from what has happened/is happening, or will we land in the dung heap as other nations have done before us?  Will those who put the entertainment value of someone like Donald Trump ahead of the well being of the nation and its people ever learn, or will they destroy us all?  When (if) Trump is indicted and sent (fingers crossed) to prison, will his faithful followers finally understand the depths of his depravity, or will they go on a rampage and further damage our nation?

And on that note, I leave you to draw your own conclusions or share your own thoughts.

One Heck Of A Parody!

Posted on by under History, Humour, Law and justice, music, Political commentary

Rather than a depressing political commentary tonight, I have something fun for you … this even made me chuckle aloud.  Most of you have probably heard of Don Caron and the Parody Project, but a brief history for those who may not be familiar with the Parody Project.  From the Parody Project website …

The Parody Project was founded in August of 2017 by Film-maker/composer Don Caron, as a means of surviving the current political and social mire with humor and helping others to do the same.  Parody has been an active and important part of contemporary culture for centuries. Whether in literature, theater, film or art, rarely does a day go by when an example of a parody is not widely visible. And it can be seen as ridicule but it can also be viewed as flattery. How you choose to view it says more about you than it does about the parody itself.

I happened across this short clip, a parody of the song Mack the Knife, the other night and just had to share it with you!  Enjoy!

NOBODY Is Above The Law!!!!

Posted on by under Election 2020, Election 2024, Law and justice, Political commentary

In light of the numerous times in the past decade that the people of the United States have narrowly avoided losing our democratic foundation, culminating with the attempted coup on January 6th, 2021, one would think the priority at this point would be to reinforce the intent of the Constitution by bringing to justice those who attempted to undermine it.  Or, put more simply, to figure out who was behind the plot to overthrow our votes, our elected officials, and punish them, or at the very least ensure they NEVER hold public office again!  However, more than two years later, we are still watching the stupid gamesmanship, seeing people refuse to honour subpoenas, and claim that they are “above the law”.  Make no mistake … NOBODY … NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW in the United States!

Those of you who watched the January 6th Committee hearings may remember seeing Judge J. Michael Luttig testify before the committee.  His role was that he had advised then-Vice President Mike Pence that he had no right to refuse to certify the election under law.  Fortunately for us all, Pence heeded Judge Luttig’s advice two years ago.  However today, Pence has been served a subpoena by Special Counsel Jack Smith – a subpoena which he is refusing to honour.  Once again, Judge Luttig has some very wise advice for Mr. Pence, but will he listen?  Here is Judge Luttig’s advice to Pence …

Mike Pence’s Dangerous Ploy

24 February

Judge J. Michael Luttig

Former Vice President Mike Pence recently announced he would challenge Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoena for him to appear before a grand jury in Washington as part of the investigation into former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the related Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Pence claimed that “the Biden D.O.J. subpoena” was “unconstitutional” and “unprecedented.” He added, “For me, this is a moment where you have to decide where you stand, and I stand on the Constitution of the United States.” Mr. Pence vowed to take his fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

A politician should be careful what he wishes for — no more so than when he’s a possible presidential candidate who would have the Supreme Court decide a constitutional case that could undermine his viability in an upcoming campaign.

The former vice president should not want the embarrassing spectacle of the Supreme Court compelling him to appear before a grand jury in Washington just when he’s starting his campaign for the presidency; recall the unanimous Supreme Court ruling that ordered Richard Nixon to turn over the fatally damning Oval Office tapes. That has to be an uncomfortable prospect for Mr. Pence, not to mention a potentially damaging one for a man who — at least as of today — is considered by many of us across the political spectrum to be a profile in courage for his refusal to join in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election in the face of Donald Trump’s demands. And to be clear, Mr. Pence’s decision to brand the Department of Justice’s perfectly legitimate subpoena as unconstitutional is a far cry from the constitutionally hallowed ground on which he stood on Jan. 6.

Injecting campaign-style politics into the criminal investigatory process with his rhetorical characterization of Mr. Smith’s subpoena as a “Biden D.O.J. subpoena,” Mr. Pence is trying to score points with voters who want to see President Biden unseated in 2024. Well enough. That’s what politicians do. But Jack Smith’s subpoena was neither politically motivated nor designed to strengthen President Biden’s political hand in 2024. Thus the jarring dissonance between the subpoena and Mr. Pence’s characterization of it. It is Mr. Pence who has chosen to politicize the subpoena, not the D.O.J.

As to the merits of his claim, The New York Times and other news media have reported that Mr. Pence plans to argue that when he presided over the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 as president of the Senate, he was effectively a legislator and therefore entitled to the privileges and protections of the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause. That clause is intended to protect members of Congress from questioning and testifying about official legislative acts. Should the courts support his claim, Mr. Pence would not be required to comply with Mr. Smith’s subpoena. Mr. Pence may also be under the impression that the legal fight over his claim will confound the courts, consuming months, if not longer, before he receives the verdict — but it’s unclear what he hopes to gain from the delay. One would have thought Mr. Pence would have seized the propitious opportunity afforded him by Mr. Smith, most likely weeks or months before he even decides whether he will run for the presidency.

If Mr. Pence’s lawyers or advisers have told him that it will take the federal courts months and months or longer to decide his claim and that he will never have to testify before the grand jury, they are mistaken. We can expect the federal courts to make short shrift of this “Hail Mary” claim, and Mr. Pence doesn’t have a chance in the world of winning his case in any federal court and avoiding testifying before the grand jury.

Inasmuch as Mr. Pence’s claim is novel and an unsettled question in constitutional law, it is only novel and unsettled because there has never been a time in our country’s history where it was thought imperative for someone in a vice president’s position, or his lawyer, to conjure the argument. In other words, Mr. Pence’s claim is the proverbial invention of the mother of necessity if ever there was one.

Any protections the former vice president is entitled to under the “speech and debate” clause will be few in number and limited in scope. There are relatively few circumstances in which a former vice president would be entitled to constitutional protection for his conversations related to his ceremonial and ministerial roles of presiding over the electoral vote count. What Mr. Smith wants to know about are Mr. Pence’s communications and interactions with Mr. Trump before, and perhaps during, the vote count, which are entirely fair game for a grand jury investigating possible crimes against the United States.

Whatever the courts may or may not find the scope of any protection to be, they will unquestionably hold that Mr. Pence is nonetheless required to testify in response to Mr. Smith’s subpoena. Even if a vice president has speech or debate clause protections, they will yield to a federal subpoena to appear before the grand jury. This is especially true where, as here, a vice president seeks to protect his conversations with a president who himself is under federal criminal investigation for obstructing the very official proceedings in which the special counsel is interested.

Mr. Pence and his inner circle should be under no illusion that the lower federal courts will take their time dispensing with this claim. The courts quickly disposed of Senator Lindsey Graham’s speech or debate clause claim, requiring him to testify before the grand jury empaneled in Fulton County, Ga. — and his claim was far stronger than Mr. Pence’s. In the unlikely event that Mr. Pence’s claim were to make it to the Supreme Court, it, too, could be expected to take swift action.

Mr. Pence undoubtedly has some of the finest lawyers in the country helping him navigate this treacherous path forward, and they will certainly earn their hefty fees. But in cases like this, the best lawyers earn their pay less when they advise and argue their clients’ cases in public than when they elegantly choreograph the perfect exit in private — before their clients get the day in court they wished for.

Mr. Pence’s lawyers would be well advised to have Jack Smith’s phone number on speed dial and call him before he calls them. The special counsel will be waiting, though not nearly as long as Mr. Pence’s lawyers may be thinking. No prosecutor, least of all Mr. Smith, will abide this political ploy for long. And Mr. Pence shouldn’t let this dangerous tactic play out for long. If he does, it will be more than he wished for.

It is a time-tested axiom in the law never to ask questions you don’t know the answer to. This should apply to politicians in spades. But the die has been cast by the former vice president. The only question now is not whether he will have to testify before the grand jury, but how soon. The special counsel is in the driver’s seat, and the timing of Mr. Pence’s appearance before the grand jury is largely in his hands. Mr. Smith will bide his time for only so long.

Making History … As We Speak

Posted on by under Election 2020, Free Press Issues, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Social commentary

Today is the final televised hearing of the January 6th committee.  What happens next?  Time will tell.  I like to think the Department of Justice will act on the recommendations of the committee, as well as their own investigations, and that those who participated in attempting to overthrow our voices, our government, will pay a steep price.  I’m not holding my breath, however.  Robert Hubbell’s newsletter today echoes my own thoughts, only he says it much better than I could …

The Judgement of History

Robert B. Hubbell

19 December 2022

On Monday, December 19, 2022, Americans will witness history in the making. A congressional committee will recommend that the DOJ pursue criminal proceedings against a former president for engaging in insurrection to stop the peaceful transfer of power. The recommendation will be based on an exhaustive, transparent, bipartisan investigation that unfolded in public. Republicans boycotted the committee after GOP leadership unsuccessfully attempted to appoint participants in the insurrection to the body investigating their crimes.

The criminal referrals should not be cause for celebration or feelings of vindication. Rather, they should be a cause for hope and increased resolve that our experiment in democracy will endure despite the actions of faithless servants and aspiring tyrants. The United States of America is bigger than Trump and his skulk of cowards. It will outlast them, hold them to account, and subject them to the judgment of history.

The criminal referrals and findings of the January 6th Committee are critical steps in setting the record straight for future generations. The names of the insurrectionists will be memorized by schoolchildren learning about dark passages in our nation’s history: Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Jefferson Davis, Donald Trump, Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, . . . .

Sadly, the insurrection continues to this day as the GOP seeks to shield members of its party who remain in Congress after they betrayed the Constitution. No Republican member of Congress agreed to appear before the Committee to provide crucial evidence in one of the most important investigations in our history. The recalcitrant members of Congress continue to violate their oaths every minute they obfuscate, impede, and distort the work of the Committee. They deserve to be expelled from Congress. Indeed, the Committee may recommend discipline or criminal referrals for members who failed to comply with lawful subpoenas issued by the Committee, The Week, Schiff says Jan. 6 committee deciding ‘appropriate remedy’ for uncooperative GOP lawmakers.

 In a depraved act of supreme disrespect and partisanship, a “shadow” committee of Republicans will issue a “counter-report” to the official report of the January 6th Committee. That report will seek to lay blame for security lapses at the Capitol for the insurrection. See Axios, Scoop: GOP shadow committee re-emerges for Jan. 6 report. The response by law enforcement and intelligence agencies is a legitimate area of investigation—and will be covered in the January 6th Committee’s report. But the point of the “shadow committee’s” separate report is to confuse and dilute media coverage of the findings in the J6 Report. Sadly, many members of the media will give “equal time” to a “PR stunt” by insurrectionists and the serious and sober effort by the J6 Committee to understand the root cause of the insurrection.

Trump is acting like a wounded and cornered animal. He is lashing out on his vanity media platform, resorting to the language of incitement that ignited the insurrection. See HuffPo, Donald Trump Evokes Jan. 6 Insurrection, Tells Backers It’s Time To ‘Deal With’ FBI, DOJ “Thugs”. It is doubtful that any other president in American history will ever be credibly accused of insurrection by a congressional committee. Trump is entering a league of one.

The political backlash against the Committee and its members will be savage. Kevin McCarthy has vowed to remove Adam Schiff from the House Intelligence Committee in retribution. Republican leaders of all stripes will lie, distort, and deflect. The tired refrain of “What about Hillary’s emails?” pales in comparison to charges of insurrection, obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, and conspiracy to defraud the United States (i.e., the fake electors scheme).

For those who care about defending democracy, the vote of the Committee on December 19, 2022, will be momentous. To the extent you can, ignore the noise and focus on the rare achievement that is the sign of a functioning democracy—an effort to hold a former leader to account for his crimes in office. Whatever happens, the judgment of the January 6th Committee will be inscribed in stone as the official history of the unsuccessful insurrection that culminated in the events of January 6th, 2021.

The Week’s Best Cartoons: About That Red Wave

Posted on by under Bits 'n Pieces, cartoons, Election 2022, Humour, Law and justice, Political commentary, Re-blogs, Social commentary, voting rights

It’s been a few weeks since I’ve shared TokyoSand’s weekly collection of political cartoons, so I thought this week would be a good time to share them with you.  Care to take any guesses as to what the main topic on the cartoonists’ collective mind was this week?  Yep, the U.S. elections and that ‘red wave’ that so many had pinned their hopes on but that failed to materialize.  Now that most of us have breathed a faint sigh of relief, we can have a few laughs over it.  Thank you, TS, for finding the best cartoons for us this week!

Despite the Republican Party and most of the media buying into the prediction of a red wave, it never materialized on Election Night. In fact, this is the first time since 1936 that the sitting president’s party didn’t lose a single state legislative chamber in a midterms! For all of you who voted, this is what you made happen. Enjoy!

That last one is my FAVOURITE!!!  Be sure to check out all the rest of the cartoons over at Political Charge!

Will He Or Won’t He? Should He Or Shouldn’t He?

Posted on by under Election 2020, Election 2024, History, Law and justice, Political commentary

The great debate these days seems to be over whether Attorney General Merrick Garland will, or should, charge Donald Trump for crimes committed while in office.  You all know my opinion:  charge him, convict him, put him in a cell and throw away the key!  But, there is more to consider and political author/journalist Bill Press assesses it in his latest column …

To charge or not to charge?

Bill Press, 28 July, 2022

To charge or not to charge?

For months in Washington – whether over breakfast at the Four Seasons, lunch at The Palm, or dinner at Café Milano – the only topic of conversation has been: What’s Merrick Garland up to? Is the Justice Department conducting its own investigation of possible criminal activity related to Jan. 6? And, if so, how high would it go? All the way to Trump? Why hasn’t he already filed charges? Or is Garland, afraid of making the department look political, just holding back and leaving it up to Congress?

Nobody knew. And Garland only deepened the mystery with his sphinx-like pronouncement that “no person,” not even a former president, is “above the law.”

This week, we finally got some answers. Washington’s sleepy, summertime media exploded with first, the rumor, then confirmation, that none other than Marc Short, former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, and Greg Jacob, Pence’s former chief counsel, had met with a federal grand jury looking into possible criminal charges related to the failed insurrection of Jan. 6.

Now we know for sure: The Justice Department, having already filed charges against more than 855 people who took part in the violent assault on the Capitol, is moving up the chain of command – is already inside the White House – investigating who in the top tier of the Trump administration is responsible for summoning and inciting the mob. And we know that the DOJ was, in fact, conducting its own investigation even before receiving any request to do so from the January 6 Select Committee. That’s big news.

But that news has also re-ignited another old debate in Washington: No matter how outrageous his conduct before, during, and after Jan. 6, should Merrick Garland even file charges against Donald Trump? Many leading attorneys, including CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, with whom I usually agree on everything, have urged Garland not to act. Their arguments are wide-ranging: that such a case is complicated and might not succeed; that prosecuting a former president’s never been done before in this country; that that’s how autocracies work, not democracies; and that charging Trump with a crime will only give him another opportunity to paint himself as a political victim in a trial that could drag on for years.

And so the question of the day has become: To charge or not to charge? Frankly, I can’t even believe we’re having this debate. It’s a no-brainer. Of course, Donald Trump should be charged with crimes he committed as president. There’s no good argument for not doing so.

Granted, this would be the first time a former president faced criminal charges. But why? Because we’ve never had a president like Donald Trump before. No other American president tried to bribe the president of another country; refused to accept, and then tried to overturn, the outcome of an election; asked a state official to “discover” 11,000 more votes; encouraged his lawyers to create slates of fake electors; summoned a mob of supporters to Washington and, knowing they were armed, directed them to storm the Capitol and prevent Congress and his vice president from carrying out their constitutional responsibilities.

Plus, the evidence is clear. Trump is guilty as sin. The January 6 Committee has made the case. Trump’s guilty of violating the law against rebellion and insurrection. S2383 strictly prohibits anyone who “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.” That’s exactly what Trump did leading up to Jan. 6.

And, among other possible charges, Trump’s guilty of obstructing justice, according to which it’s a crime “to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding or attempt to do so.” Which is exactly what Trump did on Jan. 6.

There’s also the matter of fairness. There were two different sets of players on Jan. 6: those who carried out the attack, and those who planned and organized it. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice for the DOJ to prosecute only the members of the mob, and not the man who sent them.

Finally, it’s important to hold Trump responsible in order to send a message: In this great country, anybody has the right to complain about the outcome of an election. But nobody has the right to overturn the government and destroy our democracy in order to stay in office. That’s an attack on the United States of America.

For those reasons, Merrick Garland must file criminal charges against Donald Trump. The sooner, the better.

The Niece Speaks From Experience

Posted on by under Bits 'n Pieces, education, Election 2024, History, Humour, Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary

I just finished reading Mary L. Trump’s post on Substack and watching her accompanying video that covers multiple topics, and I felt it important to share it with you.  Mary, for those who may be unaware, is the niece of the former guy, and likely knows him and his bunch better than most.

Occam’s Razor

By Mary L. Trump

30 July 2022

I’m trying to remain patient with the pace—even though it does appear to be accelerating—of the investigation into the many crimes committed by so many members of the Trump administration. I know these things take time. It is undoubtedly the largest and most complex investigation in DoJ history. Legal time runs much more slowly than political time—or any other kind of time. If you go for the king you best not miss. Yeah, I get it. The impatience comes from the fact that we, the people, know they all did it.

I’m also following a lot of threads for this coming week including the continuing, horrific fallout from the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood which includes the complete collapse of the Court’s legitimacy; the shocking (but not surprising) cover-up of the January 6th crimes that has spread to the Department of Homeland Security; and the news that a group of Republicans and pseudo-Democrats, led by the execrable Andrew Yang, is starting a third party call “Forward.” I assume that’s short for “Forward toward Destruction.”

And here’s a video you might enjoy about the Right’s masculinity crisis, Alan Dershowitz’s Greek tragedy, and Senate Republicans proving themselves, yet again, to be monsters.

The Future Of The Nation …

Posted on by under Election 2020, Law and justice, Political commentary, Social commentary

There is much debate, though I personally believe it is cut and dried, about whether or not a former president can be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office.  The debate isn’t about whether the crimes were committed, but simply about the precedent it would set to prosecute, about whether it’s true that nobody is above the law.  I think Charles Blow is spot on in his assessment in yesterday’s New York Times …

We Can’t Afford Not to Prosecute Trump

By Charles M. Blow

Opinion Columnist

24 July 2022

We all learn from failure.

Our mistakes become the bridge to our successes, teaching us what works and what doesn’t, so that the next time we muster the will to try, we’ll succeed.

But nefarious actors can also learn from failure. And that, unfortunately, is where we find ourselves with Donald Trump. His entire foray into politics has been one of testing the fences for weaknesses. Every time a fence has failed, he has been encouraged. He has become a better political predator.

With the conclusion of this series of hearings about the Jan. 6 insurrection, it has become ever clearer to me that Trump should be charged with multiple crimes. But I’m not a prosecutor. I’m not part of the Department of Justice. That agency will make the final decision on federal charges.

The questions before the Justice Department are not only whether there is convincing evidence that Trump committed the crimes he is accused of but also whether the country could sustain the stain of a criminal prosecution of a former president.

I would turn the latter question around completely: Can the country afford not to prosecute Trump? I believe the answer is no.

He has learned from his failures and is now more dangerous than ever.

He has learned that the political system is incapable of holding him accountable. He can try to extort a foreign nation for political gain and not be removed from office. He can attempt a coup and not be removed from office.

He has learned that many of his supporters have almost complete contempt for women. It doesn’t matter how many women accuse you of sexual misconduct; your base, including some of your female supporters, will brush it away. You can even be caught on tape boasting about sexually assaulting women, and your followers will discount it.

He has learned that the presidency is the greatest grift of his life. For decades, he has sold gilded glamour to suckers — hawking hotels and golf courses, steaks and vodka — but with the presidency, he needed to sell them only lies that affirmed their white nationalism and justified their white fragility, and they would happily give him millions of dollars. Why erect a building when you could simply erect a myth? Trump will never willingly walk away from this.

Now with the investigation into his involvement in the insurrection and his attempts to steal the election, he is learning once again from his failures. He is learning that his loyalty tests have to be even more severe. He is learning that his attempts to grab power must come at the beginning of his presidency, not the end. He is learning that it is possible to break the political system.

Not only does Trump apparently want to run again for president; The New York Times reported that he might announce as soon as this month, partly to shield himself “from a stream of damaging revelations emerging from investigations into his attempts to cling to power after losing the 2020 election.”

Trump isn’t articulating any fully fleshed-out policy objectives he hopes to accomplish for the country, but that should come as no surprise. His desire to regain power has nothing to do with the well-being of the country. His quest is brazenly self-interested. He wants to retake the presidency because its power is a shield against accountability and a mechanism through which to funnel money.

Should his re-election bid prove successful, Trump’s second term will likely be far worse than the first.

He would tighten his grip on all those near him. Mike Pence was a loyalist but in the end wouldn’t fully kowtow to him. The same can be said of Bill Barr. Trump will not again make the mistake of surrounding himself with people who would question his authority.

Some of the people who demonstrated more loyalty to the country than they did to Trump during these investigations were lower-level staff members. For the former president, they, too, present an obstacle. But he might have a fix for that as well.

Axios reported on Friday that “Trump’s top allies are preparing to radically reshape the federal government if he is re-elected, purging potentially thousands of civil servants and filling career posts with loyalists to him and his ‘America First’ ideology.”

According to Axios, this strategy appears to revolve around his reimposing an executive order that would reassign tens of thousands of federal employees with “some influence over policy” to Schedule F, which would strip them of their employee protections so that Trump could fire them without recourse to appeal.

Perhaps most dangerous, though, is that Trump will have learned that while presidents aren’t too big to fail, they are too big to jail. If a president can operate with impunity, the presidency invites corruption, and it defies the ideals of this democracy.

A Trump free of prosecution is a Trump free to rampage.

Some could argue that prosecuting a former president would forever alter presidential politics. But I would counter that not prosecuting him threatens the collapse of the entire political ecosystem and therefore the country.

PLEASE, AG Merrick Garland … Do the Right Thing!

Posted on by under Election 2024, Global Issues, History, Law and justice, Political commentary

If we fail to hold Donald Trump, John Eastman, and all the members of Congress who played a role in the attempted coup of January 6th, then we are basically telling all future presidents that there will be no punishment for any criminal activities in which they might engage while in office.  Period.  Close your eyes and imagine a future president, say a President Gaetz, forcing himself on White House staff members, making sex with him a requisite of the job.  Imagine a President Cruz taking money under the table from the next Russian president in exchange for refusing to assist the next country Russia attacks.  Imagine President Manchin negotiating with the coal and oil companies to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, or … well, just let your imagination run wild for a few minutes.

Those of you who are parents … you give your kids a time out or some other humanitarian punishment when they knowingly do something wrong, yes?  Why do you do this?  Because you know they must learn that actions have consequences, that if you steal from a schoolmate or punch a younger kid, you will pay the price.  If you lie, you will pay the price.  People like Donald Trump were never disciplined and grew up thinking that they were somehow ‘special’, not accountable for their actions.  When one of these people gets into a public office, they assume that it’s their private play space, that they can do anything they please because they have “the power”, they assume they are untouchable, invincible.  If the courts and the Justice Department of the United States fail to charge or indict and convict Donald Trump and his co-conspirators for not only their role in the January 6th attempted coup, but the entire batch of underhanded attempts to overturn our election by subverting the Justice Department, seeking to corrupt states attorneys general and more, then they are complicit in creating the monster that will be the next person to sit at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office.

There are no grey areas here, no moral equivalencies, no doubts whatsoever.  Donald Trump and his minions attempted treason.  They failed … this time.  They, or whomever is the next president, will have learned from their mistakes and will not likely fail again.  No, my friends, I am not an alarmist, not being overly dramatic … I am stating facts based on a) common sense, b) logic, and c) what I can see and hear with my own eyes and ears.

I have heard numerous legal experts opine that to charge Trump would be to go down a road fraught with obstacles.  That there is no precedent for actually charging a former president for criminal activity seems to be a big stumbling block – it shouldn’t be, but apparently it is.  Now, these legal experts have far more knowledge than I do about the ins and outs of the law, but I am not completely witless, and I know that he cannot be allowed to get by with his crimes.  I know that NOW is the time we MUST prove to the world that NOBODY in the United States, not even the president, is above the law.  Failure to do so … is simply not an option.

There is also a concern among legal scholars, and likely within the Department of Justice, that in the current polarized political environment, Trump would be seen as the ‘victim of a witch hunt’ or a political voodoo doll.  Some of the legal scholars say he might have a valid defense by claiming that he lacked criminal intent because he truly believed that massive voter fraud had taken place.  Bullshit.  If nothing else, we have learned from various people testifying in the January 6th committee hearings that Trump was told repeatedly by every expert from then-Attorney General William Barr to various states’ Attorneys General that he spoke with, to his own lawyers and even his daughter that he lost.  Period.  He disregarded all but a drunken Rudy Giuliani and a cunning John Eastman not because he believed he won, but because he had a plan to stay in office by hook or by crook.  And if by some remote chance, despite all the evidence, he did still believe he won, then he is seriously deranged and unfit to remain in society, let alone run for any public office.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is in a tough spot, for he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.  For the sake of this nation, for the future of our children, the future of the world as we know it, he must do the right thing!

G-G-Ghost??? G-G-Gun???

Posted on by under guns, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Social commentary

The term ‘ghost gun’ has been in the news a great deal already this week (almost as much as that singer who claims to be pregnant!).  Turns out the Department of Justice has issued a new ruling pertaining to ghost guns and President Biden announced the new ruling yesterday.  I saw the headlines more than a few times, but passed them over for the time being, intending to return to the story when I had time to ask some questions and seek answers.  So, late Monday night, I asked my first question:  What the hell is a ghost gun, anyway?

And then I sought the answer.  A ghost gun, as I understand it, is a kit … rather a do-it-yourself gun that comes in pieces but can be easily assembled in about a half hour.  The attraction for the gun nuts is that the ghost gun is … or has been heretofore … untraceable.  Anybody, regardless of age or criminal history, can buy these kits, make a gun, and POW!  Now … if you want to own a gun, but you don’t intend to commit a crime with it, then … why does it matter, why do you care if it’s traceable?  It seems to me that the only people who would spend their money for a gun kit, go to the trouble of assembling the gun, just so nobody would know they have the gun, are those people who intend to use said gun in the commission of a crime!  You follow my logic here?  Guns have one purpose and one purpose only:  to kill.

The new Department of Justice rule highlighted by the President on Monday would make it illegal for firms to make such kits without a serial number for the components and for a gun dealer to market the kits without requiring the buyer to undergo a background check. That way, at least when such guns are recovered after a crime there is some hope of tracing the perpetrators.  Personally, I would much prefer that these guns be outlawed altogether, but I am in the minority on my stance on guns, so I would happily seek a reasonable compromise.  I strongly suspect, though, that the new ruling will be found to be unenforceable.  Companies that sell gun kits and people who buy them do not necessarily play by the rules.

President Biden is a bit more optimistic than I, though …

“All of a sudden, it’s no longer a ghost. It has a return address. And it’s going to help save lives, reduce crime and get more criminals off the streets.”

An oversimplification, perhaps.  I mean … thus far, we haven’t been able to get any guns out of the hands of criminals!  Our country is the laughingstock of the world for our lax and unenforced gun ‘laws’, such as they are.  Hell, we haven’t even managed to pass a law banning assault weapons, guns that kill hundreds at a time and were designed specifically and only for use by the military!  Why?  Because far too many members of Congress have been bought and paid for by the gun industry.

Yesterday, I read that Georgia’s Governor Kemp signed into law a bill that enables people to carry a concealed weapon without a license.  That stoked my curiosity about the various states’ gun laws.  Did you know that an estimated 22% of US gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without a background check—which translates to millions of Americans acquiring millions of guns, no questions asked, each year?

Fourteen states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada , New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington) and the District of Columbia generally require universal background checks at the point of sale for all sales of all classes of firearms, whether they are purchased from a licensed dealer or an unlicensed seller.  But how do you enforce that law?  If I owned a gun and wanted to sell it to my neighbor, I could simply hand him the gun and he could hand me the money and the deal is done.  The laws, many of which are being taken OFF the books in many states, aren’t enforceable!  Only honest people, people who truly want a rifle for target practice or a pistol in case of a home invasion, are going to abide by the law.  All others know exactly how to circumvent it!  Ghost guns are only a part of the problem!

In 2021, about 20,000 suspected ghost guns were recovered by law enforcement in criminal investigations and reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The figure marked a tenfold increase from 2016.  And those are just the ones that were found!  How many more are out there in the hands of people with criminal backgrounds, people with a better aim than they have sense, and people with a temper?  In my ever-so-humble opinion, the only way to put the problem of ghost guns to bed is to shut down every seller of the kits.  Every. Last. One.  Make them illegal to buy or sell.

The gun laws we have thus far are insufficient to keep our society safe.  Worse yet, many states’ laws are even more lax.  And still worse yet, a large portion of this nation would happily fight for their right to own a gun … even before they would stand firm for their right to be a parent.  And, a topic for another day is 3D-printed guns, yet another form of ghost gun that can be produced with a 3D printer that anybody can purchase for just a few hundred dollars.

The entire gun industry is a scourge on this nation.  A few fat, wealthy blokes are laughing and eating steak tonight, while other, not-so-wealthy people will find themselves dead via a gun by morning.  The people of the United States do not need to worry about being invaded by another nation, for we are hellbent and determined to destroy ourselves from within.