Truth is an Absolute Defense and Damnable Evidence of Prevarication

March 25, 2021March 25, 2021 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

I’ve waited a while to write about the events leading up to and including January 6^th, to allow perspective to take shape and for the raw emotions to dissipate.

My initial, emotional reaction to the incident was one of disgust and I actually thought that lethal force should have been applied. Such attacks on our country, for this was clearly an attack, tend to foster such emotions. These were not patriots or heroes fighting against injustice, they were prime examples of cowards wrapping themselves in the flag with their actions driven by false bravado derived from mob mentality camoflaged behind the anonymity of the crowd.

As Samuel Johnson once said,

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
Samuel Johnson

Of course, they weren’t even smart enough to avoid boastful images on social media, but no shock there. This operation, while clearly deliberate and organized, wasn’t conceived at a Mensa meeting.

Having spent twenty years as a police officer, there was no more challenging event than a call for “officer needs assistance.” We tended toward a swift and certain response to render the officer assistance and woe to those who created the threat in the first place.

But the circumstances here were different, and I am in awe of the measured response by those officers who were essentially abandoned by those in command out of a concern more for appearances than public safety.

But now, with the passage of time, several things become evident.

The genesis of this incident—which several law enforcement organizations had more than definitive evidence was being planned, including premeditated violence, for which they should have been better prepared—was begun by a lying President, disingenuous public figures, profit-motivated media hucksters and their snake-oil purveying representatives pretending to be political commentators or factual news sources.

But don’t take my word for it. You can take their own admissions in court as evidence.

Sidney Powell, part of former President Donald Trump’s “nightmare” defense team, in court filings defending her in a suit by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation about the claim that Dominion machines were manipulated to change the election results, admits the hard truth.

In her brief filed with the court Powell, “moved to dismiss a lawsuit filed against her by Dominion Voting Systems Monday, arguing her earlier claims that Dominion was involved in an orchestrated voter fraud effort were so outrageous that “reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact.”

And how does one define reasonable?

“agreeable to reason (defined as a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.) or sound judgment; logical
capable of rational behavior, decision, etc.”
Dictionary.com

Reasonable is the opposite of what these people contended since election day.

Let’s look at those words again. The claims made against Dominion, by Powell, Giuliani, and President Trump himself up to January 6^th, were “so outrageous that “reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact.” https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20519858/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf

Based on such assertion, for it must be the truth if filed with the court otherwise Ms. Powell and/or her attorneys would face disciplinary actions for knowingly filing false documents, then at least one of the attorney’s representing the former President, Ms. Powell in this case, believes only unreasonable people would believe such claims. Thus President Trump, at least in the view of Powell, must be an unreasonable person if he believes the alleged election fraud or is delusional perhaps or, and this is the most likely scenario, knows full well the claims of voter machine manipulation are false allegations and in no way contributed to changing the results of the election.

Yet it hasn’t stopped Mr. Trump from continuing this either unreasonable, delusional, or deliberate false claim which directly agitated the mood of the mob on January 6^th and fomented the violence. Mr. Trump can deny he caused the violence, but he needs to explain why he propagated a lie. He, and those followers who bought into this lie, are unreasonable or delusional or intentionally supported a lie to subvert a legitimate election.

And then there’s Tucker Carlson, he’s not really a pundit, news reporter, or political commentator, but he pretends to be all three, badly, on his show. A show that his own court filings admit is entertainment not factual news. Here are the words of the Judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, relying heavily on the filings of the Fox Network lawyers representing Carlson.

“Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.”

There’s that word again, reasonable. Here’s more from the court filings.

“As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge [] political correctness and media bias.” Def. Br. at 14. This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer. that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20-21; Levinsky’s, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 128 (1st Cir. 1997)). Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. 600 W. 115th Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 80 N.Y.2d 130, 141, 603 N.E.2d 930, 936 (1992). Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.”
Case 1:19-cv-11161-MKV Document 39 Filed 09/24/20 Page 11-12

The line that caught my eye from the decision, which dismissed the suit against Carlson and Fox because it lacked merit based on the court’s analysis of the type of show and Carlson’s own filings, is the following

“Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.

Simply bloviating does not come to mind when one is considering whether or not to consider a broadcast a reliable source of news.

Fox Network lawyers take it one step further, mocking the legal case made by McDougal’s legal team in their court filings.

“a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence listening or watching the show … would conclude that [she] is a criminal who extorted Trump for money” and that “the statements about [her] were fact…Context makes plain, that the reasonable viewer would do and no such thing.” https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

What inferences can we draw from this? Quite a few, actually.

The former President clearly stated many times this election was stolen from him (not the American people of course), and fraud played a significant factor despite all the evidence to the contrary. Mr. Trump and those who embraced this contention are “unreasonable persons” to use the language of the courts, or willfully engaged in a concerted and deliberate effort to subvert our government and democracy.

These actions culminated in the violent outburst on January 6^th and were inflamed by the actions of people like Sidney Powell, misusing the courts as a mechanism to further their fraudulent agenda, by hucksters like Tucker Carlson masquerading as a journalist when, by his own court filings, he is nothing but an agent provocateur of hyperbole and bloviating rabble-rousing supported because his show is a profit center for Fox News and nothing more, and the once and former President himself who spoke to the already agitated crowd and continued to spread what was nothing more than an absolute lie.

And they all knew it.

That there even exists any doubt that people like Powell, Carlson, and Trump further inflamed the rabble that stormed the U.S. Capitol Building and bear full responsibility, let alone continue to listen to such idiocy, is troubling to say the least.

74,222,958 Americans voted for a lie, were fooled into thinking Mr. Trump had anything but his own interests at heart in seeking a second term or failed to be “reasonable” in their analysis. Let’s hope those who still have some rationality remaining recognize the error of their ways and find Republican candidates worthy of their support.

More important, let’s hope the Republican party weans itself away from the monkey on it’s back named Trump and regains it’s necessary place as a party of respect.

************************************************************************

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.

Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.

Signup here for our mailing list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.

Free Speech: From the Horse’s Mouth (and it depends on which horse)

February 12, 2021February 14, 2021 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Here’s a simple explanation against the argument that the impeachment hearing violates the former President’s First Amendment rights.

If a police officer says, in a speech, that he only arrests black people because they commit the most crimes, he may have a first amendment right to say it, but it would clearly violate his duties as a sworn officer.

If a doctor says, in a speech, that he won’t treat Jews because they killed Jesus Christ he may have a first amendment right to say it, but it would clearly violate his Hippocratic oath and licensure as a doctor.

If I say, in a speech, all women should obey the men in their lives because men know better (I would, of course, say this silently in the presence of my wife and daughter) I may have a first amendment right to say it, but it would clearly violate common sense.

Each example may be constitutionally protected and, more important, few people would pay attention to the point of the pronouncements, but they would be rightfully concerned about the context and position of the person making them. (Except mine, of course, my wife and daughter would just ignore me.)

The difference is a police officer, doctor, or any other person can hold and express anything they like when acting as private citizens if they act within the law. If they translate these protected speech statements into actions in their employment or position, there are legal consequences.

The President of the United States is never a private citizen while he holds the office. Everything he says, he says as the President and it implies infinitely more significance than statements from ordinary American citizens.

If the President enjoyed unfettered First Amendment rights, then he could announce an intention to fire nuclear weapons against the county of East Japeepee with no concern for the reaction of the East Japeepeeians.

If they launched a pre-emptive strike against us, it would be because they hate our freedom and our First Amendment rights.

Which leads us to the Impeachment trial. Getting past the raw emotions of what happened that day (as a former police officer I felt only rage for the attack on those officers and, frankly, I am in awe of their restraint. Some officers I know might have opened fire at such a threat) we need examine the President’s speech in the context of not just that moment but with the understanding of what led the crowd there in the first place.

A Lie

A bold faced fabrication intended to subvert the Constitution.

And more critically, a lie spread by the President of the United States that the election was stolen from him. And if one wants to argue the President of the United States can lie to the American public because he has a First Amendment right to do so, one risks the consequences.

Consequences that played out in the halls of Congress.

Or if one argues that it is not a lie if the President believed it to be true, somehow delusional does not seem a good characteristic for the President of the United States.

The speech by the President on January 6^th wasn’t the reason the mob attacked the Capitol; it was merely the starter’s gun signaling the beginning. Mr. Trump lit the fuse on the artillery he had primed, loaded, and aimed at our country.

One last point, and this is telling, from the moment the mob stormed the Capitol until the President made any effort to dissuade the mob, he did nothing for hours. Hours while US Capitol Police officers were being attacked, assaulted, and murdered by a mob he unleashed.

Even if one accepts the premise that the President never intended his speech to spark an attack, he did nothing to mitigate it once it began. Actions, or in this case inactions, speak volumes. If he never intended them to attack Congress, why did he do nothing?

One can draw a reasonable inference from the President’s failure to take swift and bold action.

Can you imagine what would have happened had not the US Capitol Police and the Secret Service acted as quickly as they did to protect the Vice President and the members of Congress? There is no doubt in my mind that the frenzied crowd—driven by weeks of the President’s own exhortations that the Vice President could change the results of the election, had they seized Mr. Pence (after the Secret Service ran out of ammunition killing who knows how many)—would have executed the Vice President and anyone else the President sent them after.

Now there’s a legacy of Making America Great Again one could point to with pride.

As part optimist, I believe there is a chance that enough Senators will do what’s right as opposed to what is politically expedient. As part realist, I have little reason to believe it will happen.

************************************************************************

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.

Signup here for our mailing list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.

Immoral Relativism

January 14, 2021January 14, 2021 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The natural phenomenon of spin has now ramped up fully, comparing the protests of last year over various incidents involving the police with the recent insurrection at the Capitol. The tactic is to compare the violence and pass a judgement that the incident in the Capitol was somehow better or less violent.

It’s the old, “yeah DC was bad, but Portland was worse so there…”

The cry is Democrats characterized the protests over racial disparities in the country as mostly peaceful despite the incidents of violence and property destruction. Such characterization is fraudulent and false on its face. Mostly peaceful means mostly not completely.

While violence and destruction of property is never justified, there is something inherently and more dangerously wrong when protests attack the seat of government. In particular when they do so based on a lie.

But if we’re going to play the moral relativism game let’s use facts. Here’s the total numbers of arrests from several of the more violent protests over racial issues and the arrests from the incident in DC.

If you look closely, you may see a disturbing pattern emerge.

EVENT	DATE	ARRESTS
Protests in Minneapolis the day after George Floyd’s death	May 26, 2020	570
Protests in Ferguson, MO after Mike Brown’s death	August 10, 2014	400
Protests during Trump’s inauguration	January 20, 2017	234
Protests in Washington D.C. following George Floyd’s death	June 1, 2020	194
Protests in Louisville, KY after the Breonna Taylor grand jury decision	September 25, 2020	179
Insurrection at the Capitol	January 6, 2021	69
Charlottesville Unite the Right rally	August 12, 2017	8

(https://www.businessinsider.com/number-of-arrests-capitol-riot-compared-blm-protests-chart-2021-1)

So, using these numbers, it would seem this administration takes a very hardline stance against those violently protesting racial disparity—of which there is ample evidence—and a more mild stance against those violently trying to subvert an election—which was based on a profoundly disturbing lie.

Now before someone raises the argument that the low count of arrests in DC was because the police were outnumbered and could not arrest then, but they will in the future, let me address that. The police were outnumbered, left out to dry by those in charge. They were unprepared for the violence because those in command didn’t see the threat or were too intimidated by those who orchestrated the protest, i.e., the President of the United States, to do their job. One might also make the argument they were color-blind to the problem, something they did not suffer at protests sparked by racial issues.

While violence is never justified, twisting facts to suit one’s tunnel-vision view of reality is hardly justification for whitewashing what was clearly an attempt to overthrow the government. There is no moral relativism justification for violence but I would argue that violence spawned by lies and falsehoods for the purpose of subverting the government deserves its own level of revulsion.

************************************************************************

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.

Signup here for our mailing list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.