An amazing transformation has taken place with conservatives. They have a newfound appreciation for due process.
This from a group who decried legal loopholes (their old term for due process), decriminalizing marijuana (took money from the pocket of private prisons owners and donors), and activist judges who, they claim, threw aside precedent and made their own rules of criminal procedure (interpreted the law more favorably to those accused but not convicted.)
At first darkness enveloped the devoted when two different, unconnected, entirely independent yet obviously still corrupt courts found Mr. Trump civilly liable for sexual assault and slander and criminally guilty for trying to cover up the matter with false documents.
And then, lo and behold, they saw the light out of the darkness, e tenebris lux.
It had to be divine intervention.
The Supreme Court of the United States chose to abandon both the all equal under the law foundation of our jurisprudence and decades of precedent by granting presumptive immunity to official acts by a President.
This was immediately interpreted as full immunity for every action by Mr. Trump going back to just after his birth (which in some circles is believed to be the second divine human parthenogenesis in history.)
And then…
Judge Cannon, who several times before had her barely understandable decisions overturned on the simplest of grounds—she was wrong—snatched a single paragraph from a concurring opinion in the immunity case with no weight of law by the most jurisprudentially suspect Supreme Court Justice and dismissed one case against Mr. Trump, setting aside two centuries of precedent.
(Apologies for the preceding paragraph, but I was on a roll and too much punctuation would interfere.)
And this was perceived as brilliant justice. Due process at its finest.
And then…
With the rise of Vice President Kamala Harris as the presumptive nominee for President, the Trump campaign is now highlighting what they perceive as miscarriages of justice by Ms. Harris when she was AG in California.
The faithful are horrified and claim that Ms. Harris withheld evidence in a death penalty case that might free an innocent man. And that Ms. Harris was aware of failures within the state drug lab which led to dismissal of over one thousand cases.
Setting aside for the moment their fervent support for the death penalty which cases like this should cry out for abandoning as barbaric, they conveniently leave out relative information.
In 2001 when the post conviction relief motion was filed seeking the use of DNA to exonerate the defendant, most Attorneys General routinely objected to such motions. At that time, DNA was relatively new technology so the objection was more firmly grounded in letting the finding of the trial court stand.
Over time, prosecutors and the courts have embraced the value of DNA in all cases but none more than death penalty cases. Different times, different standards.
When the court granted the motion,the subsequent DNA test confirmed the defendant’s DNA at both scenes. Subsequent reviews over twenty years have affirmed the original verdict.
In the drug lab case, the lab was not run by Ms. Harris and she had no operational control over it. When the matter became known she dismissed the cases. Of course she argued against it initially. That’s what advocacy is. There are two sides to every issue. Once the court rendered a decision,she complied.
It remains to be seen if this jurisprudential enlightenment continues…but I doubt it. Watch what happens if Cannon gets overturned, again.
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 reality.
TRUMP v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 23–939. Argued April 25, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024
With the recent 6-3 SCOTUS decision, or lack thereof, primarily consisting of waffling, sniveling, and babbling, the court has descended to depths of disingenuousness and dereliction of duty heretofore unimaginable.
The fact that there is a case before the court with a former President, we had a right to expect a brilliant and well articulated decision. It was anything but that. The dissenting opinions don’t just disagree on points of law, they sound a clarion call of an impending Constitutional disaster.
The case itself is compelling and consequential. If we genuinely desire equality under the law, this decision fails miserably. Anyone with any fundamental understanding of criminal matters would know that seeking an indictment against a former President or anyone of high political status must be based on the most solid evidence and criminal procedure. This is not partisan politics, this is a test of our national resolve for equity among all citizens regardless of status or station in life.
One does not go after a former President without thoughtful consideration, this case should have reinforced that everyone is the same under the law.
The fact that there has been legal maneuvering and appeals on appeals about the process, let alone a trial, should surprise no one. Although one might consider whether the average defendant would be afforded such latitude. This clearly is a peek into the inequities in the law. The courts seem to believe the veneer of being the former President confers special privileges, it should not when it comes to criminality.
Some men (in the universal sense) are more equal than others.
But the Supreme Court should be the last bastion against the politics that frequently corrupt the system.
It seemed a simple question. Is the President immune from prosecution from unlawful or corrupt acts committed while President?
Now, I would concede one limited level of immunity. A sitting President should never face criminal charges or civil liability while in office. In our zero-sum game of politics, corrupt individuals on both sides of the political spectrum would subvert the Courts to their own purpose by interfering with a President’s responsibilities.
Such a standard was already set by the court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) in which the court found,
“…a president “is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.” But the court also said this, “it is settled law that the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States.”
It is clear the court was talking about official actions taken in the course of Presidential duties. It is also clear the court recognized that unofficial actions, which one would think would include the commission of a crime, are not immune from external jurisdiction or protected by separation of powers.
The key word in all of this being “official.” What the court should have determined is does a criminal act by a President, committed while in office, ever constitute an “official act.” If so, does it carry the presumption of immunity once he is no longer in office. If the answer is no, go to trial. If the answer is yes, case closed. Although it would open a whole slew of other options for the current sitting President.
But there is one way to guarantee these cases reach a jury. Turn out in November and vote to ensure Mr. Trump does no further damage to the republic.
Joe Broadmeadow
A sitting President can only face impeachment. If those in the House and the Senate subvert the process through partisan politics, the peoples’ recourse is the ballot box.
However, once a President is out of office, he should face the consequences of any criminal acts. Especially ones directly impacting the peaceful transfer of power, the Congressional proceedings to certify the election, and the sanctity of the vote.
In the case before the court, they chose to muddy the difference between official acts and unofficial acts. Placing a presumption of immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts, leaving it to the trial court to determine whether the actions of the President met the definition of official or unofficial.
(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.” Majority Opinion, Roberts J.
Leaving a gaping hole in their decision. Here’s what has to happen, but we are not the ones to make that determination.
Why did they grant certiorari in the first place?
But like everything in the court’s decisions, the devil is in the details. The court claimed they offered guidance in this matter. One section of this guidance is this gem.
“Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.” Majority Opinion, Roberts. J.
What?
Let’s pick a generally applicable law, say US Code on Elections. Specifically, 52 U.S. Code § 20511 – Criminal penalties
(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by— (A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or (B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,
So, suppose a President violated this law by coercing a state official to “find” 11,000 votes. In that case, SCOTUS claims the court cannot deem this an unofficial act simply because it violates the law.
Double what?
And one Justice felt the need to go beyond just this presumption of immunity. You get nine guesses and the first eight don’t count.
Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion has this to say about the office of Special Counsel.
“I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2.
By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.
No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.” Concurring opinion, Thomas, J.
Clearly failing to convince the majority that the President should have absolute immunity, Thomas snuck in this malicious code to complicate matters further. It is nothing more than a backdoor way to delay the trial, provide an avenue of appeal to bring the case back to the court in the event of a conviction, and, should Mr. Trump be re-elected before the trials reach a jury, provide a roadmap to derail these cases entirely.
Mr. Trump wouldn’t have to grant himself a pardon; he could just have whatever lackey he chooses this time for the Attorney General claim the Office of Special Counsel is unconstitutional and disband it.
But all is not lost. The decision wounded the cases against the former President; it did not kill them. Even Justice Thomas recognizes the cases survive, much to his chagrin.
But there is one way to guarantee these cases reach a jury. Turn out in November and vote to ensure Mr. Trump does no further damage to the republic. We can then begin repairing the damage already done.
And if you’re hesitant about Mr. Biden, should he turn out to be the nominee, keep in mind what the country would look like after four more years of an incompetent charlatan and convicted felon occupying the Oval Office.
A convicted felon who now believes he has a get out of jail free card for life!
Meanwhile, we change the acronym SCOTUS to mean Supreme Cowards of the United States.
“There’s small choice in rotten apples.” William Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew
America is in an existential crisis. Quite honestly, it is of our own making. We face a Hobson’s choice for our next President. We have lost control of our elections to the wealthy individuals and deceptively named PACs that manipulate the electorate through deceitful and misleading political messages.
At this moment, there is no choice of candidates. One is descending into the sunset of his life; the other is evil and undemocratic.
And the hypocrisy among those raising their voices for one to step aside is astounding.
The debate between the candidates was a disaster. But not just because one’s weakness was so apparent. The fact that the other candidate couldn’t utter one factual statement, failed to offer any in-depth answer to questions put to him (or ignored it altogether), and used nothing but meaningless superlatives to describe his record, ignoring the reality of the nightmare of his first term in office further underscores our dilemma.
Clearly it is time. Time for the major political parties to honestly assess their candidates and do what is right for the country.
Mr. Biden has served with distinction throughout his career. His taking the country’s helm in January 2021 diverted us from the road to ruin set by the previous administration.
However, his skills are no longer up to the task.
Once President, Mr. Trump acted in a manner that should have surprised no one. Anyone who has investigated his business “success” knows it was mostly smoke and mirrors. A pyramid screen built on lies, deceptive business practices, and failing to pay for myriad services. Just look at his latest scam with Truth Social. And now he is a convicted felon.
His skills were never up to the task.
“Honor is purchas’d by the deeds we do.”.
Christopher Marlowe
For the Democrats to throw up their hands and say we have no choice but to support Mr Biden is an abdication of their responsibility to the party’s platforms and, more importantly, the country.
For the Republicans to ignore the fact their leading candidate is a convicted felon—this from the party that claims to support strong law enforcement—and to continue to support his candidacy is the most egregious failure of character in the history of the United States.
The claim that the entire Justice System was corrupted to bring these charges and obtain this conviction is the biggest lie. And Republicans bear the sole responsibility by supporting both the downfall of faith in the Justice system and the willingness to ignore the truth behind the conviction, not to mention the damage done to the faith in the integrity of our elections.
Both of these parties are made up of Americans. Within these parties are those who understand it is time for a change. It is time for voices to be raised on both sides of the political spectrum, demanding new candidates.
If the Republicans refuse to name a new candidate, and the Democrats continue to see their choice as their best opportunity to win in November, we will have no choice.
In the words of Christopher Marlowe, “Honor is purchas’d by the deeds we do.”
There comes a time when one must do the right thing even if it goes against your best interests.
The damage to our standing in the world, which began its steep decline under the previous administration, will worsen if one of these two candidates becomes the next President.
Mr. Biden will live under the shadow of being a compromised, vulnerable world leader.
Mr. Trump will merely revitalize the isolationist, naïve, and inherently dangerous domestic and foreign policies that so diminished us in the eyes of the world.
There is no more dangerous time than the moment. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are joined in a cabal, doing whatever they can to hasten our demise.
While a Presidential administration’s success or failure comes from more than just one person–the one silver lining in another Biden term–Mr. Trump’s history of ignoring, or worse not even understanding, sound advice from those around him should give pause to anyone considering voting for him. Just ask the majority of his cabinet members and advisors. They refuse to endorse him.
Idealism can only carry us so far. Sometimes, ideals are threatened by the tip of a spear and offer little protection. That is when reality kicks in.
I hope Mr. Biden weighs his choice carefully. I hope he acts as I expect an experienced statesman would and does what is right for the country. I’ve heard him say several times that it is time for a new generation to take the lead.
Now is that moment.
As to Mr. Trump, there is no hope. He will act as always and do what is in his best interest. A philanderer, a scam artist, a man with little moral fiber, challenged by the most straightforward task if they contradict his narrow and frighteningly uninformed grasp of history, honor, and duty, cannot be expected to change.
Any change on the Republican side, and there are honorable and respected members of that party who could act, must come from within. Look in a federal prison if they can’t find anybody to take his place. There are many people there with the same credentials, and they claim they are innocent and were framed as well.
The reality is that there may not be a choice come November. What does that say about us as a people?
I simply wanted someone to explain why Trump remained popular and the reasons Americans would or should support him. I wanted just cool, calm, logical discussion why Trump would be good for the country and why we should vote for him.
Many of you wanted to know the result of my asking the question and to see the response. Well, after almost 10,000 views of the piece here is the results.
RADIO SILENCE
Not one person made any effort to explain Trump. Either they wouldn’t or couldn’t. But I bet I get some nasty reactions to this one.
We are left with the mystery of why rational, intelligent, and competent American voters would consider putting this man back in the White House after the disaster of the first four years and the chilling sight of people storming the Capitol when the vote didn’t go their way. And before you start parroting the nonsense about a stolen election, show us the evidence. Try something different for a change instead just repeating a lie over and over.
What can we conclude from this? I have no idea, and I am still befuddled by the man’s continued popularity. But then again, right up until the bombs started to fall on Berlin, another maniacal tyrant enjoyed great popularity espousing similar philosophies about protecting the “purity of the blood” and eliminating vermin from the country. He didn’t have any evidence either, just bigotry and brutality.
Wise men ne’er sit and wail their loss, but cheerily seek how to redress their harms. —William Shakespeare
As many of you would suspect, I am troubled by the early poles showing Mr. Trump’s significant lead over other Republican candidates (well, at least a couple) and the statistical tie between Trump and Biden.
I have tried to divine the reasoning behind this but so far have failed. So, I come here seeking enlightenment.
Would someone, anyone, in a cool, calm, and cogent manner, explain why it makes sense for the American voter to choose to return Mr. Trump to office?
Please don’t focus on what you may perceive as the failings of President Biden. I want a rationale discourse on the benefits of a change of administration, not the idiotic, childish nonsense of Let’s Go Brandon. Leave the moronic sayings aside.
I want to know with specifics what Mr. Trump accomplished in his term that positively affected the country and the world. I want to know what a second term for Mr. Trump would look like and what to expect.
Please be specific and cite verifiable sources for any contentions, be they diplomatic, economic, or defense-related matters.
I will publish the piece here in its entirety without comment other than an author credit disclosure.
I look forward to someone explaining the benefit of a second Trump administration and the, at least for me, hidden value of the first four-year term.
I’ve written to you in the past in this form of an open letter. (Promise Me, Joe) and I am compelled to write once more.
The time has come for a new generation to rise to the occasion. You have said this yourself as I will remind you in this piece. Now is the time to put those words into actions.
Now is the time, Mr. President, now is the time.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reap that which is planted;
Pete Seeger, Turn, Turn, Turn! (or Ecclesiastes 3-1 if you prefer)
But first, let me say this.
Thank you. Thank you for restoring sensibilities in government. Thank you for rebuilding America’s standing in the world. Thank you for leading the world coalition supporting the Ukraine.
Thank you for leading the country out of the disaster of the pandemic. And thank you for putting an end to our presence in Afghanistan. Anyone who understands the reality of that commitment knows it was the right thing to do no matter how ugly it may have appeared.
Thank you for what you have done for this country. I only wish your opportunity had come sooner.
But there is what we want and what we have and that reality is what we deal with.
I heard you speak once after the release of your book, Promise Me, Dad. One thing you said, that brought to mind the Camelot of the Kennedy years, was it is time for a new generation to assume the mantle.
You were right.
Yet when circumstances arose, with no one stepping up, you did. Again.
You were there in our time of desperate need for a return to stability. And while the danger has not fully passed, time has.
Now is the moment for you to make your mark as one of our greatest Presidents. One who rose to the occasion as history demanded then recognized the limitations of that commitment.
Go out, find that new blood, and push them to meet destiny as you have.
Turn your words into more than a speech. Encourage this new generation, following your example, to set a new course with a new leader at the helm.
Don’t let the country merely vote against the disaster from our past, give them a choice with a limitless future.
Do this, and there is no doubt that future historians will mark this moment as another example of true American courage.
Please share on social media, the more we discuss the better we understand each other
From the years 1973 and 1974, I have vivid memories of watching the Watergate Hearings with friends (on a black & white TV where we had to plan our time to be there, no such thing as DVR or on demand.)
The story, by its very nature, was all-consuming of the public’s attention. These were the days before a continuous 24/7 Breaking News cycle when the words “We interrupt the broadcast” actually meant something.
Today, every lead story, even if it is a continuation of the previous day’s news cycle, is breaking news.
The drama of a sitting US President being subjected to the possibility of impeachment—the idea of criminal charges wasn’t even a thought outside of impeachment—was an enormously troubling consideration.
No matter how one felt about Nixon—there was plenty besides Watergate to cause such feelings, there were also some significant accomplishments by him—his actions caused him to lose what should have been rock solid support in the Senate and the House.
There’s a story, perhaps apocryphal, perhaps not, about Sen. Barry Goldwater—a more stalwart Republican would be hard to find—that illustrates the serious jeopardy Nixon was in.
Goldwater met with Nixon and told him, “You have maybe six votes in the Senate. I’m not one of them.” Whether or not the story is true—Goldwater later claimed he never discussed Nixon resigning—the President did just that the next day.
Watching Nixon waving in front of Marine One before they flew him from the White House was high drama.
The person who violated his oath of office, no matter how powerful that office might be, was forced to resign in the face of not political willpower but by the force of law supporting the continuity of the American government. We thought we were watching a once in a lifetime disaster averted in America.
Oh, how wrong we were.
Now, impeaching a President has become another exercise in partisanship. It is thrown around like leaving legislation in committee to die with little thought of the impact on the country, both domestic and foreign. Today we have Senators acting like petulant children by holding up critical military appointments for nothing more than cheap headlines, grandstanding, and a smokescreen to their lack of legislative effectiveness.
Our government has fumbled on the one yard line.
A sitting President’s actions may deserve impeachment, but today the vote almost always falls along party lines with few exceptions, making it a poor way to address the issue. And a dangerous one if party affiliation is the only deciding factor.
It would paralyze the country. When politicians speak about weaponizing the government against opponents they seem to forget they are the ones buying the weapons and the ammunition.
Now we face the specter of a former President indicted on ninety-one felony charges, and a host of misdemeanors, with trials looming amid an election cycle. Something even in our wildest imaginations we could never have conjured.
This is not a piece about the validity of the grand jury system used to investigate and issue indictments. Nor is it about the validity of the charges. Opinions have no place in the administration of justice. That is why we have trials.
This is about the trajectory of the county. Because if we cannot have faith in the justice system, we are teetering on the edge of anarchy.
In 1974, we witnessed history. A man who once won 49 of 50 states in the 1972 electoral college orchestrated and committed crimes while in office. He was forced to resign because there was a system in motion that would remove him because he committed crimes while in office. (Who remembers the Don’t Blame Me I’m From Massachusetts bumper stickers reminding everyone it was the one state McGovern won in that Presidential election?)
In 1974, we thought we would never witness such turmoil again. Yet here we are.
I find it amusing that those steadfast supporters of the indicted former president also are the most vocal about strong criminal justice. They bemoan the relaxation or elimination of pre-trial cash bail provisions ignoring the presumption of innocence.
Strange they remain silent while the former President, facing ninety-one felony counts, walks in an out of court with limited restrictions. The outrage about releasing any other person facing a similar catalog of felonies before trial, particularly one with the means to flee the jurisdiction, would be thunderous.
Or is it they suddenly understood what innocent until proven guilty means?
Here, there is not even a whimper out of fear of offending their idol. They seem unaffected by the fact we are funding Secret Service protection for a defendant and standing by while he uses the very charges he faces as fund raising tools. Disingenuous has reached new heights. The former president is benefitting from the eleemosynary generosity of Americans blinded to reality. (Long story about the word most of you are feverishly searching for the meaning, but it involves a former nun, recently deceased, who happens to be my aunt, and her disdain for lazy writing.)
Their other argument is one about fairness. The fact that the trial Judge in one of the cases is an Obama appointee automatically confers bias on her rulings. This country’s judicial system is supposed to be as free of bias as is humanly possible. Yet the former president’s supporters would argue that, absent a complete dismissal, only a Trump appointee could be expected to be fair.
I wonder if, had Hillary Clinton actually committed crimes, they would have been equally vocal if she faced a Trump appointed judge?
Of course, fair in their mind means the case gets tossed regardless of the evidence. Again, not how the system is supposed to work. We, the people, are entitled to hear the evidence and let a jury decide. That is the only way to ensure justice is carried out.
Under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the Nation is entitled to and deserves an expeditious resolution of the criminal prosecution of the former president for his alleged election interference and his prevention of the peaceful transition of power…
But if partisanship is important, than let me quote from a Amicus brief filed in the United States V. Donald J. Trump CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC) matter. For those of you having trouble keeping all the cases straight, this is the one where the President allegedly tried to unlawfully overturn the results of the election, incited a riot, and tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. I’ve included the list of those who signed the brief in the appendix below and the link to the document.
The brief supporting the trial date of January 2, 2024 for the case is signed by eleven former US Attorneys, current and former Judges, former Attorneys General (both state and federal), and every one of them is a Republican.
EVERY ONE IS A REPUBLICAN for those who may have skipped over, ignored, or otherwise missed the statement.
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE The criminal prosecution in United States v. Donald J. Trump will be an historic trial of a former American president of surpassing public interest to the American People. This trial will present for decision by a jury of the former president’s peers the momentous question of whether a President of the United States of America committed grave crimes against the United States when he attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election by conspiring to defraud the United States of the lawful results of an American election, conspiring to obstruct the Joint Session of the Congress of the United States as it counted the electoral votes for the presidency of the United States, and conspiring to deprive millions of Americans of their constitutional right to have their votes counted. That attempt is further alleged to have precipitated the violent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, a vicious and unparalleled attack and assault on the temple of American democracy and on American democracy itself.
Under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the Nation is entitled to and deserves an expeditious resolution of the criminal prosecution of the former president for his alleged election interference and his prevention of the peaceful transition of power for the first time in American history. That national imperative corresponds with the former president’s own constitutional entitlement to a speedy resolution of the grave charges that have now been leveled against him by the United States.
If we are to survive as a country, these case must be tried as fairly and expeditiously as possible. No defendant’s outside interests, with the exception of medical conditions, is ever a consideration in setting a trial date. That such matters may impede the former President’s pursuit of another term is irrelevant. No defendant is excused because they are too busy to attend trial.
And in the end, we need to accept the verdicts. If we rise to criticize those who would subvert the system we cannot then criticize that very same system for the verdicts rendered. It is the way American Justice works and the only way it can survive.
What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now! But not a resolution at the point of a gun, the threat of a mob, or swayed by the weight of public opinion.
A-1 APPENDIX: LIST OF AMICI The amici listed below join this brief as individuals and do not represent or advise any party in the matter; institutional affiliation is noted for informational purposes only and does not indicate endorsement by institutional employers of the positions advocated in this brief. Donald B. Ayer served as Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1989 to 1990; Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States from 1986 to 1989; and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California from 1981 to 1986. Steven G. Calabresi worked as a Special Assistant to Attorney General Ed Meese from 1985- 1987 and in the West Wing of the White House as the Chief Aide to the Hon. T. Kenneth Cribb, Assistant to President Reagan for Domestic Affairs. He is currently the Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. John J. Farmer Jr. served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, New Jersey Attorney General, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, and Dean of Rutgers Law School, and is currently Director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics. Stuart M. Gerson served as Acting Attorney General of the United States during the early Clinton Administration, as President George H.W. Bush’s Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Justice Department, as an advisor to several Presidents, and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (1972–1975). Alberto R. Gonzales served as the 80th Attorney General of the United States from 2005–2007, as White House Counsel from 2001–2005, and as an Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court from 1999–2001. J. Michael Luttig served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1991–2006, as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel and Counselor to the Attorney General from 1990–1991, and as Assistant Counsel to the President, The White House from 1980–1981. Richard W. Painter served as the chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005– 2007. He is currently the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota Law School. Jonathan C. Rose served as Special Assistant to President Nixon from 1971 to 1973, Associate Deputy Attorney General from 1973 to 1975, and Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Policy from 1981 to 1984. Paul Rosenzweig served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland Security from 2005-2009, in the Office of Independent Counsel from 1998-1999, and in the United States Department of Justice from 1986-1991. Stanley A. Twardy, Jr. served as a United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut and Chief of Staff to Connecticut Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. William F. Weld served as the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts from 1981 to 1986; as the Assistant U.S. Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division from 1986 to 1988; and as Governor of Massachusetts from 1991 until 1997.
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.
Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind. William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 1, Act 5, Sc. 4
Who knew?
All these years, I believed the First Amendment protected the right to publish or say anything you like without government interference. And while implicit in that is the “right” to lie, I always believed the First Amendment does not protect one from the consequences of false statements.
Some attorneys believe it does and have argued such in motions in court.
Where was this defense when I was a kid growing up and got caught doing something I shouldn’t?
It seems some would have us accept that the First Amendment is the ultimate shield to bearing any responsibility for their actions. If we accept that lying about anything is a constitutional right, it does not mean immunity from any criminal acts resulting from those lies.
Here’s a hypothetical. Let’s say someone in a position to know tells me my vote was changed. Based on that, I attack the institution named as responsible. Since I believed this person, even if they were lying about it for their own gain, I must be immune from any responsibility.
They had the right to lie, I had the right to accept the delusion and act on it.
Really?
To refresh everyone’s concepts of the two major forms of writing or stating false statements, we have these definitions in the English language.
Defamation: the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny:
Libel: defamation by written, printed, or broadcast words or pictures.
Thus, the government, under most circumstances, cannot stop anyone from writing or saying anything before they publish or proclaim it—there is no prior restraint—with very few exceptions. Let’s say a government official who claims to have Top Secret material and intends to show it to individuals without clearance in locations incapable of providing adequate protections. Some would have us believe this is perfectly acceptable even if they were lying about it.
But there are some practical and ethical limitations here which any mature adult would recognize as reasonable given their positions and experience.
For example,
If I were to publish a blog piece saying I intended to launch a nuclear attack on some country, no one would be alarmed or concerned.
If a sitting President were to do the same thing—perfectly lawful in the eyes of some legal counsel and others—it might be more problematic.
If I were to claim the US Government is orchestrating a wide-ranging conspiracy to conceal a child sex trafficking ring from an obscure Pizza Parlor controlled by current and former government officials, most people would believe I had been over-served in a bar, experimented with some mind-altering substances, or just was plain Loonie-tunes. I mean, come on, who would believe it?
If the Attorney General of the United States were to make a similar claim, people would be up in arms demanding an investigation and criminal proceedings. That the Attorney General has a First Amendment right to lie hardly mitigates the damage such a statement, from a person in that position, causes.
And so it is with the current situation we find ourselves in America. The public relations campaign is attempting to find a believable, and lawfully defensible, rationale for claiming the election of 2020 was tainted, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Yet the best they can come up with is a First Amendment right to say or write anything, including lies.
How that mitigates the criminality arising from such lies is beyond comprehension.
Next time some ten-year-old is standing near a broken window and says “Wasn’t me” keep in mind a former President and a significant number of Americans believe he has every right to do so. They conveniently leave out the part that, under the First Amendment, while you may lie about anything and everything, it does not mitigate the truth or the consequences.
Shakespeare said it best.
To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man. William Shakespeare, Hamlet' (1601) act 1, sc. 3, l. 58
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.
The events of the last few months—the classified document hoard recovered by search warrant at Mar-E-Lunacy, the indictment (indicatament) from NYC decades in the making if one knows anything of history, and the more than likely upcoming indictments of a much more severe nature if there is any justice in this world—have led me to a cataclysmic decision (to borrow the wise words of the Wizard of OZ.)
I will not waste another moment, make any brain effort, construct another syllable, or expend even one iota on writing about the albatross around America’s neck, the permanently Ex President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Trump, more accurately represented as a cuckoo bird, acts similarly by placing his ideas and deranged concepts in the nests that are the fertile minds of America’s uneducated, uninformed, false patriots and bigots, in the hopes they would nurture them as their own and abandon any rationality to the infectious and dangerous rhetoric. Sadly, many did. But things are changing.
Mr. Trump has had his moment. He took four years and forever demeaned and destroyed any semblance of rationality and honor in politics. He sullied the once imperfect but admirable reputation and political process that served this country well. He destroyed our international reputation for reliability and gave an opening to our enemies in the fascist and communist governments that have always sought to weaken us.
Instead of Making America Great Again—we had never lost our greatness until 2016—he made us vulnerable.
But he also may have inadvertently done us a service. America’s youth as a country is over. We are no longer the new democracy leading the world as we became after World War II. We are now transitioning from the self-centered hormone-ravaged puberty of the country into adulthood. We now have to face the reality of a global economy where other countries follow what used to be almost exclusively American; scientific and intellectual innovation and domination.
Those who still bask in Mr. Trump’s orange glow will soon realize—except, perhaps, the hardcore delusional—the light is fading. The Tsunami of 2016, the MAGA movement, crashed on the rocky shore of Justice and shattered into fragments of itself.
Whether or not Mr. Trump serves even a moment in prison if convicted of these charges will not matter. History is a cruel and merciless judge, and the judgment of Mr. Trump’s place in history will not be kind.
And even if Mr. Trump finds a way to “walk”on these charges, those who truly care about this country will accept the verdict yet holdfast to the reality that ‘not guilty’ does not mean the same thing as innocent.
So, take this to heart. Even though I know it will be hard to ignore the trial antics, grammatically error-prone rants, and the death throes of the MAGA infection, I will not write another word about the man.
It is a very good riddance, sir. Time for us to Move On!
The Mariner, whose eye is bright, “Whose beard with age is hoar, Is gone: and now the Wedding-Guest Turned from the bridegroom’s door.
He went like one that hath been stunned, And is of sense forlorn: A sadder and a wiser man, He rose the morrow morn.”
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner
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.
Apparently those who remain blinded to the defeated former President still cannot differentiate between truth and a lie.
We are forced to use the Keep It Simple Stupid approach to explain this rather obvious yet critical difference.
The DFPOTUS (Defeated Former President of the United State) said this, which is an example of a lie,
“I will tell you they know who shot Ashli Babbitt. They’re protecting that person. I have heard also that it was the head of security for a certain high official, a Democrat. And we will see because it’s going to come out. It’s going to come out.” — on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”
Here’s another example of a lie from DFPOTUS on another Fox Show
“The defeated president’s comments come as he and many of his supporters recast the pro-Trump insurrection as a patriotic display of “spirit and faith and love,” as he put it Sunday on Fox News Channel.”
Fox News
“There must be some way outta here, said the Joker to the Thief”
All Along the Watchtower, Jimi Hendrix version (written by Bob Dylan)
Here are a couple of images from the Capitol that infamous day which illustrates the truth, unless your idea of “spirit, faith, and love” is quite different than most rational Americans.
NBC4 Washington ImageImage Rolling Stone Magazine
Here’s an image from EDM.com which shows a gathering of almost 400,000 Americans at a true celebration of America’s “spirit, faith, and love” as comparison.
Woodstock Image EDM.com
At Woodstock, there were less than a dozen police officers for the enormous crowd and none were injured.
On January 6th, where several officers died and hundreds were injured, the DFPOTUS would have you believe this was a celebration of “spirit, faith, and love” in the finest tradition of American patriotism.
From Woodstock we got the most memorable music and one rather crude but harmless chant.
“Gimme an F…Gimme a U…”
From January 6, 2021, we got this gem.
“Hang Mike Pence, Hang Mike Pence.”
I’ll leave it to you to choose which chant you want to recall with some sense of fondness, and which one comes closest to reflecting the worst of America.
The truly sad part about the DFPOTUS rants is that not one leader of the Republican Party called him for what he is, a liar. Not Mitch McConnell, not Kevin McCarthy, none of the so-called Republican leadership has the courage or the sense of honor to call the DFPOTUS to task for his lies.
So, Mr. DFPOTUS, I have a new chant for you.
Gimme a S… Gimme a T…Gimme a F…GImme a U…” What’s that spell? STFU! What’s that spell? STFU!
Please, Mr. DFPOTUS S.T.F.U. (Cue Jimi Hendrix “There must be some way out of here, said the Joker to the Thief”)
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.
The Writing of Joe Broadmeadow 