Category Archives: Law

Fascism in Florida – Come & Get Me

Leave a reply

Subtitle: Your papers, please.

Subtitle: “We must believe in the power and the strength of our words. Our words can change the world.” – Malala Yousafzai

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

Florida Senator Jason Brodeur has introduced legislation (2023 SB 1316) to, among other things, require bloggers who are compensated in any way for articles “about” certain state officials (including the governor) to register with the state and file regular reports.

Brodeur is a Republican (I know, I had you at “Florida Senator”). Brodeur’s background can be read here: https://www.flsenate.gov/senators/s10/?Tab=Personal  He is not stupid, in the sense that he has earned a Master’s in Public Health from Dartmouth College. That can’t be easy. But, of course, we’ve learned that intelligence and high educational achievement do not necessarily produce rational or coherent politicians. See, e.g., Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz.

Brodeur is a very busy guy – he has nine committee assignments. But he’s not too busy to propose a law that must have been copped from a first-year law school exam question: “draft a law that violates the First Amendment in at least ten ways.”

Brodeur’s brainchild legislation applies to bloggers who receive “anything of value” for posting blog pieces “about” Florida political leaders. “Blogger” means “any person as defined in s. 1.01(3) that submits a blog post to a blog which is subsequently published.”  If the “anything of value” is not currency, then the term means the fair market value of the item or service received. The triggering action includes that the blogger has received or “will receive” compensation and thus requires registration even if the blogger has only been promised something of value, whether or not it is actually received later.

I have questions. First, what is “anything” in “anything of value?” Are “likes” posted in response to the blog post “anything of value?”  How about readers’ reposts on other blogs? What if someone just sends me money as a “reward” for my bold reporting of the truth about Florida politicians? So many questions.

I could not find “s.1.01(3)” that the bill says contains the definition of “blogger.” Search and Advanced Search of Florida statutes turned up no documents. Search of the proposed bill for the definition – same, nada. But you can get there by additive analysis of the key operative language.

Missing, however, is any geographic limitation, leaving the question whether the bill’s authors intend it to apply to bloggers everywhere. I can’t wait. I’m going to send this post to the bill’s author and ask if I’m in violation. Come for me. Please. Pulleeesee come for me. I’ll be visiting Florida in a few weeks, so if you guys hurry, you can make me a violator while I ‘m there. While there, I plan to publish another blog post entitled, Governor DeathSantis – Herald for the Second Dark Age. I can reasonably guarantee that Hiz Honor, the Govnah isn’t going to like it.

Back to the merits. The Brodeur bill requires bloggers whose post is “about” an “elected state officer” or “mentions an elected state officer” to register with the state within five (5) days after the posting. An “elected state officer” includes the “Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature.” Once registered, the blogger must file monthly reports, unless the blogger does not have “a blog post” on a blog during a given month. Presumably, “a blog post” refers to only those that “mention” an “elected state officer” in some way, but this is unclear.

No time limit for the reports can be found in the bill so presumably the filing requirement continues in perpetuity unless the blogger stops blogging about “elected state officers.” That, of course, is the point, isn’t it? To use the power of the state to suppress criticism of elected politicians.

But wait, there is more. The bill states exactly what must be reported:

  • The individual or entity that compensated the blogger for the blog post.
  • The amount of compensation, rounded to the nearest $10 increment, received from the individual or entity, regardless of how the compensation is structured.
  • If the compensation is for a series of blog posts or for a defined period, the blogger must disclose the total amount to be received upon the first blog post being published. Thereafter, the monthly report must disclose the actual date(s) of additional compensation received for the series of posts.
  • The date of publication of each post.
  • The website and website address where the blog post can be found.

Late reports are subject to fines of $25 per day late subject to a maximum of $2,500 per report. Fines are paid into trust funds created by Florida law to fund the administration of lobbyist registrations, including salaries and other expenses and to pay expenses incurred by, for example, the state legislature in “providing services to lobbyists.” The state legislature provides “services to lobbyists?” What?

Thus, the underlying concept of this legislation is that blog posts “about,” say, a legislator are by legislative fiat, lobbying and are to be treated as such for purpose of fining late-filed reports. This is so even if the blog post is in no way related to attempts to influence legislation. A blog post “about” a state legislator might be an exposé of asserted corruption by the legislator, but if the blogger doesn’t file the report on time, her fines are to be paid into the legislative fund for managing lobbying registrations and the cost of services for lobbyists.

Brodeur was quoted in an interview claiming that people who write about the legislature are indistinguishable from lobbyists who talk to legislators. What? Do lobbyists in Florida openly criticize the legislators whose favor they’re seeking? Not likely. People who write critically about legislators (for present purposes, “bloggers”) are in no way similar to lobbyists who try to curry favor with legislators to get (or prevent) legislation.

Even Newt Gingrich has labeled this legislation “insane” and an “embarrassment.” Yes, it’s true. Even the Newtster thinks this legislation is nuts. He urged its withdrawal. https://bit.ly/3ZPeXYc Not likely. Your papers, please.

I will not waste more time on this nonsense. The notion that a state government can compel a compensated person (“anything of value”) who writes “about” the Governor or a legislator of the state to register and file reports is so blatantly a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that detailed analysis is unnecessary. Recall that Florida is among the leading states banning books about various aspects of American history that politicians don’t want anyone to read. If the Republicans in Florida have their way, the state will have justly earned renaming to Gilead.

Stay tuned for publication of Governor DeathSantis – Herald for the Second Dark Age. I will never register nor pay a dime in fines to Florida so ….

The Answer is Blowin’ in the Wind

Leave a reply

Those of you close to my generation will recognize that phrase as part of the refrain from Bob Dylan’s famous song that became a 1960s anthem against oppression and war. The song was made broadly famous by Peter, Paul & Mary, singing it here in 1966: https://bit.ly/3J6WK2w Joan Baez, among others, sang it in 1967: https://bit.ly/3SHSEB8

The lyrics to that song came immediately to mind when I read the report that the Department of Justice has, at long last, rejected Trump’s claims to be above the law. DOJ filed a brief arguing that Donald Trump’s claims of “absolute immunity” from civil suits must be limited at least regarding the January 6 abomination he sent to descrate the Capitol  https://bit.ly/3moh3jm

You know the story: Trump summoned the mob to DC and incited them to attack the Capitol to stop the final certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory. True, he mentioned in passing that they should be peaceful, but that was classic Trump. Say one thing, then the opposite again and again. He also said, for example, “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” His message was received loud and clear as evidenced by what the mob did. One of the many remarkable videos was produced by the New York Times, showing exactly what happened: Day of Ragehttps://nyti.ms/3mlhISw Many of those later arrested have testified under oath that they understood Trump had invited them to Washington and urged them to do just what they did.

Those revelations can come as no surprise to anyone with a fully functioning mind. Recall that Trump famously said, “I have Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” It’s on tape. He said it. He believed it. Still does. Often wrong, but never in doubt.

As recounted in the USAToday story, a group of House Democrats filed two civil suits and two Capitol police officers filed the third one. USAToday reports that Trump’s lawyers have argued to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that, “The underlying question here is simple: is a president immune from civil liability when he or she gives a speech on a matter of public concern? … The answer is undoubtedly, yes.”

The Department of Justice rejected that position: “The district court also correctly rejected President Trump’s categorical assertion ‘that whenever and wherever a President speaks on a matter of public concern he is immune from civil suit.’”

Let’s briefly examine the “absolute immunity” claim. Let’s pretend you’re in law school. You adopt Trump’s position that he was addressing the election results, a “matter of public concern” and thus just “doing the job of the president.” He should, you contend, be immune from vexatious and meddlesome civil suits [law students love to talk like that] that could interfere with his ability to carry out his many constitutional responsibilities.

Having adopted the role of professor of law, I hook my thumbs in my vest [law profs love vested suits, or did back in the day], frown, pace a bit, spin, and face you: “That sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Don’t we have to protect the nation’s chief executive and chief law enforcement officer from being hauled into court every time he says something that someone doesn’t like? Isn’t it true that someone always objects to virtually everything the president, any president, says?”

You smirk at having been recognized as oh-so-clever as to receive that rare law school commodity: praise from a professor. You are sure the other students are burning with envy at your achievement and recognition.

Then I, thumbs out of the vest now, lean forward closer to you, and you start to get a queasy feeling. I glare into your eyes and ask, “but suppose the president’s January 6 speech included this statement:

…and if you meet resistance from police at the Capitol, just knock them down, beat the hell out of them. Anybody gets in your way, kill them. I don’t care, but get the job done. Safe our country! Save meeee!

President still immune? Suppose Trump further said, “Mike Pence, the vice president I mistakenly chose to elevate from well-earned obscurity, failed to do his job. He needs to be set straight. Punished if he won’t do what needs to be done. If he refuses to comply, I say, Hang Mike Pence! Repeat after me, Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!”

You spend the rest of class looking at your shoes, wondering why you didn’t just get a job.

You think back to Trump’s penchant for lying and making outrageous claims, then, when called out for it, saying, “oh, that? I was just joking.” On January 6, his followers knew he wasn’t joking. They understood exactly why he summoned them and what he wanted them to do.

The claim of “absolute immunity” is utterly implausible in a country with a democratic republican Constitution that sets up a three-part balance of power structure in which each of the three main branches acts as a check on the other two. It makes for complex problems and many troublesome questions, to be sure. Democracy is “messy,” according to a popular formulation. But one thing is clear: no man is above the law.  A president who incites violence in an effort to interfere with constitutionally mandated processes designed for the peaceful transfer of power must be held accountable by those directly harmed by his conduct.

Now, to return to our law school conceit for a bit longer, some will argue that the proper method for holding the president accountable is impeachment and nothing more. Impeachment certainly would work … if it worked. But Trump was impeached twice and not convicted because the Republican members of Congress refused to hear all the evidence, refused even to hear witnesses, and announced they would support him even before the “trial” occurred. Republicans thus made that constitutional process a sham.

It follows that the inherently political process of impeachment is not sufficient to hold a president accountable for inciting violence that harms not only the democratic system but individual citizens as well. Therefore, there must be another remedy.

To paraphrase Trump, if you don’t hold a president accountable for inciting insurrection, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

Now to conclude today’s lesson, let’s look at the broader implications of the position taken by the Justice Department. Despite what I’ve said above, I have little hope that the courts are going to agree with the Department of Justice. I am especially doubtful that the 6-Justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court, where the case is inevitably headed, is going to hold the president accountable as DOJ has proposed.

However, many observers, the writer included, have repeatedly expressed frustration that the Attorney General was going to let Trump skate despite his many crimes. While this set of civil cases is a far cry from a criminal indictment, the position taken by Justice signals that even its relatively conservative approach to “presidential law” has its limits. It may also signify that the Special Counsel appointed to independently investigate Trump’s many crimes has more juice behind his mandate than first appeared. Hope that it is so because our survival as a democratic republic depends on it. The answer, my friends, is blowin’ in the wind.

 [Pedagogical Note: in law school, the professor rarely jumped from one proposition you thought was right to the death blow to your sense of self-worth. Instead, they usually proceeded in small steps, slowly sucking the life out of what you thought was the intellectually plausible content of your thoughts, then delivering the coup de grace at the end. I have collapsed the dialogue in the interest of time and space. It was always worse.]

PayPal Updated

Leave a reply

I recently reported on this blog an issue involving  the use of PayPal to perpetrate sophisticated scams.  https://bit.ly/3Eldbp6

Since that post, two things have occurred. An article in the UK’s Telegraph reported that PayPal was joining other large tech companies and firing 2,000 staff. https://bit.ly/3IE0A33 Second, I checked my PayPal account again and discovered that the bogus charge and fake American Express security phone line are still listed in my account. This is so many weeks after I reported the problem and was assured that PayPal was hard at work fixing it.

I must wonder how many other phony transactions are showing up on PayPal accounts with bogus phone numbers to call to cancel the transactions. Why is it still possible for foreign actors to post false information in individual PayPal accounts and have them remain for weeks or longer?

I can only repeat my warning to everyone with a PayPal account. Beware.

What Pence’s Subpoena Resistance Means

Leave a reply

Special Counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence to testify before a Grand Jury investigating attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Pence has stated he will not testify, citing the Speech & Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). https://politi.co/3xw9GZs

That Clause states:

They [Members of Congress] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Pence claims that because his involvement in the coup was limited to presiding over the Congress’s final tally of electoral votes and certification of Joe Biden’s victory, he was acting in a “legislative capacity” and thus cannot be questioned.

On its face there are a multitude of problems with Pence’s position. First is that he has insisted, correctly, that his acts on January 6 were purely ministerial and that he lacked any discretion under the Constitution and laws to evaluate the validity of state vote counts or other acts leading to the election certification. His job was to open envelopes and announce their contents. This alone raises fundamental doubts about the “legislative nature” of what was intended to be protected by the Speech & Debate Clause.

Second, even if his January 6 actions were covered to some extent by the Clause, he cannot justify total refusal to be questioned about other matters arising out of the January 6 coup attempt and subsequent insurrectionist activities by Trump and others of which Pence may have knowledge. His immunity claim sweeps too broadly. In fact, it seems unlikely Special Counsel is much interested in Pence’s non-discretionary acts on January 6. Rather, the investigation more likely seeks his knowledge about actions by Donald Trump and others supporting his coup/insurrection attempt to overturn the election. As far as I am aware, Mike Pence conducted no legislative activities about any of that, other than his non-discretionary overseeing of the final electoral count tally.

Thus, Pence cannot plausibly argue that “because I performed one legislative act that day, I am immune from disclosing any information I may have about other matters related to the insurrection that day.”

To my knowledge, no one has suggested that Pence’s conduct on January 6 was questionable constitutionally or otherwise. Except Donald Trump, of course, who want berserk when Pence refused to go along with the false attack on the election.

Politico reports that Pence “feels it really goes to the heart of some separation of powers issues. He feels duty-bound to maintain that protection, even if it means litigating it.” Maybe, but it’s more than coincidental that, as Politico also notes, Pence’s resistance ”will allow him to avoid being seen as cooperating with a probe that is politically damaging to Trump, who remains the leading figure in the Republican Party.”

I do not understand how “Trump’s months-long crusade to pressure his vice president to derail Biden’s win — which is central to Smith’s investigation — focused entirely on Pence’s [ministerial] duties as Senate president, which legal scholars say lends credence to Pence’s case.” Josh Chafetz, a Georgetown University constitutional law professor, supports the argument that Pence may be on to something by observing that “a lot of the action here took place in terms of arguments about how he should rule from the chair.”

But the “action” around this issue was generated by Trump, not by Pence, who consistently resisted the argument that he had any more authority/responsibility on January 6 than opening envelopes and announcing their contents. Such “acts,” even if judged “legislative,” were not likely what the framers had in mind in protecting the legislators from encroachment by the other two branches.

Roy Brownell, former counsel to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has suggested that “Pence … could characterize his pre-Jan. 6 conversations with Trump and others as research into how he might rule on matters related to the Electoral College.” True, Pence could try that, but the courts are not bound by claims like that. Pence was researching anything and if he had been, it would certainly not have been by asking Donald Trump whose credentials as an expert on the Constitution are less than zero.

In any event, the question here is not whether some specific aspects of Pence’s conversations were privileged – he is refusing to testify at all, arguing that there is nothing the Special Counsel could legitimately ask him about his knowledge of Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government. That, I suggest, is facially preposterous and inconsistent with extensive case law on the limitations of privilege assertions in all contexts.

As reported elsewhere by Politico,

A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the South Carolina Republican’s [Senator Lindsey Graham] claim that he is constitutionally immune from such questioning. Though Graham may not be questioned about any conversations he had in support of his legislative activity, the panel ruled, prosecutors may question him about his “coordination” with the Trump campaign to arrange his calls with Georgia officials, as well as efforts to pressure those officials amid their ongoing audit of Georgia’s presidential election results.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene on Graham’s behalf.

We should also have regard for the literalist interpretation of the Constitution favored by “conservatives” and “originalists.” The Speech & Debate Clause refers expressly to “Senators and Representatives.” The Vice President is neither of those. The fact that he has limited, ministerial duties to perform in the legislative branch every four years does not make him one. He is there as the Vice President, conducting ministerial, non-discretionary acts involving no legislative work.

United Press International reports that Pence said at a campaign rally:

I’m going to fight the Biden DOJ’s subpoena for me to appear before the grand jury because I believe it’s unconstitutional, and it’s unprecedented. No vice president has ever been subject to a subpoena to testify about the president with whom they served. [https://bit.ly/3lC9Co9]

Unprecedented it may be, but no president has ever tried to overthrow the government and reinstall himself despite having lost the election. Arguing the lack of precedent just doesn’t work here.

At the end of the day, what Pence’s position comes down to is this: he is desperate to appease Trump’s loyalist political base and in fact supported Trump’s attempt to overturn the election while cleverly, but rightly, refusing to actively participate in the coup attempt. Pence wants it both ways – no responsibility for the insurrection but avoiding the appearance of attacking Trump, while simultaneously undermining Trump. He hopes Trump’s loyalists will overlook his refusal to play along on January 6 if he appears to defend Trump while not actually defending him.

Pence thinks Trump’s loyalists are a bunch of cultish dopes who will, when push time comes, choose him as Trump’s successor.

Pence is only slightly less a traitor than Trump. Special Counsel Smith is not going to fall for this nonsense and should vigorously contest Pence’s claim to immunity from subpoena by the Grand Jury.

Final Thoughts (Maybe) About the Republican “Performance” in the SOTU

1 Reply

The New York Times published an interesting piece about the Republicans’ unprecedented outbursts during President Biden’s State of the Union address: Heckling of Biden Reflects a New, Coarser Normal for House G.O.P., https://nyti.ms/3Xq479c While it bore similarities to my own comments in The Barbarians Are Inside the Gate, it was a bit too abstract for my taste and replete with “both sides” implications, a now all-too-common trait of main stream media.

But what struck me most were the comments that gleefully recalled the moment when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped up Trump’s speech following one of his SOU addresses to Congress. In essence, those comments claimed that the obscene heckling of President Biden was justified by Pelosi’s previous conduct. What’s good for the goose, and all that. Hypocrisy, they say. You can’t have it both ways, they say.

I confess I didn’t read all the 666 comments the Times allowed before closing comments (a curious number, I note in passing – assess as you will), but of those I did read, not one noted the obvious difference between Pelosi’s demonstration of hostility to the then pretend president and the yelling and disruption that occurred during Biden’s speech.

I refer to the obvious fact that when Pelosi tore up Trump’s speech, Trump’s speech was over. He was finished talking. Should Pelosi have waited until Trump departed or until she was in the hall outside or called a press conference later to show her contempt? Maybe. But there is a fundamental difference between her post-speech demonstration and the multiple interruptions and crass behavior during the speech by members of the Republican Party. Her action did not disrupt Trump’s remarks, no matter how distasteful they were to her. The Republicans, on the other hand, did everything they could to disrupt and disorient the President. And they failed.

My final (maybe) observation: the writers at the New York Times, Washington Post and other newspapers that still claim to some degree of objectivity in matters political should stop calling these Republican Party louts “conservatives.” There is nothing “conservative” about most of them. They don’t just want less government; they want no government.

Just two days ago, Ted Cruz, officially the U.S. Senator from Texas, tweeted: “Abolish the IRS.” https://bit.ly/3Ih6PtCCruz is not the only Republican to advocate that. You may also recall that many other leading Republicans have advocated abolishing the Department of Education and other federal agencies, including Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Secretary of Education. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced a bill in early 2021 with co-sponsors including (unsurprisingly) Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), to do that very thing.

To be clear, I for one believe the United States Tax Code is a monstrosity. One fine day, I plan to write about it in some detail. But the idea that we can in one swoop “simplify the Code” and then eliminate the IRS while still effectively collecting enough revenue to pay for the U.S. Miliary, among many other federal services that help assure this country’s safety and prosperity, is blatantly stupid.

The National Taxpayer Advocate did a Microsoft Word count of the tax statutes and implementing IRS regulations in 2012 and came up with roughly 4 million words. At roughly 450 words per page, that works out to around 9,000 pages. The National Taxpayer Advocate also noted that the tax code changed 4,680 times from 2001 to 2012, an average of once per day.  https://bit.ly/3DYxWa8

That was ten years ago. Most likely the Code is substantially larger today. Much of it is designed, by Republican and Democratic administrations alike, to foster or discourage various forms of economic and other behavior. Changing it to a simpler system whose focus is mainly, if not solely, to fund the government is highly desirable in my view but it’s not something that can be done overnight in a sudden “simplification.” Advocates for that approach are not “conservatives. They are either anarchists or … well, this is a family blog, so I won’t go further.

Suffice to say, the complexities of the Code and its pervasive influence on the conduct of American businesses is such as only a prolonged and careful reexamination has any chance of success. But the Code’s very complexity and influence has spawned entire industries of tax lawyers, tax-specialist accountants, software companies and tax preparers, all of whom have a vested interest in keeping the complexity. And then there are the giant corporations that benefit from manipulating their operations and accounting to pay less tax than the might in another system.

To return to the main point, the Republican Party has become the Party of Grievance. Their appeal to the good old days, when white people ran everything and most things were thought to be cheaper and readily available at all times, those days are gone. Permanently. The Republican Party is the Party of the Past, a past that never really was and that was unsustainable. You may be able to turn back the clock, but you cannot undo time. It moves forward whether your clock, or your mind, keeps up or not. To believe in the past that the Republican Party is selling is to believe in a mirage, a false idol that leads you to your destruction.

The Republicans can yell and scream until the dogs come home. They have nothing constructive to offer the American people or the country. Joe Biden was too gracious, too composed and, in boxing them in on Medicare and Social Security, too clever for the screamers. They won’t learn anything from it. They’re out there every day justifying what they did because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings. Grievance and more grievance – the Republican Party’s true platform.

The Barbarians Are Inside the Gate

2 Replies

The reference is, of course, a play on the title of a famous book and movie about the battle to get control of RJR Nabisco in the late 1980s. Wikipedia tells the story well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJR_Nabisco  The subtitle of this post is: “When They Tell/Show You What They Are, Believe Them.”

The original thought for this post began with the revelation that the Republicans, newly in the House majority, had disbanded the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, reported everywhere at the end of January. But it goes way beyond that.

I refer now to the disgraceful desecration of the Capitol by Republicans during the State of the Union address by President Biden on February 7. Picking up where one of their number yelled “you lie!” at President Obama during a 2009 address to the Congress on health care reform, the Republicans as a group and individually heckled and shouted at President Biden multiple times during his speech. It reminded me of the chaos we sometimes see in foreign legislatures where yelling and disruption are commonplace, where physical violence occurs between disputatious parties. But not here. Not here.

Obviously, no rational person expects the Republicans to agree with much of what Biden proposes. But the State of the Union address is not a place for street rabble to shout down the President. Historically, the displeasure of the party out of power has been adequately demonstrated by their silence when the rest of the Congress applauds usually while standing. It’s a strange ritual, to be sure, but it’s been going on for a long time and everyone understands what the play is.

Until now. The gang of Republican traitors and criminals who helped orchestrate the January 6 attack on the Capitol to try to overturn the 2020 election have turned the State of the Union evening into a circus-like affair. They show no respect for the office of the President, no respect for the sitting President, no respect for each other, and no respect for the American people.

To be clear, this isn’t just about bad manners. This same group is composed of QAnon believers (Marjorie Taylor Greene who shouted “liar” at the President), proponents of automatic weapons everywhere (Lauren Boebert), people whose moral compass has led them repeatedly to deny the reality of what happened on January 6, 2021, and who was responsible (see this video for the reality they continue to deny: https://nyti.ms/3HM77XH). They are the real election thieves, the book burners, the science deniers.

They are led by Donald Trump whose brazen disregard of the law and mores of American society and politics have led him to commit multiple crimes the complete listing of which would fill many pages. He and his sycophantic followers continue to deny the truth about the 2020 election. It was Trump who called the Secretary of State in Georgia to demand that he “find” just enough votes to overturn the will of the people of Georgia. Everyone has heard the tape by now. It was Trump who tried to extort the president of Ukraine to launch an investigation of his political opponent. Everyone has read the “transcript” by now.

And yet, and yet, Trump continues to walk free, to continue his false narrative, to continue stealing from his supporters, to continue as the most dishonest, corrupt political leader in modern American times and perhaps at any time in American history. The boorish display by Republicans at the State of the Union is just a symptom of a much greater and more important danger. Democracy itself is on the line.

And yet, and yet, many Republican commentators continue to raise the specter that if Trump is held accountable for his crimes, there will be civil war, or the door will be opened to retribution by the succeeding administrations intent on punishing their predecessors. If that is true, the idea of America as the Founding Fathers envisioned it is indeed already dead.

It doesn’t have to be that way. But those in charge of the many “investigations” must act and act soon and aggressively to change the course, the curse, of events. The evidence of Trump’s crimes is both overwhelming and widely known. His so-called defenses – mainly the ludicrous “lack of intent” claim – are preposterous but whether they are or not is beside the point. If it is true that “no man is above the law,” if it is true that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then the salvation of American democracy demands that Trump be prosecuted for all his crimes in every legal regime where jurisdiction exists. He can make his defenses there where the rules of law and evidence govern.

I have no better idea what is going on, or not going on, at the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s office than anyone outside the inner sanctums there, but time is running out. The government must act, or it will be destroyed by the fascist proponents of winning at all costs, the believers in “alternative facts” when the truth denies their self-serving goals. Those people have made clear (just look at Kari Lake’s post-election conduct in Arizona and Ron DeSantis’ abuses of government power in Florida), they will stop at nothing to get what they want. The system that made America one of the most important countries in the world is on the line. It’s past time to call the question.

It’s Because He Was President

2 Replies

Members of the media continue to discuss how extraordinary it would be for the Department of Justice to indict a former President, and how disruptive it will be if he is indicted for the multiple crimes he was openly and repeatedly committed. Even while trumpeting (sorry) the line that no one in the United States is above the law.

I want to state that it is precisely because Donald Trump was president that he must be brought to justice, the same as any thug or other criminal. It may be unprecedented but being unusual or even one of-a-kind is no excuse for allowing a criminal to walk free. This is particularly true when that criminal continues to spread the same blatant lies that led to the January 6 insurrection. Trump repeats his falsehoods about the 2020 election multiple times a week. He actively endorses the candidacies of election deniers around the country.

Now he has gone the last mile. He has stated that the [false] claims of election fraud justify disregarding all the rules and regulations governing elections, including the Constitution itself. https://bit.ly/3iqMZkU and https://bit.ly/3HeSkGB and https://bit.ly/3ulG1QY

There can be no clearer indication that Trump is not an American patriot but is a self-interested traitor. He promises to continue promoting his lies about the 2020 election even as he runs in the 2024 presidential election. He literally wants to be “installed” as president, leading, obviously, to the removal of the elected President Biden, the replacement of the entire leadership of the federal government and, effectively, the collapse of American democracy. That is what Trump demands and that is why he should be indicted now.

The fact that most of Trump-endorsed election deniers were rejected in the 2022 midterms is irrelevant. That outcome may suggest that to a large extent the voters have had enough of election-denial, but the money keeps rolling in to finance Trump’s legal fees and his announced candidacy for President in 2024. Grotesquely unqualified candidates like Herschel Walker continue to be promoted by Trump and by the Republican Party and are considered serious threats against candidates like Rev. Warnock in Georgia.

Despite everything that has happened since Trump took office, MAGA Republicans and so-call Christian Fundamentalists continue their fanatical loyalty to him. They claim that the events that led to two impeachments (also unprecedented) and the insurrection were all fake. You can show them a video of the Capitol attack and they will say (1) it never happened, (2) it was staged by paid actors, (3) it was really antifa, not Trump supporters, or (4) they were just patriots fighting to correct the theft of the election (for which no evidence has ever been produced).

Trump’s supporters still say that his phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State demanding the “finding” of just enough votes, by exactly one, to give Trump the win was nothing to be concerned about. Same for his attempt to extort from the president of Ukraine an investigation of his political opponent in the 2020 election. And on and on.

Trump’s crimes are so numerous and his uses of the judicial system to stall and deflect so common and well-financed that a degree of indifference may have set in through the body politic. See MEDIAite at https://bit.ly/3Vt9Bjt  Whatever that may be, the fact remains that Donald Trump, while President of the United States, attempted to overthrow the government by preventing the transfer of power to his duly elected successor. His financial crimes and other abuses of power pale in comparison to that unprecedented attack on the very democratic process that elected him.

And that is the reason he must be prosecuted. Trump violated his oath of office, abused his power, and led an insurrection attempting to end democracy. If he had succeeded, it is likely we would never have seen another real election in this country.

So, members of the media, please just stop with the “OMG, it’s unprecedented that a former president would be indicted.” The lack of precedent simply highlights how grotesque Trump’s conduct was and is. I see now that some of his lawyers have testified before the criminal grand jury and that’s good, although we don’t know, and likely never will know the extent to which they avoided telling the truth by citing attorney-client and/or executive privilege. It is well-established law that such privileges cannot be used to shield communications involved in the planning and execution of crimes, but Trump has succeeded many times in deflecting and deferring consequences with similar claims.

There are some suggestions that Trump’s evasion of responsibility for his crimes is running out of legal room, but he still has allies in Congress and on the Supreme Court who may yet come to his aid. Whatever that future may hold, nothing should stand in the way of indictments for Trump’s many crimes. The most important, of course, is his instigation of the January 6 attack, but there are many others as well. The government should focus on the one or two that have the clearest evidentiary basis and that would certainly include the Capitol assault. Make clear to all future political leaders, in both parties, that crimes in office will not be tolerated. We are approaching the two-year anniversary of the Capitol attack.

It’s time. Past time. Indict him, arrest him, and try him.

Let’s Hear It For the Women

Leave a reply

Any society that stagnates or retrogresses is unlikely to survive in a digitally unified world. Societies that are moving backward toward what is perceived as “better times back then” are almost certainly doomed in the long run. Cultural and ethnic diversification is a force that may be delayed for a while, even reversed, but not indefinitely. As it happens, one of the moving forces in this country, perhaps the only one that can save it in the long run, is the women. The women who marched for women’s rights, the women who went to work doing “men’s labor” during the last world war. Many of them never went back, mentally, to the “role that women are supposed to occupy.” While some men have not adapted to the new reality of equality, they face an unhappy and unproductive future. The tide of history cannot be stopped. The love affair of white men with male dominance is a mirage. Loss of status hurts. Get over it. Move on. Think of how exciting it is to know intelligent, thoughtful women who believe in themselves and what they can contribute. There is no going back.

Yesterday established that women will not be suppressed. Voters in all five states where there were ballot measures on abortion rights, the right of women to control their own bodies and health decisions, opted for freedom for women. The women have spoken, Republicans. Good for them. Good for all of us.

Judge in Trump’s Pocket Played Like a Fiddle

Leave a reply

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men even when they exercise influence and not authority.”

So wrote John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, an English Catholic historian, politician, and writer who lived from 1834 to 1902. No better contemporary example of Baron Acton’s statement exists than Donald Trump. The same Trump who having falsely promoted the Big Lie that he was denied re-election due to massive voter fraud. The same Trump who directed a failed attempt to overthrow the government and install himself as president-emperor. The same Trump who stole multiple classified government documents and removed them to an insecure facility in his Florida mansion.

In the same fashion that he has conducted his entire life, Trump is now fighting desperately to stop the Department of Justice from indicting him for that theft. He is using the courts, aided by a judge he appointed, and issuing threats of violence if he is held accountable for his actions.

Word is that Trump pre-paid millions of dollars to induce a lawyer to represent him, given his long history of refusing to pay lawyers and others who worked for him.

This saga has many parts. I will try to simplify them.

*****

Let’s be clear about a few things at the outset. Trump made no mere “mistake” in removing top secret and other classified documents from the White House during his last days there. He meant to take them, meant to keep them and, most likely, meant to use them for personal profit. The documents and folders are clearly marked with classifications. No person with reasonably normal vision could have mistaken the nature of those documents.

Second, there is no evidence that Trump declassified the documents while he was president. None. Zero. There are elaborate procedures for declassifying documents and an evidentiary record of such actions would have been created. That record has not been produced because it doesn’t exist. The declassification defense is just another Trumpian lie being used by Trump’s lawyers to obfuscate and delay. Remember this question of declassification as you read on. It is the punchline of Trump’s latest “joke’s on you.”

None of this should surprise anyone who has been paying attention for the past five years.

Trump has shown time and again that he lacks respect for American institutions and the checks and balances that preserve our democracy. Trump’s interests are entirely transactional and acquisitive. His conduct in office repeatedly showed a complete lack of concern for national security. He regarded the documents from his presidency as belonging to him – his private property notwithstanding the federal laws on preservation of records. Indeed, Trump clearly did not regard the law, any law, as applicable to him. As he famously said, “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Third, Trump is no longer the President of the United States. His lawyers are as confused about that reality as Trump himself. Forms of address matter and referring to Trump as “The President” or “President Trump” is misleading. Trump is not the president. His term ended January 20, 2021. Of that there is no doubt.

Fourth, and finally, one of the basic tenets of legal argument is that you should not try to prove too much. I will explain below how that principle undermines Trump’s position.

The Chronology

The timeline is well known:

January 6, 2021 – Donald Trump, unable to establish a legal basis for remaining in office, sends a violent mob to stop the government from certifying the election of Joe Biden

January 20, 2021 – Joe Biden inaugurated as 46th President of the United States – Trump leaves the White House with many boxes of materials

Months pass – some classified documents are returned, others are withheld, and their existence denied

August 5, 2022 – Search Warrant approved based on showing of probable cause to  believe multiple serious crimes committed

August 25 – Court order approving release of redacted search warrant affidavit

The Search Warrant Affidavit

The original affidavit for the search warrant makes clear:

(1) DOJ is conducting a “criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces, as well as the unlawful concealment or removal of government records;”

(2) after some boxes of documents were returned, it became clear that “there is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified NDI or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at the [Mar-a-Lago] in an unauthorized and insecure location. There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at [Mar-a-Lago];”

(3) there was also “probable cause to believe that the locations to be searched at [Mar-a-Lago] contain evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violationof18 U.S.C. §§ 793(e), 1519, or 2071;”

(4) “Classified information of any designation may be shared only with persons determined by an appropriate United States Government official to be eligible for access, and who possess a “need to know;”

(5) “highly classified records were unfoldered, intermixed with other records, and otherwise unproperly [sic] identified;”

(6) repeated requests for return of classified documents were made for more than six months before the National Archives was informed that 12 additional boxes of records were found;

(7) the initial 15 boxes of documents contained 184 documents bearing classification marks;

(8) Trump’s lawyer told DOJ the former president “has absolute authority to declassify documents;” [but did not say that he had in fact declassified them]

(9) a Trump administration official publicly claimed, without proof, that Trump had declassified all the documents at Mar-a-Lago;

(10) DOJ thus concluded that “probable cause exists to believe that evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(e), 2071, or 1519 will be found at [Mar-a-Lago].”

The Less-Redacted Search Warrant Affidavit

Following more legal filings, a less-redacted version of the search warrant affidavit was filed and publicly released. After comparing the two versions, very few new facts were revealed:

(1) the June 3 release of documents to DOJ was by prior arrangement with Trump’s attorney who represented in writing that there were no more classified documents remaining at Mar-a Lago;

(2) the June 3 release contained an additional 38 documents with various levels of security classification;

(3) Trump’s lawyer did not claim that the documents had been declassified;

 (4) DOJ soon learned about, and obtained, security camera footage covering the storage room in Mar-a-Lago but the affidavit material discussing that footage remains redacted.

Note again that the Trump counsel letter asserting the president’s “absolute authority” to unilaterally declassify documents stops short of asserting that Trump actually declassified any of the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago. One of the most illuminating aspects of the arguments made by Trump’s lawyers is how careful they are to avoid asserting as fact that he declassified any of the seized documents while in office. They make much of his presumed powers to declassify but never say he did so. [Hint: this will soon become one of the most blatant deceptions of a willing dupe, the Trump-appointed judge to whom the case was assigned]

The Raid on Mar-a-Lago

DOJ subsequently raided Mar-a-Lago and took possession of many additional classified documents that Trump’s representatives had claimed were not there.

In keeping with prior Trump practice, a lawsuit was filed to delay the criminal investigation of Trump by seeking appointment of a Special Master to review all the documents. A Trump-appointed judge agreed, over DOJ’s strong objections, to appoint the Special Master and ordered DOJ to stop its criminal investigation.

Trump’s Judge Issues Bizarre Decision to Delay Criminal Proceedings

The judge’s order that reads more like a political polemic than a sound judicial evaluation of the competing claims about the documents. But it’s worth noting some of the findings made by the judge:

  • “based on the volume and nature of the seized material, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has an interest in and need for at least a portion of it”
  • Despite that statement, the court’s decision applied to all the seized documents
  • Trump would be “deprived of potentially significant personal documents, which alone creates a real harm”
  • Trump made no effort to show a particularized need for any of the seized personal materials that had been haphazardly stored in the Storage Room at Mar-a-Lago for many months, even after he knew DOJ was interested in them
  • Trump might suffer “unquantifiable potential harm by way of improper disclosure of sensitive information to the public”
  • No evidence was cited by the judge as to what “sensitive information” of a personal nature was in the documents and Trump cited none
  • “[Trump] has claimed injury from the threat of future prosecution.” This finding is astonishing. Judge Cannon is completely off the rails here – the threat of criminal prosecution is present in every criminal investigation and is, indeed, the purpose of document discovery which in this case was being conducted pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. If this threat were grounds for a Special Master review, such a review would be automatic in every criminal investigation, and it’s not.
  • “As a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own. A future indictment, based to any degree on property that ought to be returned, would result in reputational harm of a decidedly different order of magnitude…. the Court takes into account the undeniably unprecedented nature of the search of a former President’s residence.”  Here the judge gives up all pretense and declares that Trump, as a former president, should have privileges accorded to no other citizen under criminal investigation.
  • This point is further established by the court’s later reliance on “[Trump’s] inability to examine the seized materials in formulating his arguments to date – the documents had been requested multiple times over many months during which Trump had ample opportunity to evaluate what he had. His failure to act should not confer an advantage in an argument about the equities of the situation.
  • The judge further cites “Trump’s stated reliance on the customary cooperation between former and incumbent administrations regarding the ownership and exchange of documents.” The judge claims to be unaware of the Fact that the Trump administration for an extended period refused to cooperate in the transition to the Biden administration. This cannot be true unless Judge Cannon has been living under a rock for the past few years. The refusal to cooperate was widely reported for an extended period.
  • Apparently determined to ignore the Fact of the classified markings on hundreds of seized documents, Judge Cannon treats everything as Trump’s personal material: “this is not a situation in which there is no room to doubt the immediately apparent incriminating nature of the seized material.”
  • Finally, the judge declares that the possibility of Trump’s having an interest in the comingled personal items seized is sufficient to warrant a Special Master for ALL the documents, including those marked classified! Trump’s decision to mingle the documents and later decline to examine them when demanded by DOJ is thus used as an excuse to give Trump a litigation advantage against the government.

This opinion will likely be the subject of law school examinations in future years as indicative of how judicial bias can undermine the rule of law. It almost certainly would receive a failing grade at any creditable law school if presented in answer to an exam question.

DOJ’s Motion for a Partial Stay

DOJ filed a motion for a stay of Judge Cannon’s order only as regards the classified documents and the ongoing criminal investigation related to the unlawful removal and improper storage of those documents. As to the seized classified documents, DOJ argued, among other points, that,

[Trump] does not and could not assert that he owns or has any possessory interest in classified records; that he has any right to have those government records returned to him; or that he can advance any plausible claims of attorney-client privilege as to such records that would bar the government from reviewing or using them.

[Trump], however, has no right to the “return” of classified records, which are not “his” property.… Classified records also are not “personal” to [Trump] and would not reveal any sensitive personal information.…. Accordingly, [Trump] has no cognizable “individual” interest in any classified records (or in having a special master review those records), and he cannot be “irreparably injured” if such records are not returned to him.

 Trump Claims Personal Ownership of Government Records

That should have been the end of it, but, as usual, Trump continued to argue. His response to DOJ’s motion for partial stay characterized the case as a “document storage dispute” in which “the Government wrongfully seeks to criminalize the possession by the 45th President of his own Presidential and personal records.”

That utter nonsense stands right alongside Trump’s continued lie that the 2020 election was stolen.

Trump’s lawyers then argued that Trump had the right, and by implication only [no evidence], had exercised the right to convert federal government classified documents into his personal documents:

 The [Presidential Records Act] accords any President extraordinary discretion to categorize all his or her records as either Presidential or personal records …. the former President has sole discretion to classify a record as personal or Presidential….

At best, the Government might ultimately be able to establish certain Presidential records should be returned to [the National Archive]. What is clear regarding all the seized materials is that they belong with either President Trump (as his personal property to be returned pursuant to Rule 41(g)) or with [the National Archive], but not with the Department of Justice.

Trump’s position at that point is that he simply cannot be criminally liable for mishandling documents of the highest secrecy classifications because … well, because he was president and well, he could, like he said, do whatever he wanted. Further, Trump’s argument is that the next president is powerless to uncover documents, including highly classified ones, that are evidence of a crime committed by the former president. That is not and cannot be the law.

If you’ve been following the “reasoning” closely, it has perhaps dawned on you that if Trump has the rights he claims to have – to convert secret government documents this personal property at will – then all other presidents must have had the same rights. Thus, for example, President Clinton could now assert personal ownership over documents that were classified during his presidency and compel their disclosure. Same for presidents Bush II, Carter, and Obama.

Trump’s argument, in addition to inconsistency with statutory and case law, proves too much and thereby violates a cardinal rule of advocacy. It should have been rejected outright.

Trump’s opposition to the DOJ motion for a partial stay also violates at least two other principles of advocacy. For example, he argues “the Government’s stance assumes that if a document has a classification marking, it remains classified irrespective of any actions taken during President Trump’s term in office.” But Trump’s team, following in the footsteps of the incompetents who failed in more than 60 attempts in the courts to change the outcome of the 2020 election, does not allege, yet alone prove, that he took any steps to declassify the seized documents while in the White House. Even if it were true that he had the powers he claims, he would have to show they were exercised. They weren’t and his lawyers know it. Their argument is pure sophistry.

The second, and closely related problem, is that Trump’s lawyers appear to believe he is still President of the United States. They refer to him in their legal papers as either the “former president” or as “President Trump,” whichever suits their claim of the moment. This is more sophistry. Trump is no longer president and has not been since January 20, 2021. He cannot, therefore, continue to exercise the powers granted to the president under the Constitution.

Consider for just a moment what the situation would be if Trump were right. President Biden would decide X policy as a matter of national security. Trump would countermand that policy, claiming he had the right to exercise the powers of the presidency indefinitely. Preposterous on its face.

Equally fatuous is Trump’s claim that he has the right to indefinitely restrict access to his “Presidential records” as defined in the Presidential Records Act. Putting aside that the statute cannot be construed to permit a president to conceal documentary evidence of a crime, the argument ignores 44 USC sec. 2202 that says, “The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records….”

Whatever else Trump may be, he is not the United States.” And his claim that “there still remains a disagreement as to the classification status of the documents” lacks even the rudiments of a viable argument. Matters are not “in dispute” just because one party, without factual basis, claims they are. We know that Trump has made a lifetime practice of bald-faced lying but his attorneys are subject to a higher standard, as is the judge.  They should be particularly sensitive to this because of the many failed attempts to overturn the 2020 election without evidence to support their outlandish claims.

Trump’s Judge Rejects DOJ’s Motion for Partial Stay

DOJ’s Reply In Support Of Its Motion To Stay Pending Appeal thoroughly eviscerates Trump’s claims that the Presidential Records in dispute are his personal property. Nonetheless, and unsurprisingly, Trump’s handpicked judge rejected DOJ’s position by giving full credence to Trump’s claim that “the record suggests ongoing factual and legal disputes as to precisely which materials constitute personal property and/or privileged materials …; and there are documented instances giving rise to concerns about the Government’s ability to properly categorize and screen materials.” The judge also continued to give controlling weight to Trump’s bootstrap argument that he “has not had a meaningful ability to concretize his position with respect to the seized materials.”

The judge should have said that Trump chose not to do so when the opportunity was readily available during the months of haggling with the government about whether he had classified documents and, if so, which ones. Instead, apparently because Trump is entitled to special treatment under the judge’s conception of the law, Judge Cannon simply gives Trump yet more opportunities to delay justice, opportunities no other citizen would have been granted.

The effect of Judge Cannon’s rejection is remarkable. He went to some lengths to describe the various investigative steps still open to DOJ while repeatedly foreclosing any reliance on the content of the seized classified documents. Worse, his decision means that the Special Master will have to decide whether the government properly classified the seized documents.

The decision gives no hint of how the Special Master is to make such determinations, but it seems certain this will require extensive inputs from the intelligence community, leading to further delays in the criminal investigation into which the judge has inserted the court. When the Special Master’s report becomes available, Trump will almost certainly challenge each adverse finding, leading to more opinions from the judge and appeals. Neither the Special Master nor the judge have any particular expertise in the decisions they will be making.

Among the on-going investigative actions permitted by the judge’s order are “as indicated in the September 5 Order, the temporary restraint does not prevent the Government from continuing “to review and use the materials seized for purposes of intelligence classification and national security assessments.” This logical inconsistency perfectly illustrates the travesty of the judge’s decision: the seized documents can somehow be used for further intelligence classification even as the Special Master, and eventually the judge himself, decide whether the documents were properly classified.

Another stunning misrepresentation by Judge Cannon resides in this remarkable statement:

“there has been no actual suggestion by the Government of any identifiable emergency or imminent disclosure of classified information arising from Plaintiff’s allegedly unlawful retention of the seized property. Instead, and unfortunately, the unwarranted disclosures that float in the background have been leaks to the media after the underlying seizure.”

The judge is more concerned about leaks from the government than about the national security implications of leaving the classified documents in Trump’s control.

In a final attempt to show his even-handedness, Judge Cannon notes:

Lastly, the Court agrees with the Government that “the public is best served by evenhanded adherence to established principles of civil and criminal procedure,” regardless of the personal identity of the parties involved …. It is also true, of course, that evenhanded procedure does not demand unquestioning trust in the determinations of the Department of Justice.

The problem here is that it is not the determination of the Department of Justice that are at issue. It is the determinations of the agencies that classified the documents in the first place. Rather than giving any presumption of validity to the government’s classifications, and without any attempt by Trump to show that the classifications were defective or overridden by an actual presidential decision, the judge has inserted the judiciary into a process it is incompetent to evaluate. The opinion reads like a sophisticated but unmistakable MAGA polemic on the evils of the federal government.

Hey, Judge – Fooled Ya!

Rather than spend more time analyzing the DOJ arguments against the judge’s bizarre and illogical decision, let’s leap ahead to the final step in which Trump, through his lawyers, springs the trap on Judge Cannon.

The judge’s order denying DOJ’s motion for a partial stay was issued September 15. The Special Master wasted no time thereafter. A letter from Trump’s lawyers states: “On September 16, 2022, Your Honor invited the parties to the above-captioned litigation to provide a docketed letter with suggestions regarding the agenda for tomorrow’s hearing.” Then this:

the Draft Plan [set out by the Special Master] requires that the Plaintiff disclose specific information regarding declassification to the Court and to the Government. We respectfully submit that the time and place for affidavits or declarations would be in connection with a Rule 41 motion that specifically alleges declassification as a component of its argument for return of property. Otherwise, the Special Master process will have forced the Plaintiff to fully and specifically disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment without such a requirement being evident in the District Court’s order.

The appropriate response to this astounding claim should be:

claims regarding declassification have been waived and no further action regarding them is required. The stay is lifted as to the classified documents and DOJ is free to use them in its criminal investigation as it chooses. Trump’s counsel have been more than a little too cute in their attempt to manipulate and delay these proceedings and the pending criminal investigation. Neither the Special Master nor the court will countenance further obfuscation. The Special Master is relieved of any duty to consider the classification of the classified documents. At a later date the court will consider whether Trump’s counsel should be sanctioned for their attempt to manipulate this proceeding for purposes of delay.

Recall that the presence of classified documents in the materials removed by Trump was known as early as February of 2022. https://wapo.st/3BPYXMs It is now late-September and Trump’s lawyers have exposed their delay strategy in the starkest terms. They baited Trump’s appointed judge who took the bait. Now he looks like just another sucker who was played by Trump. Trump’s loyalists in the White House have been lying and dissembling about Trump’s theft of classified documents for more than a year. Last year they claimed the boxes contained nothing but newspaper clippings. https://wapo.st/3Sesd4u

It’s past time for either the district court judge and/or the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to declare an end to the Trump charade. It should not take long to confirm that the purloined classified documents are authentic and that, by itself, should be sufficient for the grand jury to indict Trump on multiple criminal counts.

A Special Place in Hell

Leave a reply

On August 16, 2022, a United States Senator representing Florida published an “open letter” to “American Job Seeker.” The letter purports to address grievances about the planned hiring of 87,000 new employees for the Internal Revenue Service. In keeping with Scott’s general method of operation, the letter is replete with lies, distortions, and deflections. A U.S. Senator addressing the legislation he’s complaining about should know better. I believe he does and that his mendacity is deliberate. Donald Trump will be happy with him, though, so in Senator RIck Scott’s mind, he is fine with lying, distorting, and deflecting. Let’s have a closer look.

First, Scott decries the “labor participation rate” that he says the Biden administration has caused “to drop to historic lows.” That is a gross distortion at best and a bald-faced lie at worst.

The labor participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively looking for work. A casual look at Labor Department data would have shown Scott that the rate has remained within a percentage point or so of the level during Trump’s administration. https://bit.ly/3SZT71u Except, of course, for the big dip in 2020 caused by, you will recall, Trump’s grotesque mishandling of the pandemic. In July 2022 the rate was only .3 below the level when Biden was inaugurated. Oh, by the way, Florida, Scott’s state, ranks among the lowest states in LPR. Also, by the way, the national unemployment rate was 3.5% in July 2022, exactly where it was in February 2020, just before the pandemic struck. By most standards that unemployment rate is considered “full employment.”

Scott then says, “I write to you today to offer a few things for you to consider as you continue your job search.” Ah, job hunting advice from a professional politician from Florida, a man whom Wikipedia describes this way:

During his tenure as chief executive, the company [Columbia/HCA, then the largest private for-profit healthcare company] defrauded Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs. The Department of Justice ultimately fined the company $1.7 billion in what was at the time the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history.

Scott has two messages: (1) expansion of the IRS workforce is a threat to Americans and when Republicans get control of Congress in the fall elections, they will remove the funding for these jobs; therefore, don’t waste your time applying; (2) the original job posting indicated the new IRS employees would be armed and one of their “major duties” was to be prepared to kill your neighbors and friends.

That deliberately misinformed and childish hysteria is plainly designed to frighten ordinary Americans. Scott goes on to refer to an “IRS super-police force” that will not only audit your taxes (that you are required by law to pay — remember, Scott is in the party of “law and order”) but directly suggests a mob of armed government employees will kill you if you don’t pay up.

This is the face of the modern Republican Party that uses the rhetoric of government running wild to frighten Americans into believing that a utopian and authoritarian solution is their only safeguard. The reality is quite different.

Lower taxes are, first, a lie. Republicans only lower taxes for the very wealthy. Ordinary Americans see little of the oft-promised tax cuts. Trump’s oft-toted big tax cut went almost entirely to the wealthy and increased the federal deficit by a huge amount. While promising to eviscerate the government, Republicans also promise stronger borders, a more powerful military, and more efficiency – all for less money! The Republican Party is the modern version of the snake oil salesman – buy my elixir and enjoy good health for life! Nothing to it. Something for nothing.

Let’s look more closely at Scott’s hysterical claims. He uses transparent techniques. All caps on “$80 BILLION.” He then compares the resulting IRS work force to the combined employment of four familiar federal agencies: Pentagon, FBI, Customs and Border Protection, and the State Department.  If his original claim of doubling the size of the IRS was accurate, then this might be true even if totally pointless. But it is not. The IRS is not going to hire 87,000 new employees in one year. So, Scott’s workforce comparisons are just more distortions/lies.

The more important question is: what will the new employees be doing that is good for America? Senator Scott doesn’t want you to know about that. Here’s why.

The IRS’s budget has been cut by nearly 20 percent since 2010, impacting the agency’s ability to staff up and modernize half-century-old technology. In 2010, the IRS had about 94,000 employees. That number dipped to about 78,000 employees in 2021. Some of the agency’s computers still run on COBOL, a programming language that dates back to the 1960s. Since 2010, the agency’s enforcement staff has declined by 30 percent, according to IRS officials, and audit rates for the wealthiest taxpayers have seen the biggest declines because of years of underfunding. [https://bit.ly/3K8AzIp]

So, if you’re fine with wealthy tax cheats getting away with under-paying taxes, you’ll appreciate Senator Scott’s gross deception. Otherwise, well, you’ll recognize that you can’t run the government on thoughts and prayers Republicans like to send when your school children are slaughtered with AR-15’s they refuse to restrain.

Speaking of that, Senator Scott also wants you believe that the IRS auditors are going to shoot you. Another lie. Fewer than 3% of IRS employees are Special Agents who carry weapons. Why do they? Because they are law enforcement personnel in the IRS Criminal Investigation unit. They investigate criminal tax violations and other financial crimes such as money laundering, bank secrecy, national security, and national defense matters.

While we’re still on violence, Senator Scott should know that anti-government, anti-worker statements have inspired violent attacks on federal employees in the past. There are now reports of one Republican candidate advocating shooting federal employees, including IRS employees, “on sight.” When you add these incitements to violence against federal employees carrying out Congressionally mandated duties to Republican indifference to the slaughter of school children with automatic weapons they refuse to regulate, you have the perfect storm of a political party advocating violence against its opponents and the government.

Senator Scott’s letter is a dangerous collection of gross distortions and outright lies. This man cannot be trusted. Florida should send him packing (no pun) as soon as possible.