Category Archives: Politics

Supreme Court Creates First American King

Leave a reply

The Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote has decided that the President of the United States enjoys absolute immunity for some criminal conduct, presumptive immunity for other criminal conduct and, for an indeterminate array of other criminal conduct, very difficult to identify, no immunity. However, the decision does not address the real question that was before the Court. Instead, it sends the case back to the lower courts for further consideration which will, of course, prevent the trial of any elements of the pending indictment before the November election and will likely lead to years of further litigation. If Trump wins the 2024 election, that litigation will undoubtedly include the question whether a President can pardon himself so that he can never be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office.

And, of course, if Trump loses and instigates another insurrection like January 6, 2021, designed to overturn the election result, there will be years more of litigation to address the extent of the crimes he would be committing as the Supreme Court continues to equivocate about basic constitutional principles. Meanwhile, Trump will have pardoned the loons who executed his direction to stop the certification of Biden’s win in 2020 by attacking the Capitol. The Court may well regret the perfidy of its craven decision to immunize the presidency from the consequences of blatantly criminal behavior.

I will leave to others the detailed parsing of the opinions in the case, with a few exceptions.

I would have thought, and did think, that the question before the Court was straightforward, especially following the oral argument in which Trump’s counsel claimed that the President could order the murder of a political opponent with complete immunity from prosecution.

This was, after all, a criminal prosecution that led to a very detailed indictment containing 130 numbered paragraphs recounting the events leading up to, through, and after January 6. The immunity issues needing elucidation were apparent from the indictment. There was no need for further lower court proceedings to determine what the central issues were. And absent motive to kick the can down the electoral road and prevent the trial of Donald Trump before the election, there is no apparent reason the Supreme Court could not have decided which acts alleged were immune, why they were immune and the result of that immunity for the prosecution of the indictment through trial.

The conduct alleged to have constituted crimes was described in extreme detail. If that conduct, as described, was immune from criminal prosecution, it is not apparent why the Supreme Court could not have decided and explained without having further time-consuming proceedings in the lower courts and the inevitable appeals back to the Supreme Court in, perhaps, 2026 or even 2027.

Perhaps the clearest example is the conclusion that the President’s “discussions” with the Department of Justice and threats to replace DOJ personnel for not complying with the President’s “discussion” (that was in fact not merely discussion but “demands” to engage in blatantly untrue and unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election) are unreachable by criminal prosecution. This must be understood in connection with the prior finding that in the realm of executive powers, the President’s motives may not be questioned. Thus, the Court concludes:

Trump’s threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General likewise implicates “conclusive and preclusive” Presidential authority. As we have explained, the President’s power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed” may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts.

In short, according to the Supreme Court, a President may for entirely corrupt purposes, as was alleged here, threaten and remove personnel who refuse to comply with his directives to violate the law, without being accountable for his actions.

… the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the al­leged conduct involving his discussions with Justice De­partment officials.

Similarly, while purporting to need lower court input on some questions, the Court categorically rules out prosecution of Trump for trying to pressure Vice President Pence to violate his constitutional duties in connection with certification of the election result. The rationale for this astonishing outcome does not support it, but the Court is blind to the implications of its ruling:

It is thus important for the President to discuss official matters with the Vice President to ensure continuity within the Executive Branch and to advance the President’s agenda in Congress and beyond.

The Court is indifferent to the consideration that the President’s agenda might be, as it clearly was in this case, to undermine the electoral process, void the votes of millions of Americans, and install the defeated candidate as the winner of the election.

Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct.

The Court’s view is that Trump’s demands were “just talk.” After reciting a list of irrelevant matters in which the coordination of the President and Vice President are required, the Court simply writes off the allegation that the President, for entirely other and blatantly corrupt reasons, was pressuring the Vice President to violate the Constitution.

The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

 In simple English, under the Court’s decision, the President is free to demand his Number Two federal officer to violate the Constitution without little concern for being held criminally responsible. The rationale for this bizarre outcome is that the “President may need to rely on the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate to advance the President’s agenda in Congress.” Thus,

It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

 It was and is plain on the face of the indictment that the charges related to Trump’s attempt to pressure the Vice President into violating what virtually every credible legal authority understands is the limit on the VP’s authority have nothing whatever to do with the President’s “agenda in Congress.” The corruption of the majority opinion in this respect is blatantly obvious as a partisan gift to Trump to create yet another obstacle to his being timely tried for a clear and obvious crime.

Regarding the allegations of Trump’s attempts to interfere with state electoral slates, the Court finds the issues just too complicated for it to address:

The necessary analysis is … fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons.

The Court remands those issues for further fact finding as well. Why these questions could not be resolved at trial through evidence, which is the normal practice, is not apparent. The indictment’s allegations are very specific and precise about what Trump attempted to do in Georgia, for example. There is no plausible basis for concluding that Trump’s demands that the Secretary of State for George “find” just enough votes to give him Georgia’s electoral votes were merely policy discussions. Trump could argue that in the trial, of course, as a “defense,” but to hold that more fact finding at the District Court level is essential to even holding a trial is beyond the pale.

If the trial court made material mistakes in admitting evidence and instructing the jury, those issues could be addressed through appeals in the normal course. The Court’s remand games the normal judicial process for Trump to aid his effort to prevent any trial before the election.

Finally, and perhaps most remarkably, the Court finds that the indictment’s charges related to Trump’s incitement speech on January 6 requires remand as well:

Whether the Tweets, that speech, and Trump’s other communications on January 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each…. We therefore remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial.

In these conclusions the Supreme Court pretends it knows nothing about, and ignores the specific allegations of the indictment, what Trump actually said on January 6., 2021.

The Court then indicates that evidence of the President’s knowledge of the falsity of his election fraud claims is not admissible at trial. It thus completes the gaming of its decision to protect the President from allegations of blatantly criminal conduct that has nothing whatever to do with the official duties of the President and belies entirely his obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The Court’s decision cannot be squared with the President’s responsibility to the Constitution and the law. It is a travesty of the most serious kind that the country will long regret. The Court has opened the door to a repeat of January 6, 2021 ignoring, among other things, that this time the government will be prepared for the attack.

More to come.

Project 2025 – The Republican Doomsday Scenario – Part 2

Leave a reply

The core premise of Project 2025 is that the federal government is the enemy of the American people:

The federal government is a behemoth, weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before. The task at hand to reverse this tide and restore our Republic to its original moorings is too great for any one conservative policy shop to spearhead.

The authors of these concepts are very bright people with impressive credentials, but they are wedded to the idea that since the Great Depression, the population has lost its moorings by electing federal political leaders who have betrayed the country’s original values, at least the values they fantasize were the founding principles.

Curiously, the manifesto declares that the situation is so fraught that:

Contemporary elites have even repurposed the worst ingredients of 1970s “radical chic” to build the totalitarian cult known today as “The Great Awokening.” And now, as then, the Republican Party seems to have little understanding about what to do. Most alarming of all, the very moral foundations of our society are in peril.

The first expressed goal of Project 2025 is thus to “Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children,” defined by the Project as “the true priority of politics.” Based on the conduct of the Republican Party, they consider Donald Trump and his family of entitled grifters the model for the American family. I am not making this up.

The Project’s hyperventilation over the “carnage” that Trump referenced in his 2016 inauguration speech continues with this pithy observation:

In many ways, the entire point of centralizing political power is to subvert the family. Its purpose is to replace people’s natural loves and loyalties with unnatu­ral ones.

I have observed in other writings the curious condition that permits Republicans to keep multiple inconsistent ideas actively working in their minds at the same time without experiencing devastating cognitive dissonance. Here is another example from Project 2025 wherein it observes that Republicans have had long-terms goals of “eliminating marriage penalties in federal welfare programs and the tax code and installing work requirements for food stamps.” Then,

 But we must go further. It’s time for policymakers to elevate family authority, formation, and cohesion as their top priority and even use government power, including through the tax code, to restore the American family. [emphasis added for … emphasis]

Sooo, it seems that big government is evil BUT we should use government power to reshape society by establishing government-enforced cultural rules that control the private behavior of adults.

The Republicans’ concern for the welfare of the American family is touching, until you recall this:

Shooting Deaths Shooting Injuries Elementary Schools Middle/Jr High High schools Other2
2000-01 1,676 515 1,305 320 162 777
thru 2021-22
2000-01 47 18 30 4 3 23
2001-02 18 5 17 2 1 14
2002-03 29 13 24 2 6 16
2003-04 45 16 34 5 3 26
2004-05 63 22 44 9 1 32
2005-06 55 13 50 5 6 39
2006-07 91 28 64 9 12 42
2007-08 23 10 16 2 2 11
2008-09 61 19 52 11 6 31
2009-10 15 5 15 1 2 12
2010-11 32 8 18 4 2 12
2011-12 21 9 16 3 3 9
2012-13 55 42 26 7 5 13
2013-14 55 19 46 7 3 32
2014-15 65 20 43 13 4 24
2015-16 45 9 38 7 4 25
2016-17 61 14 48 8 9 31
2017-18 185 52 89 14 8 64
2018-19 116 34 113 35 14 60
2019-20 126 32 116 33 11 70
2020-21 118 46 145 59 21 57
2021-22 350 81 319 82 37 189

And this:

It seems that Republicans are fine with the “acceptable losses” of children due to school shootings, since they resist virtually every attempt to limit access to guns. And we have just learned that the Supreme Court, ruled by a “conservative majority” of six (half appointed by Trump), thinks automatic weapons, or their functional equivalent, are just fine too. Garland v Cargill decided June 14, 2024.

Project 2025 provides many examples of what it would change by government edict. I will address many of them in subsequent posts.

Meanwhile, women of America and everyone who believes in science and the principles of individual liberty, separation of church and state, among others, try on for size these pieces of Project 2025 about the American “family”:

The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensi­tive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.

Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.

In our schools, the question of parental authority over their children’s education is a simple one: Schools serve parents, not the other way around. That is, of course, the best argument for universal school choice—a goal all conservatives and con­servative Presidents must pursue. But even before we achieve that long-term goal, parents’ rights as their children’s primary educators should be non-negotiable in American schools. States, cities and counties, school boards, union bosses, princi­pals, and teachers who disagree should be immediately cut off from federal funds.

Every threat to family stability must be confronted. This resolve should color each of our policies. Consider our approach to Big Tech. The worst of these companies prey on children, like drug dealers, to get them addicted to their mobile apps. Many Silicon Valley executives famously don’t let their own kids have smart phones.2 They nevertheless make billions of dollars addicting other people’s children to theirs. TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms are specifically designed to create the digital dependencies that fuel mental illness and anxiety, to fray children’s bonds with their parents and siblings. Federal policy cannot allow this industrial-scale child abuse to continue.

In particular, the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion. Conservatives should ardently pursue these pro-life and pro-family policies while recognizing the many women who find themselves in immensely difficult and often tragic situations and the hero­ism of every choice to become a mother. Alternative options to abortion, especially adoption, should receive federal and state support.

Recall that this part is just about the first prong of Project 2025. These people are deadly serious about using the power of the federal government to reshape the United States into a Christian Nationalist version of Gilead.

Project 2025 – The Republican Doomsday Scenario – Part 1

Leave a reply

Departing from their practice in 2020 when the Republican Party declined to publish a platform other than “whatever Trump wants,” the Party of No is working from a massive 887-page document entitled, “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” also known as Project 2025, Presidential Transition Project.

While the document goes to some lengths to share the “credit” for its creation with multiple “conservative” sources, make no mistake: the Heritage Foundation is the root of this poisonous tree. The copyright to the document is owned by the Heritage Foundation alone. Out of 36 authors and editors listed, 28 have Heritage or Trump administration credentials, as do many of the “contributors.” The Advisory Board is a Who’s Who of right-wing groups with misleading names like Alliance Defending Freedom, American Center for Law and Justice, Center for Equal Opportunity, and Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The silliest part of this document is the claim that “Indeed, one set of eyes reading these passages will be those of the 47th President of the United States” an obvious reference to Donald Trump. It is widely known that Trump doesn’t read much of anything, certainly not a dense 887-page treatise on the details of government. And don’t forget that Trump believes that as President under Article II of the Constitution, “I can do whatever I want.”

But if Trump could write more than just his name, he might well have produced much of this “plan.” It’s full of hysterical and anti-historical rhetorical nonsense about government “dishonesty and corruption,” a mythical “ruling and cultural elite,” “toxic normalization of transgender­ism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries,” and “globalist elites in Washington” ignoring the looming threat of China and the imminent peril to the “very moral foundations of our society.” Oh, and the conservative concerns are also based on the claim that “The long march of cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass.”

The proverbial pot has called the proverbial kettle black.

We somehow missed the descent of the United States into a roiling hellscape while distracted by these “inconvenient facts:”

  1. Airports are mobbed with travelers taking trips for pleasure and business. For past three months, travel agency sold-passenger trips are up 6.53% year-over-year; domestic trips are up 9.58% YOY and international trips up 1.71% YOY;
  2. The U.S. enjoys a “roaring economy with an unemployment rate that has just last month ticked up to 4% after 27 months below that number, with wages growing faster than the inflation that plagued the U.S.—and the world—after the pandemic eased. The highest wage growth has gone to the lowest earners, helping to cut the nation’s extreme wealth inequality;”
  3. “… the Bureau of Labor Statistics … released another blockbuster jobs report. The country added 272,000 jobs in May, far higher than the 180,000 jobs economists predicted. A widespread range of sectors added new jobs, including health care, government, leisure and hospitality, and professional, scientific, and technical services. Wages are also up. Over the past year, average hourly earnings have grown 4.1%, higher than the rate of inflation, which was 3.4% over the same period.” “ the FBI … released a report showing that violent crime in fact dropped by more than 15% in the U.S. during the first three months of 2024;”
  4. “In November 2021, Biden signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. In June 2022 … the Safer Communities Act, a gun safety law. In August 2022 he signed into law the CHIPS and Science Act that invested billions in semiconductor manufacturing and science, and the Inflation Reduction Act that provided record funding for addressing climate change and permitted Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices.”
  5. “Total U.S. vehicle sales of 6,548,694 units for the first five months of 2024 represent a5% increase from the same period in 2023.”
  6. “The restaurant and foodservice industry will continue to grow in 2024. Sales are forecast to top $1 trillion for the first time in history, and the nation’s second-largest private sector employer is on track to add 200,000 jobs, pushing total employment to 15.7 million people …. 45% of operators need more employees to meet customer demand.”

I could go on with many other citations to facts about the bustling U.S. economy but the point is made. Project 2025, like most of Trump’s and Republicans’ indictments of the United States is based on a fantasy, a gross distortion of reality by a political party with nothing constructive to say.

Unfortunately for the country, including the people being fooled by the Trump/Republican scam, the results of the Project 2025 agenda will be catastrophic. Details in the follow-up posts in this series.

Sources: https://www2.arccorp.com/articles-trends/sales-statistics?utm_source=homepage-card

   Heather Cox Richardson Letters from an American: June 7, 10 & 11, 2024

   https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/automotive-sales-in-usa-by- month

https://restaurant.org/research-and-media/research/research-reports/state-of-the-industry/#:~:text=Sales%20are%20up%3A%20The%20foodservice,employees%20to%20meet%20customer%20demand

President Biden Should Address the Nation

2 Replies

I write to urge Joe Biden, President of the United States, to appear on national television and address the nation regarding the collapse of the House of Representatives as a functioning legislative body.

The House of Representatives is essential to the development and passage of legislation that is essential to national security, financing the government, and a multitude of political, economic, and social services on which the country, and many parts of the world, depend. It is now clear that the House as a functional half of the Legislative third of the Constitution’s three central elements is no longer functional as a small minority of elected officials, most of whom supported the overthrow of the government on January 6, 2021, now answer to an unelected person who has made clear his determination to return to the presidency and dismantle the federal government.

Most “educated” Americans are aware that the U.S. Constitution sets up a tripartite arrangement of government authority such that each of the three parts operates as a check against the others. The constitutional Framers did not, however, understand the role that political parties would come to play within that system.

As best we can tell from the historical records, the Framers believed the checks and balances established in the Constitution among the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches would over the long haul produce outcomes that reflected the ‘will of the people.’ The basic idea was that the will of the majority would control outcomes, but protections for the minority position were built in as well, especially through the series of amendments in the Bill of Rights and others later.

Part of the success was dependent upon the Fourth Estate – the free press that was watching everything and sharing factual information (including information the politicians wanted to keep secret) to help the voters to exercise their ultimate control over who was placed in positions of power in the tripartite system.

It was in many ways a brilliant arrangement that has stood the test of time most of the time, including even the development of political parties. It has withstood demagoguery, treachery, treason, and, yes, even ignorance. It has so far withstood the emergence of the Fifth Estate, defined roughly as “groupings of outlier viewpoints in contemporary society … most associated with bloggers, journalists publishing in non-mainstream media outlets, and the social media.”https://tinyurl.com/4e7bsxjv

To be sure there are cracks in the edifice, but cracks have appeared, and been filled, many times since the ratification in 1787. The Civil War comes to mind, among others. The system has flaws, of course; it is a complex and novel system created by humans who had limited knowledge of science and who were focused on creating a national legal regime that would never again depend upon an autocrat, a king or king-like person, as ruler. The resulting government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” has performed miracles and also perpetrated outrages such as the near-extermination of the Indigenous Tribes that occupied the contingent for centuries before Europeans discovered it. The new system also failed to deal effectively with slavery and paid a dear price for that mistake. Again, the Civil War leaps to mind. We are still plagued with the consequences of the powerful tribalism that determines so much of our national and local policy today. Whether and how we can resolve those issues is beyond my understanding.

Now, however, a new and existentially dangerous phenomenon has emerged. The evidence is everywhere, all day every day, as the news media perpetuate through breathless coverage every inane and insane utterance from the mouth of Donald Trump and the politicians who sustain him. The evidence also may be found in the stunning reality of Trump’s indictments in four cases:

As of March 2024, Donald Trump has been personally charged with 88 criminal offenses in four criminal cases. This total reflects charges related to Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, election interference in Georgia, falsifying business records in New York, and mishandling classified records after leaving the presidency. Donald Trump is the first former president in U.S. history to be criminally indicted.https://tinyurl.com/5ekhak9c

Trump is now acting as dictator to the House of Representatives whose far-right wing members actively support his every wish. The current Speaker has decided that obeying Trump is his most important responsibility. Thus, matters of national security such as aid to Ukraine will not be voted on because Trump wants to help Vladimir Putin subjugate Ukraine in preparation for Russia’s moving against NATO countries whom Trump will also undermine.

It is the privilege, of course, for every member of Congress to vote as he/she chooses, if the constituents are willing to accept those decisions. But voting against something is far different than refusing to hold a vote at all. Speaker Johnson, doing the expressed will of Donald Trump, has refused to bring Ukraine aid legislation to a vote despite the opinion of all responsible U.S. national security and military authorities that such aid is now critical to Ukraine’s ability to withstand the Russian onslaught.

I am reminded of the decisions made by the United States during the early phases of World War II when Jewish refugees were turned away from our shores, sent back to be slaughtered by the Germans.

Donald Trump has never been elected to the House of Representatives but is now essentially in charge of its agenda. Action of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation requires the participation of the House as well as the Senate. Speaker Johnson has subordinated himself and the rest of the House to the will of Donald Trump, which is, I suggest, a blatant violation of Johnson’s oath of office:

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

And there is this:

5 U.S. Code § 7311 – Loyalty and striking.

An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States … if he—

(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States ….

There can be no serious argument that Russia is not an enemy of the United States. The actions, or inactions, of the Speaker and those who support him are, in my judgment, clear acts of treason against the United States.

In researching this post, I also found this:

The Speaker’s role as presiding officer is an impartial one, and his rulings serve to protect the rights of the minority.

[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House; Chapter 34. Office of the Speaker, U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

That Guide [citations omitted] also contains these commands:

Many matters have been held to be beyond the scope of the Speaker’s responsibility under the rules. The Speaker does not:

Construe the legislative or legal effect of a pending measure   or comment on the merits thereof.

 Respond to hypothetical questions, render anticipatory rulings, or decide a question not directly presented by the  proceedings.

 Pass on the constitutional powers of the House, the constitutionality of House rules, or the constitutionality of  amendments offered to pending bills.

 Resolve questions on the consistency of an amendment with the measure to which it is offered, or with an amendment that already has been adopted, or on the consistency of proposed action with other acts of the House.

 Rule on the sufficiency or effect of committee reports or whether the committee has followed instructions.

 Rule on the propriety or expediency of a proposed course of action.  Construe the consequences of a pending vote.

You can form your own judgment whether the refusal to permit votes, and thereby deprive the House of its constitutional role in the government, is consistent with all those directives. No doubt Republicans will bellow that Democratic speakers have also violated these rules. If so, they were wrong too, but right now the problem is Speaker Johnson and his lord and master, Donald Trump.

It is time for President Biden to address this treachery to the nation. The government of the United States cannot function if the House simply refuses to take up critical legislation at the will of an unelected former president and a small minority of extremist legislators. It is time, past time, to call the question on these traitors.

Supreme Court Sells Out to Trump in Insurrection Case

Leave a reply

Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court denied Trump’s request to stay the judgment of the DC Circuit that his claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution be stayed, while still taking review of the case through a procedural maneuver suggested as a fall-back by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

The Court’s schedule for briefing and argument of the case is ludicrous in light of what has gone before. The case has been briefed and argued to death in the lower courts, and thoroughly developed decisions rendered. There is no justification for a briefing and argument schedule taking the case to the week of April 22, 2024, almost two months further into the presidential election schedule.

Trump has until March 19, to file his brief, which will almost certainly be a mere reprise of arguments and citations already presented to and rejected by the DC District Court and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The Special Counsel is given three weeks (to respond, a period vastly longer that he is likely to require, given what has gone before, but a faster reply will not change the argument date. Oral argument will occur, if the schedule holds, a week after Trump’s reply brief.

Trump likely will find some excuse to whine about the schedule and seek to extend it.

The Court may then take weeks more, perhaps longer, to decide the case. The order is not signed and there is no indication that any justice dissented.

Unbelievable.

If Trump Is Elected in 2024

Leave a reply

I expect to have much to say about this as time goes on, especially if, as seems more likely each day, Trump remains on all the state ballots and is not tried and convicted of any of his multitude of felonies before the election. For now, I will just list some of what is being reported as the Trump plan for his second term as President. http://tinyurl.com/4bxpv8mf

Based on reporting by people in a position to know, Trump will:

  1. Create an “enemies list” of people he plans to punish for their opposition to him.
  2. Invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.

This effort is being led by Jeffrey Clark, the lawyer who was working with Trump to use the Department of Justice to overturn the 2020 election by, among other things, pressing state officials to submit phony certificates to the electoral college. He is one of six unnamed co-conspirators in the federal election interference case and has been charged in Georgia with violating the state anti-racketeering law and attempting to create a false statement regarding the 2020 election. How Clark retains his license to practice law remains a mystery.

  1. Direct the Justice Department to investigate and punish former officials and allies who were critical of his time in office, including his former chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and former attorney general William P. Barr, ex-attorney Ty Cobb and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley.
  2. Order the prosecution of officials at the FBI and Justice Department who resist him.
  3. Appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” President Biden and his family.
  4. “Trump has told advisers that he is looking for lawyers who are loyal to him to serve in a second term — complaining about his White House Counsel’s Office unwillingness to go along with some of his ideas in his first term or help him in his bid to overturn his 2020 election defeat.”
  5. “Trump’s core group of West Wing advisers for a second term is widely expected to include Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s hard-line immigration policies including family separation.”
  6. Alumni have also saved lists of … career officers they viewed as uncooperative and would seek to fire based on an executive order to weaken civil service protections.

“… a former Office of Personnel Management chief of staff said, “We don’t want careerists, we don’t want people here who are opportunists,” he said. “We want conservative warriors.”

  1. “Trump declared on Truth Social (on Veterans Day weekend, no less) that “the radical left thugs … live like vermin within the confines of our country.” He repeated the invective during an appearance in New Hampshire.” http://tinyurl.com/2brrsar8

As Forbes pointed out, “The former president’s incendiary rhetoric invokes a term frequently used by Nazis to dehumanize Jews, including a 1939 quote attributed to Hitler: ‘This vermin must be destroyed. The Jews are our sworn enemies.’”

  1. The New York Times reportedthat Trump “is planning an extreme expansion of his first-term crackdown on immigration if he returns to power in 2025 — including preparing to round up undocumented people already in the United States on a vast scale and detain them in sprawling camps while they wait to be expelled.” Likewise, The Post reported on “specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.”
  2. The Post just days later  reported on Trump’s Univision appearance in which he uttered a bone-chilling threat: “If I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say, ‘Go down and indict them.’ They’d be out of business,” Trump said. “They’d be out of the election.”
  3. Axios reported that Trump allies “are pre-screening the ideologies of thousands of potentialfoot soldiers, as part of an unprecedented operation to centralize and expand his power at every level of the U.S. government if he wins in 2024.” The report added: “Hundreds of people are spending tens of millions of dollars to install a pre-vetted, pro-Trump army of up to 54,000 loyalists across government to rip off the restraints imposed on the previous 46 presidents.”
  4. Trump will terminate aid to Ukraine and try to force that country to yield to Russia’s imperialist demands to take over the country. Trump will likely also eviscerate NATO, leaving its constituent countries vulnerable to Russian attack.

Just this weekend, Trump said “if the threatened country was in arrears on its NATO dues, he and the United States would not provide protection. For emphasis, Trump said that — on the contrary — he would “encourage” the aggressor to do “whatever the hell they want.”http://tinyurl.com/yc6ysv3d

In practice, the MAGA gang’s plans will look to end the independence of the civil service, long a bedrock of the stability and coherence of federal policy across both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Equally problematic is the current challenge to the power/authority of independent federal agencies to interpret federal statutory ambiguities under the doctrine known as Chevron Deference. MAGA Republicans want to end Chevron Deference so that if Congress has been ambiguous in legislation or failed to explain every aspect of what the legislation requires, those ambiguities and failures cannot be cured by the responsible agencies, regardless of the consequences. Given the paralysis of the Congress arising from the MAGA Republicans demand that their views control every legislative outcome, the end of Chevron Deference would be catastrophic for the functioning of the federal government.

The bottom line: the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2024 will lead directly and immediately to the end of democracy as the United States has known it since the Founding. The United States will become a dependency of Russia, a tool of Vladimir Putin whom Trump admires above all other world leaders.

The MAGA Republicans who have convinced themselves Trump cares about them will quickly, but too late, discover, that it was all a ruse.

 

Stefanik Admits She Would Sabotage the Constitution

Leave a reply

While the media have lost their minds over the gratuitous political hit job by the Special Counsel investigating President Biden’s possession of confidential government documents, the story about Elise Stefanik’s repudiation of her oath of office has all but disappeared from CNN.com where reports indicate her remark was made.

The story is that Stefanik said she would not have done what VP Pence did on January 6 – she admitted she would not have certified the election of Joe Biden. She declared this despite the fact that virtually all legal scholars worthy of the name agree that refusing to certify would have violated the Constitution.

Stefanik has thus admitted she is unfit for office. She is a fascist who places submission to the Great Leader Trump ahead of her fealty to the Constitution. Such a person cannot be trusted to honor her oath of office or to act in the public interest.

Stefanik’s rejection of the Constitution to seek the favor of Donald Trump is consistent with some other behavior related to the January 6 insurrection incited by Trump. In the moment, Stefanik posted on Twitter:

Then, Stefanik, revealing her true colors, said that the DOJ probes into those involved were “baseless witch hunt investigations.” Stefanik has also called those convicted and jailed for their actions “hostages.” http://tinyurl.com/mry7fkkc

In a typical Stefanik response, she had an advisor attack Liz Cheney for pointing out the flip-flop, accusing Cheney of “having a mental breakdown looking at archives of years old press releases.” The response was a pathetic deflection but not a response to the substance of the fact that Stefanik has changed her position 100 percent to align with Trump’s preposterous claim that the entire January 6 episode was just a peaceful demonstration by concerned citizens.

When challenged repeatedly to address her turnaround, Stefanik deflected to rant about other issues and other aspects of her speech, raving about Hunter Biden and repeating Republican talking points divorced from reality. http://tinyurl.com/49dw7dky

Stefanik has made clear she cares nothing about the truth and has no sense of responsibility to follow oaths she takes as a public official. Stefanik is an enemy of the United States, a traitor to its values as reflected in the Constitution to rejecting her obligations to the Constitution are not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6.

The oath of office taken by Congressional representatives is clear:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Stefanik has now rejected that oath and on that basis alone should be removed from Congress and barred from any future ballots for federal office.

Merrick Garland Should Resign

2 Replies

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Robert K. Hur to investigate and determine whether to prosecute President Biden for retaining in an unsecured manner confidential government documents during periods when he was not Vice President or President of the United States.

Mr. Hur is a very smart man with great intellectual and experiential credentials. The report issued is remarkable in its level of detail and thoroughness with which the investigation was conducted. I believe it reached the clearly correct conclusion in declining prosecution of Mr. Biden and his “ghostwriter” to whom some confidential information was provided during the writing of Mr. Biden’s books.

The problem traces to the fact that Mr. Hur was a Trump appointee during his prior service as the United States Attorney for Maryland, a position in which he served from 2018 to 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Hur Why Garland chose him to lead the investigation of President Biden will probably remain a mystery.

What is clear is that Mr. Hur, in deciding that the evidence did not warrant prosecution, went out of his way to psychoanalyze Biden’s thought/emotional processes and, in the end, in an action reminiscent of James Comey’s decision to violate DOJ policy and knife Hillary Clinton in the back on the eve of the 2016 election, to comment on how Biden would come across in front of a jury. The basic idea was to present Biden as a kindly old man with a failing memory who would be seen as sympathetic by some or all the jurors who would, out of sympathy, acquit him of any criminal charges.

These comments were not necessary to the ultimate conclusions of the report. The evidence alone, combined with the historical practices of prior presidents and vice presidents, including the conservative icon, Ronald Reagan in particular, and the history of non-prosecution by DOJ, were sufficient to support the non-prosecution conclusion. But Mr. Hur took the opportunity to plunge a knife in Biden’s back anyway, suggesting that he had, deliberately or otherwise, presented himself as an “historic figure” and a “man of presidential timber” but also a man whose memory was “significantly limited” with “limited precision and recall” of the details of events many years in the past.

At trial, the report found, “Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Thus, the report concluded, it would be “difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Given the thoroughness of the document investigation, reported in hundreds of pages of intricate details, including photos of document containers and of Biden in meetings with various folders and documents present at his place (shocking!), the absence of evidence that any of the secret materials were ever disclosed to anyone from a foreign power or otherwise seen by anyone except the ghostwriter assisting Biden in preparing his book manuscripts, the evidence and the evidence alone was a sufficient basis for the declination to prosecute. Indeed, the report makes this point repeatedly. The observations about Biden’s view of himself in history and the suggestion that he would appear to a criminal jury as a kindly doddering old man were gratuitous and completely unnecessary to the critical findings of the investigation.

Mr. Hur cannot possibly be unaware of the hypocritical claims being relentlessly made by Republican supporters of Donald Trump, and by Trump himself, that President Biden is “over the hill” and not mentally competent to serve another term as President. Yet Hur volunteered both his psychoanalysis of what was motivating Biden through his long years of public service and his commentary about how Biden would likely appear to a jury if prosecuted, which, of course, the report found unjustified.

I acknowledge that Hur drew a sharp distinction between President Biden’s response to the document investigation – full and immediate cooperation – with that of Donald Trump – resistance, lies, obstruction”

Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.

That brief admission that Biden handled the investigation appropriately in contrast to Donald Trump does not overcome the gratuitous and disingenuous undermining of Biden, given Hur’s presumptive awareness of the currency of the issue in the political arena.

In the circumstances, Mr. Hur’s treatment of Biden’s alleged mental state is grotesquely political. The inclusion of those observations in the report will play out however it does. But Merrick Garland appointed him and enabled this repeat of the Comey experience to undermine another Democratic candidate for president.

Garland bears the ultimate responsibility for this situation and should resign now. He permitted Hur to “weaponize” the investigation into a political attack on President Biden that is enabling paroxysmal enthusiasm among the fascists supporting Trump, characterized as a “political nightmare” and “political disaster” by USAToday. http://tinyurl.com/57hzncsh

Garland diddled around with the Trump insurrection case, resulting in delays that may lead to the 2024 election being held before Trump is tried for public conduct in January 2021, an unconscionable failure. Now this.

It’s time for a new Attorney General.

 

 

 

One Step Closer to Justice

Leave a reply

Today, finally, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, released its opinion unanimously rejecting all of Donald Trump’s claims that he is immune from criminal prosecution for the four crimes charged in the indictment for his attempt to overthrow the government by overturning the 2020 election he lost. The opinion may be read at https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf

The decision is comprehensive and definitive in every respect. The operative sections are relatively short and succinct, so I will not belabor them with futher analysis. Read it for yourself.

Why it took this long to issue will remain a mystery but the stage is now set for final review by the Supreme Court. That review may be moot since the Court will hear oral argument on February 8 at 10 AM on the Colorado ballot case and could decide, for practical purposes, all the controlling issues in that case. You may listen to the oral argument in the Supreme Court here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/listen-live-supreme-court-hears-case-to-decide-if-trump-is-eligible-to-run-for-president

… A Man Unacquainted With Honor, Courage, And Character ….

2 Replies

Writers are often advised to begin their work with a powerful sentence that will be remembered. Some of those come readily to mind. Charles Dickens gave us an entire paragraph:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way….

Herman Melville was more succinct. The first line of the novel’s story is:

Call me Ismael.

Whether the first paragraph of the Prologue in Liz Cheney’s Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning is of equal standing, I leave to the judgment of others:

This is the story of the moment when American democracy began to unravel. It is the story of the men and women who fought to save it, and of the enablers and collaborators whose actions ensured the threat would grow and metastasize. It is the story of the most dangerous man ever to inhabit the Oval Office, and of the many steps he took to subvert our Constitution.

The title to this post is found near the end of Cheney’s book. The full paragraph:

One leader ceding power to the next, gracious in defeat, pledging unity for the good of the nation – that is what is required by fidelity to the Constitution and love of country. We depend upon the goodwill of our leaders and their dedication to duty to ensure the survival of our republic. Only a man unacquainted with honor, courage, and character would see weakness in this.

That man is Donald Trump.

To be clear, I abhor most of Liz Cheney’s views on politics and public policy. But her book is, I believe, required reading for everyone interested in understanding more deeply the events leading up to, through, and after the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The writing is fluid, clear and pulls no punches. It is an easy read in the sense of flow. And deeply disturbing. Much of it will not be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the nation’s politics since 2015 or so, but there is much new information and important detail. It is, I believe, entirely true. If you can stand the truth, you must read it.

I am not going to digest all the details here. Instead, I have chosen to highlight some of the lies told by some of the key players in the story Cheney tells with clarity and effect. The lies are organized by the people who told them. The list also includes some, though far from all, of the traitorous conduct of Trump and his enablers in Congress and elsewhere. It is important in the most fundamental sense that we record and understand the full extent of the mendacity, dishonesty, treachery and outright treason of Trump and his promoters.

Donald Trump –

(1) on November 9 Trump fired Mark Esper, his Secretary of Defense and appointed Chris Miller, described by Cheney as “quite possibly the least-qualified nominee to become secretary of defense since the position was created in 1947;”

(2) The next day Trump appointed Kash Patel, with zero military experience, as Miller’s chief of staff, and Douglas MacGregor, a pro-Putin propagandist, as Miller’s senior advisor;

(3) Nov. 17, 2020, Trump fired Chris Krebs director of Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency for having the temerity to assert that the election was secure; a Trump lawyer publicly said Krebs should be killed; no action was taken against him;

(4) Trump tried to co-op the Justice Department by replacing Jeff Rosen with compliant Jeffrey Clark as Acting Attorney General & only backed down when faced with threats of mass resignations;

(5) Trump supporters directed death threats at Liz Cheney and others who pursued the truth about Trump’s involvement in the January 6 attacks;

(6) Evidence that Trump’s plan to reject the election outcome was advance-planned and fully premeditated was overwhelming;

(7) flatly declared that the election fraud he claimed to exist, but knew did not, was sufficient grounds to suspend the law and the Constitution;

(8) Trump organizations paid for legal representation for Cassidy Hutchinson, among others. Her lawyer disobeyed her instructions and suggested she could simply “not remember” certain key pieces of information when testifying.

Kevin McCarthy – a California Republican, was elected to the House in 2007 and became the 55th Speaker in January 2023, a short-lived experience as he was ousted by his party in October 2023.

(1) McCarthy, like Trump himself, was fully aware that typical voting patterns would make it appear Trump was in the lead at the end of Election Day and that later counting of legitimate absentee and mail-in ballots could change the early result. Nevertheless, on November 5 McCarthy appeared on Fox News to declare that Trump won the election. When questioned about this the next day, McCarthy lied and denied he had said the election was stolen;

(2) McCarthy lied about whether he would sign a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Trump’s false election theft claims and stating the signers had specific proof of that theft;

(3) When Congress overrode Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, in 2020, McCarthy announced he would never vote to override a veto by a president of his own party;

(4) When pressed by House Republicans to explain his position on whether it was proper to object to the counting of Electoral College votes on January 6, McCarthy refused to answer;

(5) Even after Trump’s call to Georgia’s Secretary of State Raffensperger to demand that he “find” sufficient votes to change the election outcome, McCarthy announced he would be objecting to the election results;

(6) McCarthy falsely assured members of Congress that security measures were in place to provide for their safety on January 6;

(7) McCarthy joined Eric Trump in threatening first-term members of Congress they would be primaried if they did not actively object to the certification of Biden’s victory;

(8) McCarthy lied to Cheney about his position when the certification process resumed; he said he would oppose further objections, but that was not true;

(9) McCarthy joined Whip Scalise and 137 House Republicans in voting to object to electoral votes in Pennsylvania and Arizona; seven Republican senators did the same: Cruz, Hawley, Hyde-Smith, Kennedy, Lummis, Marshall, Scott, and Tuberville;

(10) On January 11, McCarthy proposed options to impeaching Trump for his actions on January 6;

(11) McCarthy’s continued support for Trump, combined with Trump’s own rhetoric, instilled fear of physical attack against the person and families of any Republican voting to impeach Trump;

(12) McCarthy initially purported to support the legislation establishing the January 6 National Commission, but his support was withdrawn;

(13) On January 25, as the articles of the second Trump impeachment were being sent to the Senate, McCarthy said on Fox News that the impeachment was “a farce,” and reversed prior statements about the January 6 events;

(14) McCarthy traded support for Trump to get access to fundraising sources Trump controlled;

(15) McCarthy lied in claiming that the social media platform Parler, used by the Proud Boys to coordinate their January 6 attack, had been shut down merely because it was conservative;

(16) McCarthy negotiated with Democrats to establish an evenly divided commission to investigate January 6; got everything he asked for, then withdrew his support for the legislation;

(17) Having declined the opportunity to appoint Republicans to the January 6 Select Committee, McCarthy then disingenuously claimed the Committee was deficient because purely partisan.

Mark Meadows –

(1) to cover for Trump, and himself, refused to testify about messages related to Trump’s actions on January 6 that were not covered by any privilege;

(2) worked with Congressman Scott Perry to try to replace leadership at DOJ with people that would do Trump’s bidding without question;

(3) Lied when claiming that Trump had ordered National Guard troops to be on alert for January 6 trouble;

(4) Lied about Trump’s intention to go to the Capitol with the mob on January 6.

Rep. Jim Jordan –

(1) during the Republican leadership call on November 6, Jordan was not interested in discussing procedures and laws about challenging votes. He said: “The only thing that matters is winning;”

(2) During the attack on the Capitol, Jordan was in communication with Trump & plotting how to prevent counting of the electoral votes;

(3) refused to comply with a subpoena for testimony from the January 6 Select Committee, placing his loyalty to Trump ahead of his oath of office;

(4) praised the Department of Justice for investigating the January 6 attack, arguing that the House Select Committee was thus unnecessary, then claimed DOJ was being “weaponized” against Trump;

(5) almost certainly lied to the Congress about his conversations with Trump during which Trump said to instructed the then-Acting Deputy Attorney General to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert – sued VP Pence seeking a ruling Pence could refuse to count some electoral votes on January 6. When the suit was dismissed, Gohmert said that the only option left was violence in the streets.

Rep. Mike Johnston –destined to replace McCarthy as Speaker,

(1) circulated a “friend of the court” brief to support Trump’s false election claims while lying to Republican representatives about the contents of the brief that “made numerous false factual and constitutional claims;”

(2) when the Supreme Court rejected Texas’ lawsuit challenging the 2020 results in four states won by Biden, Johnston declared that the “rule of law” was dead;

(3) on January 5, declared that, despite being fully aware of multiple court decisions to the contrary, four states had violated the Constitution & Republicans would be voting to reject their designated electors;

(4) joined other Republican members in claiming power found nowhere in the Constitution to overturn the election but only in the five key states Biden won;

Katrina Pearson – senior advisor to the Trump campaign, at a December 2020 rally in Washington urged the crowd to “fight like patriots,” arguing that the entire government had been “weaponized against us.” Multiple speakers, including Trump-pardoned former general Michael Flynn, suggested there was some action the people could take that would change the election result.

Former General Michael Flynn –

(1) on December 17, 2021, in an interview on Newsmax, said Trump had authority to seize voting machines and could use the military to force a redo of the election in the swing states he lost;

(2) pleaded the 5th Amendment rather than answer questions from the January 6 Committee about his communications with Trump;

(3) Pleaded the 5th Amendment when asked whether he believed in the peaceful transition of power in the United States.

Senator Ted Cruz on January 2, 2021, led a group of Republican Senators announcing they would object to electors from “disputed states,” citing zero evidence to support “unprecedented allegations” of fraud and other unspecified irregularities. Cruz had coordinated the plan with Mark Meadows in the Trump White House.

Jenna Ellis — one of Trump’s lawyers

(1) announced on a January 4 call that seven states had “dueling slates of electors,” a legally impossible state of affairs since the authentic elector slates had already been certified by their respective governors;

(2) claimed, without evidence, that those seven states had violated their own election laws.

Freedom Caucus Members – even after being told in detail of the injuries suffered by Capitol Police on January 6, the Freedom Caucus Republicans persisted in pressing objections to certification of the election;

Rep. Andrew Clyde — lied to first-term Republican congressmen on January 8, claiming Republican leadership had decided Trump had not incited the January 6 violence.

Senator Mitch McConnell – helped sabotage the legislation to create an independent commission to investigate January 6.

Leader of Wyoming Republican Party – was a member of the Oath Keepers who participated in the January 6 attack.

21 Republican House Members – voted against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to police who defended the Capitol on January 6.

Rep. Jim Banks (Republican – Indiana) – falsely claimed to be the Ranking Member of the Selected January 6 Committee to which he had never been appointed.

Steve Bannon — knew about Trump’s plan, even before the election, to lie that the election was stolen; Trump’s plan was premeditated.

Ronna McDaniel – Republican National Committee Chair

(1) agreed to pay many of Trump’s legal bills to fight the charges related to January 6;

(2) actively helped Trump assemble and activate fake slates of electors in states Biden won.

John Eastman – attorney for Trump

(1) crafted and promoted a plan for overturning the 2020 election even while admitting that the Supreme Court would reject the legal principle on which the plan was based;

(2) Pleaded the 5th Amendment 100 times when interviewed by the January 6 Committee;

(3) Sued the January 6 Committee to prevent its examination of Eastman’s emails related to the January 6 scheme to overturn the election; the court found his legal theories specious and the plan unlawful; Eastman did not appeal.

Jeffrey Clark – slated to be installed as head of DOJ to do Trump’s bidding in overturning the election, pleaded the 5th Amendment in testimony before the January 6 Committee.

Ronnie Jackson – Trump’s physician in the White House, later elected to Congress from Texas, refused to testify to explain why the Oath Keepers were talking about him by name during the January 6 attack.

Jared Kushner –

(1) admitted he participated in pushing lies about the outcome of the 2020 election;

(2) dismissed White House lawyers’ threats to resign as merely “whining,” not to be taken seriously,

Kayleigh McEnany – Trump’s White House Press Secretary, twisted herself in knots and likely lied when asserting memory failures about information other White House staff admitted to and that she almost certainly knew at the time.

Ginni Thomas – wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and aggressive promoter of lies about the election, rejected the findings of the 60 courts that considered Trump’s claims of election fraud; she simply refused to believe the truth.

Senator Tom Cotton – actively supported Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

Rep. Scott Perry – actively worked to support Trump’s effort to replace DOJ leadership with Jeffrey Clark who would do Trump’s bidding regarding the false claim of election fraud.

There is much more to the full narrative. Cheney’s book should be read by everyone who believes in the U.S. Constitution and that Trump must be held accountable for his many crimes.