Tag Archives: Trump

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.

 

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.

When Someone Tells You Who They Are …

Leave a reply

Believe them. That’s not an original thought with me, but it is true.

We’re off to a predictably rough start to 2024, the year in which the fate of American democracy will be decided. Donald Trump, true to form, is already laying the foundation for challenging the 2024 election if he loses. Meanwhile, two of his challengers are pandering to his political base in the almost-certainly vain hope that they can wean away enough of his supporters to overcome his nomination lead. Or, maybe, they’re just trying to establish their bona fides as his possible running mate. History shows that the best way to curry favor with Trump is to praise him or offer him something he values. In this case it’s pardons for his many crimes.

Whatever the motivation (could be all the above), these Republican political “leaders” are sending the country a message: we don’t care what crimes Trump committed; he must not be held accountable. Therefore, elect us and we’ll be sure he’s not punished for his crimes.

Thus, we have Ron DeSantis, almost out of the race based on polling, saying he will pardon Trump if he (DeSantis) is elected President. http://tinyurl.com/6ear4hyt And the putative second place aspirant, Nikki Haley, reputedly gaining some traction against Trump but still very far behind. http://tinyurl.com/4d5z3e45

Bottom line: the two leading aspirants to replace Trump at the head of the “law and order” party have announced that they will protect Trump from responsibility for any federal crimes he has committed, which include conspiracy to overthrow the 2020 election and purloining and refusing to return highly confidential intelligence documents involving, among other things, military planning information.

Enough said.

Many People Are Saying …

Leave a reply

.. that it would be a mistake to keep Trump off the ballot, that the people should decide so he and his cult supporters will not cry ‘foul’ when he loses the election by vote counting.

Does any rational person truly believe that if Trump remains on the ballot and loses the election by vote count (with, of course, the Electoral College factored in), he will abide the result he refused to accept in 2020? Is there any plausible basis to think that his cult supporters, many of whom claim he is their God’s messenger, will just say, “oh well, we fought the good fight and lost so let’s just move on?”

Bear in mind that Trump is arguing now that because he was still President on January 6, 2021, he cannot be held criminally accountable for anything he did as President. That’s right, his brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to which the U.S. Supreme Court referred the immunity case, asserts Trump is absolutely immune from anything he did while President. He is arguing that everything that happened regarding the 2020 election dispute was within the broad range of presidential responsibilities and actions that are absolutely immune from any form of prosecution. If he loses in the Circuit Court, he will make that same argument to the Supreme Court, playing for time, his normal strategy when called to account for his many crimes and civil offenses.

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari to the Special Prosecutor gives Trump more chances to achieve his goal of delay. His strategy is that if he can avoid a definitive finding of criminal guilt until he wins the 2024 election, he will then pardon himself. That act will, of course, be challenged and he’ll almost certainly lose the argument, well into his presidency. At that point he will simply say: “You’ve made your decision, now try to enforce it.”

I understand the argument that his supporters will not tolerate his exclusion from the ballot in 2024 because they are morally certain he committed no crimes and even if he did, so what? The people should decide who they want for President, not the courts.

That’s a nice idea if everyone were going to play by the same rules. But the reality is that Republicans are doing everything they can to suppress Democratic votes. Trump has already convoluted his lead in the Republican nomination process to claiming certain victory in 2024. What then can be expected if he loses? Another January 6 only much worse?

I have read the Trump brief before the D.C. Circuit in which he argues that everything he did, including particularly his actions leading to and on January 6, was an “official act” of the President and thus absolutely immune from question in the courts. Only Congress, his arguments goes, can punish criminal conduct by a President and only by impeachment. If found “not guilty” in impeachment, a certainty in any Senate with even a large minority of compliant Republicans, his argument is that it would represent Double Jeopardy to try that President for crimes in the courts.

I believe Trump is wrong yet again for several simple but fundamental reasons:

  • Trump’s “concerns” about the validity of the election had no factual basis, as proven by losing 60+ lawsuits;
  • Attempts to overturn the results by pressuring local election officials and submitting slates of bogus electors are not plausibly “official acts” within the responsibility of a president;
  • Impeachment is not a criminal procedure even if crimes are at the heart of the allegations; it is a political procedure, as conclusively evidenced by the process followed in Trump’s specific case (refusal to call witnesses, being just one example) and by the Constitutionally-limited penalty that could be applied if a guilty outcome were determined; therefore, Double Jeopardy does not attach to an impeachment,

Let’s examine that.

First, Trump argues, “The indictment alleges five types of conduct, all of which constitute quintessential Presidential acts.” The Trump brief lists those acts as:

(1) “tweets and other public statements about the outcome of the 2020 federal election, contending that the election was tainted by fraud and irregularities;”

(2) “Trump communicated with the Acting Attorney General and officials at the U.S. Department of Justice about investigating election crimes and possibly appointing a new Acting Attorney General;”

(3) “Trump communicated with state officials about the administration of the federal election and urged them to exercise their official responsibilities in accordance with extensive information that the election was tainted by fraud and irregularities;”

(4) “Trump communicated with the Vice President, in his legislative capacity as President of the Senate, and attempted to communicate with other members of Congress in order to urge them to exercise their official duties with respect to the certification of the federal election according to President Trump’s view of the national interest;” and

(5) “other individuals organized slates of alternate electors from seven States to provide a justification for the Vice President to exercise his official duties in the manner urged by President Trump.”

Those are fantasy versions of what actually transpired.

In reality, the indictment of Trump charges a different state of facts:

  • Conspiracy to Defraud the United States— “using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government;”

Trump “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and [Trump] knew that they were false.”

“The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.”

“The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.”

“The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws.”

  • Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding— “to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote;”
  • Obstruction of, and Attempt to Obstruct, an Official Proceeding— “that is, the certification of the electoral vote;”
  • Conspiracy Against Rights— “to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States—that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.”

I will spare you the rest of the extensive details in the indictment. It comprises 45 pages of specific allegations of conduct, not just “speech” or “communications,” engaged in by Trump and his co-conspirators to overturn the election based on false and illegal allegations for which no evidence existed, and which had been rejected in some 60 lawsuits filed on Trump’s behalf.

The contention that the indictment is just about some tweets and some random communications about election fraud that were plainly “official acts” of the President acting as President is preposterous and false.

The Trump brief claims that “the text of the Constitution, through the Impeachment Judgment Clause, presupposes criminal immunity. That Clause dictates that a President may be criminally charged only if he is the “Party convicted” in an impeachment trial.” That Clause says:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Bear in mind that Trump simultaneously makes the argument that Impeachment is a criminal proceeding and thus once tried for asserted crimes and acquitted, Double Jeopardy attaches, and the President cannot be criminally prosecuted for those same crimes.

And so, ipse dixit, according to Trump, he gets a complete pass on his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. For the initiated, ipse dixit means: “He himself said it; a bare assertion resting on the authority of an individual.” http://tinyurl.com/yc3pdcrm In other words, Trump said it, so it’s true.

Fortunately for the country, that’s not how things work. It is elementary that in conspiracy, which is what Trump is charged with in three of the four indictment counts, these elements must be satisfied:

    • Two or more persons
    • intentionally make an agreement
    • to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and
    • commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement.

The indictment charges and explains in gruesome detail the unlawful conspiracies in which Trump and others engaged to overturn the election result that Trump knowingly and falsely claimed had been stolen through fraud.

To take but one example (Georgia), Trump didn’t just “communicate” with “state officials about the administration of the federal election and urged them to exercise their official responsibilities in accordance with extensive information that the election was tainted by fraud and irregularities,” as claimed in his brief. No, he pressed them repeatedly to “find” enough votes to overturn the result of the election based on false claims of stolen votes. He was aided in all his efforts by others with whom he had reached an understanding (agreement) that they would continue fighting the election outcome regardless of the evidence (the facts). He continued doing this up to and through January 6, 2021.

Trump’s claim that his statements and conduct clearly fall within the “‘outer perimeter’ of [the President’s] official responsibility” is preposterous on its face. The brief effectively concedes that point in multiple places where it argues that “When the President “acts[s] in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear tan that [his] acts are only politically examinable.” Trump Brief at 29.

Similarly, Trump’s claim that “Because the Constitution specifies that only “the Party convicted” by trial in the Senate may be “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,” … it presupposes that a President who is not convicted may not be subject to criminal prosecution,” citing as authority, naturally, the writings of Antonin Scalia offering this quote: “When a car dealer promises a low financing rate to ‘purchases with good credit,’ it is entirely clear that the rate is not available to purchasers with spotty credit.” Trump Brief at 26-27.

Trump’s argument might have some force if the impeachment process had the attributes of a criminal trial, but it doesn’t, as plainly demonstrated by the way in which his impeachment for his conduct before, on and after January 6 was handled.

Trump’s brief repeats the claim many times that his conduct covered by the indictment consisted entirely of “official acts”, but the brief nowhere explains how efforts to overturn an election based on false claims constitute “official acts” of the President. He doesn’t explain it because he can’t. The argument is ridiculous.

The same is true of the other major elements of Trump’s arguments, such as that.

The unbroken tradition of not exercising the supposed formidable power of criminally prosecuting a President for official acts—despite ample motive and opportunity to do so, over centuries—implies that the power does not exist.

That argument assumes the answer in the question: were Trump’s conspiracies “official acts?” Nowhere does the Trump brief establish or make a serious effort to establish that they were.

Calling Trump’s effort to subvert the election “core political speech and advocacy” does not make it so. Trump once said, ““I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose voters.” Trump would likely argue that shooting the particular person was “speech” in defense of his presidency. This example illustrates the danger of granting unlimited immunity to someone who recognizes no legal, moral, or other limitations on his entitlements.

Trump further claims that the law under which he was indicted “dramatically stretches the language of vague criminal statutes in novel interpretations in an attempt to criminalize core political speech and advocacy.” And, he argues, this problem is compounded by the fact that “Criminal prosecution … requires only a single enterprising prosecutor and a compliant grand jury drawn from a tiny sector of America.”

He is wrong because in both cases EVIDENCE is required. Trump didn’t hesitate to seek the rulings of the judicial system when he believed that allegations alone could overturn the results of the presidential election in key states. When he lost 60 cases, he decided it was ok to turn to extra-judicial means to achieve his goal of remaining in office. There is nothing vague about criminal conspiracy statutes under which he is charged, and he’ll have a full opportunity, like every other American, to defend himself in court.

Piling one false premise on another does not improve his argument. His brief claims there were “widespread reports of election fraud” that he was entitled to address, but those reports were by people working in concert with Trump and he knew the claims were false.

The brief’s attempt to show that his “communications” with state election officials (Georgia comes to mind) were merely “taking steps to ensure the integrity of federal elections, such as communicating with state officials who play a critical role in administering those federal elections.” The tapes of his attempts to persuade George Secretary of State Raffensperger to change the vote count there make a laughingstock of this argument.

Even more absurd is Trump’s claim that “communicating with Members of Congress, including the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate, about their exercise of their official duties lies at the core of Presidential responsibility.” That’s now what Trump did. He demanded, repeatedly and in multiple venues and contrary to advice from multiple credible advisors, that the Vice President reject electoral votes lawfully and properly certified by the states. To argue that “organizing contingent slates of electors to support the President’s advocacy to the Vice President and Congress is likewise an official act” is preposterous on its face.

Trump’s claim that Double Jeopardy attaches to his acquittal in the second impeachment also fails because, among other things, the impeachment was not for the “same offense.” The fact that the Constitution expressly limits the punishment that can be imposed for a guilty finding conclusively demonstrates that the impeachment was not a criminal proceeding under a criminal statute. A subsequent prosecution would be required to impose the criminal penalties, according to the express wording of the impeachment clause.

The Circuit Court should make short work of Trump’s ludicrous arguments and send the case back where it will ultimately be decided anyway: the United States Supreme Court where we will learn, once and for all, whether this Court is still tethered to the Constitution or whether it has become, as many of us believe, a political arm of the Republican Party. This case should settle any doubts about that and then, the fate of democracy in America will be determined.

********

Note for the New Year: the peril to our democracy grows with each passing day. If you believe the posts in this blog have any value, feel free to share links to them with your own social media networks.

What Records Does Donald Trump Hold?

Leave a reply

No doubt there are many, not least of which would be the most lies told per day/week/month/year before/during, and after his presidency. But perhaps the most important is the record for the number of felonies through formal indictments: 91. Before Trump, the average felony indictment count for U.S. presidents was zero. https://tinyurl.com/2p8tx8ak

I was surprised to learn that no U.S. president has ever been indicted for a felony prior to Trump. https://tinyurl.com/yd9rz8zy None. Others have been embroiled in scandals, of course. Republican icon Richard Nixon comes to mind. But actual felony indictments? Apparently, none, unless I’m misinformed by my usually reliable online research sources.

Even if a U.S. president was indicted in the distant past, I am confident that Trump, the apparent standard bearer for the Republican Party, the party of “law and order,” holds and will forever hold the personal record of being the most indicted criminal political leader in American history.

Will he also be the most indicted felon to hold a second term as leader of the once “free world?” Will he be the most convicted felon to hold a second term as leader of the once “free world?”

You decide. Only you can decide.

 

Humpty Dumpty Was President of U.S. 2017-2021

Leave a reply

Donald Trump, in one of his multitude of efforts through obfuscation and delay to avoid accountability for his many crimes against the nation and humanity, has stated what may be his most remarkable lie yet. In the litigation over whether he is disqualified from the Colorado ballot in 2024 due to his inciting the January 6 insurrection, Trump’s lawyers have declared that he never gave an oath to “support” the Constitution. https://tinyurl.com/3kdazbku

Here is text of the presidential swearing-in ceremony for Trump in 2017, and every other president:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, states that:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Trump’s Colorado filing states:

The framers excluded the office of President from Section Three purposefully. Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office ‘under the United States,’ and President Trump did not take an oath ‘to support the Constitution of the United States.

From many decades of law practice in sometimes fraught circumstances, I am conscious of the pressure on lawyers to produce arguments that can strain credulity. They usually do this because they have nothing else, and the client demands they fight with anything and everything. So, they throw some legal slop at the wall and hope some of it sticks. I learned early, however, that such tactics usually do more harm than good and rarely convince experienced judges and neutral juries that an extreme position, lacking any basis in reason or precedent, should be embraced.

Here we have the former president of the United States, through his attorneys, flatly disavowing his oath of office. His lawyers are arguing, in effect, that “preserve, protect and defend” are not synonyms of “support.” In short, Trump is telling the Supreme Court,

Yes, the world saw me swear on a bible that I would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution but that didn’t mean I support the Constitution. In fact, I don’t support the Constitution. I am opposed to the Constitution.

Now, imagine, if you can, that at his actual inauguration in 2017, Trump had placed his hand on the bible, Melania looking stricken behind him, and said to the world: “I decline to take the oath as prescribed. I don’t support the Constitution. I am opposed to the Constitution.” Imagine.

Trump’s lawyers are also arguing that the presidency is not an office “under the United States” and thus that the president is not an “officer of the United States,” as stated in the 14th Amendment, even though the president is the chief executive officer of the United States and is the repository of the “executive power” of the federal government as plainly stated in Clause 1 of Article II. By the way, this is the same Article II that Trump famously said conferred upon him the authority to “do whatever I want.” http://tinyurl.com/4jpuc2y9

The Trump position is right out of Alice in Wonderland:

When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.

Alice’s retort, you may recall, was:

The question is … whether you can make words mean different things.

Trump would say, yes, of course, I’m Donald Trump and I can say ‘yes’ and mean ‘no.’ I can bow down before foreign dictators while claiming that I courageously stood up to them. I can say something with complete seriousness and later claim I was joking if people don’t like what I said. I’m like the governor in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas who sings Side Step:

Ooh, I love to dance the little sidestep

Now they see me, now they don’t

I’ve come and gone

And ooh, I love to sweep around a wide step

Cut a little swath

And lead the people on!

Such foolishness may work in movies and childish fantasies but in the real world, Trump must be treated like an adult. He swore an oath before the world. That oath is prescribed by the Constitution. Trump may not be heard now to disavow his oath and its plain meaning. He is estopped, in the language of the law:

Estoppel is an equitable doctrine, a bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before, or what has been legally established as true.[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/estoppel]

It is way past time that the courts brought the hammer down on Trump’s dissembling. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has taken a major step in that direction by seeking immediate Supreme Court review of Trump’s preposterous claim that he is absolutely immune from prosecution because he was once President of the United States.

Trump’s legal strategy has always been predicated on delay, delay, and more delay. Smith, seeing the delay strategy at work again, is calling the question whether Trump can escape responsibility for his criminal conduct. Trump is asserting something akin to the divine right of kings. But there are no kings in this country. The fate of the nation hangs on the Supreme Court’s decision. The Humpty Dumpty defense must be rejected. If not, violence may result. In 1776 and again in 1787, we said, “no more kings.” It cannot be otherwise.

Closing Note:  It appears that the Judge in the DC case has stayed the proceedings until the Trump’s claim of absolute immunity for crimes committed while president is resolved by higher courts. While expedited briefing schedules have been established, it is entirely possible that the Supreme Court will deny the government’s petition for certiorari and dump the case back to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That court may be independently looking at Trump’s appeal anyway. Chaos reigns. More time will pass, and Trump will avoid the consequences of his preposterous legal position yet again. If so, we will move another giant step toward autocracy and the death of American democracy.

I will have more to say about this as soon as I can get through the multitude of decisions and pleadings being filed almost every day. The irony is that by committing so many crimes in so many jurisdictions, Trump has managed to create a scenario that will allow some courts to accede to his delay tactics. I will never understand why the judiciary has not taken central control of this situation rather than letting Trump’s cadre of lawyers making ludicrous arguments play the courts against each other. But that seems to be where we are.