Tag Archives: Trump

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.

The January 6 Video Tapes

1 Reply

Republicans are having hysterical conniption fits about the thousands of hours of January 6 security tapes recently released. They seem to have three main claims:

    1. The FBI infiltrated the mob that desecrated the Capitol [https://tinyurl.com/56ydb6hf], and
    2. The Capitol Police welcomed the mob and facilitated their entry into the Capitol, and
    3. The Capitol Police and others defending the Capitol were mean to the desecrators attacking them – they “beat them” bigly, according to, among others, Donald Trump

I have a few observations to offer those Republicans.

First, regarding the FBI, if it’s true that there were many FBI agents on the scene, wonderful. That means they expected trouble and when it came, they were on the scene doing their job. Now, to be sure, I don’t know whether the tapes actually establish that FBI agents were in the mob, or how the tapes could possibly do so, but the FBI certainly should have been there. The claim is there were at least 200, but all of this appears to be based on an unverified suspicion, without evidence, that FBI agents sent “ghost buses” full of agents dressed as Trump supporters, that the FBI “infiltrated” websites, social media accounts, and online chat groups “related to people who discussed “objections to COVID oppression.” Further, again without evidence,

when you track the text threads and the communications within those groups, and find the origins of suggestions of potential violence or an act of occupation of the Capitol on January 6, you’ll find that those messages were led by members of the groups and ended up to be the FBI agents that had infiltrated the group.

These are the ravings of Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) in a private “news” site under the name, American Military News, reporting on an interview Higgins gave to Newsmax, a cable news outlet so far right it fell off the flat earth. They ignore entirely the speech Trump gave on January 6 and his thoroughly documented refusal to call off the mob and stop the violence. Many of the convicted desecrators testified they believed they were simply answering the call and direction of their leader, Donald Trump, whose every word they believed.

Second, the Day of Rage video from the New York Times (https://tinyurl.com/242urbtu) and many others make clear that the attack started at the outer perimeter of the Capitol, that the mob attacked and overwhelmed the under-staffed and under-prepared Capitol Police before they approached, entered and desecrated the Capitol building.

Third, there are indications of Capitol Police, in most cases individuals facing massive numbers of violent intruders, failing to fight the mob inside the building. To the extent those officers failed to do their duty, they should be appropriately disciplined. But it’s likely that they decided resistance at that point was futile and that a more passive approach might be more effective than fighting a losing battle against an overwhelming and angry mob. This issue has, I believe, been addressed within the force, as it should be. It is no excuse for the behavior of the mob. The Republican claim amounts to, “the attack was the police’s fault because they didn’t fight back hard enough.”

Fourth, every member of the mob had the option at almost any time to turn around and walk away. The excuse of “I was swept up in the passion of the moment” is a child’s excuse. Any thinking adult could have seen the obvious: the mob was out of control, violence was occurring everywhere, police were being attacked (“support the Blue? Sure, but not today). Note also the conflict between “the Capitol Police welcomed the intruders” and “the Capitol Police violently beat the intruders.” I have commented before on the ability of Republicans to believe as simultaneously true two inconsistent concepts.

Fifth, the Republican hysteria fails to account for the role of the Proud Boys and other right-wing groups, many of whom were armed (Trump knew this and was furious that his instruction to remove the security apparatus to keep armed people away from his speech stage) and the massive evidence of what actually happened on January 6.

Sixth, and finally, the multitude of convictions resulting from trials and guilty pleas by mob participants so far (“More than 1,202 defendants have been charged in nearly all 50 states and the District of Columbia”), are conclusive evidence that many violent crimes were committed by the mob. You can see the latest data here: https://tinyurl.com/yry4jn2t

So, Republicans, you can continue whining about how the big bad police beat up on your band of fools or you could try, just once, facing reality. Trump incited an insurrection to overturn the 2020 election. Those who attacked the Capitol on his behalf deserve everything that is happening to them. And Trump belongs in prison. The End.

The Fork in the Road to Democracy or Dictatorship

Leave a reply

An article published in The Hill suggests that Donald Trump’s promises that if re-elected he will engage in violent retribution against his enemies have inspired members of Congress to breach protocol and almost come to blows. Trump’s violent talk shows signs of taking over Congress  https://tinyurl.com/djbp5rss Those threats are, of course, among many other Trump/GOP assaults on the centuries-old system of American democratic government.

The article was inspired by a first-term Republican Senator from Oklahoma challenging the president of the Teamsters union to a fistfight in a hearing. The article also reports that Mitt Romney had much to say about the situation, noting the self-evident fact that “the Republican Party has become the party of Trump.” Romney, the master of understatement when it comes to criticizing looney Republicans, said the fight challenge was “clearly unfortunate.” Bold stuff from the man who in 2016 had said that Trump was “worthless”, a “fraud”, and that “he’s playing the American public for suckers: he gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.” https://tinyurl.com/5dsvuy5x

Romney, you will recall, promptly bent the knee to president-elect Trump to seek a Cabinet post – which was, of course, denied. Trump knows how to treat “disloyal” people.

The article notes that “Trump’s use of violent rhetoric has since become almost routine,” accurate except for the “almost” modifier. Trump now engages in violent talk every day, using language identical to that made famous by Adolf Hitler and other dictators of the past. GOP Trump loyalists aren’t concerned. Their plan to steal the 2020 election and stay in power didn’t work as they imagined but the playbook remains valid for their purposes. The 2024 election is just another chance for them.

When a politician tells you he wants to “take over” your country, you should believe him. Trump aspires to fascist domination of the entire federal and state government apparatus. Republican politicians are so busy trying to avoid Trump’s wrath that they continue to make “both sides” false equivalencies and to equivocate about what is really happening. One example is Republican Senator Mike Rounds:

 It’s not the route that I’d like to see any of us go,” … I understand the reason why there was anger.

both individuals should have had a different approach to resolving it.

you’re seeing folks on both sides of the political spectrum being less respectful of other people.

I don’t know if he changed [norms] or simply responded to what he saw from other people. I think he sensed that the American people were allowing this to go on, and he’s taken advantage of it, but it’s not the direction that I think our country should go.

Powerful stuff, those Republicans speak. I’m sure you didn’t miss the “both sides” he snuck in there. Brings to mind Trump’s comment about the Nazi march in Charlottesville: “very fine people, on both sides.” The Post article goes on to cite other incidents including one in which former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was accused of elbowing another Republican representative in the back.

The First Amendment and the associated long history of American acceptance of “free speech” allow for this kind of violent rhetoric in the absence of an imminent threat of violence by the speaker or someone in league with him. That is what happened on January 6. We now learn from Mediaite.com that Republicans are cheering the release of previously withheld security footage from January 6 because they have somehow reached the conclusion that it shows police collusion and thus sustains their belief that the entire episode was an “inside job” by the “left.” Trump Supporters Cheer Release of Jan. 6 Footage Showing Trump Supporters Storming the Capitol  https://tinyurl.com/bderutcr

Republicans have learned nothing. And some of the January 6 Capitol-desecrators have recanted their professions of error and remorse that were used performatively for compliant judges to secure lesser sentences. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66169914

Many questions leap to mind. One of the most prominent is whether American corporations are going to continue playing deaf and dumb while spraying advertising dollars and PAC contributions on rightwing Republican candidates. Historically, American corporations, armed with “personhood” by the Supreme Court Citizens United case, have tried to have it both ways. Those days must end now. If the corporate community is indifferent to the fate of American democracy, consumers must show them the consequences by withholding purchases.

Donald Trump and his supporters have made clear their intention to destroy the American administrative state that accounts for massive amounts of economy-stimulating expenditures while assuring that the worst short-term instincts of capitalism are at least to some degree regulated in the public interest. Trump has, for example, made clear he will wreck the civil service system to assure that only workers completely loyal to him have federal jobs.

The United States is not alone in the world. Among numerous others, Russia, under the complete control of dictator Vladimir Putin, is waiting for an opportunity to strike a fatal blow against this country. Trump has previously subordinated himself to Putin in open displays of obsequious submission. Once Trump is back in power, Putin will have a free hand. At the end of the day, Putin, whom Trump openly admires, is no different than Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

I had occasion recently to be reminded of some of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton’s more salient observations about government in the Federalist Papers that helped secure ratification of the Constitution. Some of the more relevant ones include:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
― James Madison, Federalist Papers

It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

Trump’s “Defenses”

Leave a reply

As she often does, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post has written a compelling piece  entitled, The trifecta that could sink Trump’s favorite defense https://tinyurl.com/3xrvzdam As often happens in criminal conspiracy cases, some of the defendants, in this case three former Trump attorneys and an Atlanta bail bondsman have proffered evidence against Trump in exchange for plea deals. Uncommonly, videos of some of their statements to prosecutors were leaked to the press by one of their attorneys. Time will tell what effect that decision has on the lawyer’s future.

But what is clear as the proverbial bell here is that three of Trump’s co-conspirators have chosen to save themselves at Trump’s expense. Anyone watching Trump for the past seven years can readily anticipate how he will react, but what is most interesting is the impact of their proffers on Trump’s defense that he truly, genuinely, authentically believed he won the 2020 election and that he lacked the necessary criminal intent to overturn the election through extra-legal or illegal means because he was acting on the advice of his attorneys.

The testimony of many participants in Trump’s scheme are aligning now in close harmony around a couple of key ideas: (1) Trump’s attorneys did not advise him that he won the election; indeed, many of them advised the opposite was true; Trump simply chose to act on the statements of those who told him what he wanted to hear but which he had every reason to know was false; (2) even if Trump somehow truly believed he won, for which point no credible evidence has thus far emerged, that belief is not a defense to the several unlawful actions he took to overturn the election result through extralegal means, such as offering phony electors and the January 6 assault on the certification process.

The legal system provides methods by which proper challenges could have been brought and, indeed, more than 60 were filed in courts across the country. None of them succeeded.

Trump’s most effective defense, the one on which he has principally relied for his entire life, is delay. In that he has a chance. The Fulton County Georgia DA has just requested an August 2024 start date which, if adopted, will virtually assure that the trial is ongoing at the time of the 2024 election. If the country were to lose its collective mind and elect Trump to the presidency, he would almost certainly try to pardon himself and would offer, for a price, pardons to everyone who might still be a threat to him. The notion that a president can pardon himself is preposterous on its face but with the current Supreme Court stacked with Trump appointees, there is no assurance he would not be “exonerated.”

The obvious and best solution, other than Trump’s earlier conviction and sentencing in one of the other felony cases, would be for him to be defeated at the ballot box. He would, of course, claim the election was rigged and start the challenge process all over again, perhaps including another attempt at a violent coup.

This pathetic situation has resulted, in part, due to the failure of the various charging parties to coordinate their activities and, in part, due to the pro-Trump preference demonstrated repeatedly by Judge Aileen Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. All the judges in all the cases are putting up with conduct that would never be accepted for any other defendant than Trump. If it is true that there is a two-tiered justice system, as many Republican Trump worshippers have claimed, it favors Trump rather than prejudicing him.

Time will tell, as usual. Meanwhile, the best offense against Trump remains producing an overwhelming election defeat in 2024. There may be no other way.

Some Questions About Trump’s Theft of Secret Government Documents

Leave a reply

As the prosecutors and courts muddle on with the Trump cases, I have been reflecting further about the most curious case of the secret documents Trump removed from the White House, stored in various insecure locations at Mar-a-Lago, lied about, refused to return, and, to this day, claims that he has an absolute right to have and to do with what he pleases, including, as he has already done, sharing them with persons not cleared to see them.

My main question is: why? Why would Trump set himself up for charges of violating national security in this way? Why, when the demand for return was made, did he not simply return the documents and claim it was all a big misunderstanding? Indeed, Why didn’t the Trump family rush to persuade him to return the documents? How about all the sycophantic spineless Republicans in Congress? Why didn’t they go to him and try to persuade him to return the documents?

I recognize the obvious: once Trump wants something to be true, he declares it’s true and that, for him, is the end of it. And the truth is that belief is a choice. No one inherently believes the Earth is an orb. They are taught in school that it is so and, in good schools, given the evidence from which its “orbness” has been deduced. The relatively small number of dunderheads who claim the Earth is flat have chosen not to believe the evidence.

Trump always chooses to “believe” that which benefits him. Thus, while president, he repeatedly said: “Article II allows me to do anything I want,” https://tinyurl.com/28ysddrt, all the while claiming he doesn’t talk about it while he’s talking about it. I can say with certainty that no attorney with credible understanding of the Constitution would accept that claim, but Trump chooses what he chooses.

Moreover, everything with Trump is transactional. I understand that he is stubborn and doesn’t like to be told what to do. One theory is that he kept the documents just to show that no one, not even the top law enforcement echelons of the U.S. government, can tell him what to do. Maybe, but that explanation seems thin when the criminal charges of the gravest nature are considered. Trump is not much of a gambler, and he would have to have a gambler’s mentality to persist with the document fight in the face of the felony charges brought against him.

While he likes to portray himself as a brilliant businessman, he bankrupted most of the businesses he has been involved in, including, remarkably, casinos. Starting with the millions he had at his disposal, as gifts from his father, almost anyone could’ve made a fortune in real estate in places. like New York City. Still, Trump sees everything in terms of personal benefit to him.

Those characteristics of his personality and behavior, perpetuated over his entire life cycle, thus lead to my speculation about why Trump stole the documents and refused to return them even to the point of being criminally charged. He planned to sell them to foreign governments that would be very interested in seeing top secret U.S. government intelligence reports and would likely pay top dollar for them. If Trump were, by some miracle, to escape a finding of guilt in the documents case, and regain possession of the documents, you can expect Trump to monetize the documents very quickly. It’s what he does.

DOJ Should Investigate Stefanik for Obstruction of Justice

Leave a reply

Reliable reports say that Elise Stefanik, member of Congress and GOP Conference Chair, has filed an ethics complaint with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct against Judge Arthur Engoron who is presiding over the civil fraud trial of Donald Trump. https://tinyurl.com/y4mka7xs and https://tinyurl.com/3nyb2p4p

Trump is accused of fraud and has already been found guilty. The question remaining in the case is the extent of the penalties that should be imposed on Trump and the Trump Organization.

You may wonder how it is that Trump has been found guilty already when the trial is still ongoing. I will explain.

Judge Engoron concluded based on the pleadings in the case that the legal standard for “summary judgment” had clearly been met. Summary judgment is a process by which courts routinely adjudicate claims when there is “no dispute of material facts” evident from the pleadings. Cornell Law School elaborates using Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is typical:

… in order to succeed in a motion for summary judgment, a movant must show 1) that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and 2) that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/summary_judgment]

“Judgment as a matter of law” means that, given the undisputed material facts, there is no legal basis for finding other than in favor of the movant. Even in a jury trial, motions for summary judgment may be brought and granted when there is no dispute of material fact in the evidence.

That brings up another point to understand. The Trump civil fraud trial is a “bench trial,” meaning there is no jury. The parties are relying on the judge to hear the evidence and issue the decisions. Why? Because Trump’s attorneys did not demand a jury trial and you don’t get a jury unless you ask for one.

Returning to Rep Stefanik’s complaint, she is not a party to the litigation and has no “standing” to be one. “Standing” is a very important principle used in all courts. In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court established these principles to determine whether a party has “standing” to sue:

    1. The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent;
    2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court;
    3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing]

The “standing” principle is the one that prevents people from filing legal complaints based on their political opinions where there is no specific injury to their interests. If it were otherwise, the legal system would be completely bogged down as everyone who was unhappy with anything could sue. Imagine you don’t like the way a local car dealer is promoting sales. Unless those promotions have directly impacted you in the purchase of a car from the dealer, you can’t sue in court to compel the dealer to change its advertising or pay you damages because you are offended by its commercial practices.

So, what is going on with Stefanik, a rapid conspiracist and Trump worshipper?

Simply this: Stefanik has attempted to derail Trump’s civil fraud trial, which he is losing badly, by challenging the judge’s conduct of the case in which she has zero actual interest other than her political desire to prevent Trump from being held accountable. In short, she has no standing to challenge the judge. What happens to Trump in his civil fraud trial is none of Elise Stefanik’s business. Her filing against the judge is an effort to obstruct justice. She is using her position as a member of Congress to try to influence the outcome of a civil fraud trial in which she has no economic or other interest other than her political desire to prevent Trump from being held accountable.

The extreme language used by Stefanik suggests that Donald Trump himself, or lawyers working for him, were intimately involved in drafting the document. It repeats most of the hysterical claims Trump and his lawyers in the fraud case have made, trying to provoke the judge into making a reversible error and for which Trump has been twice fined.

The GOP has long claimed to be the party of “law and order” but as regards Trump, it seems unwilling to let the legal system play out. If Judge Engoron has violated the judicial ethics code and made egregious trial management errors that have prejudiced Trump, the legal system provides appropriate remedies that all other Americans would have to pursue.

Stefanik and her Republican cronies aren’t willing to use the legal system properly because they’re afraid Trump will be found guilty of civil fraud and the multiple felonies with which he has been charged. So, they attack the judges, attack the clerks, attack the legal system in an effort to interfere with the system of justice established by state and federal law. They are terrified that Trump, at long last, will be exposed for the criminal that he is and held accountable under the law, like any other American would be in similar circumstances.

The Above the Law article cited in the opening paragraph of this post makes the point that Stefanik’s argument about the valuation of the Mar-a-Lago club is false:

In fact, the court simply noted that this was the value assigned by Palm Beach County tax assessors — a value which Trump himself militated for in an effort to decrease his tax liability. And that’s the entire point of this trial: Donald Trump committed persistent fraud by representing the value of his assets as astronomically high or preposterously low depending on whether he was seeking to evade taxes, score a conservation easement, or get a loan.

He also had a nasty habit of leaving out unpleasant details like rent control restrictions, options to purchase at below-market rates, and the fact that local governments had already put the kibosh on future development. Indeed, Trump told just such a lie on the witness stand Monday when he shrugged off a 2002 document in which he agreed that Mar-a-Lago could neither be converted to a private residence nor subdivided for development, writing that “the Club and Trump intend to forever extinguish their right to develop or use the Property for any purpose other than club use.”

On the witness stand, Trump made the idiotic claim that he still retained development rights because “‘Intend’ doesn’t mean we will do it.”

Another article about Stefanik’s maneuver notes that:

the complaint has all the hallmarks of Trump’s legal team pulling the strings by using the New York Republican as a cut-out to go after Judge Engoron. [https://tinyurl.com/4rv63d38]

Those indicators include multiple legal citations in correct form that Stefanik, a non-lawyer, would likely not have specified on her own.

Given the virtually identical stream of accusations made by Trump and his lawyers in court, the Stefanik complaint does appear to be a ruse perpetrated to derail the trial in which Stefanik has no legally cognizable interest.

For that reason, she is using her office to obstruct the justice process. DOJ should initiate an investigation into the backstory for her action and charge her with obstruction if the facts thus found are as they strongly appear to be.

Who is the Fool?

Leave a reply

In the movie Can-Can (1960), Frank Sinatra, playing, François Durnais, is in court and addresses the judge:

“Your honor, I am a member of the bar and wish to represent myself.”

The Judge replies: “You realize that a lawyer who represents himself is said to have a fool for a client?”

François Durnais responds: “That may be true, but it’s better than having a fool for a lawyer.”

The website https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/07/30/lawyer/ attributes the earliest iteration of that retort to a book published in 1682 and to numerous others thereafter.

I mention that as background to the remarkable circus playing out in the New York fraud trial against Donald Trump in which it is alleged he, and perhaps other family members, manipulated the values of various assets to secure loans at favorable rates and reduce taxes below appropriate levels.

Overall, the testimony of Trump and family members consists of two points: (1) Trump: the businesses were worth way more than we claimed, I don’t care what anyone says; everyone involved made money so what’s the problem? I relied entirely on accountants and others for valuations despite what I might have signed off on; sure, I was a trustee but, no, I take no responsibility; and (2) Trump family members: Who, me? I wasn’t involved. I know nothing; I relied entirely on accountants and others for valuations despite what I might have signed off on; I just took the money that magically appeared at the end of the rainbow; no, I take no responsibility.”

And together: “We are innocent of all charges, as usual. We did nothing wrong. We are rich because we deserve to be. Thank you; we’re leaving now.”

Nothing about the reported testimony of Trump and family is surprising. What is surprising, shocking really to any sane, responsible lawyer, is the manner in which Trump’s lawyers have adopted his personality and style in addressing the prosecutors and the judge.

It is the most appalling display of bad judgment imaginable. I am hard to surprise at this late stage of life but am stunned that lawyers would think it’s in their client’s interest to attack the prosecutors openly and repeatedly and, worse, to attack the judge handling the case. The normal, and correct, approach is to be respectful at all times, make your arguments, fight for your evidence but always, always show respect to the judge and court staff.

The only “strategy” implied by Trump’s lawyers’ contrary approach is that, having no other meaningful or substantive defense, their attacks might goad the judge into making an appealable mistake by, for example, lashing out at the defendants or making an egregiously bad ruling out of frustration/anger.

The judge is highly experienced, however, and likely knew what was coming. So far, based on the reports, he has maintained his composure and has not made any meaningful mistakes that would support an appeal by the Trump as against the overwhelming evidence that Trump approved, indeed drove and promoted, the use of wildly incorrect asset values in the pursuit of his life-ambition to enrich himself beyond all reason.

How Trump’s attorneys think it is smart to attack the very people who hold their client’s future in their hands is simply beyond understanding, unless it is simply their personal need to get maximum media exposure for themselves by behaving like hooligans in court and to provide more fodder for Trump’s political base that is prepared to believe anything except the truth about him and his grifter family. If that’s what they are doing, they deserve the severest sanctions for gross malpractice for, among other things, putting their interests ahead of their client’s.

In this case, the adage about having a fool for a client appears to miss the mark. This client appears to have fools for lawyers as well. Client and lawyers alike.

Reaching Deeper Into the Bottom of the GOP Barrel

Leave a reply

The latest nominee for Speaker of the (barely) Republican-controlled House of Representatives is James Michael (Mike) Johnson, “representing” the 4th District of Louisiana. His official website touts the “7 Core Principles of Conservatism,” the customary blather about the “rule of law,” “free markets,” “limited government,” etc.

Last on the list is “Human Dignity:”

Because all men are created equal and in the image of God, every human life has inestimable dignity and value, and every person should be measured only by the content of their character. A just government protects life, honors marriage and family as the primary institutions of a healthy society, and embraces the vital cultural influences of religion and morality. Public policy should always encourage education and emphasize the virtue of hard work as a pathway out of poverty, while public assistance programs should be reserved only for those who are truly in need. In American, everyone who plays by the rules should get a fair shot. By preserving these ideals, we will maintain the goodness of America that has been the secret to our greatness.

Let’s unpack some of that.

For starters, note that Johnson conveniently picks up the “all men are created equal” from the Declaration of Independence but then, in a classic Republican head-fake, translates “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” into “in the image of God.” You will see below why this slight-of-hand is central to who Johnson is.

Here’s what Mike Johnson really stands for:

  • Opposed to abortion access.
  • Opposed to medical marijuana.
  • Opposed to same-sex marriage.
  • Falsely claimed Trump had fully cooperated with the Mueller investigation.
  • Opposed to certification of the 2020 election.
  • Voted to overturn 2020 election result in Pennsylvania.
  • Voted against establishing the national commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.
  • Supported Trump’s 2017 Muslim ban.
  • Supports ending military aid to Ukraine so it can be absorbed by Russia.

[Wikipedia: https://tinyurl.com/3m38bmsx]

So much for the “rule of law” and the “inalienable right” to the “pursuit of happiness.”

Johnson is a religious zealot who appears to lack a basic understanding of the principle of separation of church and state while claiming devotion to the rule of law and the Constitution.

This is the man the GOP now has focused its attention on to elect as Speaker of the House, next in line behind the Vice President to succeed to the powers of the presidency.

 

Trump Confesses

Leave a reply

When you hire a lawyer to represent you, it is presumed that when the lawyer speaks or files pleadings in court on your behalf, he is speaking and/or presenting positions with which you concur. He is, after all and in fact and in law, your representative.

Sometimes, lawyers are forced to make arguments that seem preposterous on their face and are in fact preposterous. They normally do this when they are “out of ammunition” in the form of well-reasoned and at least plausible arguments. They do this when the client is desperate to present a defense when none exists. Those lawyers feel duty-bound to not only the zealous representation that legal ethics required of them, but, one might say, to throw something at the judicial wall and just hope against hope that it sticks.

It is thus with the latest Trump effort to escape responsibility for his treasonous insurrection against the government of the United States. Reports state that Trump’s attorneys have thrown such stuff at the wall in the Colorado case brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) seeking to bar him from the 2024 presidential ballot. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-wont-support-constitution/

Recall that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits anyone who has “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve. I quote the Rawstory article:

Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to “support” the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

“The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,” said the filing by Trump’s attorneys. “Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to ‘support’ the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President.”

My guess is that Trump’s lawyers don’t expect the trial judge to buy this nonsense. They are instead laying the foundation for an appeal, eventually, to the U.S. Supreme Court where, they hope, the “originalist” thinkers led by Clarence Thomas will “strictly construe” the Constitutional language and hold that “support” is not the same as “preserve, protect and defend” such that the Framers left a gaping hole for people like Trump to walk through while toppling the very structure the Framers worked so hard to establish.

But, you ask, why is this argument nonsense? Here’s why.

We could go on with this for hours, but I think it suffices that Oxford Languages (the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages) has solved the puzzle for us.

“Preserve” is defined as “maintain (something) in its original or existing state.” Synonyms include: conserve, protect, maintain, care for, take care of, look after, save, safeguard, and keep. Antonyms include: damage and neglect.

“Protect” is defined as “keep safe from harm or injury.” Synonyms include: keep safe, keep from harm, save, safeguard, shield, preserve, defend, cushion, shelter, screen, secure, fortify, guard, mount/stand guard on, watch over, look after, take care of, care for, tend, keep, mind, afford protection to, harbor, house, hedge, inoculate, insulate. Antonyms: expose, neglect, attack, harm.

Finally, “defend” means “resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger.” Synonyms: protect, guard, safeguard, keep from harm, preserve, secure, shield, shelter, screen, fortify, garrison, barricade, fight for, uphold, support, be on the side of, take up cudgels for, watch over, be the defender of.”  The antonym: attack.

Being my discerning readers, I know you saw “support” in the third list as a synonym of “defend.”

Even if “support” were not listed there, it is defined as “enable to function or act” and is a synonym of: help, aid, assist, contribute to, back, succor, champion, give help to, be on the side of, side with, favor, abet, aid and abet, encourage, ally oneself with, stand behind, stand up for, defend, promote (among others).

One “rule” I always tried to follow in advocacy when I was practicing law was: don’t be stupid. Trump’s lawyers must be utterly desperate to put forward the argument that the President of the United States is not obligated by his oath of office to “support” the Constitution of the United States. Of all the implausible positions advanced for him and his  many co-indicted co-conspirators, this one take the cake.

The word legerdemain leaps to mind: deception; trickery, chicanery, skulduggery, deceit, deception, artifice, cheating, dissimulation. All seem to apply nicely to Trump’s argument. I particularly like “skulduggery” but that’s just me.