You have lots of friends and lots of people who respected how well you were doing your job in Congress. And while I only know of you and don’t really know you, we can never really be sure of all the details in the private lives of others (nor, obviously, should all have any right to know all those details). Regardless, I read your article in the New York Times. You have presented yourself with distinction in the face of less than distinguished circumstances and it is to be admired.
I know your road will still be tough. However, I have no doubt you will make a full recovery. And I also suspect that if you wanted to return to public life to serve our country again one day, you could successfully do that.
The fight to return this country back to the ideas Americans used to value about liberty and justice for all and respect for the individual as a creature bestowed with certain unalienable rights by their creator needs to continue. And those thoughts that guide unwarranted hyperactive fears about fear itself at the hands and whims of a demagogue whose arbitrary actions are inspired by cable driven tabloid news needs to be rejected. And we need to succeed in both these objectives.
If we don’t succeed in these objectives, it will mean a road paved towards autocratic despotic government or even Russia itself (where Putin couldn’t be more pleased with the results of his interference efforts into our 2016 Presidential election). If that should happen, America’s democratic republic based upon the rule of law as envisioned by our Founding Fathers is certain to collapse as certain as the Ancient Roman Empire collapsed for similar reasons.
The lack of respect shown you with the release of pictures no decent human being would ever take let alone would ever release will be common place but exactly the type of “dirt” unprincipled characters currently holding some of our more important Federal government positions crave and propagate. It is a severe divergence from that Shining City on a Hill that we had all once wanted and another famous American from California once spoke about. We need to get back to being Americans who are less concerned about what divides us and more concerned about what unites us.
“These visitors to that city on the Potomac do not come as white or black, red or yellow; they are not Jews or Christians; conservatives or liberals; or Democrats or Republicans. They are Americans awed by what has gone before, proud of what for them is still… a shining city on a hill.”—Ronald Reagan.
Recently, I’ve been having a major PragerU video infestation of my Facebook newsfeed:
-One PragerU video told me how Trump’s words were completely twisted, no, even mangled, by the evil liberal media (OK, I’m taking liberties to exaggerate and paraphrase a bit but it takes nothing away from PragerU’s message). I watched the footage from the actual press conference in question. It wasn’t hard to find on the Internet. PragerU is full of it. What the media reported was accurate.
No word twisting. Trump explicitly stated there were “very fine people, on both sides.” The only two sides on that awful day in Charlottesville that resulted in the loss of a life were racist groups protesting the removal of a statue of a Confederate General and counter-protesters protesting the hate those groups represent.
-Another PragerU video told me that the “Big Monolith Tech Giants” are manipulating conservative messages they don’t want me to see. However, they conveniently ignore the fact that their video about this topic is showing up in my newsfeed. This pretty much discredits their whole argument in one single “Big Monolith Tech” newsfeed instant.
-A third PragerU video, in a mindless crusade against Net Neutrality, tries to tell me how the poor ISP’s are being denied a revenue model that seems to me to be little more than an extortion scheme to wrestle away money from the real victims, innocent Web Application websites minding their own business on the Internet as they experience a shakedown by a consortium of unprincipled and unchecked ISP’s: “hey, we’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse; pay us and we won’t divert our subscriber traffic away from your website. Talk to our sales rep, Bugsy about our great ‘insurance’ plans. Choose the intimidation level you like best.”
Classy. Let’s damage the legitimate profit margins for 99.9% of businesses in America in favor of corrupt, nefarious business practices that benefit less than 0.1% of the businesses in America. That’s an odd way of being “Pro-Business,” especially if we want to be viewed as a country that sponsors a free enterprise system that is equitable, fair and honors a playing field free of corruption.
After being subjected to the barrage of insults to my intelligence, I can only come to one conclusion: PragerU has about as much credibility as that chupacabra story on page 10 of the National Enquirer. Not a credible source of information. Of course, if you believe chupacabras are real then I suppose there is really not much else to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs (Trump’s Remarks about Charlottesville)
*The percentage of ISP’s was based upon a variety of sources, relying mostly upon data taken from 2012 (number of business in America) and 2018 (number of ISP’s). Since the economy is better today and the number of businesses has likely increased, the percentage arrived at is intended to be and is presumed to be a conservative estimate.
We have it good here in America. We need to appreciate that. We live in a world that is interconnected. We need to appreciate that. In the late period of the ancient Roman Empire when migrants encroached on their borders, the people in charge thought much like Trump thought. The Romans called them “barbarians,” gave them a label, made them an enemy, a target people could blame for all their troubles (the “Bad Hombres” of their time).
That thinking cost the ancient Romans an empire. The ancient Romans completely forgot what their ancestors, just two hundred years prior, had brilliantly done to manage migration. We need to appreciate that too, understand it and study it. There is a way to solve our migration woes but what’s happening now, mismanaging how the money is allocated, misappropriations, inhuman conditions along with a sideshow of unacceptable bigoted Facebook postings by a small segment of CBP officers, this unthoughtful zero tolerance administration policy, this unchristian administration policy, is just going to make things worse.
We need to quit looking at migration as a negative and start looking at it as a positive. Fortunately for my Irish ancestors, we had Presidents dedicated to unifying the country with ideas of liberty and justice for all. There was no demagogue elected to the Presidency, to such a powerful position, who had any desire to fuel the fires of the prejudices and misconceptions Americans had at that time towards the caravan of Irish immigrants during the 1840’s and 1850’s. The Irish were the “Bad Hombre’s” in the eyes of many Americans who felt threatened by this influx of foreigners to their country but they weren’t.
My Irish ancestors helped make our nation great. We need to realize we are a nation of immigrants. Once we do that, there are some real policies that can be put into place. Rather than being that 30 foot multibillion, very expensive Band-Aid, they are cost effective policies that can help to address the sources of the problems. It will give the CBP what they really need, what they really want and what America really needs.
We are America, the land of the free, home of the brave, with emphasis on brave. We aren’t the home of the frightened little citizens threatened by caravan people who are only hoping to escape their unbearable conditions to make their lives better. We need to start acting like the country we were meant to be, what we used to be, full of honor and integrity and fearlessness, before we end up losing our republic in a way similar to the way the ancient Romans lost theirs’s. We need to grow up, learn and, most of all, be decent human beings about it.
Robert Mueller stated he couldn’t indict a sitting President because it is “unconstitutional.” It was a bold statement to make especially since it is not true. This OLC opinion that I presume Mueller is basing his own conclusion upon has not been tested in the courts. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the President is above the law which is effectively what such a conclusion asserts.
In fact, I would argue the Constitution states the exact opposite: the President is not above the law. And I would probably win my argument dependent only upon the number of beer drinking judges on the bench that might not be totally impartial. When our Constitution was written our founders had just a few years earlier fought a war to end the rule of a man who was legally above the law. That would be the King of England for those who missed the memo. When considering that our founding fathers would not ever want any man to hold that much power ever again, the statement Mueller makes seems absolutely absurd.
It is generally understood that Mueller is basing his conclusion on an untested opinion by the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) that was offered in 1973. Ken Starr’s team in the 1990’s offered a more recent opinion. Starr’s team asserted that a sitting President can be indicted. Around that same time, a Supreme Court ruling affirmed that a sitting President can face some civil lawsuits (Clinton v. Jones, 1997). And prior to that ruling, in 1982 (Nixon v. Fitzgerald), the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice, Warren Burger, in his concurring opinion that favored protecting Presidents against being sued if their actions were directly associated with official duties, stated this:
“The dissents are wide of the mark to the extent that they imply that the Court today recognizes sweeping immunity for a President for all acts. The Court does no such thing. The immunity is limited to civil damages claims. Moreover, a President, like Members of Congress, judges, prosecutors, or congressional aides — all having absolute immunity — are not immune for acts outside official duties. Ante at 457 U. S. 753-755. Even the broad immunity of the Speech and Debate Clause has its limits…”
“In United States v. Brewster, 408 U. S. 501 (1972), we held that the Speech and Debate Clause does not prohibit prosecution of a Senator for accepting a bribe designed to influence his legislative acts…”
“When judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests — as when the Court acts not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon— the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted. In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President’s official acts, we hold it is not…The Court has recognized before that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions…”
If the Supreme Court ruled that sitting Presidents are not immune from all civil lawsuits (Clinton v. Jones) and if an earlier 1982 ruling included statements by the Chief Justice that indicates civil lawsuits are less worthy of interest than criminal offensives when perpetrated by elected officeholders, then there should be no question that a sitting President can be indicted for criminal offenses. The integrity of the office demands that we have people holding that office who have respect for the law. Presidents are required to face criminal prosecution just like any other citizen, and, in fact, they should be held to a higher bar than any other citizen given the importance of the office.
Failing to prosecute whenever egregious criminal offenses are perpetrated by occupants of our nation’s highest office damages the integrity of the office itself and damages our nation’s credibility as preserver of justice. The arguably errant 1973 OLC opinion was rendered by a likely Presidential apologist at a time when another more infamous President to date faced the threat of criminal prosecution. Had Mueller explicitly stated his intention to follow a traditional standard set by previous Presidential Investigators to refer the matter to Congress then I do not believe many, absent the political pundits, would find fault with that. However, when evaluating the incredible amount of dissention, past Supreme Court opinions and the quality of arguments made against that infamous OLC opinion of 1973, it is all the more reason to believe that Mueller’s assertion that his failure to indict a sitting President is settled constitutional law was a very peculiar legal gaffe to make indeed.
Only half the country sees the obvious and disturbing irony that Trump is receiving validation from Putin regarding his assessment of the “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.”
Another portion of the country is blissfully unaware that they are co-conspirators in a plot to ensure that the chicken is fully plucked.
Yet another portion is totally oblivious to the irony because they are too busy posting their food pictures to Facebook or liking the jumping moon cat video to care.
But the remaining portion, along with the pleasing approval of adversarial foreign powers, won’t rest until every feather is theirs and we are left with a country absent of a democracy and absent a republic.
It’s not just the Mueller investigation that needs to be investigated, the revenge seeking mission to expose all those rats who had the gall to suspect the President was a crook, other investigations requiring investigation into their shameful waste of tax payer money are also now being considered:
- O. J. Simpson – no conviction in the 1990’s – was it a waste of money?
- Fatty Arbuckle – no conviction – was it a waste of money?
- William Kennedy Smith – no conviction– was it a waste of money?
- John Hinckley, Jr. – not guilty by reason of insanity – was it a waste of money?
- Robert Blake – no conviction – was it a waste of money?
- Michael Jackson – no conviction – was it a waste of money?
- Amanda Knox – no conviction – was it a waste of money?
- Casey Anthony – no conviction – was it a waste of money?
- George Zimmerman – no conviction – was it a waste of money?
- Fat Election Hacker Guy in New Jersey Eating Pizza – waste?
The families of these people who had their lives turned upside-down by “Prosecutors Gone Wild” and who also participated in no collusion can now get their revenge thanks to their new Attorney General allies in the Justice Department.
Some political parties are good at eating their own, throwing their members under the bus. This often happens whenever political parties run into members who think that “The Party” should take second place to ideals based upon American justice and ethical behavior. So, “The Party” leaders construct lies and false narratives based upon half-truths and innuendo that will protect “The Party” against unwanted public relations incidents destine to negatively affect the “The Party” and their stated political agenda. “The Party” becomes more important than American Justice. “The Party” becomes more important than America itself.
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, James Clapper, John Brennen and Robert Mueller have all been victims of these vicious and false narratives. It is especially disheartening to learn that members of “The Party” who happen to also be associated with law enforcement and our Judicial System (either present or past) have succumbed to the corrupting effects of “The Party” narrative. Many, disturbingly, have bought “The Party” line without questioning its soundness.
These are people who should know better given their own experience within their own agencies regarding how political motivations can fuel injustice that unfairly damage or even ruin careers. The reputations of good people can be unfairly called into question as a result of these false narratives being peddled. Don’t judge a book by its cover—especially when that book cover is being fraudulently maligned by political malware distributed by members of “The Party” bent on distorting reality. It is malware that may even be threatening to malign the integrity of all who come into contact with it. Tear off the maligned cover, open the book and read it to find the real truth.
2,000 years ago there was another Party of people who dedicated their lives to maligning the reputation of an innocent man. Palm Sunday is today. It marks the beginning of the week where that Ancient Party of religious scholars was able to turn a crowd that initially celebrated the man’s entrance into Jerusalem into a crowd that was calling for his crucifixion by the end of that week.
So manipulated was the crowd by that Ancient Party that the people even refused to set the innocent man free when the Romans made the offer to honor their tradition of freeing one prisoner of the people’s choosing. Instead, the crowd elected to have a recognized criminal who committed murder set free in the innocent man’s place. And the Ancient Party was behind all of this because the man dared to challenge their authority, question their righteousness and examine and investigate their religious honesty.
These party officials felt threaten by the truths that the man had revealed about themselves. How easily the crowd turned upon the innocent man after party officials sought their revenge with their false accusations. The people were willing participants in accepting the lies of these so called religious people without considering their own responsibility in finding out the real truth. Has much changed in 2,000 years? There is a higher loyalty. We need to think about that before we jump on the bandwagon of contempt and ridicule against people of integrity who are actually speaking the truth.