Category Archives: legal news

Would he really jail an ex-POTUS?

New York District Judge Juan Merchan well could exhibit the gawdiest stones imaginable if he follows through with a veiled threat against the 45th POTUS.

You see, the former POTUS just can’t keep his trap shut despite the existence of a gag order that Merchan has imposed on him while he stands trial on allegations that he violated campaign finance laws when he paid off an adult film star.

Merchan has declared the ex-Philanderer in Chief to be in contempt of court and said he might send the criminal defendant to the hoosegow.

Wouldn’t that be rich? Well … yeah, it would be.

Why delay, SCOTUS?

Many details soar over my occasionally pointed head, such as the apparent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether the 45th POTUS deserves presidential immunity.

The high court heard oral arguments this week from the ex-POTUS’s legal team and the legal eagles assembled by special counsel Jack Smith. At stake is the pending trial on the Jan. 6 assault on the government that took place at the former Liar in Chief’s urging.

I heard reports yesterday that justices appear inclined to deny the ex-POTUS’s claim of immunity from prosecution, but are going to drag their feet in issuing their decision.

Why wait? Why delay this matter any longer than necessary? Why not issue a ruling and if it’s the way media have speculated, then let’s get on with the trial post haste?

SCOTUS can move quickly on these matters. Look at what they did in 2000 when given the case involving the recount of Florida ballots in that year’s presidential election. They heard oral arguments and then — boom! — stopped the recount with Texas Gov. George W. Bush ahead in Florida by 527 votes, giving him the state’s electoral votes … and thus, the presidency over Vice President Al Gore.

It was done in a matter of days.

The current SCOTUS is equally capable of delivering a decision of monumental importance.

First time for everything, yes?

POTUS No. 45 keeps bitching out loud that “this is the first time” a former president has gone to court to face a criminal prosecution.

It’s as if he’s suggesting that the unprecedented nature of the trial is unjust.

Uhhh, no. It’s not unjust, Mr. Former Liar in Chief.

It’s just that this great nation has never been led by someone so inherently corrupt. The law just caught up with the ex-Philanderer in Chief.

He’s on trial in New York City on a 33-count indictment alleging that he spent campaign funds illegally to cover up a tryst he had with an adult film actress. He paid her hush money — get ready for this — to keep quiet about an event he denies ever occurred. 

Go figure that one out, folks.

Yeah, it’s the first time a former POTUS has gone on trial. I get it. I agree, too, that No, 45 has reason to worry.

It damn sure isn’t unjust, as the ex-POTUS seems to suggest.

Who’s the insane one?

I suspect we’re going to see social media images like the one that appears on this brief blog post.

It gives anyone who backs the presumed Republican Party presidential nominee the what-for given the moron’s bizarre proclivities. The picture shows the ex-POTUS saluting a North Korean general, I presume in advance of his meeting with North Korean despot and murderer Kim Jong Un.

I cannot predict these images and texts will spell the difference in the upcoming election. They damn sure should!

To think that this idiot’s fans, cultists and minions would suggest that Joe Biden has lost his snap is, as the meme suggests, “laughably irrelevant.”

Except that I am not laughing.

Now … the trials await

The talking heads have been blabbing and blathering about the U.S. Supreme Court decision to hear the case involving presidential immunity as it regards the most recent former POTUS.

The decision likely will delay the trial that the ex-POTUS is claiming shouldn’t take place because he has some form of immunity against any of the charges brought against him.

The former Liar in Chief has four criminal trials awaiting him. The first one will occur in New York state court and will determine whether he broke campaign finance laws when he paid off an adult film star to keep quiet about a one-night tumble the two of them allegedly took before he became a candidate for president.

The trial is set to begin in March. It could end in a few weeks and, get this, the former POTUS could end up being convicted of a felony. This trial could conclude well before the November presidential election.

Then we have the three other trials. One of them involves his role in inciting the mob assault on the government; another involves his pilfering of classified documents as he left the White House; a third case is set for Fulton County, Ga., and it involves allegations that the former POTUS sought to interfere with election results.

Of the four, the first one — involving the porn star — is likely to go first.

Then the former Moron in Chief’s supporters will have to decide whether they really want to vote for a candidate who’s been convicted of a felony. Fifty percent of Republicans have made it known they cannot vote for a convicted felon.

One also has to ask why the SCOTUS chose to hear the case that had been tossed by two lower courts that ruled the former POTUS had no claim to immunity. Four justices voted to hear the case, which is all that was required. Let us hope for all our worth that the court isn’t trying to delay this matter beyond the November election.

I am going to rely on my belief in reports that Chief Justice John Roberts is concerned about the court’s public standing and will work to ensure that it decides this matter quickly. Then a trial can commence and perhaps be concluded in time for voters to make this critical decision.

The SCOTUS clearly has complicated matters unnecessarily.

Special counsel crosses ‘the line’

Robert Hur, appointed to look into whether President Biden broke any law when the FBI found documents in his home, did the president no favors with his decision against filing charges against him.

Oh, no. Instead, he hurled some unflattering labels at Joe Biden, calling him an “elderly man with a poor memory.” Indeed, his report to the public announcing his decision against seeking criminal indictments against Biden, contained several references to the president’s age and hinted that the POTUS might be falling a step or two behind.

Did the special counsel cross some vague line? I believe he did.

However, Joe Biden hasn’t helped himself any with his angry response to what Hur said in his report. He sounded petulant and appeared visibly angry at reporters peppering him with questions about what Hur had said.

Oh … my  … goodness.

To be fair, not all the criticism has come from Democrats.

USA Today reported: “I think it’s outrageous. Prosecutors are taught that the Department of Justice should speak through charges or it shouldn’t speak at all,” said Mark Lytle, a veteran Justice Department public corruption prosecutor who also served in the White House Counsel’s Office in the Trump administration.

I am not going to climb aboard the “Dude Has Lost It” hay wagon. I consider the president to be mentally fit and alert — and is fully capable of doing his job as our head of state/government and as our commander in chief.

Did the  special counsel cross the line in bashing Biden’s memory? Even some Republicans think so (

However, he doesn’t buttress his public image by lashing out as he did the other day when Hur issued his 388-page report.

As for the special counsel, who was appointed by Biden’s immediate predecessor to be U.S. attorney for Maryland, he simply could have declared there was no criminal activity found … and left it at that.

I fear that the special counsel has poured fuel onto a presidential campaign fire that appears set to explode on its own.

Thomas fails integrity test

Clarence Thomas had the perfect opportunity today to do the right thing by recusing himself from a key hearing on the former POTUS’s standing in the 2024 campaign for president.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, the associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, didn’t recuse himself. He sat there with his colleagues and will take part in a ruling involving whether the ex-POTUS is eligible to run for office in accordance with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The conflict of interest is as clear as it gets.

Thomas’s wife, Virginia, is a member of the MAGA cult that embraces the rants of the 45th POTUS. She attended a gathering that developed on the D.C. Ellipse the morning of Jan. 6, 2021. The Former Guy exhorted the crowd — after Mrs. Thomas had left — to take back the government.

They stormed the Capitol and damn near overran the U.S. government in the process.

Colorado supreme court justices ruled that the ex-POTUS was ineligible to run for office because he took part in the effort to overthrow the government and gave ”aid and comfort” to those who stormed the Capitol.

Mrs. Thomas was part of the mob. She clearly had to have spoken to her husband, Justice Thomas, about the events of that day. In my view, Justice Thomas’s judicial integrity was compromised by his wife’s presence in the crowd.

He damn sure should have recused himself. But … he did no such thing.

Justice Thomas has ruled in favor of the ex-POTUS’s arguments already, even when he has been in the minority among justices. Of course, I have no hard knowledge that his decisions were influenced by his wife. Still, his participation in these legal matters just doesn’t pass the proverbial smell test.

Indeed, it stinks to high heaven … and beyond!

The court will decide soon whether the Colorado ruling will stand. My sense is that the court will side with the former POTUS and allow his name to return to that state’s ballot.

The very notion, though, of Justice Clarence Thomas taking part in this judicial matter simply makes me sick.

Founders weren’t ‘perfect’

Our nation’s Constitution has become the subject of considerable discussion in recent years as politicians seek ways to sidle up to what they believe the nation’s founders intended when they wrote it.

I never have considered myself to be a constitutional expert. However, I long ago appreciated the brilliant rhetoric the founders used to frame the document that has become the model for much of the rest of the world.

The Constitution’s very first sentence lays down the predicate for what has followed. The founders wrote: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union … “

We’ll stop there. You do realize, I hope, what I believe to be the three most critical words in our governing document: “more perfect Union.”

Our founders knew from the get-go that forming a “perfect Union” was way beyond their reach. They knew that perfection was unattainable.

I mean, we have amended the Constitution 27 times since its ratification in 1789. One of the amendments was enacted to overturn a previous amendment that turned out to be a monumental failure.

The 18th Amendment — ratified on Jan. 16, 1919 — sought to make the production, sale and consumption of liquor illegal. It didn’t take long for politicians to realize the mistake they made. On Dec. 5, 1933, Americans ratified the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment.

Where am I going with this? I am trying to understand what the founders intended  when –having won our nation’s independence after the Revolution — they crafted what I believe to be a “living document” that is subject to change, reform and improvement.

Indeed, the founders likely expected the Constitution to need improvement when they inserted the word “more” just ahead of “perfect” when they signed off on the greatest governing framework in world history.

Those who insist on following “original intent” so many years later, or proclaim themselves to be “constitutional conservatives,” should take heed of what I believe the founders intended.

Amarillo = test case

Amarillo, Texas — a city once known as a cradle of the modern conservative movement that reportedly detested government overreach — could find itself becoming a test case for that very premise.

Its city council is considering whether to invoke a rule barring people seeking abortion from using the city’s public streets to travel to a clinic where a woman can terminate her pregnancy.

I see this as a Big Brother run amok notion that smacks the idea of limited government squarely in the puss.

I already have questioned its enforceability. The Big Brother element, though, is a different animal altogether.

If the city goes through with this numbskull idea, it well could empower police to pull motorists over on a suspicion that someone in the vehicle is seeking abortion. Why, they cannot use public rights-of-way to do such a terrible thing. What next? Does an arrest follow? Do the cops impound the vehicle and toss its occupants into the slammer?

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that someone would concoct this intrusive policy proposal. Modern “conservatism” is staring back at the idea that traditional conservatives have had for decades, that government mustn’t be used in this heavy-handed manner.

It is the MAGA cult movement’s idea of “conservatism.” It’s pure crap!

Colo. court invokes 14th … wow!

The Colorado Supreme Court has shown judicial courage that appears to defy precedent.

It has ruled that Donald Trump cannot run for the Republican presidential nomination in that state’s primary because he engaged in an insurrection against the U.S. government on Jan. 6, 2021.

The Constitution’s 14th Amendment says anyone who does such a thing cannot serve in public office. It doesn’t say a thing about “due process,” or “trial by jury,” or a “conviction” of a crime. The Colorado court said, in effect, that the amendment speaks clearly and loudly enough to disqualify the former POTUS from seeking the GOP nomination in Colorado.

I normally would cheer this decision and declare victory in the fight to keep Trump out of the White House. Except for this caveat.

Trump is going to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is packed with a 6-3 super-conservative majority. Three justices were nominated by Trump, so it is quite possible they will vote to overrule the Colorado decision; throw in similar votes from Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Chief John Roberts and then, well … there you have it.

I am left to hope that a couple of those conservatives might be able to break away from their political loyalty and read the 14th Amendment carefully. Then they can assess that what Trump did on 1/6 qualifies as an incitement of the attack that ensued that day.

Yes, I know. It’s a faint hope … but it’s all I have.