Trump is the Nightmare before Christmas. Looking forward to waking up in November to a major Democratic victory...and for people to come to their senses! Appreciate you writing even on a holiday. Have a beautiful time in the UK!
NOTE THE DATE OF THE LETTER I SENT TO AG GARLAND.....
June 24, 2022
Mr. Merrick Brian Garland
Attorney General of the United States of America
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Garland,
No one is above the law.
No one.
I firmly believe that one’s status should not influence whether a person should be brought to justice, or not. If a crime is committed by the CEO of a company, that CEO should be brought to justice. The same would apply if a low-level employee of that company committed a crime. The principle of “no one is above the law” should – MUST - equally apply to those who serve in elected or appointed positions….. and to all (staff) who serve those who are in elected or appointed positions. A crime is a crime, regardless of who commits the crime. No one, and I mean “NO ONE” should be given a pass…. for any reason. FOR ANY REASON. Commit a crime, pay for it.
I am a __-year-old citizen of the United States of America. With avid interest, I’ve been following the investigations and hearings about the disgusting, unconscionable, criminal riot that took place at our Capital on January 6th and about former President Trump’s involvement in trying to overturn the free and fair elections that ousted him from the White House. Based on what I’ve read and heard so far, former President Trump committed crimes against the American People. If I was on a grand jury, there is absolutely no question in my mind that I would indict former President Trump…. and let him have his day in court.
We have no Kings or Queens in America. Everyone – EVERYONE - is subject to being brought to justice, no matter what a person’s status is, no matter what a person’s earnings or net worth are, no matter what a person’s current position is, no matter what a person’s former position was, no matter what a person’s level of education is, and no matter where a person lives.
U.S. citizens are privileged to live in a democratic republic. That said, that privilege can only continue if we guard against threats to our country and our constitution and take action when crimes are committed.
I am concerned about my children and grandchildren. What do I say, what will I say, to my children and grandchildren when they ask me why former President Trump wasn’t indicted? Do I tell them DOJ’s failure to indict him was caused by the reluctance of the DOJ to indict someone because the person was a former President of the U.S.? What sense would that answer make considering the principle that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW? Should I tell my children and grandchildren that the principle of NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW is actually “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW except for a former President”? Think about that in the context of how you would answer your own children’s or grandchildren’s questions to you about why former President Trump was never indicted for his crimes against the American People.
You don’t have to commit murder to be indicted and convicted for attempted murder.
“Trump’s filing, to no one’s surprise, argued 1) that he enjoys absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution over any of his “official” acts.”
This makes no sense. If this were meant to be true, why would there be a need to ever impeach a president? He or she could never be liable. Never have to answer for anything.
And if this is what the Republicans want, they have to know it applies to ALL presidents. Not just Trump. So in the future it would apply to democrats as well. And I cannot imagine a world where conservatives couldn’t chant about locking someone up.
On the issue of presidential immunity, if the courts decide in Trumps favor, and he wins the election next November, Old Joe could use that same new presidential immunity to do the same electorate bullshit that Trump did in 2020. Biden could use the same playbook.
Then what SCOTUS?
The fate of this country is in the hands of fools. Thanks Moscow Mitch.
John Roberts, Alito and Clarence, your destiny and dark place in scotus history is sealed. You just don’t realize it yet.
Can't just blame Moscow Mitch. Some blame goes to those progressives/democrats who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary in 2016, either staying on their fainting couch, or voting for someone else besides Trump or HRC.
Yes, and there are many other ‘leaders’ to blame as well. Corporate media, certain religious leaders, Ronald Regan and his advisors. Bush the dumber. I could on and on.....
It is a pretty long list...corporate media the restrictions on ownership of media outlets thrown out, and the fairness doctrine.
Regardless, one side never stopped voting, despite that list. I'm reminded of fhe Democratic voters who stayed home and cost Obama his majority, paving the way foe Moscow Mitch to deny Obama a SCOTUS pick.
Ultimately, the only way to stop this madness is to continue to beat them in every election.
Add the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, etc. The slashing of tax rates on rich old WHITE men who wanted to hang onto their riches and power. And for what? You can't take either with you once you are in the grave.
I’m democrat through to my soul. I withheld my presidential vote due to the nonstop investigations into Hillary. It’s all we heard about and that’s before my life was consumed by the news. The last straw was Comey coming out and saying that they were opening up the investigations again. I simply didn’t trust Washington or Hillary and I wasn’t going to vote for the orange traitor. Do I regret it now? In hindsight, yes. Do I blame myself for him winning? Absolutely not. I was naive but felt like it wouldn’t matter. If it makes you feel better to blame me then have at it
Thank you. I hope that you have a good holiday season.
A core issue that you keep pointing to is the relationship between politics and the rule of law. One of the claims that Donald Trump‘s lawyers keep making is that the failure to convict him in the Senate when he was impeached comprises a judicial exoneration. It certainly would’ve solved a lot of problems if they had done so, but at the time, Mitch McConnell said “Let the courts decide it.“ Now that it is IN the courts, MAGA wants the outcome determined by the voters. There are many constitutional lawyers arguing against invoking the 14th amendment, section 3, but they always do so because of the politics, not the law. Donald Trump lost an election, was impeached, was found culpable by the Mueller report, and now is finally in the courts for his actions. Maintaining that the courts are not the proper place to decide on Trump‘s eligibility as a candidate and guilt as a citizen is circular reasoning. If the GOP said let the courts decide it, I say make it so.
I'm old enough to remember when the GOP was more than happy to let the SCOTUS decide, by creating a ruling out of thin air to elect another person who lost the popular vote...
If trump is found guilty or not guilty, a court trial airs out the laundry. Three years later more is still coming out about what has being hidden from the electorate. Was just a simple group of people who lost control and stormed the Capitol? Or was it an orchestrated coup attempt? We deserve to know. That was the purpose of the January 6th Committee hearings. It did not have ALL the information, but Jack Smith and Fani Willis can (and have) obtained more. Enough to justify indictments. And that information should be made public.
My take: DC CA firmly backs the district court and denies tRump's claims of (1) immunity, and (2) "double jeopardy", in a well-argued unanimous decision, invoking the US v Nixon precedent...SCOTUS then denies cert, and jury selection begins.
Can't be any other way, despite how Alito and Thomas may feel about the matter, as a Court majority are done with tRump.
I have been wondering about the Supreme Court not taking the case to kick it down to the appellate court, then, whatever the outcome, they don’t take the appeal. That way, they avoid being held accountable.
I hope you have restful and happy holidays with your family in the UK. Just wanted to say that I look forward each day to your analysis of these complicated issues. I am much better informed because of you, Jay.
One of the things I don't understand about the appeals process as it pertains to the various Trump cases is why things need to pause before the appeals process plays out. I had thought it may have been because he was appealing the right of the various offices even to charge him, but the Colorado ruling seems to be being handled the opposite way, where the Supreme Court put a stay on their ruling because they knew it would be appealed. Once a ruling is made at a particular court, doesn't it generally stay in effect until/unless another court overturns it? Don't people start serving their sentences if convicted while going through the appeals process?
I assume if his bail were revoked, he wouldn't be trying to delay the trials so much.
It’s a great question with a complicated answer. Courts have recognized some constitutional defenses such as immunity or double jeopardy as grounds for a stay of all proceedings while the issue is worked out, bc if the defendant is correct it would be unjust to proceed and allow the inclusion of costs and time defending a case that should never have been brought against them in the first place.
Another way to look at this is a balance of equities, which weighs in favor of staying the case while the appeal proceeds.
A few examples of appeal delaying the sentence after conviction (and one case sentencing) are Bannon and Navarro, both found guilty, one has finally had an appeal hearing over a month ago but have seen no follow up, both still walking free...so these appeals in just the run up phase are a prelude to how many additional years of BS delays we have to look forward to if Father Time doesn't do US a favor.
Happy news about Peter Navarro! I had the misfortune to know him personally in San Diego even before he ran for several elective offices (5, IIRC) and lost, finally moving north to Irvine CA to a position at UC Irvine. Happy students at UCI are no longer being taught his questionable economic beliefs.
The sentence, in the CBC article, particularly caught my attention, so bizarre! ""Do we know that his failure to comply beyond reasonable doubt wasn't the result of accident, inadvertence or mistake?" Woodward asked." That argument alone should have served as sufficient to convict him of contempt of Congress.
Happiest of holidays to you, giving you my favorite article about Peter. A few lines perfectly describe that whole administration but one was intended specifically for him...his students deserve a refund.
I think that concerns about whether or not Trump is eligible to run for the Presidency seem to ignore the fact that the Constitution, our basis for the rule of law, literally says he is not.
To demonstrate their support for the rule of law SCOTUS should confirm him to be ineligible, knowing that the Constitution also says that Congress has the ability to put him back on the ballot by a 2/3 vote.
It seems likely to me, as suggested above, that certain members of the SC may choose to dodge that bullet once the Court of Appeal ratifies the Colorado SC ruling (which seems the likely outcome).
Welcome to drizzle and grey skies in England Jay. Have a wonderful time with your family. Thanks for your brilliant work, I always appreciate your efforts to keep us appraised of the ongoing situation in America. Sadly there are parallels with our current government, but not with Biden, more with the previous regime (!!)
Trump is the Nightmare before Christmas. Looking forward to waking up in November to a major Democratic victory...and for people to come to their senses! Appreciate you writing even on a holiday. Have a beautiful time in the UK!
You said it all. Thank you!
Have a great holiday Janet. ✌️😘
You as well, Susan, and keep laughing! I must say that having a sense of humor is what keeps me from collapsing into a puddle of despair.
Isn’t that the truth!? 😂
And Janet (Colorado). Laughter is the best medicine 🙂
Absolutely!!
NOTE THE DATE OF THE LETTER I SENT TO AG GARLAND.....
June 24, 2022
Mr. Merrick Brian Garland
Attorney General of the United States of America
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Garland,
No one is above the law.
No one.
I firmly believe that one’s status should not influence whether a person should be brought to justice, or not. If a crime is committed by the CEO of a company, that CEO should be brought to justice. The same would apply if a low-level employee of that company committed a crime. The principle of “no one is above the law” should – MUST - equally apply to those who serve in elected or appointed positions….. and to all (staff) who serve those who are in elected or appointed positions. A crime is a crime, regardless of who commits the crime. No one, and I mean “NO ONE” should be given a pass…. for any reason. FOR ANY REASON. Commit a crime, pay for it.
I am a __-year-old citizen of the United States of America. With avid interest, I’ve been following the investigations and hearings about the disgusting, unconscionable, criminal riot that took place at our Capital on January 6th and about former President Trump’s involvement in trying to overturn the free and fair elections that ousted him from the White House. Based on what I’ve read and heard so far, former President Trump committed crimes against the American People. If I was on a grand jury, there is absolutely no question in my mind that I would indict former President Trump…. and let him have his day in court.
We have no Kings or Queens in America. Everyone – EVERYONE - is subject to being brought to justice, no matter what a person’s status is, no matter what a person’s earnings or net worth are, no matter what a person’s current position is, no matter what a person’s former position was, no matter what a person’s level of education is, and no matter where a person lives.
U.S. citizens are privileged to live in a democratic republic. That said, that privilege can only continue if we guard against threats to our country and our constitution and take action when crimes are committed.
I am concerned about my children and grandchildren. What do I say, what will I say, to my children and grandchildren when they ask me why former President Trump wasn’t indicted? Do I tell them DOJ’s failure to indict him was caused by the reluctance of the DOJ to indict someone because the person was a former President of the U.S.? What sense would that answer make considering the principle that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW? Should I tell my children and grandchildren that the principle of NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW is actually “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW except for a former President”? Think about that in the context of how you would answer your own children’s or grandchildren’s questions to you about why former President Trump was never indicted for his crimes against the American People.
You don’t have to commit murder to be indicted and convicted for attempted murder.
Respectfully yours.
Joel, I love the letter you sent to Merrick Garland. You've spelled it out so a grade schooler would understand it.
You nailed it!!!
I agree with your letter however I believe Merrick Garland is on the same page. Still it’s good to write to anyone who will listen!
“Trump’s filing, to no one’s surprise, argued 1) that he enjoys absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution over any of his “official” acts.”
This makes no sense. If this were meant to be true, why would there be a need to ever impeach a president? He or she could never be liable. Never have to answer for anything.
And if this is what the Republicans want, they have to know it applies to ALL presidents. Not just Trump. So in the future it would apply to democrats as well. And I cannot imagine a world where conservatives couldn’t chant about locking someone up.
They are counting on never again having to face the electorate in a free and fair election.
I don't think they are putting forth a logical argument; they are just trying to delay, delay, delay.
On the issue of presidential immunity, if the courts decide in Trumps favor, and he wins the election next November, Old Joe could use that same new presidential immunity to do the same electorate bullshit that Trump did in 2020. Biden could use the same playbook.
Then what SCOTUS?
The fate of this country is in the hands of fools. Thanks Moscow Mitch.
John Roberts, Alito and Clarence, your destiny and dark place in scotus history is sealed. You just don’t realize it yet.
Can't just blame Moscow Mitch. Some blame goes to those progressives/democrats who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary in 2016, either staying on their fainting couch, or voting for someone else besides Trump or HRC.
Yes, and there are many other ‘leaders’ to blame as well. Corporate media, certain religious leaders, Ronald Regan and his advisors. Bush the dumber. I could on and on.....
It is a pretty long list...corporate media the restrictions on ownership of media outlets thrown out, and the fairness doctrine.
Regardless, one side never stopped voting, despite that list. I'm reminded of fhe Democratic voters who stayed home and cost Obama his majority, paving the way foe Moscow Mitch to deny Obama a SCOTUS pick.
Ultimately, the only way to stop this madness is to continue to beat them in every election.
Add the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, etc. The slashing of tax rates on rich old WHITE men who wanted to hang onto their riches and power. And for what? You can't take either with you once you are in the grave.
I’m democrat through to my soul. I withheld my presidential vote due to the nonstop investigations into Hillary. It’s all we heard about and that’s before my life was consumed by the news. The last straw was Comey coming out and saying that they were opening up the investigations again. I simply didn’t trust Washington or Hillary and I wasn’t going to vote for the orange traitor. Do I regret it now? In hindsight, yes. Do I blame myself for him winning? Absolutely not. I was naive but felt like it wouldn’t matter. If it makes you feel better to blame me then have at it
You better blame the Electoral College. Hilary had the NPV, so a greater number of the electorate did vote for her!
Thank you. I hope that you have a good holiday season.
A core issue that you keep pointing to is the relationship between politics and the rule of law. One of the claims that Donald Trump‘s lawyers keep making is that the failure to convict him in the Senate when he was impeached comprises a judicial exoneration. It certainly would’ve solved a lot of problems if they had done so, but at the time, Mitch McConnell said “Let the courts decide it.“ Now that it is IN the courts, MAGA wants the outcome determined by the voters. There are many constitutional lawyers arguing against invoking the 14th amendment, section 3, but they always do so because of the politics, not the law. Donald Trump lost an election, was impeached, was found culpable by the Mueller report, and now is finally in the courts for his actions. Maintaining that the courts are not the proper place to decide on Trump‘s eligibility as a candidate and guilt as a citizen is circular reasoning. If the GOP said let the courts decide it, I say make it so.
I'm old enough to remember when the GOP was more than happy to let the SCOTUS decide, by creating a ruling out of thin air to elect another person who lost the popular vote...
If trump is found guilty or not guilty, a court trial airs out the laundry. Three years later more is still coming out about what has being hidden from the electorate. Was just a simple group of people who lost control and stormed the Capitol? Or was it an orchestrated coup attempt? We deserve to know. That was the purpose of the January 6th Committee hearings. It did not have ALL the information, but Jack Smith and Fani Willis can (and have) obtained more. Enough to justify indictments. And that information should be made public.
Meanwhile I have to go out and put the Luminaria outside to help remind me of what Christmas is about.
My take: DC CA firmly backs the district court and denies tRump's claims of (1) immunity, and (2) "double jeopardy", in a well-argued unanimous decision, invoking the US v Nixon precedent...SCOTUS then denies cert, and jury selection begins.
Can't be any other way, despite how Alito and Thomas may feel about the matter, as a Court majority are done with tRump.
I fervently hope you are right
"Trump can no longer take New Hampshire for granite."
Oooh, that was PUNishment, Jay!!
Just wrote a strident comment. Realized it is Christmas Eve. Deleted comment. Will save for another day.
Today I will look out my window and see the beauty of the world and country t my blessings.
Happy Holidays to all.
I have been wondering about the Supreme Court not taking the case to kick it down to the appellate court, then, whatever the outcome, they don’t take the appeal. That way, they avoid being held accountable.
Who knows with this Court!
That occurred to me, as well. Hope we're both right.
I hope you have restful and happy holidays with your family in the UK. Just wanted to say that I look forward each day to your analysis of these complicated issues. I am much better informed because of you, Jay.
One of the things I don't understand about the appeals process as it pertains to the various Trump cases is why things need to pause before the appeals process plays out. I had thought it may have been because he was appealing the right of the various offices even to charge him, but the Colorado ruling seems to be being handled the opposite way, where the Supreme Court put a stay on their ruling because they knew it would be appealed. Once a ruling is made at a particular court, doesn't it generally stay in effect until/unless another court overturns it? Don't people start serving their sentences if convicted while going through the appeals process?
I assume if his bail were revoked, he wouldn't be trying to delay the trials so much.
It’s a great question with a complicated answer. Courts have recognized some constitutional defenses such as immunity or double jeopardy as grounds for a stay of all proceedings while the issue is worked out, bc if the defendant is correct it would be unjust to proceed and allow the inclusion of costs and time defending a case that should never have been brought against them in the first place.
Another way to look at this is a balance of equities, which weighs in favor of staying the case while the appeal proceeds.
In effect, the courts are saying that in *these* particular cases it’s sort of a “innocent until proven guilty” situation?
A few examples of appeal delaying the sentence after conviction (and one case sentencing) are Bannon and Navarro, both found guilty, one has finally had an appeal hearing over a month ago but have seen no follow up, both still walking free...so these appeals in just the run up phase are a prelude to how many additional years of BS delays we have to look forward to if Father Time doesn't do US a favor.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/navararo-convicted-contempt-congress-1.6959797#:~:text=Mehta%20scheduled%20Navarro%27s%20sentencing%20for%20Jan.%2012.%20He,punishable%20by%20up%20to%20a%20year%20behind%20bars.
Happy news about Peter Navarro! I had the misfortune to know him personally in San Diego even before he ran for several elective offices (5, IIRC) and lost, finally moving north to Irvine CA to a position at UC Irvine. Happy students at UCI are no longer being taught his questionable economic beliefs.
The sentence, in the CBC article, particularly caught my attention, so bizarre! ""Do we know that his failure to comply beyond reasonable doubt wasn't the result of accident, inadvertence or mistake?" Woodward asked." That argument alone should have served as sufficient to convict him of contempt of Congress.
Happiest of holidays to you, giving you my favorite article about Peter. A few lines perfectly describe that whole administration but one was intended specifically for him...his students deserve a refund.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-trump-administration-is-backing-out-of-a-647-million-ventilator-deal-after-propublica-investigated-the-price
Sadly, I remember that!
Sharing in case you needed a smile today;
https://www.thedailybeast.com/court-docs-link-donald-trump-jr-and-peter-navarro-to-chinese-financier-guo-wengui?ref=home
'Unfathomably inept (my favorite) gullible and incompetent' et al. 💙
Thank you Jay! ♥️
Wishing you and yours a safe and happy holiday season!
I think that concerns about whether or not Trump is eligible to run for the Presidency seem to ignore the fact that the Constitution, our basis for the rule of law, literally says he is not.
To demonstrate their support for the rule of law SCOTUS should confirm him to be ineligible, knowing that the Constitution also says that Congress has the ability to put him back on the ballot by a 2/3 vote.
Seems like a great bargaining chip to me. . .
It seems likely to me, as suggested above, that certain members of the SC may choose to dodge that bullet once the Court of Appeal ratifies the Colorado SC ruling (which seems the likely outcome).
Enjoy your time in England! Thanks for all you do!
Welcome to drizzle and grey skies in England Jay. Have a wonderful time with your family. Thanks for your brilliant work, I always appreciate your efforts to keep us appraised of the ongoing situation in America. Sadly there are parallels with our current government, but not with Biden, more with the previous regime (!!)
Thank you for all you do, Jay, and Merry Christmas.