In a note this past February, I stated, “I entirely reject the notion that the standard of [journalistic] objectivity for collection and dissemination of facts should in any way vary according to a reporter’s gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, or other attribute. … [W]hat is vital is that journalists, as [New York Times Columnist Bret] Stephens puts it, ‘provid[e] the public with the raw materials it needs to shape intelligent opinion and effective policy.’ That’s all, and that’s enough. After journalists have fulfilled their responsibility – a sacred one in a democracy – it is thereafter up to our people, for good or ill, to form their own conclusions.”
On May 15th, New York Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger published an essay in the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), entitled, “Journalism’s Essential Value,” in which he addresses the philosophical debate regarding the concept of objectivity currently occurring in some quarters of professional journalism. Mr. Sulzberger – whose forebears established the Times as we know it and have maintained its standing for over a century – states in part:
“Independence is the increasingly contested journalistic commitment to following facts wherever they lead. It places the truth—and the search for it with an open yet skeptical mind—above all else. … [I]n this hyperpolarized era, independent journalism and the sometimes counterintuitive values that animate it have become a radical pursuit.
Independence asks reporters to adopt a posture of searching, rather than knowing. It demands that we reflect the world as it is, not the world as we may wish it to be. It requires journalists to be willing to exonerate someone deemed a villain or interrogate someone regarded as a hero. It insists on sharing what we learn—fully and fairly—regardless of whom it may upset or what the political consequences might be. Independence calls for plainly stating the facts, even if they appear to favor one side of a dispute. And it calls for carefully conveying ambiguity and debate in the more frequent cases where the facts are unclear or their interpretation is under reasonable dispute, letting readers grasp and process the uncertainty for themselves.
This approach, tacking as it does against the with-us-or-against-us certainty of this polarized moment, requires a steadfast, sometimes uncomfortable commitment to journalistic process over personal conviction. Independent journalism elevates values grounded in humility—fairness, impartiality, and (to use perhaps the most fraught and argued-over word in journalism) objectivity—as ideals to be pursued, even if they can never be perfectly achieved. And crucially, independent journalism roots itself to an underlying confidence in the public; it trusts that people deserve to know the full truth and ultimately can be relied upon to use it wisely.”
Although his piece is not short (even compared to my more than occasional long-windedness 😉 ), I would submit that it is well worth your time. I tried to add a link here, but either due to CJR’s web protections or my technological ineptitude — almost certainly the latter — I couldn’t get the link to embed. Since I could access the essay although I do not subscribe to the CJR, I am hopeful that by entering the search, “Sulzberger” and “Columbia Journalism Review,” you will be able to reach it as well.
I didn’t watch last week’s CNN Town Hall featuring former President Donald Trump; I knew I couldn’t stomach it. Judging by the clips I’ve seen, the former president showed himself to be who he is: a delusional, fascist megalomaniac. Such characterization is obviously inflammatory, highly pejorative, and perhaps melodramatic; I leave it to you to decide whether you agree it is warranted.
While any number of liberal-leaning commentators have intoned that the CNN broadcast was a political gift to President Joe Biden – a claim which would seem to have some merit with regard to the disquieting effect that Mr. Trump’s obvious illiberal instability might well have on Republican-leaning voters in the metropolitan suburbs of swing states – I also sensed a bit of whistling past the graveyard. The most disconcerting part of the clips I’ve seen isn’t what Mr. Trump said — he is, if nothing else, consistent – but rather the raucous approval his obvious lies and slurs received from a crowd that, while Republican, came from New Hampshire – a state generally considered to be populated by sensible, upright New Englanders who one would have thought would know better. Although certainly not inconceivable that another candidate could yet wrest the Republican presidential nomination from him, it appears that Mr. Trump, to the enthusiastic alleluias of his cult, is resurrecting.
We’ve had about 27 months’ respite: 27 months in which we had the luxury (?) of concentrating on the substantive global and domestic challenges we face; 27 months in which we could dream that the spell Mr. Trump has cast over a segment of our citizens would dissipate; 27 months in which we could hope that those who provide Mr. Trump lip service support either out of tribal party loyalty or fear would find the courage to denounce and disassociate themselves from him; 27 month in which we could wish that his legal problems would disqualify him. We aren’t going to be that lucky. [Special Counsel Jack Smith’s delay in bringing charges against Mr. Trump either for his part in the January 6th insurrection or for his misappropriation of classified documents has, given Mr. Trump’s maneuvering, now made any future indictment, no matter how strong the evidence, appear a political prosecution. Mr. Smith – as Special Counsel Robert Mueller before him – has erred (and this is coming from a lawyer, mind you) by being too lawyerlike. Now, I fear it’s too late.]
All who know me know my fondness for the television series, The West Wing, the account of a fictional President Josiah Bartlet and Mr. Bartlet’s White House staff. At several points during the series’ multi-year run, the character Bartlet admonished his staff, when their focus had been diverted: Break’s over. Time to get back to work.
Mr. Trump has made his objective plain. He and his supporters intend to institute an American Apartheid. (I think the same can be said if Republicans nominate another MAGA, such as FL. Gov. Ron DeSantis, who, while lacking Mr. Trump’s animal magnetism, would have the same ultimate goal and carry less baggage to the race.) They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be persuaded; they can only be outvoted. Although I concede unease about a second term for an 82-year-old president, and retain deep misgivings about Vice President Kamala Harris’ readiness for the presidency, these are the cards we’ve been dealt. Any obvious physical diminishment by Mr. Biden, a deep recession, a perceived border crisis, a pivotal presidential debate moment, or some other notable event could tip a closely-divided electorate in key Electoral College swing states to Mr. Trump or another MAGA. The crucible appears to be upon us. It is time for those who believe in American democracy to get back to work.
I have indicated before in these pages why I believe former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney could be well positioned to derail the presidential aspirations of former President Donald Trump and any other MAGAs who subscribe to illiberal views. Given her courageous efforts on behalf of American democracy in her last years in Congress, Ms. Cheney has my wholehearted support, although I am pretty confident that our views on many domestic issues are at odds. (I am equally confident that our views are pretty closely aligned on foreign policy.) During her 2022 unsuccessful campaign for the Republican nomination for her Wyoming Congressional seat, Ms. Cheney launched a Political Action Committee (PAC) entitled, “The Great Task,” its title drawn from a phrase in President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The Great Task has continued to post video clips since she left office.
Below is a link to a YouTube video which I understand that The Great Task is beginning to run on New Hampshire media outlets dealing with Mr. Trump.
I continue to harbor doubts that Ms. Cheney will have much impact on the electoral fortunes of Mr. Trump or any other MAGA unless she attracts major media attention by declaring for the Republican presidential nomination – a step which would have little chance of ultimate success while involving the clear risk of physical danger to herself in our current toxic and violent environment, and thus, one that any advisor would be understandably reluctant to recommend. That said, this video shows that she does not intend to leave the stage. I suspect that this is not the last we’ll hear from Ms. Cheney; I certainly hope it is not.
“… The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November 19, 1863
Yesterday, four members of the Proud Boys, including their leader, Enrique Tarrio, were found guilty of seditious conspiracy arising from their actions before and related to the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, joining members of the Oath Keepers, including their founder, Stewart Rhodes, who have previously been found guilty of seditious conspiracy related to the insurrection.
I understand that a number of these defendants claimed as part of their defense that they were not guilty of sedition because they were called to action by former President Donald Trump. Put aside the patent culpability of Mr. Trump; such obviously provides these traitors no excuse. They are responsible for their own actions. They forgot their English literature:
“Treason doth never prosper.” English poet John Harrington; Alcilia.
“Men at times are masters of their own fates; the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” Cassius to Marcus Brutus; William Shakespeare; Julius Caesar.
Those who cherish American democracy can draw some reassurance from these convictions. Even so, while Mr. Trump and other MAGAs continue in their endeavors, we cannot let our guard down; but for the actions of former Vice President Mike Pence and a few others, the insurrection incited by Mr. Trump on January 6th might well have succeeded. The threat to our way of life has not gone away. When the thought of this note occurred to me, I was pretty sure of my Shakespeare, but looked up Mr. Harrington’s declaration to check my memory. I found that I had actually only recalled part of it. The rest constitutes a caution:
“Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason [Emphasis Added]”.
That said, today Joe Biden remains president and it’s a warm and sunny Friday in the Midwest. While we need to remain cognizant of Mr. Harrington’s vital warning, one might be excused from also embracing a more pleasant perspective for this early spring weekend. If so, in addition to outdoor pursuits, one can contemplate the potpourri of television viewing available tomorrow: commencing with an early champagne cocktail, toasting the coronation of King Charles III; then enjoying several Cherry Cokes with Warren Buffett throughout the day as CNBC – seemingly inordinately proudly, considering the promotion it has offered this week — broadcasts the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting; and watching the sun start to set with a Mint Julep as one witnesses the Kentucky Derby.
If the weather holds, we ourselves plan to stain a retaining wall. We will celebrate any successful conclusion with the appropriate refresher – perhaps even a Schlitz 😉 .
A few disparate impressions as we move further into spring:
“Tanking is the art of creating a purposefully bad team with the intention of losing games to gain high draft picks. … Tanking aims to … ultimately win a championship with the core constructed while tanking.”
What Are The Odds: A Statistical Analysis of Tanking in The NBA; towardsdatascience.com; Brayden Gerrard, March 11, 2019
If there was a Mr. Republican who controlled the party’s national strategy – and if there were such a being, he would, being a Republican, obviously be a white male 😉 – he might well be thinking that having former President Donald Trump as the party’s 2024 nominee would be in the best long term interests of the party: “Let Trump and [FOX News Commentator Tucker] Carlson take the party over the edge to what is currently looking like it will be a general election shellacking. After winning the culture war for years with many moderate Americans who are alienated by what they perceive as progressives’ obsession on Americans’ gender, ethnic, religious, and sexual preference identities and disregard for traditional American values and hallmarks, now it is we who are on the wrong side of the American middle with our positions on abortion, health care, book banning, guns and climate; we even seem poised to put ourselves on the wrong side of the American majority on the debt ceiling and perhaps Ukraine.” Mr. Republican might reason: “The GOP can’t win in 2024 without the MAGAs, but Trump can’t win without the traditional Republicans; let’s tank and concede a Biden re-election. We still have the majority of Americans with us on many issues such as immigration and crime [note that at the same time Wisconsinites were providing liberal Judge Janet Protasiewicz an 11-point victory this past April on the strength of abortion rights, they were voting in higher percentages for referenda in favor of tightening state welfare eligibility and keeping criminal defendants in jail before trial]. A Trump debacle will give us years to develop and test positions in areas in which we are now considered too extreme, and we’ll have a great chance to win in 2028 when Americans will be ready for a change, with a fresh candidate against a Democrat almost certainly more progressive than Biden.”
(Is there a Republican master strategist? Nah. Are MAGA diehards such as U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan seeking to prop up Mr. Trump as part of some long term Republican strategy? Nah; I know, I know. They’re just blackguards.)
Next: There are obviously all different types of smarts. Since FL Gov. Ron DeSantis went to Yale, and is widely reported to study issues, he seemingly has what might be called, “academic smarts.” That said, Mr. DeSantis appears to be too politically dumb to be president. Turning hard to the right on abortion in the face of recent nationwide polls and electoral results is inept enough for a candidate who will need to win swing states to win the general presidential election; but his fight with The Walt Disney Company, the signature employer in his state, over culture issues is so egregiously politically stupid for a Republican that it makes one blink. Say what you will about Mr. Trump and former WI Gov. Scott Walker [and I’ve said plenty 😉 ]; these men, while campaigning as populists, were politically savvy enough to cultivate and maintain great relationships with the business community. For Mr. DeSantis to seek to use his office to punish the Disney organization over culture issues is akin to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s crackdown over the last couple of years on mighty Chinese conglomerates perceived by Mr. Xi as being too powerful. I am confident that many major American CEOs are calculating that if Mr. DeSantis is using his gubernatorial power to go after Disney today, he could use presidential power to go after them for perceived slights tomorrow. Since I consider Mr. DeSantis every bit as dangerous to America as Mr. Trump, I’m happy to see that he seems to be as politically obtuse as he is boring.
Next: Unless U.S. CA Sen. Dianne Feinstein can return to Washington by the end of April, she should resign. There have been plenty of credible reports to indicate that Sen. Feinstein, 89, is no longer physically able to fulfill the duties of her office. I consider the claims that the calls for her resignation are gender-based – i.e., if she was a man, no one would be calling for her to resign – a progressive spasm irrelevant to the main point: getting President Joe Biden’s judicial appointments confirmed. [I would understand the reluctance to pressure Ms. Feinstein if California had a Republican governor; but I’d make the same call for resignation if it involved U.S. MD Sen. Ben Cardin (to be 80 this year, representing a state with a Democratic governor), if it was obvious that Mr. Cardin could no longer serve and his continuance in the Senate was blocking the President’s judicial appointments.] Someone Ms. Feinstein trusts should go to the Senator and advise her to step down. Democratic CA Gov. Gavin Newsom will appoint Ms. Feinstein’s successor, and given the already-hotly contested 2024 California Democratic primary battle for Ms. Feinstein’s seat, the appointee should be a “caretaker.”
Two final notes, arguably more significant:
First, those chortling – and there is a fair amount of chortling in this note – about the Republicans’ seemingly dimming prospects to win the White House in 2024 with Mr. Trump as their nominee, need to keep one thing in mind: Mr. Biden’s health. If he appears hale all the way to Election Day in a race against Mr. Trump, I think he wins. If he has a significant health reversal in the last few weeks before the election – the worst kind of “October Surprise” (recall that U.S. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just couldn’t quite make it to Inauguration Day, 2021, and the havoc her truly untimely death has caused) – Mr. Trump can win. Those who believe in democracy should hold their breaths that the octogenarian Mr. Biden remains healthy at least until Wednesday, November 6, 2024. (I doubt U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris’ readiness for the presidency, but even if my estimation is correct, we will muddle through; Mr. Trump’s illiberalism is an existential threat to our way of life.)
Finally, the debt ceiling. There is no substantive issue – Ukraine, race, abortion, guns, Social Security/Medicare, climate, election reform, or anything else – I consider as important as maintaining the full faith and credit of the United States. For us to be able to continue to pay our debts, Congress must pass a law raising the debt ceiling by sometime this summer. U.S. House Republicans, led by Speaker Kevin McCarthy, are posturing (as they always do when a Democrat is president) about budget restrictions they will require in order to vote to raise the debt ceiling. Safeguarding America’s democracy from provocateurs is existential, more important than any substantive issue, including maintaining its full faith and credit. If counseling the President, I’d recommend that he get this blunt message to Mr. McCarthy (if he hasn’t already): “Kevin, I’m not compromising with you. I’m not going to accept any budget limitations in order to get your votes on the debt ceiling. I’m going to sit here and talk about Social Security, Medicare, and our need to protect our troops and our veterans. There are enough votes in both houses to pass an unrestricted debt ceiling. If we default, Americans won’t blame me; they’ll blame you and your extremists for the fallout. In 2025, any Kwik Trip will be big enough to hold the entire Republican House Caucus; and you won’t be there. You know it. I know it. Have a nice day.”
Mr. McCarthy has shown himself to be a gutless hypocrite; I think he’ll cave. Whether he does or not, and although I am deeply concerned about a U.S. default today and the effect that the mounting U.S. debt will have on our children and grandchildren tomorrow, one cannot appease political terrorists.
More than long enough. (Could have cut the paragraph on Mr. DeSantis, which added nothing you haven’t already seen, heard, or thought; but just couldn’t resist piling on 🙂 ). Have a good week.
As all who care are aware, yesterday Dominion Voting Systems (Dominion) and Fox Corp. (Fox) settled the defamation suit Dominion had brought against Fox arising from Fox’ falsehoods about Dominion’s voting systems, with Fox paying Dominion $787.5 million. Fox released a statement indicating: “We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.”
I have been a lawyer too long not to recognize that a good deal for a client is not always a good deal for society, so I certainly don’t begrudge Dominion locking in an almost record-breaking defamation settlement award, or choosing to avoid the uncertainties of trial and, if victorious, the grueling prospect of lengthy appeals against a well-funded and implacable opponent. At the same time, I am offended by the blasé hypocrisy of the Fox statement. I’ve seen one of Dominion’s lawyers acknowledge that Fox is not obligated by the terms of the settlement to have its hosts admit on their air that they lied about Dominion, which lies had the effect of furthering the hoax that former President Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election and arguably at least indirectly led to the January 6th insurrection. A First Amendment lawyer quoted by the New York Times observed: “With the settlement, everybody wins. Fox goes its way. Dominion gets cash.”
Not everybody wins. America didn’t win. I had hoped that the settlement would require the Fox hosts to acknowledge their falsehoods on Fox air, which, even if such did not dispel the Big Lie, would perhaps at least weaken their future credibility with their viewers. That’s not going to happen. I fear that the confirmation of Fox’ perfidy won’t even meaningfully enter the alt-right information silo. I expect one close friend who follows these pages and is more familiar with Fox propaganda than I am will provide me backhanded consolation by repeating his oft-expressed observation to the effect that even if Fox viewers knew Fox hosts were lying to them, theywouldn’t care.
On that note, I guess we must, like Fox, go on our way.
In the original of this note, I declared: “If the counts brought against Mr. Trump ultimately amount to no more than falsification of business records under New York law … such charges are highly likely to be seen … as ticky-tack fouls. Such an impression helps Mr. Trump.” I have no background in criminal law. I have seen it reported that the 34 charges brought against Mr. Trump will amount to NY law misdemeanor counts, not felony counts, unless the prosecution can persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump falsified his business records in order to evade apprehension for a separate felony crime. Judging by the muted tones I heard from NY District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance, Jr., during a CNN interview about the indictment, and by the reserved commentary I have heard from some of the legal experts on MSNBC’s decidedly-liberal Morning Joe, I’d venture that they consider Mr. Bragg to have brought … a whole lotta ho-hum. (I know, I know; Al Capone. Even so ….) Whether this indictment ultimately helps Mr. Trump politically – more on that below — remains to be seen.
Since former WI Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in 2010, I have had a lot of surprises in politics; but rarely have I been stunned. I was stunned by Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential election victory; and I was stunned by the margin of Judge Janet Protasiewicz’ victory over former WI S. Ct. Justice Daniel Kelly for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court — 11 points – in such a closely divided and deeply polarized state. Ms. Protasiewicz had campaigned primarily on women’s abortion rights and her concerns with Wisconsin’s despicably gerrymandered legislative districts. We learned the day after the election that a close woman friend who is fairly apolitical, and who had truly significant personal issues literally coming to a head on election day, nonetheless made the time to vote for Ms. Protasiewicz because of the abortion issue. It would appear that former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has again been proven too smart by half; if he had either allowed U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s ascension to the U.S. Supreme Court or chosen not to proceed with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, there would not have been five U.S. Supreme Court votes to overturn Roe v. Wade (recall that conservative Chief Justice John Roberts adopted a more limited rationale that would have upheld Roe). From Republicans’ perspective, the political milk is now spilt; they are seemingly stuck on the wrong side of an emotive, galvanizing issue that appears likely to be the political gift that keeps on giving for Democrats for years.
That said: into every life, a little rain must fall (at least for us Irish 😉 ). As Judge Protasiewicz was winning her Supreme Court seat, Republican state Rep. Dan Knodl won a WI state Senate seat to create a Republican supermajority bloc that now has the votes to remove WI Gov. Tony Evers and other Wisconsin office holders – including judges – from office if the Wisconsin Assembly chooses to impeach them. (As in the federal system, impeachment charges need only receive a simple majority in the lower house Assembly – now controlled by Republicans – to be referred to the state’s Senate.) This is not comforting; Mr. Knodl was among state lawmakers who signed a letter in 2020 calling for Vice President Mike Pence to reject the certification of the 2020 presidential election. Even so, do I think that the Republican Wisconsin legislature will seek to remove Mr. Evers from office? I may be too optimistic, and stand ready to be corrected (some who read these notes have forgotten more about the innards of Wisconsin state politics than I’ll ever know), but I actually don’t believe that Wisconsin Republicans – despite what (or perhaps because of) what recently happened in Tennessee – will undertake such an effort; such would too closely smack of a Republican Wisconsin state coup d’etat, and could be predicted to incite too fierce a political backlash. Do I think that the Republican legislature will seek to impeach liberal WI Supreme Court Justices if they seem likely to rule that women have abortion rights under the Wisconsin Constitution? Again, particularly given Ms. Protasiewicz’ margin of victory, I’m guessing that Wisconsin Republicans would consider the political repercussions of such an action for such a reason too great to risk. On the other hand, do I think they’ll consider attempting to remove a liberal WI Supreme Court Justice on some trumped up (if you will 😉 ) charge if such is necessary to avoid having their perniciously gerrymandered legislative districting – the reason some of them have jobs — declared unconstitutional under the Wisconsin Constitution? You bet.
Back to Mr. Trump’s indictment. Two notions:
First, I was recently asked by someone aware of my legal background why New York Supreme Court (note: in New York courts, the Supreme Court is actually the trial court) Justice Juan Merchan doesn’t find the former president in contempt and put him in jail for attacking the judge and his family after the Judge instructed Mr. Trump during his arraignment not to make remarks that could endanger others. My view: Justice Merchan confronts the horns of a dilemma. I suspect that the former president may be goading the judge because in his warped view, Mr. Trump wins either way: either he can significantly tarnish the credibility of the proceedings by consistently casting aspersions upon the judge and the judicial system, or he gets to play the persecuted martyr if Justice Merchan orders his incarceration for contempt of court. Ultimately, I think Justice Merchan will have little choice but to jail Mr. Trump for contempt if he continues his outbursts; but I would imagine that he’ll wait a bit. At least were I in his place, I would feel I needed to. He just shouldn’t wait too long.
Finally, although Mr. Bragg’s charges against Mr. Trump may well ultimately amount to no more than two-pound walking weights when compared to the baggage he’s already carrying, the notion lingers that as Mr. Trump’s legal woes mount, it might be possible for a Republican moderate to run a bit to his left and surpass him for the nomination. However, even if that happens, Judge Protasiewicz’ victory margin makes clear what a difficult juggling act any GOP presidential nominee will have with the abortion issue in the swing states in the general presidential election campaign. If the Republican takes the position that s/he will appoint more judges like Mr. Trump did, it will mobilize those seeking to protect women’s abortion rights; if s/he waffles on the issue, s/he will lose the Evangelicals and other religious conservatives, without whom I will venture no Republican can win the presidency. This issue even seems to help President Biden blunt the ageism issue facing him; in two years, when asked about his obviously advanced age, he can respond, “Justices Alito and Thomas are our oldest Supreme Court Justices. If they leave the Court during the next four years, who do you want to have appointing their successors – [the Republican candidate] or me?”
Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ, the Son of God, who allowed himself to be sacrificed and who died for the good of all humankind. Although Jews and Muslims – who are, currently, respectively in the midst of Passover and Ramadan — reject the notion of Jesus’ divinity, I understand that they nonetheless hold him a great prophet. I will venture that the vast majority of those who are aware of Jesus and his teachings, even those who do not believe in a Supreme Being, consider him to have been a wise and good man. Given the bitter discord in which we seem endlessly enmeshed within both our nation and our world, it seems appropriate on this day to record his succinct summation of his teachings.
“He began to teach them, saying,
‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the land.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called Children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.’”
As all are aware, former President Donald Trump has been indicted by a New York state grand jury. Although the indictment is said to involve, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, “[Mr. Trump’s] role in paying hush-money to a porn star on the eve of the 2016 election,” the exact nature and extent of the charges have not yet been revealed.
As liberal commentators intone that such indictment is proof that “No One Is Above The Law,” and right-winger scream, “Witch Hunt” and “Weaponization of Government,” a few feelings of unease emerge in addition to concerns about the prospects for violence arising from the presentation of the charges. Hopefully, all of the following misgivings are woefully misplaced.
If the counts brought against Mr. Trump ultimately amount to no more than falsification of business records under New York law [e.g., that he intentionally mischaracterized the nature of his business expenses to hide his payment to the porn star, Stephanie Clifford (a/k/a Stormy Daniels)] – since any violation of federal campaign finance law is outside NY State DA Alvin Bragg’s bailiwick – such charges are highly likely to be seen (ironically, in part because of the raft of more egregious offenses for which Mr. Trump is arguably culpable) as ticky-tack fouls. Such an impression helps Mr. Trump.
The existential significance of any charges hereafter brought against Mr. Trump for his role in the January 6th insurrection by Special Prosecutor John L. “Jack” Smith might well be diluted in the public mind by being conceptually lumped in with the New York state charges. Mr. Smith and his team may be viewed as simply piling on. Any such impression also helps Mr. Trump.
If there was a path for another Republican to challenge Mr. Trump for the nomination, today that path seems to me significantly narrower if not completely foreclosed. Anyone now getting in the race is going to be perceived as being disloyal to the party – the ultimate Republican sin. While announced candidate Fmr. U.S. U.N. Amb. Nikki Haley will avoid that particular charge, her campaign certainly hasn’t caught fire to date and appears overwhelmingly likely to be swamped in the wake of Republicans rallying to Mr. Trump. [A bright note for readers of these pages: I had a post mostly finished outlining how a more moderate credible Republican might make effectively challenge Mr. Trump’s seeming iron grip on the Republican nomination. I see little reason to run it – at least now – sparing you several minutes of your life 😉 .]
Although the outcome of any charges brought against Mr. Trump won’t be known for some time – he is likely to seek to delay any trial until after the 2024 presidential election – if any charges do go to trial against him before the election, it can’t be denied that Mr. Bragg will need to win – obtain a conviction. Obtaining a criminal conviction against any defendant in this country obviously requires the prosecution persuade a jury of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is an extremely high standard, and it should be; but if Mr. Trump is acquitted – as he was in his two Senate impeachment trials, despite patently clear evidence of offenses that unquestionably warranted his removal from office – he and his cohort will, as they did following the impeachment proceedings, claim vindication. I am sure that Mr. Bragg understood that in obtaining an indictment against Mr. Trump, he was going to need to get a conviction. I most sincerely hope he knows what he’s doing.
Finally, faraway events can have unforeseen repercussions. I am absolutely confident that Mr. Bragg, in seeking an indictment against Mr. Trump, had no thought of a state Supreme Court race going on in what any New Yorker considers the backwater of Wisconsin. And yet, as I have earlier asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s vitiation of women’s U.S. Constitutional right to obtain an abortion aided Democrats’ better-than-expected showing in the 2022 elections, and have opined that the Roe v. Wade reversal was going to boost liberal Judge Janet Protasiewicz’ campaign for the Wisconsin Supreme Court against conservative former WI S. Ct. Justice Daniel Kelly culminating next Tuesday, I will venture that the Trump indictment being handed down right at this time – a challenge to Mr. Trump intrinsically involving the courts — could literally not have come at a worse time for Ms. Protasiewicz (who even her supporters concede has run a more overtly political campaign than traditionally seen in Wisconsin judicial races). I fear the Trump indictment will galvanize Republican support for Mr. Kelly in what was already projected to be a very close contest.
It is very likely that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will ultimately be called upon to decide any challenge mounted to the state’s initially-announced 2024 presidential vote tallies. The winner of the Protasiewicz-Kelly contest will determine whether liberals or conservatives command the Court’s majority.
An indictment spawned from a meaningless tryst occurring over a decade ago between a reality TV ham and a porn actress might ultimately have consequences for the direction of America akin to those wrought by a reckless interlude between a president and a White House intern. Let us hope not. If anyone wants to take sharp issue with any of the unhappy impressions set forth here, have at it. I want you to be right.
[All wanton destruction of life is tragic; yet, I feel the shootings of children in our schools the most deeply. This is a shortened version of a post entered in these pages in late May, 2022, after the horrific loss in Uvalde, TX. I’m republishing it following this week’s shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville simply because there’s nothing else that I can do. The passages posted here contain a few textual clarifications but no substantive changes.
At the conclusion of this note I have added a link to a Washington Post article entitled, “THE BLAST EFFECT: This is how bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart.” Although deeply troubling, I hope you can and will find the means to access it, either here or otherwise.]
Subject to the exception below, “assault weapons” should be banned in America for all but military use and law enforcement. Now.
[In this post, I mean “assault weapons” to include any weapon (and attendant high-capacity magazines) designed or reasonably modifiable to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time, as needed for use in war. I don’t know enough about weapons to make finer distinctions, and lack the patience to quibble with gun rights apologists. If a reasonable case can be made for a weapon’s inclusion within the definition, it’sincluded.]
Let’s take the Constitution first. For those that hear a lot about the hallowed “Second Amendment,” but have better things to do than delve into arcane legal jargon, Amendment II to the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified along with nine other Amendments constituting our Bill of Rights, provides as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
…
In District of Columbia v. Heller (“Heller”), written by Justice Antonin Scalia for a 5-Justice majority including present Justices (Chief) John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court held that an individual has the right to bear arms, apart from service in a militia, for lawful purposes such as self-defense. At the same time, Justice Scalia — a hero to younger conservative jurists such as current Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett – was ultra-conservative, but he wasn’t crazy. Toward the end of the Heller opinion, he gave the Court and himself some leeway for the future gun rights cases he knew would inevitably arise:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. … [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [U.S. Supreme Court decision United States v. Miller, 1939] said … that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” … We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ … It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. … It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. … But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right [i.e., that the right is not “unlimited”]. [Emphasis Added]”
Although Justice Scalia’s language can only be described as tortuous, courts have interpreted his words to uphold state bans on assault weapons such as AR-15s (akin to the M-16s he referred to in his opinion). The reason we have not had a federal ban since 2004 is because Congressional Republicans lack the guts to enact one.
There is not time in this lengthy note to address all of gun rights advocates’ supposed concerns; just three of my favorites:
First: Citizens need assault weapons to protect themselves against an impending government takeover. Let’s put aside reason, dive into the weird world of the Conspiracy-Obsessed, and communicate on their plane: Dude [or Dudette 😉 ], for years, we killed terrorists in the Middle East – smarter, and better equipped than you will ever be — from tens of miles away. If the President decides to take you out, the AR-15 won’t save you. You’ll be vaporized while standing in front of your house, wearing your helmet, waving your weapon and pounding your chest. You won’t even see it coming.
Second: Let’s give guns to the good guys in churches, schools, and stores, and they’ll defend themselves against the bad guys. Put aside the fact that most religious, educators, and shop keepers don’t want to assume the responsibility to defend those within their purview from perpetrators with firearms. How can they reasonably be expected to defend themselves and others in situations that are sometimes beyond the capabilities of trained officers? Aaron Salter, a retired Buffalo police officer, although armed, was outgunned by an 18-year-old in protective gear, and died attempting to defend Tops patrons. …
Finally: If we start to regulate guns, where does it stop? This … makes one blink. Across this country, citizens have had to register their motor vehicles at the state or local level for many decades; this hasn’t resulted in government or anybody else taking our cars away. One obeys traffic lights and speed limits; these regulations haven’t surreptitiously limited anybody’s operation of his/her car. From time to time, for the public good, one needs to demonstrate driving proficiency to maintain your legal right to drive – a right, unlike the use of firearms, that many literally rely upon to sustain their livelihoods — and no one objects, although the number of victims in the vast majority of negligently-caused automobile accidents pales in comparison to the number of victims of many mass shootings.
What’s the exception to the ban I would impose? Citizens ought to be able to retain the assault weapons they already own. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution provide that no person shall be deprived of property “without due process of law.” That said, in addition to a ban on all future manufacture and sale of assault weapons except for and to military and law enforcement authorities, Congress should pass legislation that provides: for a national registry of all assault weapons; that an owner’s failure to register any such weapon(s) within a year after the effective date of the law is a federal crime, making the weapon subject to confiscation and the violator to mandatory fine and jail time; a specific purchase price scale, annually adjusted for depreciation and inflation, at which the government would be obligated to purchase any registered assault weapon offered for sale by its owner; a ban on the sale or other disposition (e.g., by inheritance) to any private party of any registered assault weapon, with a proven violation resulting in weapon confiscation and a fine and jail time for the violator; and since the perpetrator of an injury caused by an assault weapon would almost certainly be beyond civil recourse, a repeal of any laws shielding manufacturers or sellers of assault weapons from civil liability for loss caused by the weapons they manufacture and/or sell, combined with a provision granting anyone suffering physical and/or emotional injury caused by an assault weapon a federal cause of action against the maker or seller of the assault weapon. In order to collect from a defendant under the latter provision, a claimant would need to establish only (i) injury (ii) and that the injury was caused by an assault weapon made or sold by the defendant. Any judgments would not be subject to discharge in bankruptcy.
Such laws would have no effect on citizens’ unlimited rights to purchase, keep and bear multiple handguns, shotguns, or rifles. Even I can see that a citizen might consider more than one handgun necessary for defense of his/her home and a hunter stalking bear would require a more powerful weapon than s/he would use to hunt deer or fowl.
Are any of the proposals set forth in this note going to happen? Obviously not. Are they too extreme? Certainly not. Although it is unrealistic to suggest that banning all assault weapons would have prevented all of the losses suffered by all of the victims of mass shootings that we have witnessed over the past decades – an expert with a long-range rifle can obviously inflict significant damage upon a crowded area — it is fatuous not to recognize and acknowledge that such a ban would have avoided a significant share of the loss and grief – the agony which will never go away — arising from these tragedies. Although it is for the Almighty, and not for me, to judge, I would nonetheless venture that the blood of some of these victims stains the hands of the politicians, who out of fear and ambition have failed for almost 20 years to enact strict controls on assault weapons, every bit as surely as the blood of innocent Ukrainians festers on the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin.”
Jas 4:17. From the Bible’s only recorded Letter of James, the man referred to as the “brother of the Lord” in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.
… If there was ever a good faith belief that we could control this risk to our children and ourselves by identifying those who pose a danger to others, our experience has made a mockery of that belief. We’ll never identify them all. We can’t do worse than we have been by instead doing what we can to keep these terribly destructive weapons out of their hands.
McCoy's Noise 