Be Careful What You Wish For, New York!

THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is reportedly insolvent if you are to believe the loathsome mainstream media. This is because of an astounding judgment , amounting to $454.2 million, against President Trump arising out of the so-called ‘civil fraud case’ in New York, along with the nine percent annualized interest rate of over $111,000 per day in interest until it is paid in full. The alleged ‘fraud’ Trump committed was possibly overvaluing his assets, including Mar-a-Lago, though the court clearly undervalued, showing the range of opinion in valuations.

Also a matter of opinion is whether and to what extent this ‘over-valuation’ harmed anyone: Trump’s lenders said unequivocally no, but this was Judge Arthur Engeron, who ruled on the non-jury civil case, prosecuted by state A.G. Letitia James back in 2022, so the outcome was preordained.

Trump can pay cash or post an appeals bond in order to appeal that highly unprecedented and disturbing case. He was given 30 days to do so, lest James seize and forfeit Trump’s assets. The Complaint against Trump and his co-defendants is here.

On Monday, Trump’s attorneys moved the state appeals court to use its discretion and stay the judgment pending appeal based on the apparent fact that securing a bond of that size is a “practical impossibility,” and providing the court with a supporting memorandum of law, here. Alternatively, he’d provide a $100 million bond. (Rejected.)

Given Trump was also barred from running his New York businesses for three years as an additional penalty, it is hardly a wonder he can’t (or won’t) pay up in full. His lawyers say the 30 bonding companies consulted won’t contemplate bonds of that size and don’t accept real estate, where most of Trump’s wealth lies, as collateral, and if he can’t operate his real estate, he is short on liquid assets when he needs to come up with $557 million in marketable securities and cash. And bonding companies may be afraid of the association, too.

Trump has already posted a $91.6 million bond, fully collateralized, prior to appealing the bogus E. Jean Carroll case. In 2022, he posted a $200,000 bond in the Fulton County, GA ‘racketeering case.’ There may be others I’m overlooking, too.

Forbes has previously estimated Trump’s net worth to be between $2.5 billion in 2020-21 and $4.5 billion in 2015, prior to his running for president and prior to the pandemic. 

Most fair-minded Americans should have a disconnect when their states/cities have ‘no bail’ and ‘free counsel’ for violent criminals and illegal aliens, but demand otherwise law-abiding citizens to have to pony up big bucks, in advance, simply to appeal a civil case.

Reasonable bail and right to counsel are guaranteed to criminal defendants by the Constitution, but there are troublesome implications here. It might be okay to hold someone liable for pecuniary damages or fines in civil matters, but they shouldn’t be excessive and in exceed actual damages or costs caused by their error(s) under the Eighth Amendment.

Like bail, a bond should be commensurate with the transgression and not a pay-for-play payoff or discriminatory tax. It cannot constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

For Trump, this case could not only be calamitous to his business, which provides services and employment to others, but a real wake-up call to other wealthy entrepreneurs in the state who don’t want the wrath of government beheading their brainchildren.

Be careful what you wish for, New York!

In Which Abbott Asserts Himself, DeSantis Redeems Himself, and Biden Makes an Ass of Himself (Again)

THERE HAS BEEN AN ONGOING figurative sniping between the feds and the Lone Star State for many months over the unnecessarily contentious issue of an invasion of illegal aliens over our southern border. It now seriously threatens to graduate to literal sniping. 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) finally declared an invasion at the border and took steps to halt it pursuant to, inter alia, Art. 1, §10, Cl. 3 and Art. IV, §4, of the United States Constitution. He understandably claimed Texas has a right to self-defense given the federal government is failing to do so, and in fact, is endangering the state by failing to enforce the fed’s own laws as duly enacted. It should’ve happened many months ago, but whatever…

Illicit occupant of the White House, Joey Biden, and his wholly incompetent minion, Alejandro Mayorkas, tried to circumvent the State of Texas in its attempts at border restraints, including razor wire installation, meant to discourage aliens from entering illegally. Of particular concern was the razor wire at Shelby Park in an invasion hotspot known as Eagle Pass, Texas, which had been taken over by the state in a further attempt to control illegal immigration. Since Jan. 10th, Border Patrol was blocked from accessing the park in the tiny town.

There was a basis for the federal lawsuit, inasmuch as federal law preempts state law on matters of immigration. But the Biden regime just went in and cut the wire installed by the Texas National Guard, fueling the fire into what may become a raging inferno.The Biden regime ultimately won this round on Monday after the matter went to the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled, 5-4, without elaboration, that Border Patrol agents under Biden could cut through the razor wire and remove it ‘if necessary,’ while also remanding the case to the lower court for adjudication. (It isn’t a ‘Biden victory’ as some reporters have described it. The legal argument for a stay was probably deficient as drafted. The merits have yet to be heard.)

The ‘if necessary’ part of the deal is allegedly in response to three migrants drowning in the Rio Grande as they tried to enter the country illegally (as opposed to being a mere pretext for the invasion). In other words, it’s to allow the federal government to rush to give free emergency medical care to the illegals that American citizens wouldn’t be entitled to receive. The illegal aliens who drowned were later beatified by N.P.R., P.B.S. and other mainstream media complicit in the Biden regime’s propaganda efforts.(See any links herein, for example.)

 However, what was blatantly wrong with the outcome at the Supreme Court, as Abbott has made clear, is that the federal government isn’t enforcing it own federal immigration laws and, in fact, has refused to—to Texas’ indisputable detriment. 

Meanwhile, the p!ssing contest between the feds and Lone Star State has been somewhat successful in limiting migrants from Eagle Pass, but now, instead, they are entering the country at crossings north of the park and onto private ranches. Illegal aliens don’t distinguish, or care to, between public and private lands. Neither, it seems, does the illicit Biden regime. In response to outcries from affected ranchers, Texas offered to install free razor wire on their lands. It’s a very small concession, but some $10 billion in state money has been used since March of 2021 to try to curb the crisis affecting 1,200 miles of the border in Abbott’s Operation Lone Star. A lot!

Very few illegal aliens entering the country in this way are ever detained. Since Oct. 1st, there have been at least 96,000 ‘gotaways’ at the southern border, a Customs and Border Protection source told Fox News. The futility of the situation isn’t lost on some ranchers, who, despite razor- and concertina wire, have been unable to keep the illegals off their property. What can you really do when Border Patrol is relegated to making illegal aliens sandwiches for their northbound journeys? What can you do when the federal government only manages to post a bilingual sign reading, “No migrant processing at this location. Please proceed to nearest port of entry for processing with U.S. Border Patrol?”

Abbott isn’t done enforcing the laws the feds refuse to enforce. Late in 2023, the state legislature passed a bill scheduled to go into effect in March which will permit state police to arrest those they suspect are illegally crossing the border into Texas and charge them with state crimes. The A.C.L.U., inexplicably mute on the Biden regime’s many transgressions of Americans’ civil liberties, has suddenly mustered the cahones to challenge Abbott’s treatment of lawbreakers.

On Wednesday after the SCOTUS ruling, Abbott released his statement (here) declaring an invasion,Texas’ right to self defense, and “lawless [putative] president [Biden].” (Brackets added.). Abbott’s statement actually reads as a good start to articles of impeachment for both Biden and Mayorkas. On Thursday, the Biden regime issued a Friday deadline for Abbott to order the Texas National Guard to allow Border Patrol back to cut down the razor wire. (When similar demands were made to abandon illegal ‘sanctuary city or state’ statuses, though, nothing was done then, so why should anythings be done here and now?) Also on Thursday, after Abbott’s statement, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) immediately announced Florida’s support, in personnel and supplies, for Texas. It was a moment of fast thinking that he didn’t miss. Some 24 other governors nationwide added theirs, too, and issued a joint statement on X (here.)

Meanwhile, in Washington, which isn’t as impacted by the folly of their own failed policies, Congress continues stalling tactics at solving the crisis by extended recesses, demands for pay raises, and per diems. As if World War III isn’t a big enough challenge for the Big Guy, add a Civil War. However this all plays out, it will become a pretty compelling docudrama someday.

Some commentators like to point out the unprecedented nature of the state’s response, as if that, ipso facto, makes it unacceptable, but such people, when pressed, have to admit the scale, scope, and effects of the illegal alien invasion are also unprecedented. The Fifth Circuit will hear the merits in February.

Tax and Ye Shall Receive?

TAXATION WILL BE UNDER REVIEW at the Supreme Court in the near future. The case is Moore v. United States and it relates to the constitutionality of 45th President Donald Trump’s 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA). At issue is the mandatory repatriation provision on pre-2018 profits companies and some U.S. shareholders held abroad. Previously, the foreign business profits didn’t become taxable until they returned to U.S. shareholders. Under the TCJA, however, profits were taxed even if shareholders never received them. Revenue from the repatriation provision amounted to $339 billion or so, used to offset cuts for some individual taxpayers. Petition for Writ of Cert. here. 

The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and subsequent case law upheld by the high court maintains that, since 1920, income must be “clearly realized” for it to be taxable. The rub is that the tax code is riddled with taxes on unrealized income. For example, the taxation of partnerships taxes partners on income allocated to them for tax purposes regardless of whether they received the income or not. Another example is since 1962, the U.S. has taxed passive and highly mobile income of overseas corporations controlled by U.S. shareholders, whether or not the income is ever distributed to them. SCOTUS has upheld this taxation of unrealized income. Yet it seems highly unfair.

But a ruling in favor of the petitioner would mean an upending of American tax law, including treatment of partnership and international income. Given the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code, a victory could make the entire Code fall apart like a pulled thread unravels clothing. In short, it could be disastrous. The  justices could try to find a way to thread the needle to find the tax law holds up. Still, plain meaning and fundamental fairness would seem to lead to a different result. Since 1910, it has also been held income must be “received” before it can be taxed. That ‘threading’ could mean a circular logic that holds a tax constitutional if it comports with the history and tradition of the I.R.C., even, one supposes, if that history and those traditions were unconstitutional then, too. If a history and tradition test is ultimately used, it would also allow the Court to overrule any wacky Biden notions about future ‘wealth taxation’ of unrealized gains in securities that has been idiotically floated. (That would be an economic calamity.)

Petitioner must file a brief by 8/30/23; Respondent, by 10/16/23. 

U.K.: Assange May Be Extradited to U.S. for “Espionage”

IN A WORLD WITH PUZZLING contradictions, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that the British High Court ruled on Friday that WikiLeaks’ publisher, Julian Assange, would, in fact, be extradited to the U.S. to face charges under the Espionage Act. It’s perplexing there would be any question about extradition from the U.K. given there is a bilateral treaty between the nations to do so when a crime committed by the person whose extradition is sought. That a defendant might be suicidal if extradited would seem to more of an issue for social workers than lawyers, in which case, Assange might’ve been sent right on over across the pond to the Americans almost a year ago. Otherwise, the mental health exception to extradition could, and likely would be abused any time another country simply doesn’t want to turn someone over pursuant to treaty terms. It, in effect, renders the treaty toothless.

It’s even more perplexing why the U.S. would seriously try to try Assange under the Espionage Act. That they might want to is a different matter than can they?

The Espionage Act of 1917 was, and is controversial. It dwarfed the earlier Defense Secrets Act of 1911, which prohibited citizens from obtaining or transmitting national defense information to unauthorized persons. It was promulgated during World War I to prohibit U.S. citizens from aiding enemies of the state while the U.S. was at war, and to prevent anyone from interfering with military operations, including recruitment, during wartime. It could include providing information or communicating false information. It could also easily run afoul of citizens’ freedom of speech rights. Punishment was severe, and included the death penalty.

The Sedition Act of 1918 was enacted as an amendment to the Espionage Act. It made it a crime to write or talk critically about the U.S.’s involvement in war. This should sound astonishing to Americans under the impression they have First Amendment rights to exercise in a free and robust marketplace of ideas. Perhaps even more appalling was that the Postmaster General was granted authority to ban any materials in opposition to the war effort: some 75 newspapers of the era were prevented from mailing or restrained from printing their perspectives on the war. Perhaps even more unbelievable is that the U.S. Supreme Court was okay with prohibiting speech that could cause a “clear and present danger” to the country. Interestingly, the prohibited speech then was typically espousing socialism, something that is broadcast proudly, loudly, and frequently at today’s campaign rallies by politicians themselves.

Today’s definition of “sedition” is, according to the legaldictionary.net to be “conduct or speech meant to incite a riot against the ruling body of a country.” This is surely what some in Washington, D.C. hope to prosecute Trump voters for. And “espionage” is, per the same source, “the use of spies by a government to discover the military and political secrets of other nations. Also the act of spying to acquire secrets, plans, or technical knowledge.”

These definitions are evolved, and in the case of sedition, make some sense, but espionage, as defined here, is so incredibly overly-broad, it cannot possibly pass legal muster. And somewhere in there, the law’s long-reaching and sticky hands extend not just to outspoken U.S. citizens, but to subjects of the British crown, like Assange, who is Australian; or South American citizens, also like Assange, who was granted Ecuadorian citizenship as a refugee. Why not try the publisher of The New York Times who published much of the same material? And, BTW, are we “at war,” or not? If so, what war(s)? Afghanistan? Taliban? On Drugs? On Terror? And will a Bill of Particulars specify if we’re worried about military, or political secrets? Because the most pressing political secrets don’t need Mr. Assange. We know the Clinton, Obama, and Biden crime families are corrupt. Even if Assange could produce a step-by-step accounting of the corruption, the Deep State will bury it or go after whoever deigns to repeat it. ‘Cuz isn’t that what the Espionage Act is really for?

While all countries seek to find, curtail, and punish spies from other nations in some circumstances, such as, for example, when battle plans are stolen, the idea that political secrets carry the same urgency is absurd on its face. Finding crime in simply spying to uncover information broadly construed as “secret” or “technical” is overreach. To quote ‘seditiously’ quote the illegal occupant of the White House, in an act of ‘treason’ and ‘espionage.’ “C’mon,man!”

Assange’s partner and mother of his two children, Stella Moris, states Assange will make a final appeal to the British Supreme Court. That court is unlikely to hear the appeal as it is doubtful they would find it “of general public importance” in the U.K.

If the extradition comes to fruition, Assange will be turned over to U.S. Marshals, handcuffed, and brought to the U.S. and held in custody until he is tried in a federal court in northern Virginia.

If U.S. criminal law is followed as judiciously as constitutional law under the First Amendment is, there should be no problem, right? Wrong.

The Espionage Act needs to be promptly amended to prevent further abuses of freedom of speech and the press. And Assange freed.

Dominion: Let the Discovery Begin!

AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE, the defendants in plaintiff Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case, filed motions to dismiss, which a federal district court judge refused on Wednesday. The highly questionable maker of electronic voting machines is high-fiving the mainstream media over their pseudo-victory. As another matter of routine, you can bet the defendants will file a motion for reconsideration, too. It will surely be denied and then the fun begins.

Dominion had sued former federal prosecutor and attorney Sidney Powell; former New York City mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani; and MyPillow (whose founder and C.E.O. is Mike Lindell) for $1.3 billion each, for allegedly defamatory statements they made about the voting machines in light of the highly suspect 2020 presidential election results as reported. The judge, Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, was depicted in a Politico article as seemingly having some animus against the defendants (and by extension, Trump), although one certainly hopes, however naively, this is never the case in law, especially towards those with a decidedly political bent.

It could simply be he is doing his job. He should, at this stage of the proceedings, be giving Dominion the benefit of the doubt, as a matter of black letter law. There are material facts in dispute that warrant adjudication, including, perhaps, some of the “facts” as he presented them in his Opinion (which he admittedly drew from Dominion’s Complaint.) He likewise gets the benefit of the doubt for now.

That said, I disagree with the judge’s rationale in Powell’s case, in which she states her statements aren’t actionable because no reasonable person would take her statements about the election as fact because it was clear she was expressing her own political opinion. And even if her statements weren’t simply opinion, she maintains, they were “legal theories made in the context of pending or impending litigation” and protected as such.

The judge states there is no “blanket immunity” for political statements, but observes there is a judicial recognition of some level of “imaginative expression or hyperbole” in our public debate. He concludes, however, “[I]t is simply not the law that provably false statements cannot be actionable if made in the context of an election.”

The problem with his conclusion is that it is not a conclusion at all. In fact, at this time, there is a yet-to-be concluded recount and audit in Maricopa County, AZ, where state officials are in contempt of a lawfully issued subpoena issued in this very matter. Additionally, there are nascent cases in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Washington, and other states seeking to validate election results. Whether an accurate recount would change the results of a prematurely certified 2020 election remains to be seen. Whether there’s a meaningful remedy if it did, also remains to be seen. After all, truth is an absolute defense in such cases. So if Powell, Giuliani, and Lindell can prove that Trump won, Dominion loses. To prove Trump won, which should be in everyone’s interest to determine, these defendants need the results from state audits in contested states, none of which have yet concluded. Furthermore, there is the irksome question of just where the bright line begins or ends in deciding what is permissible “imaginative expression” or “hyperbole.”

Meanwhile, the defendants also have the right to proceed in their own defense. This means that Dominion will have to open up its opaque books and technology for discovery. They’ll surely claim proprietary interest in keeping these things secret, but that cannot pass legal muster: you can’t say someone said something false about you and refuse to produce evidence of the truth or falsehood.

How Dominion shows damages to the tune they’re claiming is LSD-level mind-blowing, given their reputation was never pristine. Might they have lost business after being criticized ? Of course — if bureaucrats believed defendants’ claims the machines were unreliable (and weren’t)…or…if they truly believed the machines were unreliable (and would produce accurate results rather than desired ones.) One would suppose that line of questioning would be wonderfully robust at trial.

This is a case I’m particularly interested in seeing go to trial rather than settling. If it settles, Dominion would surely demand non-disclosure provisions from the defendants, and I want them out there speaking freely about what they learned about this sordid company that we so stupidly entrust with the most hallowed of our civil rights/duties.

This isn’t to say Dominion is, or should be without any remedy in this matter. It’s just they don’t like it. The remedy to falsity is truth, not silencing either one. The remedy is not less speech, but more. The objective is simply to be more compelling. No, free speech isn’t absolute, but our Constitution demands we err on the side of robust speech, not silenced ideas. We especially cannot punish debate, even if it’s deemed stupid or wrong, lest we engage in what amounts to impermissible prior restraint, violative of the First Amendment. Opinion is here.

Another ‘No Comment’ by the U.S. Supreme Court

IT WASN’T EVEN WORTH A COMMENT. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court again pulled a ‘no comment’ on an election case. This time, it was Attorney Lin Wood’s case, known loosely as the Trump-Wisconsin case, but stylized as Donald J. Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, et al.

Every single election case brought before the court for adjudication in 2020 was denied without comment. This was the last. Standing, mootness, and laches have all been used as a basis to deny cert. By whatever means necessary. There are certainly instances when these legal principles properly apply, but in general, not in these election cases where such important federal questions are raised and need to be heard lest they occur repetitively without a possible remedy.

The case concerned the state’s authorization of illegal absentee voting drop boxes, illegal ‘corrections’ to absentee ballot witness certificates by poll workers, and the encouragement and misuse of “indefinitely confined” status to avoid voter ID laws in disregard of the legislature’s explicit directive to “carefully regulate” the absentee voting process to “prevent the potential for fraud and abuse.”  

The case was brought as violations of Art. II and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Wood also raised the intriguing and important question as to whether federal courts may rely on the doctrine of laches to avoid reviewing Electors Clause of Equal Protection claims arising after absentee balloting began or which could not have reasonably been brought before absentee balloting commenced.

Laches is a judicial doctrine that states there is an unreasonable delay for equitable relief. Wood foresaw the use of laches by the court and opposing party to avoid having to address the important issues he, and others in similar cases, raised.

Wood claimed laches should not bar review of Art. II cases generally because important public rights are at stake, not simply those of the petitioner, Donald Trump. He notes it is unreasonable for an aggrieved petitioner to initiate a lawsuit and obtain relief between the time a problem was identified and the election. In other words, impossibility cannot be an affirmative defense to the affirmative defense of laches.

Yet because the trial court applied laches, apparently, the Supreme Court was okay with giving the trial court judge the discretion in a case that affected the votes and voting rights of citizens of Wisconsin. It’s a travesty of justice. Wood’s writ of certiorari can be read here. 

What’s the Supreme Rush?

ON FRIDAY, the U.S. Supreme Court will convene to determine whether President Trump’s election fraud cases can proceed because…why rush these things? The cases involve alleged fraud in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan. It’s crucial the Court rule on them. Failure to do so is willful dereliction of duty given what is at stake for the 2020 and future elections.

Republican Party pf PA v. Degraffenreid et al. and Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party, et al.  address the problem of Pennsylvania’s Democrat officials unlawfully changing the rules for the election a mere matter of weeks before the election without the legislative branch’s involvement as required. Also in Pennsylvania is Trump for President v. Degraffenreid which argues Art. II violations by the state when it eliminated statutory requirements regarding signature verification, the right to challenge invalid mail ballots, and the right of campaigns to observe mail ballot canvassing processes. 

The Georgia case is L.Lin Wood, Jr., v. Raffensperger, which is the firebrand lawyer legally fighting for Trump in this obviously ‘fixed’ election against the RINO state Secretary of State. Here, Wood is also the petitioner and argues an unauthorized and illegal modification of procedures for verifying mail-in voters by treating them differently than in-person voters in violation of Equal Protection by infringing on his fundamental right to vote. The 11th Circuit had ruled Wood did not have standing, and he now asks the Court to find that he does. 

The Michigan case is Timothy King, et al. v. Whitmer, with the incompetent governor being a well-deserved defendant. It’s to be argued by Sidney Powell, Esq. and argues errors at the District (trial) court level. It posits sufficient evidence to support 1. Sec. 1983 claims in violation of the Elections and Electors Clauses; 2. Violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause; and 3. Denial of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and violation of Michigan’s Election Code. 

These cases should be slam-dunks if they can get through the hallowed doors to the nation’s high court, but the problem is the remedy. We’re led to believe there is no remedy for a ‘stolen’ election, and in fact, we cannot even acknowledge it. The most interesting of these is Wood’s, given the propensity of the Court to skirt issues by asserting no standing.

Where’s the Trumpnado We Were Promised?

MANY Americans await just-enacted checks for $600 (or maybe $2,000) from the U.S. Treasury for Covid relief. Not me. No matter what, I means-test out of everything, even though I’m very, very far from being rich. Everything today is just a redistribution scheme, anyway. Dems just want to do it faster, is all. Yet, I was hoping promises to tackle voter/election fraud made by Trump, Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Rudy Giuliani, and others would have been kept  — just in time for Christmas.

The latest hopeful sign was from constitutional lawyer, Ivan Raiklin. On Tuesday, he tweeted Vice President Mike Pence urging him to notify the secretaries of state in the six contested states that he will be unable to accept their certified electors because they were never legally appointed because of election fraud.

The U.S. Constitution, Raiklin maintains, gives the vice president the power to overturn a manifestly fraudulent election under Art. II Sec. 1, which gives each state, as its legislature “may direct,” the appointment of its electors. But because the states ran fraudulent elections, he says, and those legislatures did not mandate fraudulent elections, there was effectively nothing to certify on December 14th. Put differently, there is no law authorizing a state to act in the absence of an honest election.

Pence is also President of the Senate and will preside over a joint session of Congress on January 6th to count the electoral votes. He has access to classified information that senators, state legislatures, and judges haven’t seen, and likely includes evidence of foreign intervention by China, Iran, or others, obtained pursuant to Trump’s 2018 Executive Order 13848. Pence also knows of any ongoing fraud investigations.

His information and authority gives Pence the right (obligation?) to demand proper certification from states and “sole plenary power” to determine whether electors he is given are legit. A bit of circular exercise of legal logic, but by whatever means necessary, right?

Yet, it appears Pence has demurred, and may be named in an action known as the Amistad Project lawsuit as a result. Others claim the only deadline is January 6th and Pence could object to the electors then.

Will Trump’s Emoluments Victory Be Reviewed By SCOTUS?

 

Democrat lawmakers lack standing to sue President Donald J. Trump for allegedly violating the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution a Court of Appeals said on Friday.

What to Do When Due Process is Overdue

Via Branco

Under ordinary circumstances, calling out political corruption would be laudable, and presumably actionable.  If the person who is calling out said corruption is Orange-Man-Bad, however, it somehow becomes an “impeachable” media event.