Claims And Issues

THEY BLEW THE WHISTLE ON THEM.

(Gridview_imagefull/Florida Dep't of Agriculture & Consumer Services)

Four or perhaps six Republican Members of Congress marched on the justice department earlier this week to free the terrorists of January 6.  The newspapers reported this as real news.

          A crowd gathered.  They saw Matt Gaetz and they yelled, "Pedophile!"

          Then the crowd blew whistles.  The Republican Members of Congress went away.

          They blew the whistle on them.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WHOSE "PRESIDENT"?

Many, many commentators on cable TV shows and in newspapers and other media continue to refer to the former guy as president.

                                     He is the former guy.

                                     He is not the president.

 

          Joe Biden is the President.

          Get real.  Stop the infatuation that got us here, corporate media.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

DOJ UNFATHOMABLE SECRECY: WHY TRY TO SHIELD HER FROM TESTIFYING?

On February 8, 2021 -- 19 days after Joe Biden was inaugurated as President of the United States -- the justice department filed a motion to quash a subpoena for the testimony of Betsy DeVos.

          They didn't have to.

          But they did.

          In fact, there was and still is a lawsuit pending in federal court in California in which Ms. DeVos was likely to be deposed.  The lawsuit in California was filed on behalf of students who alleged lots of things went wrong in the loan program administered by then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, to make a long story short.

          Ms. DeVos was no longer the Secretary of Education when the justice department filed its motion to quash a subpoena in the California case for her deposition.  So the justice department did not have to try to shield her, a private citizen, from testifying in a judicial proceeding.

          But they did.

          Beyond that, the federal judge in California had already expressed his willingness that Ms. DeVos should be deposed in that case.  The federal judge in question happens to be one of the most respected judges in the federal court system, let alone in the Northern District of California.

          But the justice department filed its motion anyway.

          In Florida.  They filed their motion in Florida.  Why?

They went about as far away as you can get from California and still be in the continental United States.  To say again, they filed their motion in Florida on February 8, 2021.  Look it over here:  Download In re Subpoena Served on Elisabeth DeVos Doc. No. 1 Motion to Quash Subpoena on Betsy DeVos filed Feb. 8 2021 (S.D. Fla. No. 21-mc-14073).

          I have read the motion.  It is snarky at times; it is snide on occasion.  The opposing parties took the unusual step of calling it "inappropriate."  That would not be an unusual description in most of today's lawsuits.  However it is not something that is often said about pleadings filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

          The motion was signed by KEVIN P. HANCOCK, Esquire, a person who identified himself as a Trial Attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the DOJ Civil Division.

          MR, HANCOCK, the one who signed the motion, was previously a law clerk at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for Judge Maryanne Trump Barry.

          If this kind of game-playing had taken place in private practice, there would almost certainly have been unpleasant consequences as a result.  To say again, they did not have to try to shield Betsy DeVos from testifying, but they did.  They filed their motion despite the fact that the federal judge in the California case had already expressed his willingness for Ms. DeVos to testify.  And they filed their motion in Florida, not in California where the case was pending.  Above all, they got paid for it, at our expense, at the expense of the federal taxpayer.

          On April 7, 2021, the federal judge in Florida sent the motion to the federal judge in California to decide.  Here is the order from the federal judge in Florida:  Download In re Subpoena Served on Elisabeth DeVos Doc. No. 28 Order Granting Transfer to California filed April 7 2021 (S.D. Fla. No. 21-mc-14073).  The justice department has not brought its motion to the California judge's attention or asked for their motion to be heard.  They have not dared.

          It only took the justice department two months to lose.

          We can expect that the justice department will lose motions.  However we have a right to expect that the lawyers in that department will behave professionally.

          Particularly since we are the ones paying his salary.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

BARR's department 'ISN'T OVER, IT ISN'T EVEN PAST.'

MARK R. FREEMAN, Esquire has been a busy lawyer since 2014 when we started paying his salary with our federal taxes.  He joined the justice department that year.

          There are reports that in January 2020 he argued against the former guy's White House Counsel testifying under a subpoena from the U.S. House of Representatives.

          He definitely argued in January 2020 against unsealing the Mueller Grand Jury testimony and documents so that the House could see it all.

          It is unclear when he became the Director of the Appellate Section of the Civil Division at the department of justice, but he holds that position now when MERRICK GARLAND is the Attorney General.

          In June 2021, MARK FREEMAN argued in a Reply Brief with his name on it, that the United States should be substituted for the former guy in E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit.  The doj did not have to appeal at all.  It will be remembered that Ms. Carroll sued the former guy for defamation when he called her a liar among other things after she said that the former guy raped her.

          A federal judge denied Bill Barr's motion and that's why there is an appeal.  If the motion had been granted, the United States would become the defendant and Ms. Carroll's lawsuit would be barred because you cannot sue the United States for defamation.

          FREEMAN's brief on the appeal continues to argue that the former guy was performing his official duties when he allegedly defamed Ms. Carroll.

          If the appeal is successful, then Ms. Carroll's lawsuit will be barred.  That is the reason for MARK FREEMAN's brief.  Ms. Carroll's lawsuit will be barred if it is successful.

          Despite media reports, there really is no reason to think that there is a new Attorney General in town.  The same policies are being advanced in -- and rejected in -- the Federal Courts.  See previous articles here, here, here, and here.

          There are many stories in the doj.  This has only been one of them.

Merrick Garland photo:  Tom Brenner/New York Times.

Bill Barr photo:  Doug Mills/New York Times.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

DEPARTMENT? YES. JUSTICE? NOT SO MUCH.

 

Media reports display an increasing number of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers caught in the former guy's black hole.

          One of the former guy's lawyers is suspended from practicing law in New York.

          And then the same former lawyer is suspended from practicing law in Washington, D.C.

          Elsewhere, other former lawyers of the former guy are neck-deep in sanctions hearings, it is reported.

          In the meantime, lawyers still in the department of justice have continued to conduct an operation designed to keep one of Bill Barr's memorandums a secret so that the public cannot see it.  That memorandum reportedly has to do with why Bill Barr decided not to prosecute the former guy.

          Some say Barr's decision was made before the memorandum was written, parenthetically.  But that has little to do with our concern today.  Or does it?

          As reported here earlier, the federal judge presiding over the memo-as-secret litigation found that lawyers in the department of justice had been "disingenuous" and that their testimony was "not worthy of credence" in the course of representing the former guy's former attorney general's position. 

            The department's response?  Did they investigate the behavior that draws sanctions in other places?  Did they at least reprimand the lawyers and perhaps even chide them for bringing the department into disrepute?

          No.  The department appealed the judge's order to make the memo public.  They obviously hope that if the judge's order is overturned then they can say that the judge's findings of misconduct are overturned as well.

          You and I know it does not work that way.

          The judge's findings remain.  What the lawyers did, they did.  And what they did was misrepresent things to the court, that's what the findings are, not simply opinions and allegations.  Findings.

          And making misrepresentations to the court has got the attention of bar associations across the nation.   No bar association has ever condoned this sort of behavior.  To the contrary.  The bar associations that have already looked at lawyer-as-misrepresenting-to-the-court have suspended the lawyers in question from the practice of law in their courts.

          Why is this not so in the department whose name is justice?

          I served on a grievance committee myself for years.  Bar associations only rarely discipline lawyers and even when they do, the discipline they impose is hardly every suspension or disbarment.   This is not to say that any such discipline should be visited on the lawyers whom a federal judge found to be "disingenuous" and whose testimony the judge found "not worthy of credence."

          I do ask again, why is the department of so-called justice not even investigating?

          Why is the department instead spending its time in distracting public attention by appealing to keep Barr's secret memorandum, well, secret?

Bill Barr photo by Alexander Drago / Reuters.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

JUDGES WILL OFTEN TELL THEM TO STOP, SO ASK!

 

(Gridview_imagefull/Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services)

Recently some courts have ruled against equal laws.  It seems to me that these rulings depend more on the fact that the people who sued (to get taxpayer money paid to them instead of that money being paid to other people) asked the judges to tell the defendants to stop, instead of asking for damages.  I have said this before.   

            More judges are ruling like this and so I say it again:  These rulings depend more on the fact that plaintiffs, meaning the people who filed the lawsuits, asked the judges to tell the defendants to stop, instead of asking for damages.

            A federal judge in Florida told the State to stop when the judge issued a preliminary injunction stopping the State from imposing fines and limits on people who petition to put proposed State constitutional amendments on the ballot.

            This ruling came right after another federal judge in Florida stopped the State from imposing penalties under a new Florida law that would require social media companies to let politicians say whatever they want to say on their websites.  The new Florida law would have allowed Florida to impose penalties up to a Quarter of a Million Dollars.  A day.

            Courts in Maryland are telling the State to stop withholding unemployment benefits from unemployed people during a pandemic.  These lawsuits have been heard at all three levels of courts in Maryland, from the trial court to the intermediate appellate court to the State's highest Court.

            Comfortable people did not file these lawsuits.  The people who filed them include individuals, and they include groups that did not exist before such as "the Unemployed Workers Union" and "the Baltimore-based Peoples Power Assembly."  Significantly, the plaintiffs apparently did not include political parties or established civil rights organizations or other entrenched interests.  These lawsuits were brought by people in Maryland who are affected by the Maryland Governor's  attempted order to force them to take jobs, any jobs.

            The Maryland trial judge was the first judge in these Maryland cases to hold that the State must stop what they were trying to do.  The trial judge issued a "temporary restraining order," effectively another name for a preliminary injunction.  One of the trial judge's reasons is instructive.  It should be followed in other States where governors are trying to block unemployment benefits and so force unemployed workers to take any job that the governors' campaign contributors condescend to give them.

            The Maryland trial judge ruled in part because the State governor "appeared to lack the authority to end the federal program early.  He added that the plaintiffs' stories of economic hardship reminded him that 'the impact of the pandemic has been cruelly uneven.'"  Katherine Shaver, Court Rejects Hogan Request to Block Order Preventing End of Enhanced Federal Unemployment Benefits, WASHINGTON POST, online Monday, July 5, 2021 (emphasis added).

            State governors may lack the authority to end the federal program early.

            Ending the federal program early may violate equal protection of the laws.

            These concepts are not limited to the pen of a trial judge in Maryland.  They apply in every State.  State Constitutions are based on them.  The Federal Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws in all the States.

            Judges will tell them to stop.  So ask judges to tell them to stop.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

AT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EVERYTHING IS CHANGING, NOTHING IS NEW.

Download Brief of the United States in Trump v. Carroll 2d Cir Appeal Case No. 20.3977 filed June 7 2021

Brief of the United States of America in the case of E. Jean Carroll, Case No. 20-3977, Doc. 102, filed June 7, 2021.

 

One lesson of the last four+ years is clear:  People matter.  The people that make the decisions in our government matter.   Who the prosecutors are, matters.

            Whether we have a Department of Justice or a department of career young attorneys intent on CYA, depends on who is in the department.

            It also very much depends on who really runs the department.

            "Structural checks can be overrated.  The survival of our Republic depends as much, if not more, on the virtue of those in government, particularly the upholding of norms by civil servants, prosecutors and military officials.  We have grown too jaded about things like professionalism and institutions, and the idea of men and women who take their duties seriously.  But as every major moral tradition teaches, no external constraint can fully substitute for the personal compulsion to do what is right."  Tim Wu, What Really Saved the Republic From Trump?, NEW YORK TIMES, online Dec. 10, 2020.

             The personal compulsion to do what is right, the virtue of those in government, particularly the upholding of norms by civil servants:  Were these the characteristics on display of the people that we are looking at in the department of justice?

            Were these characteristics on display from them during the last four+ years?

            Are they on display now?

            Let's look for these characteristics, starting with the individuals featured in the first article in this series, IN MERRICK GARLAND'S DEPARTMENT, PROTECTING 'CAREER YOUNG ATTORNEYS' MEANS "CYA."

            JOSHUA M. SALZMAN.  This is the person who submitted the reply brief to continue Barr's appeal attempting to substitute the United States for the former guy in the lawsuit E. Jean Carroll filed.  She filed a defamation lawsuit after the F.G. allegedly defamed her by calling her a liar after she alleged he raped her.  The United States Department of Justice argued in SALZMAN's reply brief that the defamation was a part of the former guy's official duties.

            During the time of the F.G. and A.G. Barr, JOSHUA SALZMAN worked at Barr's law firm, the department of justice.  He did not always work there; MR. SALZMAN, like some of the others, used to be employed at MERRICK GARLAND'S law firm, WilmerHale. 

            During the time of the F.G. and A.G. Barr, MARK STERN also worked at Barr's law firm.  MARK B. STERN's name is also on the reply brief that MR. SALZMAN filed, appealing for the substitution of the United States in the F.G.'s role as defendant in E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit.

            If their appeal is successful, the United States will become the defendant in that lawsuit; the United States cannot be sued in that lawsuit.  If their appeal is successful, then, it will gut E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against the former guy. 

            A third lawyer who takes credit for the reply brief in E. Jean Carroll's case is MARK R. FREEMAN.  He is the current Director of the Appellate Staff, Civil Division, in the justice department.  He, too, worked in A.G. Barr's department during the time of the F.G.  He, too, worked in MERRICK GARLAND's law firm before that.

            As we shall see in this series, among other things, MR. FREEMAN reportedly was instrumental in arguing that the F.G.'s General Counsel, Don McGahn, should not testify under subpoena from the U.S. House of Representatives.

            Last but not least, there is Acting Attorney General and MERRICK GARLAND's deputy, BRIAN M. BOYNTON.  He alone among the crew did not also work for the former guy or for A.G. Barr during the time that the F.G. was in office.  His background is in defending large corporations and other things and people -- including one Betsy DeVos, the F.G.'s Secretary of Education, as we shall also see in this series.

            MERRICK GARLAND is responsible for the decisions of these people.  Beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, as they say, these are MERRICK GARLAND's decisions.

            There is no better way to conclude this article than by once again quoting from Professor Tim Wu's piece in The New York Times:

          It may sound naïve in our untrusting age to hope that people will care about ethics and professional duties. But Madison, too, saw the need for this trust. “There is a degree of depravity in mankind,” he wrote, but also “qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.” A working republican government, he argued, “presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.”

           It is called civic virtue, and at the end of the day, there is no real alternative.

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog article ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WHEN DID YOU DECIDE TO STOP PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY, VETERANS?

This article was previously published on Twitter on Tuesday, June 29, 2021.  It is reprinted here with permission of the author.

A talking head who never served calls the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a "stupid pig." Why are you silent, veterans of our country's wars for the past 50 years

@AmericanLegion

,

@VFWHQ

,

@VVAmerica

,

@iava?

 

You are hardly ever silent. Now is not the time to start.

 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

ARE THE HOLDOVERS STILL IN CHARGE OF JUSTICE?

 

Bank Run 1933.

Are the holdovers from the previous regime still in charge at the Justice Department?

          Lots of decisions since January 20th sound like they are.  For example, nothing has been done about the assault on voting rights in States held by the previous regime.  Other than a sternly-worded letter to an Arizona State Senator.

          DOJ is now picking up the ridiculous claim that defaming and demeaning people is part of a president's job duties.  E. Jean Carroll knows better -- and so does everyone else except, apparently, the people who are still trying to sell this as Justice.

          When the former regime ordered up a memo to paper over their decision -- already made -- not to prosecute the former guy, they deceived the people and later, the Court.  A Federal Judge wrote as much.  If there was never any "crime or fraud" exception to privileged communications before, there should be now -- and Justice demands that Justice should be the one arguing it.  Not continuing to perpetrate it.

          If the holdovers at Justice from the former regime are not the ones making these decisions, then something else is at work and it sure looks like it would have to be a directive from the Biden political folks to DOJ to lay off everything to do with the previous regime and the former guy. 

          Because that is what's happening.  Justice has nothing to do with anything connected to or arising from the former regime.

          For whatever reason.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WHO TOLD YOU THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA?

Furloughed workers lose their pay but not their jobs if the same employer calls them back. If they move to other jobs, they may lose benefits, time in service, and benefits like life insurance and health insurance. 

Who told you that would be a good idea?  Consequences, not often addressed, are highlighted in this article by Ingrid Cotto, Orlando Jobless Dread End of $300 Weekly Federal Aid, ORLANDO SENTINEL, in print on Sunday, June 6, 2021, at Local & State Page 1.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WHY DOES THE U.S. HAVE A SENATE?

The Reverend William Barber II recently wrote to the effect that Republicans are using the power of a filibuster threat to "silence any real debate" about proposed legislation.

    I have a lot of respect for Rev. Barber, but I would put it differently.  What he wrote is true, but the Democrats are afraid to vote.  That's why there have been no votes in the U.S. Senate after the American Rescue Plan.  Certainly not any votes on things that are truly meaningful or useful to the United States.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

CRUELTY AND STUPIDITY IN CHARGE: SOME STATES REJECT FEDERAL MONEY.

A little fewer than half the States are rejecting federal money for unemployment benefits because they say it makes people lazy.

That's not why.

The Federal government sets national policy.  These States have an alternative policy.  They actually think they know better.

It is worth noting that these States represent the old Confederacy added together with the States with the smallest populations, by and large.  It is also worth noting that these State governments are the ones that oppose Affordable Care and oppose extending Medicaid to sick people.

To be fair, the issue these States are addressing is the seeming reluctance of workers in America to return to the jobs they held before the pandemic.  To these States, the reason is not low wages.  These states not incidentally are also among the loudest complainers about raising the minimum wage.

They do not speak about the open fact that there is no way for women to work without child care.  These States are inhabited by vociferous minorities who want women to stay at home, in the kitchen, barefoot, and in the 1950's, for the most part.

They ignore the contributing factor of workplace safety during what is still a pandemic.  These States do not loom big on the remote working horizon, although many people living in these States use Zoom.

It's about who makes policy.  It's about who tells the story of what life is like in these States.  It's not about lazy workers at all.

Call them by their true names.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

CHANGE SENATE RULE, STOP THE FILIBUSTER, WE'RE DONE.

The U.S. Senate voted to stop the filibuster of the bill for a January 6 Commission, which was modelled on the 911 Commission.  The vote was 54 to 35 to end the filibuster.

          As I understand it, Senate Rule 22 regulates voting in the Senate.  To end a filibuster, the vote has to be 60 out of the 100 Senators whether the Senators are present or not.  That's 60% of the Senate.

         To pass almost all actual legislation, on the other hand, the vote only has to be a majority of the Senators voting and present.

         The easiest way to rein in the filibuster might be to change Rule 22 to require 60% of the Senators voting and present are necessary to end a filibuster.

         With that change, they would have ended the filibuster on the January 6 Commission.  We would then be well on our way to seating the Commission.

         Which is exactly what Mitch and the Gang-of-35-out-of-100 don't want.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THEY WOULDN'T EVEN MEET HIS MOM.

I read a newspaper report that thirteen Republican Senators would not even meet with Officer Sicknick's Mom.  Recall that Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty protecting them.

13 Republicans.

Not Democrats.

Not Independents.

13 Republicans.  These are totally Mitch's people.  I would like to know their names.  Wouldn't you like to know their names?

They've got no fetchin' up.  They do not even respect Moms.  I would like to know their names.

Name them.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THEY COULDN'T DO IT WITHOUT MEDIA: 14% CONTROL GOP, HEADLINES.

 

January 6, 2021:  The United States Capitol, Capitol Police, and Others.  (Manual Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

14% of the people in the United States control the headlines.  The same 14% control the current so-called "Republican" political party.

          On Twitter, Richard Hine broke down the latest Gallup poll, Richard Hine (@RichardHine), TWITTER, May 24, 2021, http://twitter.com/richardhine (last visited Tuesday, May 25, 2021).  53% of respondents identified themselves as Republicans and they told Gallup that they thought Mr. Trump won the election last November.

          Hines put this number in perspective:  26% of the population identify themselves as Republicans.  That means that 14% of the U.S. think that Mr. Trump won the election.  14%.

          Yet it is the 14% that control the GOP.

          The 14% get all the headlines.  They still know how to manipulate the media.  They have the experience.  They have been doing it for over 40 years.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

REMOTE JOBS REPORT?

Chalked on a driveway in Winter Springs, Florida.  (Dennis Wall)

The recent Jobs Report released by the Department of Labor reported a jobs number that was lower than many people predicted beforehand.

          After the fact, some people are suggesting that unemployment benefits makes people lazy and that's why they are not back at work.

          Other people explain the Jobs Report by pointing out that women find it hard to return to work if they can't get child care.  Still others point out that the employers that pay more, get more workers than employers that expect workers to return for low wages and low benefits.

          A recent poll reported something interesting that I have yet to see  mentioned by any of these other people.  The new poll said that 83% of CEOs of businesses looking for employees want them back full-time on the job site, whether the job site is an office or a factory or whatever. 

          In the poll 10% of people who identified themselves as employees want to go back to a physical space to work alongside other people for long hours, endless meetings, early rising, and longer commutes.  People just don't want to go back to work the same old way.

          It looks like 90% of us want to continue to work remotely, according to these poll results.

          Remote work.  Hmm.  Working from home as a value.  Something to think about, take into account, factor in when we read reports about the number of people looking for jobs, don't you agree?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

NO McGAHN TESTIMONY IN PUBLIC. ANOTHER BAD DEAL.

 

William Barr.  (Alexander Drago/Reuters)

They caved.  So long as the House Judiciary Committee remains under the current management, we will get deals like this.  The people currently in charge of the Judiciary Committee have proven over and over again that they either incapable of negotiating or that they are unwilling to negotiate, one thing or the other.  This deal is one more example of what they cannot accomplish.

          This deal was about Don McGahn's subpoenaed testimony.  McGahn isn't even a party to the deal between the Judiciary Committee and "the Executive Branch."  Use your imagination to figure out who "the Executive Branch" is, I guess.

          They agreed, without McGahn, that McGahn would obey the subpoena, that he would show up to testify, but that the public cannot hear his testimony.

          Forgive me, but wasn't the whole point that McGahn would testify in public?

          Such a deal.  Next, a person will play the role that Bill Barr played in the stage play about the Mueller Report:   Someone will say that they have read McGahn's nonpublic testimony and that it exonerates everyone, that for example there was no "collusion" (whatever that was).

          That was so good, they thought, that they had to do it again.

          As I said, so long as the House Judiciary Committee is chaired by the same chair that chaired the Judiciary Committee back in the day, expect more of the same and nothing different.  Clearly, we can expect nothing at all from this crew.

          Read the deal for yourself here:  Download Mcgahn-agreement-2021-05-12 IN HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY v. McGAHN D.C. CIR. APPEAL.  It is an attachment to the pleading filed by the Department of Justice.  Only lawyers from the Department of Justice filed it.  DOJ was apparently so happy with the deal that they alone could file it.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"HEALING REQUIRES HOLDING PERPETRATORS ACCOUNTABLE. UNITY FOLLOWS JUSTICE."

Charlottesville Riots August 2017 (Edu Bayer / New York Times)

Astead W. Herndon, As President Preaches Unity, Charlottesville Calls For Justice, New York Times, Friday, January 22, 2021, at A1, based on an interview with Ms. Susan Bro, the mother of Heather Heyer who was killed in 2017 in the Charlottesville Riots.

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog article ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH JANUARY 17?

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

January 17 is the date reportedly set for Capitol Hill Riot Part Two.  That date is the choice of  the same people who staged the Capitol Hill Riot Part One, on January 6, to do it again.

January 16 -- the date before Capitol Hill Riot Part Two, or shall we call it Capitol Hill Coup Part Two -- is the day that the current chief of the Capitol Police says that he will leave office.

If you believe in coincidence, you are living in the wrong time and place.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

HAVE FAITH, ABIGAIL SPANBERGER,* NOT FEAR.

(Doug Mills / New York Times)

The victories of Jon Ossoff and Rev. Raphael Warnock in the U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia surprised many people.  But their victories did not surprise Mr. Ossoff or Reverend Warnock.

And their successes were certainly not surprising to Ms. Stacey Abrams, whose approach to politics is a successful contrast to Democratic Party politics nationally.

    The two Democratic Senate candidates were a striking shift from previous recruits, who tended to be white moderates, and stepped gingerly, and sometimes awkwardly, around the God and guns issues crucial to white voters who had become disenchanted with Democrats.

    Mr. Ossoff, with his degrees from Georgetown and the London School of Economics, speaks without a hint of Southern twang; he could hail from Santa Monica, or Portland. He would also be the first Jewish person to be elected to the Senate from Georgia.

    Mr. Warnock is the kind of preacher who sees activism as central to the mission of the Black church. As pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached, he has embraced Dr. King’s philosophy of economic justice as a corollary to racial justice.

    In effect, the two men ran as themselves. As unabashed liberals. In Georgia.

Lisa Lerer and Richard Fausset, Republican Bulwark is Confirmed as an Election Battleground, NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, January 7, 2021, at A18, online with the headline and subhead, For Democrats in Georgia, ‘There’s No Going Back’ / The two Democratic victories in the Senate runoffs confirmed that Georgia’s metamorphosis from conservative bastion to battleground state was complete.

*You may be wondering about the name of Abigail Spanberger in the headline of this blog article.  Ms. Spanberger is the person who exemplifies the national Democratic approach to elections.  She famously melted down during a telephone conference call among Democratic Members of the House of Representatives, blaming Progressives for the loss of Democratic seats in the House in 2020.

It seems that the national Democratic party needs to look at how it does things just as much as it needs to look at how things are now done in Georgia.  Not a single Progressive lost a House seat in 2020.  Not one.  Now, two Senators are coming to Washington who ran "as unabashed liberals.  In Georgia."

Faith Over Fear, Ms. Spanberger.  Faith Over Fear, Democratic National Committee.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

INVESTIGATING "TRIAL BY COMBAT": THE CAPITOL HILL RIOT

"Pro-Russian insurrectionists in Ukraine in 2014 had a look similar to what was seen on Wednesday."  Caption to this photograph published in The New York Times, Friday, January 8, 2021:

(Mauricio Lima / New York Times)

Possible Putin connections or directions are compared by Andrew Higgins in the accompanying article, Moscow Dispatch / Scene in Washington Recalls Images of Post-Soviet Uprisings, NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, Jan. 8, 2021, at A16.

Nothing should be off the table for investigators of the Capitol Hill Riot. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THEY GOT INSIDE, BECAUSE IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

The Capitol Hill Riot did not just happen.  The Capitol Police did not just make a mistake yesterday, January 6, 2021.

Law enforcement showed a very different face yesterday from Black Lives Matter protests and since June, when border guards and prison guards and the D.C. National Guard all showed up equipped for riots, although there were no riots.

I am not sure about the involvement of the Capitol Police or for that matter the involvement of the Metropolitan Police Department (D.C. Police) on those earlier occasions.  I do not know if they were among the people who showed up in riot gear, although there were no riots then.

There was a riot yesterday at the U.S. Capitol.  The Capitol Police were not equipped in riot gear.  They were not equipped for riots, although even civilians could see that a riot was coming their way.  That was true for days beforehand.  Any fool could see that a riot was at least possible and, more likely, that a riot was probable.

History has this lesson about riots, not a hidden lesson either but one that is well-known:  Historically, police either allow riots or they join them, when they don't put them down.

The Capitol Police did not put down the Capitol Hill Riot of January 6, 2021.  If history is our guide, that leaves just two options.

There have been pictures and videos of Capitol Police easing the way of the rioters into the Capitol.  Only 52 people as of this writing have been arrested.  Along with much of the rest of the country, I watched the Capitol Hill Riot on television.  There were thousands of rioters to choose from, but only 52 were chosen.  That says something about the enthusiasm behind making arrests following the Capitol Hill Riot.

The performance of the Capitol Police was not confined to just grunts.  More were implicated than just frontline police officers.  What happened is beyond the power of grunts.  It is within the power of their leaders.

Don't always assume negligence as the cause of things.  For four years now, negligence seems to be the default assumption about the cause of such events as we witnessed yesterday. 

When the Capitol Hill Riot is investigated, perhaps it will instead be investigated by experienced people who doubt the easy assumption.  Perhaps, at long last, it will be the Capitol Hill Riot investigation that works on inductive reasoning, which is the same tool that police officers use when they are tasked with investigating crimes:  Inductive reasoning reasons from the specific to the general.

In the case of the Capital Hill Riot, we pretty much know that there was a riot and that the Capitol Police were nowhere to be seen preventing access to the Capitol (although there is a now-famous photograph taken at the time the rioters reached the House Chamber, showing some of the police inside the Chamber who pulled their guns but by then the rioters were already inside the building), and the Capitol Police were definitely not seen slowing the flow of any rioters coming in, let alone turning the rioters back.

That is what we know, all we know, at this early time in our investigation.  Now, without assumptions, let's look all the way to where this leads.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"BEHAVIOR FOLLOWS MONEY."

 

Tropical Bank (Photo by Dennis Wall)

I think there is a certain wisdom in this saying.  I like it almost as much as this quote, rephrased from a saying by Mr. Upton Sinclair:  'It is difficult to get a person to recognize a fact, when their salary depends on them not knowing it.'

 

GEORGIA MAY HAVE JUST SAVED THE UNION.

One Hundred, Fifty-Five+ Years after the Civil War ended.

Warnock wins Ga. runoff, bringing Democrats closer to control of U.S. Senate / Jon Ossoff has narrow lead over Republican David Perdue (Washington Post, online Wed., January 6, 2021) (subscription required by the Washinngton Post, but even without the subscription, their headline says everything anyone needs to know).

GEORGIA, THIS IS THE DAY AND THIS IS YOUR HOUR

Georgia, this is the day and this is the hour, beginning at 7 AM and going through 7 PM.

Vote!  Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.  If you have your Absentee Ballot, drop it off at a drop box or at a polling site.

Or vote in person!  But vote! 

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!

AN OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS IN VALDOSTA, GEORGIA

(John Amis / Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.

The Georgia Secretary of State says that Friday was the last day both to Vote Early and to ask for an Absentee Ballot.

So, plan to vote in person on Tuesday, January 5 OR if you have not dropped off your Absentee Ballot yet, the SOS Website says you can drop off your Absentee Ballot by Election Day!

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!

AN OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS IN SAVANNAH AND RICHMOND HILL

(John Amis / Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.

The Georgia Secretary of State says that Friday was the last day both to Vote Early and to ask for an Absentee Ballot.

So, plan to vote in person on Tuesday, January 5 OR if you have not dropped off your Absentee Ballot yet, the SOS Website says you can drop off your Absentee Ballot by Election Day!

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!

AN OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS IN ATLANTA AND STONE MOUNTAIN

(John Amis / Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.

The Georgia Secretary of State says that Friday was the last day both to Vote Early and to ask for an Absentee Ballot.

So, plan to vote in person on Tuesday, January 5 OR if you have not dropped off your Absentee Ballot yet, the SOS Website says you can drop off your Absentee Ballot by Election Day!

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!

LET THEM KNOW THEY ARE PLAYING HARDBALL. THIS ISN'T SLOW-PITCH.

(John Amis / Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Let the objectors know that they have chosen to play hardball.  This is not slow-pitch softball.

Since they choose to make objections and challenges, fine.  Challenge them back.

The best defense is an offense whether in war, in football, or in politics.

Challenge Tommy Tuberville of Alabama who also stood for election in 2020.  Oh, you say, that was an election to the U.S. Senate and January 6th is only about the presidential electors?  Okay, then Democrats challenge the certification of presidential electors from Alabama.

Then after starting with the letter "A," challenge the certification of electors from every other State which voted for anyone other than Biden-Harris.  Object to certifying electors from each and every one of those States.

If the objectors in the Senate and House are going to make their challenges, let them know that they have opened up everything to objections and challenges including the elections that elected or re-elected them.

There is no reason to let them have the inevitable microphones to themselves.  There is no good reason to let them hog the TV coverage that is coming, either.  Share the air time.  Give the corporate media their sound bites and videos.

And for good measure, remind the people of this country every chance you get that these federal challengers, these federal objectors in the Senate and the House, are attacking democracy itself.  They are trying to have the federal government tell the States what to do.  They want the federal government to overturn the will of the voters in America.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.  Make them pay a price for what they themselves have chosen.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

AN OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS IN ATHENS, GEORGIA

(FreePhotos)

Put that University education to work for your State and your Nation!  Elect Democrats Ossoff + Warnock for Senate and Daniel Blackman for PSC.

The Georgia Secretary of State says that Friday was the last day both to Vote Early and to ask for an Absentee Ballot.

So, plan to vote in person on Tuesday, January 5 OR if you have not dropped off your Absentee Ballot yet, the SOS Website says you can drop off your Absentee Ballot by Election Day!

Your Vote = Your Voice, make sure you are heard!