• Home
  • A New York Reign of Terror on Corporations

A New York Reign of Terror on Corporations

William L.Kovacs

March 2024

A New York Reign of Terror on Corporations

The mainstream media and the Progressive Left rejoice over New York securing a 464-million-dollar judgment against former President Trump, his inability to secure an appeal bond from an insurance company due to paralyzing fear of government retaliation, and the likelihood of Attorney General Letitia James (“AG James”) seizing his property. These actions are not part of a rule-of-law legal system. They are de facto corporate executions. Businesses in New York should be terrified as it is the beginning of a New York Reign of Terror against corporations.

The most studied Reign of Terror was also state-sanctioned violence during the French Revolution, 1789-99. “[G]overnment decided to make ‘Terror’ the order of the day to take harsh measures against those suspected of being enemies of the Revolution.” To the state of New York and its media propagandists, no person is a greater enemy of their “Revolution” than Donald Trump. The revocation of a license to operate is the equivalent of a corporate execution. As in the French Revolution, Trump received a fake trial with few due process rights. Conviction was inevitable. AG James’ actions are right out of Robespierre’s playbook.

Unfortunately, for a Reign of Terror to be successful, it must execute all enemies of the Revolution. Let the executions begin.

The Guillotine is New York Executive Law section 63(12). AG James is the executioner of anyone who engages in what she believes is a fraudulent or illegal act while conducting or transacting business in New York. In New York, fraud includes any scheme to defraud, any deceive, misrepresent, conceal, suppress, make false promises, or unconscionable contractual provisions. There is no requirement of harm. This law is so broad that almost every word, contract, advertisement, action, or business transaction in New York can be construed as fraud by the AG.

Moreover, it applies to all environmental marketing claims, even truthful ones that a consumer may not understand. In New York, a corporation is mandated to understand how a consumer would interpret an environmental marketing claim and ensure the claim does not give consumers a false impression.

Upon conviction, without a jury trial, the punishment is restitution, damages, and the cancellation of a business license. The damage award under the statute is whatever AG James seeks or so much as the court deems proper. Hence, the Attorney General and judge believed the $464 million judgment against Trump was proper justice.

All corporations making environmental claims are the new enemies of the Revolution. As the Trump trial was nearing completion, AG James, using the same law, filed a lawsuit against one of the world’s largest meatpackers for fraudulent environmental claims. The meat producer claimed to reach net-zero climate emissions by 2040. AG James believed the net-zero commitment was a fraudulent representation because the amount of carbon emissions from meat production is more than the plan can eliminate. Alleging that the meatpacker deceived consumers, New York seeks $5,000 a day for each violation, which could be related to every consumer the state believes was deceived. New York is also seeking to recoup all profits made from the claims, which are likely to be all of the corporation’s profits.

The federal and state governments will force corporations to confess their crimes. While the New York Attorney General will be unable to gather the needed information to convict the tens of thousands of corporations operating in New York of fraud, the federal government will provide the Attorney General with the corporate environmental claims she can use to allege fraud for almost any reason. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) recent rule requiring detailed corporate disclosures of all climate-related risks will be in the form of a coerced confession. The SEC requires companies to report on all climate-related spending and mitigation efforts to comply with almost 900 pages of government regulations. Additionally, these corporations must disclose their environmental promises. Corporations will even have to report (guess) how they will deal with all future government climate policies. Any disclosure that appears inadequate to AG James will open the corporations to lawsuits.

AG James will figuratively receive briefing books from the SEC on all the environmental promises made by corporations. She can then pick and choose who to file fraud charges against. Every failure to meet an environmental promise could subject a company to prosecution under Executive Law section 63(12). For proof, corporations only need to look at the actions taken against the meatpacker based solely on the fact that AG James does not believe its net-zero plan will work.

The list of New York corporate fraudsters is long and growing. In addition to the SEC’s confession file, over 200 companies, most with operations in New York collectively pledged to mitigate 1.98 billion metric tons of carbon emissions annually by 2040 from a 2020 baseline. These companies are some of the biggest in the world:  Amazon, Procter & Gamble, HP, Salesforce, Mohawk Group, and Crown Holdings.

The meatpacker made similar promises, but the attorney general considered its plan fraudulent without presenting sufficient facts to discredit it. Every one of these 200-plus corporations can expect government persecution and prosecution should they disagree with the New York or federal governments or disgruntled environmental groups. As to New York,

                                       Start spreading the news; the AG is coming today,

                                       A reign of corporate terror is on its way,

                                       To rip out our businesses, New York, New York.

 

William L. Kovacs author of Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic. His previous book Reform the Kakistocracy received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief counsel to a congressional committee. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • The Saturday Night Massacre, DOJ’s Last Profile in Courage

The Saturday Night Massacre, DOJ’s Last Profile in Courage

February 2024

The Saturday Night Massacre, DOJ’s Last Profile in Courage

The stunning indictment of Mr. Smirnov for lying (he was a long-time FBI confidential informant on many matters, including Biden family corruption), a federal judge releasing him from custody, an immediate second indictment on the same charges, and arrest at his lawyer’s office begs the question – what the hell is going on at the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)? If the DOJ has real evidence of Smirnov’s lies, it should immediately give it to several House committees investigating the president and his son. Or, is this another DOJ ruse to justify pardoning Hunter Biden and hide the president’s criminal activities?                        

Looking back at the DOJ over the last half-century, it is difficult to find many shining examples of its integrity. The last serious bout of DOJ integrity occurred on  October 20, 1973, the night history refers to as the Saturday Night Massacre.

Since then, the federal government has lost the American people’s trust. Only 16% of Americans trust it. A majority of Americans believe the federal government is corrupt. Worse, a University of Chicago poll finds nearly one in three Americans believe it may soon be necessary to take up arms against the government.

The federal government teeters on the “Eve of Destruction.”  It is destroying the United States with its corruption, and the DOJ is its architect. The DOJ was created to uphold the rule of law and keep citizens safe. Unfortunately, it has created a lawless two-tier system of justice that puts all Americans at risk.

How did the DOJ lose its integrity?

On May 26, 1973, Archibald Cox, a bow tie-wearing, preppie-looking, strong-willed man of immense integrity, was appointed by the DOJ as the Special Counsel to investigate the criminal activities of the Nixon White House.

On October 20, 1973, Cox was fired for issuing a subpoena requesting the president to turn over secret tape recordings. Nixon refused. Instead, he ordered Richardson to fire the Special Counsel. The Attorney General resigned, stating he promised Cox and Congress that the investigation would be independent of politics. Next, Nixon ordered Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also resigned.

Next in line was the Solicitor General Robert Bork, who by statute became the acting Attorney General. Bork obeyed Nixon’s orders and fired Archibald Cox after he refused to obey the president’s order to accept a summary of the tapes and cease all attempts to subpoena them.

Nixon then abolished the Office of Special Counsel and transferred its functions to DOJ.  An aggravated Congress almost immediately initiated impeachment proceedings.

After his firing, Cox noted: “Whether ours [government] shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people.”

For carrying out Nixon’s orders, Bork believed he was promised the next seat on the Supreme Court.

The contrast between Cox and his refusal to abandon the rule of law and Bork’s willingness to do whatever the President wanted to maintain a high position in government can be viewed as DOJ’s transition from profiles in courage to profiles in corruption.

Since 1973, there have been too many examples of DOJ corruption to put in a single article. A few examples sufficiently illustrate its corruption.

A typical example of the DOJ’s misconduct is its regular refusal to provide information to Congress when conducting investigations of its activities, as illustrated by its false filings to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The DOJ refused to provide Congress with the documents to prevent Congress from uncovering its criminal activity. By declining to provide such information, the constitutional powers of Congress and the courts were rendered worthless.

The DOJ and its FBI aggressively force private companies to act illegally. The FBI regularly demanded Twitter, a private company, ban what it deemed misinformation about the President’s son (the Hunter Biden laptop), although it knew the information about the President’s son was truthful. While these actions violate citizens’ First Amendment rights, they were also direct election interference to help Biden win the 2020 election.

The DOJ refused to acknowledge Hunter Biden’s crimes. When the crimes were proven by Congress, i.e., tax evasion, fraud, failure to register as a foreign agent, money laundering, and cocaine, the DOJ attempted to grant Hunter Biden immunity from all crimes, even future crimes. Fortunately, an honest federal judge blocked the immunity agreement. Now, however, after the DOJ’s indictment of Smirnov, the DOJ will likely drop the criminal cases against Hunter Biden.

President Biden is personally compromised based on his son’s laptop information. Moreover, several IRS whistleblowers testified that the DOJ prevented them from reviewing significant evidence incriminating Biden.

The federal government is a tyrant to average citizens without political connections. A Navy officer took photographs of a nuclear submarine he worked on and was imprisoned for improperly handling national security secrets. During the same period, a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, of the same party as the sitting President, destroyed, using bleach bit, significant amounts of national security materials on her unauthorized home computer. She also destroyed similar information on her cell phone by using a hammer. DOJ never prosecuted Clinton.

The most recent illustration of the DOJ’s corruption is implementing a two-tier justice system. For the first time in American history, the DOJ launched several prosecutions of a presidential candidate during an election. DOJ aims to both put Trump in jail and remove him from the presidential ballot, actions only taken by corrupt autocrats.

Concurrently with the Trump prosecutions are the DOJ’s prosecutions of the Trump supporters involved in the January 6th riots. While the riots only lasted several hours, the DOJ launched the most extensive nationwide dragnet in its history to capture every protester. The dragnet was even more extensive than the combined investigations of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack that killed over 3000 Americans and all the mass shootings in the U.S. The DOJ seeks to punish everyone who even strolled peacefully into the Capitol on that day. Yet, Black Lives Matter and other domestic terrorist groups loyal to the Biden administration burned down several cities and attacked federal buildings for over five months. All remain free.

DOJ was established as the primary American institution to protect the rule of law. Attorneys General like Richardson and Ruckelshaus, who radiated integrity, are long gone. DOJ is now led by men like Merrick Garland, who, like Bork, follow orders without concern for the rule of law, the Constitution, or the citizens who pay his salary.  The Garland’s and Bork’s are the perfect examples of “Profiles in Corruption.”  Their desire to hold “power” as individuals, not as trustees of the Constitution, tears the Republic apart.

The Saturday Night Massacre was the DOJ’s last act of courage to preserve the rule of law.  Election day, November 5, 2024, maybe the people’s last chance to save the Republic by removing those government officials who exemplify “Profiles in Corruption.”

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, chairman of a state environmental board, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy won the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • The Value of U.S. Citizenship in an Open Border Society  

The Value of U.S. Citizenship in an Open Border Society  

William L. Kovacs

February 2024

The Value of U.S. Citizenship in an Open Border Society   

The Southern border of the U.S. is a mess with millions illegally walking into the U.S.  and being welcomed with free food, shelter, healthcare, cash, a cell phone, transportation to the city of their choice, and, in a few locations, the illegals are provided legal services. While 8 out of 10 Americans believe the out-of-control southern border is an emergency or a major problem, the federal government publishes a pamphlet, “What Are the Benefits and Responsibilities of Citizenship,” hyping the value of U.S. citizenship. It also highlights Biden’s callous disregard for his constitutional oath to defend states from invasion.

Comparing the statements made by the federal government on the benefits of citizenship against the facts Americans experience illustrates the utter contempt the federal government has for its citizens.           

Citizens can vote. The first noted benefit of being a citizen is the right to vote. What does the right to vote mean anymore? Hillary Clinton, supported by the FBI, Department of Justice, and the entire mainstream news media, told voters the Russians, with a massive disinformation campaign, elected Donald Trump in 2016. The Russian misinformation lie hampered the entire four years of the Trump presidency.

In the 2020 election, many of Trump’s 75 million supporters believe Trump would have defeated Biden if the FBI and the media had not covered up the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop. This belief is supported by polling. One in six voters would have changed their votes if they knew the laptop was authentic. The truth likely would have reelected Trump. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving the Pennsylvania election law. In that case,  the Democrat Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by judicial fiat, amended the state’s election law in the middle of the 2020 election. While Pennsylvania’s twenty electoral votes would not have changed the Electoral College results, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to clarify, for the 2024 election, the power of state courts to change election laws in the middle of an election.

Now Colorado, New Hampshire, and possibly twenty-nine other states want to ban Donald Trump from being on the 2024 presidential ballot. Will 2024 be another “free election?”

Every other year, our congressional representatives are elected by a rigged system called gerrymandering. The reelection rates for incumbents range from the low 90% to as high as 98%. Congressional districts are drawn to achieve partisan results. Voters are irrelevant. Statistically, there was more turnover in the former Soviet Politburo than in the U.S. Congress.

Now Biden wants some form of legalizing the illegals so they can vote. Imagine the integrity of future elections.

Decades of election controversies raise the question: Does voting matter?

Citizens get priority when petitioning to bring in family members. The processing time for an American citizen to get an immigration petition approved for a foreign spouse is 13 to 54 months. Contrast this lag time to the fact an entire family or group of terrorists coming illegally through the southern border can immediately enter the U.S.  and be safe from deportation after making payment to the cartels that drop the illegals off with the Border Patrol for processing.

Citizens benefit by having a U.S. passport. Citizens are free to travel throughout the U.S. While citizens have such a right, it is limited to lawful activity. Citizens committing crimes are arrested no matter where they are caught. Illegals, however, have many safe areas where they cannot be arrested, notwithstanding the crimes they have committed. These locations include schools, daycare centers, medical facilities, playgrounds for children, social service establishments, churches and demonstrations, parades, and in any Sanctuary city or state. Moreover, many American cities are paying for the bus and air transportation requested by illegals to travel to new cities. Most illegals travel throughout the U.S. without official identifying documents. If illegals do not need passports, identifying documents or even proof of vaccination from disease, why do Americans need these types of documents to prove who they are?

The U.S. government assists Americans outside the U.S. It’s unclear what assistance is given to Americans in trouble abroad. The most recent request for government assistance involves leaving thousands of Americans stranded in Afghanistan when the Biden administration disgracefully surrendered that country. The U.S. also left Americans behind in Iran as far back as 1979. More disgusting is the fact Americans are imprisoned throughout the world, and the U.S. does little to have them released. Recently, the U.S. government charged its citizens a fee to travel back to the U.S. when evacuated from a foreign country crisis. The New York Times wrote that Americans stranded abroad “feel completely abandoned.”

So much for the federal government helping Americans in foreign countries.

Citizens are eligible for federal jobs. The right to work for the federal government may be the one positive benefit of being a citizen that non-citizens do not have. A federal job is as close to nirvana as anyone can get. It requires little work, no creativity, and a talent to put words on pages, i.e., regulations, that no one can understand. Clean clothes are optional. After the pandemic, most federal workers “work” from home as the taxpayers pay billions for vacant office space.

There are 2 million of them. It sounds like a lot of jobs to apply for, but openings only happen when a government worker dies or retires. There is a long wait even for citizens. Today’s civil servants have de facto lifetime appointments. Federal employees are fired at the rate of 0.55%, a rate so low that deaths outnumber firings. Two significant agencies had zero firings—moreover, 99.5% of the 2 million federal employees rated “fully successful” or above. Of the 2 million bureaucrats, only 0.1% received unacceptable ratings.

In addition to job security, the Congressional Budget Office found that bureaucrats’ pay and benefits are 47% more than the combined pay and benefits in the private sector. A Cato Institute study put the number at 80% more than the private sector. The average federal worker receives $123,160 in pay and benefits compared to $69,901 in the private sector.

Sorry, American citizens, while you are welcome to apply for federal jobs, very few will ever be available unless you want to fight some undeclared war in a woke military.

 Citizens can freely exhibit patriotism. A strange benefit to tout when President Biden is using his 2024 campaign to attack 75 million voters he calls a” threat to democracy” because they are conservative and believe in “ Making America Great Again.”

The most ironic asserted benefit is that all citizens are subject to the same tax code. This statement is perhaps the most cynical statement ever made by the federal government. Citizens do not view paying taxes as a benefit of citizenship. Moreover, the illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. In fact, most exist on government grants, which the taxpayer pays for. Finally, if paying taxes is such a great benefit, why does Hunter Biden not pay taxes on his millions of laundered monies?

It’s no wonder that in 1958, almost seventy-five percent of Americans trusted the government. In 2022, only 20% of Americans trust government. The Biden administration treats citizens as commodities that pay taxes. As for the benefits of citizenship, if a citizen is in desperate need of federal help, they need to throw away all their identifying documents and enter the Southern border along with the other illegal immigrants. Only then will the federal, state, and local governments help.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, chairman of a state environmental board, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

  • Home
  • Is It Happening Now, A Government Coordinated Coup d’état?

Is It Happening Now, A Government Coordinated Coup d’état?

William L. Kovacs

January 2024

Is It Happening Now, A Government Coordinated Coup d’état?

Last year, I speculated that the actions of the Democrats’ January 6th committee hearings (the “Monkey Trial”), the alleged Russian disinformation campaign by the FBI and CIA, years of refusal by the DOJ and FBI to provide Congress with specifically demanded information on Biden’s money laundering activities and the Biden administration’s manipulation of Big Tech to shut down the truth in America, were setting in motion a coordinated plan to “Get Trump.” The groups involved in these actions are collectively termed “The Syndicate.” The Syndicate labels former President Trump an “insurrectionist” to block him from regaining the presidency.

Later members to join The Syndicate include prosecutors in DC, Florida, New York, and Georgia who indicted the former president in the middle of the presidential election season. They seek jail, fines, and the destruction of Trump and his businesses.  Now, the prosecutors seek immediate trials based on the urgency of the situation, which is the need to put the former president in jail before the November election. This type of abuse of power should be terrifying to Americans.

More recently, several events pushed speculation of a coup into an evidence-based theory of a coup d’état. Colorado and Maine joined The Syndicate by removing the former president from their state presidential ballots. Eleven more states have cases pending to remove Trump from their ballots. The justification for this blitzkrieg of lawsuits is “apparently” a “law review” that asserts Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (“Section 3”), a Civil War Amendment, forbids President Trump from ever again holding office since he somehow participated in an undefined, not judicially established, insurrection.

The second event involves the Georgia and New York prosecutors spending hours at the White House on litigation strategy and the Georgia prosecutors getting legal counseling from the Monkey Trial Committee. These meetings are the essence of coordination.

The third act to carry out The Syndicate’s coup is when the Democrat House of Representatives’ January 6th Committee destroyed documents days before having to turn them over to the new Republican majority. First, the Democrats refused to archive many of the materials with the Clerk of the House. They then failed to turn over more than a terabyte of data (the equivalent of 250,000 documents) to the Republicans. More troubling, when the Democrats were caught in their obstruction of justice, they admitted many of the records were destroyed. The new Republican committee hired a forensic expert who was able to retrieve the data. When retrieved, the data could not be opened without the passwords. The Democrats refused to give the Republicans the passwords.

Since Sinclair Lewis wrote “It Can’t Happen Here” in 1935, many authors have raised the question: Is Democracy so fragile that the U.S. could become a dystopian nation? So far, the writers have been wrong. They have been right; however, Democracy is fragile. Unfortunately, Democracy may be so fragile the U.S. may be in the process of becoming the dystopian place writers fictionalize.

But for the political advantage to the Democrats, the events of January 6th would have been defined as a riot, “a violent disturbance of the peace by a group of people.” Unfortunately, The Syndicate, by deeming Trump’s action an insurrection, positions them to eliminate Trump and take control of the government. As part of its fantastic narrative, the federal government, which has a $944 billion annual military machine and describes its military as a fearsome and gargantuan beast, claims it was in existential fear of destruction by “several rioters having firearms and dozens more wielded knives, bats and other real makeshift weapons.” The Syndicate’s reaction to the January 6th riot is best characterized by the hilarious movie “The Mouse that Roared.”

The January 6th crowd so “paralyzed” the then Speaker of the House, the D.C. mayor, and the Capitol Police that they could not respond to President Trump’s offer to send in the National Guard. These political elites seemed confident the FBI infiltrators planted in the crowd to incite legal demonstrators to break the law would prove the truth of their insurrection narrative. Two thousand demonstrators entered the Capitol, and 1100 were arrested. A nationwide manhunt continues for many others. Many were sent to D.C. Gitmo without the right to counsel or a speedy trial. The DOJ/FBI’s dragnet is its largest in U.S. history, even larger than the search for the 9/11 terrorists.

If January 6th turns out to be a riot and not an insurrection, the systematic actions by The Syndicate would be what academics define as a self-coup d’état. It is a coup in which the nation’s power structure comes to power legally but seeks to stay in power through illegal means. Did The Syndicate label January 6th an insurrection as an excuse to prosecute Trump supporters and organize the entire political machinery of the nation to “Get Trump” and remain in power?

By using the 14th Amendment, they took action to complete the coup. The relevant parts of the 14th Amendment read:

Section 3. No person shall…hold any office…under the United States or any state, who having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution… [if such person] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The proponents for disqualifying Trump under Section 3 claim:

Further, they argue to the extent Section 3 conflicts with prior constitutional protections, it repeals, supersedes, or satisfies them, including the constitutional protections against ex post facto laws and Trump’s Due Process and free speech rights. The authors believe eliminating all these constitutional rights can be implemented without involving Congress, the states, the process for amending the Constitution, or the need for judicial determinations of fact and law. The authors pronounce election officials are empowered to disqualify Trump. According to the National Council of State Legislators, there are more than 10,000 election administration jurisdictions in the U.S. There are likely thousands of election officials. Can each disqualify President Trump because they believe he is an insurrectionist?

The flaws in the proponents’ arguments are so vast as to establish bad faith. First, the proponents of “Get Trump” ignore section 5 altogether, i.e., that Congress has the power to enforce section 3 by legislation, and it has not. Moreover, the term “insurrection” is not defined in the 14th Amendment or anywhere in our Constitution or laws; as such, the 14th Amendment cannot be applied since it would be unconstitutionally vague and a denial of due process. The two federal cases addressing Section 3 rejected its use to disqualify government officials from holding office. In In re Griffin (1869), Justice Chase rejected the application of Section 3 as it would cause legal chaos. Most importantly, the application of Section 3, as claimed, denies defendants due process and several other constitutional guarantees. In U.S. v. Powell (1871), the court ruled there must be findings of fact before rendering any decision.

The foundation of a self- coup d’état theory rests on a set of actions to deny the American people the right to vote for the candidate of their choice:

  1. Before Trump became president, there were systematic actions by The Syndicate to circulate false information to make the public believe the Russians compromised him.
  2. The lies about Trump led to two impeachments in the House. While the Senate acquitted Trump, the actions of The Syndicate had the intended negative impact on the Trump presidency.
  3. As far back as 2019, The Syndicate protected Biden by denying the evidence that Hunter’s “Laptop from Hell” was real. They also hid that there were 5400 Biden emails in which Joe Biden used the pseudonyms “Robert L. Peters” and “JRB Ware” to conceal the Biden money laundering activities with Ukraine, Russia, and Romania.
  4. The Syndicate, in violation of federal law, tipped off Hunter Biden that his storage units were to be raided, thereby allowing Hunter to remove all incriminating evidence.
  5. The circulation of false information about Trump by The Syndicate continued while he was in office, as evidenced by the Durham and Horowitz Reports.
  6. As to the January 6th riots, The Syndicate still refuses to release the information requested by the Republicans in Congress.
  7. The Monkey Trial committee formed by the House Democrats prohibited Republicans from naming their members to the Committee, thereby preventing the cross-examination of witnesses and a fair hearing on the day’s events.
  8. After President Trump left office, The Syndicate waited until the 2024 primary election season started to indict him in four separate jurisdictions. The Syndicate, using public resources, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent Trump from winning the presidency. There is no record of such a massive use of public resources to prosecute one political opponent. Even the international Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals focused the government’s prosecution in one court.
  9. All the prosecution trials are scheduled during campaign season to ensure Trump cannot campaign against Biden. The Syndicate appears to be interfering with the 2024 election under the pretense of saving the Constitution by disqualifying Trump from the presidential ballots in states controlled by Democrats.
  10. The Syndicate seeks to disqualify Trump from holding office by advocating that any judge or election official in any state can disqualify the former president from office.
  11. The meetings between the prosecutors, the White House, and the January 6th committee reveal the Syndicate’s coordination. Moreover, the Democrat-controlled committee destroyed a terabyte of evidence, likely evidence that exonerates the January 6th defendants and former president Trump.
  12. Finally, the DOJ and FBI refuse to provide Congress with the information requested to establish a continuing coverup by the federal government.

One hundred thirty-six federal emergency laws in the U.S. grant the Executive the power to be a dictator at the time of his choosing. These emergency powers were used during COVID. These emergency laws can be used again for countless purposes. Since Americans can vote for Congress every two years, a coup d’état is highly unlikely. Americans would be fools, however, to believe a coup d’état can’t happen here. It may be happening.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • Could It Happen Here, A Federal Syndicate Coup d’état?

Could It Happen Here, A Federal Syndicate Coup d’état?

William L. Kovacs

September 2023

Could It Happen Here, A Federal Syndicate Coup d’état?

Since Sinclair Lewis wrote “It Can’t Happen Here” in 1935, many authors have raised the question: Is Democracy so fragile that the U.S. could become an “ism” nation? Fortunately, all the writers have been wrong about the U.S. becoming a dystopian nation. They have been right, however, about Democracy being fragile. This article will examine the actions of the federal government, its spy, propaganda, and law enforcement machines (collectively “the Federal Syndicate”) against former President Trump and his supporters over the last few years. It asks the question – is the federal government run by stupid people doing stupid things, or are its leaders subverting the Constitution to control the government?

But for the political advantage to the Democrats, the events of January 6th would have been defined as a riot, “a violent disturbance of the peace by a group of people.” Unfortunately, Democratic leadership deemed it an insurrection, an attempt by an organized group of people to defeat their government and take control of it. As part of its narrative, the federal government, which has a $944 billion annual military machine and describes its military as a fearsome and gargantuan beast, exhibits existential fear of destruction by the fact “several rioters had firearms and dozens more wielded knives, bats and other real makeshift weapons.” The Federal Syndicate’s reactions to the January 6th riot are best characterized by the hilarious movie “The Mouse that Roared.”

The crowd so paralyzed the Speaker of the House, the D.C. mayor, and the Capitol Police that they could not respond to President Trump’s offer to send the National Guard. These political elites seemed confident the FBI infiltrators planted in the crowd to incite legal demonstrators to break the law would prove the truth of their insurrection narrative. Two thousand demonstrators entered the Capitol, and 1100 were arrested. Many were sent to D.C. Gitmo without their right to counsel or a speedy trial. The DOJ/FBI’s dragnet is the largest in the history of the U.S. DC Gitmo is similar to the Guantanamo military prison in Cuba, also referred to as Gitmo, but without the sunshine.

If January 6th were a riot and not an insurrection, then the systematic actions by the Federal Syndicate would be what academics define as a self-coup d’état. It is a form of coup in which the nation’s power structure comes to power legally but seeks to stay in power through illegal means.

Did The Federal Syndicate label January 6th an insurrection as an excuse to prosecute 1100 Trump supporters and organize the entire Democrat political machinery to indict former president Trump? Unfortunately, many citizens arrested were unknowing and loyal Americans who simply trespassed inside the Capitol. Many even believed the police were waiving them in.

Since the opinion pages are full of articles talking about the coordination of the four Trump prosecutions to inflict destruction, perhaps even death, on him, the Durham report decimating the alleged Russian cover-up by the FBI and CIA, and the Biden administration’s manipulation of Big Tech to shut down the truth in America, this article will focus on the most recent effort to ensuring Trump is “finally taken out.”

Specifically, a few members of the Federalists Society and a retired “conservative” circuit judge, disgruntled over not being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserted that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (“Section 3”), a Civil War Amendment, forbids President Trump from ever again holding office since he somehow participated in an undefined, not judicially established, insurrection.

More disconcerting is that January 6th may have been a camouflage for covert activities. Is the Federal Syndicate pretending to protect the Constitution while secretly plotting to destroy Donald Trump and conservative Americans?

The relevant parts of Section 3 read:

No person shall…hold any office…under the United States or any state, who having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution… [if such person] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

The proponents for disqualifying Trump under Section 3 claim:

Further, they argue to the extent Section 3 conflicts with prior constitutional protections, “Section 3 repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto fact laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech protections of the First Amendment.”

According to the mainstream press, New Hampshire already has activity to disqualify Trump. Several progressive advocacy groups are lobbying state election officials to disqualify Trump from being listed on their state ballots.

The flaws in the proponents’ arguments are legion. The term “insurrection” is not defined in the 14th Amendment or anywhere in our Constitution or laws; as such, it cannot be applied since it would be unconstitutionally vague. Moreover, the two federal cases addressing Section 3 rejected its use to disqualify government officials from holding office. In, In re Griffin (1869), Justice Chase rejected the application of Section 3 for several reasons. Its application would cause legal chaos, and it was not self-executing. Most importantly, the application of Section 3, as claimed, denies defendants due process and several other constitutional guarantees. In U.S. v. Powell (1871), the court ruled there must be findings of fact before rendering any decision.

Crazily, the authors assert Section 3 is so broad it rewrites the U.S. Constitution by repealing numerous constitutional protections for government officials without involving Congress, the states, the process for amending the Constitution, judicial determinations of fact and law, due process, or even the people of the nation.

The authors again crazily pronounce election officials are empowered to disqualify Trump. According to the National Council of State Legislators, there are more than 10,000 election administration jurisdictions in the U.S. There are likely tens or even hundreds of thousands of election officials. Can each of them disqualify President Trump because they believe he is an insurrectionist?

Under existing circumstances, could the facts establish a self- coup d’état?

  1. Before Trump became president, there were systematic actions by the Federal Syndicate to circulate false information to make the public believe the Russians compromised him.
  2. The lies about Trump led to two impeachments in the House. While the Senate acquitted Trump, the actions of the Federal Syndicate had the intended negative impact on Trump.
  3. As far back as 2019, the Federal Syndicate protected Biden by denying the evidence that Hunter’s “Laptop from Hell” was real. It also hid that there were 5400 Biden emails in which Joe Biden used the pseudonyms “Robert L. Peters” and “JRB Ware” to conceal the Biden money laundering activities with Ukraine, Russia, and Romania.
  4. The Secret Service, in violation of federal law, tipped off Hunter Biden that his storage units were to be raided, thereby allowing Hunter to remove all incriminating evidence.
  5. The circulation by the Federal Syndicate of false information about Trump continued while he was in office, as evidenced by the Durham and Horowitz Reports.
  6. As to the January 6th riots, the Federal Syndicate still refuses to release the information requested by Congress.
  7. The special January 6th committee formed by the House Democrats prohibited Republicans from naming their members to the Committee, thereby preventing the cross-examination of witnesses and a fair hearing on the day’s events.
  8. After President Trump left office, the Democrats waited until the 2024 primary election season started to indict him in four separate jurisdictions. The Democrats, using public resources, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to go after one person. There is no record in the world of such a massive use of public resources to prosecute one political opponent. Even the famous Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals focused the government’s prosecution in one court.
  9. All the prosecution trials are scheduled during campaign season to ensure Trump cannot compete against Biden. The Federal Syndicate appears to be interfering with the 2024 election under the pretense of saving the Constitution.
  10. Now, the Democrats seek to disqualify Trump from holding office by advocating that any election official in any state can disqualify the former president from office. All to be accomplished by a process that is self-executing by any state executioner who somehow personally believes, without a public inquiry, legislative definition, or judicial determination, that Trump is an insurrectionist.

Since Americans can vote for Congress every two years, a coup d’état is highly unlikely. But Americans would be fools to believe a coup d’état can’t happen here. Self-coups come in many forms, and all use legal means. Leaders could assume special emergency powers as a permanent means of governing. We all experienced these emergency powers during the COVID pandemic with lockdowns, masks, school cancellations, and restrictions on free speech if it related to the truth of the federal government’s pronouncements on health matters. Moreover, 136 federal emergency laws in the U.S. grant the Executive the power to be a dictator at the time of his choosing.

Between 1946 and 2022, an estimated 148 self-coup attempts occurred, of which 110 were in dictatorships and 38 in democracies. Based on the actions of the Federal Syndicate, one could argue it is implementing a self-coup d’état. If that is not the goal of the Biden administration and its Federal Syndicate, then these groups need to renounce the activities that give the impression of a coup taking place. Continuing with its illegal actions to over-prosecute objectionable individuals, restrict constitutionally protected free speech, withhold evidence of criminal activity from Congress, and give the appearance of interfering with elections only leads the public to believe “It is happening here.”

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • U.S. vs. Trump: The Fed’s Wild West Show of Injustice

U.S. vs. Trump: The Fed’s Wild West Show of Injustice

William L. Kovacs

June 2023

U.S. vs. Trump: The Fed’s Wild West Show of Injustice

The “Wild West” is a place without laws or controls. This definition perfectly describes the federal government’s prosecution in  U.S. vs. Trump. The feds are using the resources the nation to target one person, Donald Trump. The law under the Biden administration is whatever prosecutors deem it to be. The prosecutors are the federal government’s gunslingers who settle differences with anyone who does not follow their commands.

Sadly, however, the vagueness of our Constitution allows federal prosecutors the discretion to charge anyone with criminal conduct, even if the charges are false. Rarely are prosecutors held accountable for such misconduct.

While most citizens understand that the federal government can destroy any person it decides to eliminate, there has been little serious constitutional or philosophical thinking on the issue until the indictment of the former president. Now the entire nation sees how the federal government can use prosecutors to destroy Democracy.

In a rare report on prosecutorial discretion, The Anatomy of Discretion: An Analysis of Prosecutorial Decision Making – Technical Report,  the authors write, “Prosecuting attorneys enjoy broader discretion in making decisions that influence a criminal case than any other actors in the American justice system. That they do so with little or no public scrutiny suggests questions about justice and fairness.” Former Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson publicly addressed this lack of accountability. He stated, “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.”

Possessing such unsupervised power can lead to selective prosecution, which is pursued to advance bias, personal beliefs, or the political conquest in the case of Trump.

The only real check on prosecutorial misconduct is the federal judge. Unfortunately, no matter how competent the judge, the prosecutors can easily deceive the court with little to no consequence. The government intentionally misled the FISA court and the prosecution of several Trump supporters on national security matters. While the government’s criminal misconduct was laid out in the Durham Report, it was ignored by President Biden and the entire judicial system.

The court’s reluctance to hold the Justice Department accountable for misconduct is allowing Democrats to fiercely attack the trial Judge Aileen Cannon, the presiding trial judge in U.S. vs. Trump. She was selected by a random draw, which is common in federal court.

The Democrat’s concern is merely that President Trump appointed her. Immediately, “a chorus of [Democrat] legal experts” demanded she recuses herself from the case. Democrat Senator Whitehouse called the judge a “Trump advocate in a robe.” Moreover, a chorus of Democrat “scholars” are telling the American public a “not guilty” verdict will be a political decision, notwithstanding that the entire indictment is political vendetta.

Judge Cannon is now the only person in the world who can force prosecutors to act honestly and ethically. As a Trump appointee, it is likely the Democrats will destroy her life.

The Special Counsel [Jack Smith] in the Trump indictment case is an excellent example of abusing prosecutorial discretion to secure convictions. In his quest to destroy the brilliant career of former Virginia Republican Governor Robert McDonnell, Smith indicted the Governor and his wife by using extremely questionable and expansive legal theories concerning public corruption. In a rare unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the U.S. vacated Governor McDonnell’s conviction. The court characterized Smith’s prosecution as a “boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

Similar “boundless interpretations” are present in the Trump indictment. Specifically, in the discovery aspect of the case, D.C. district judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, allowed the prosecutor to breach Trump’s attorney-client privilege and depose Trump’s attorney to secure privileged information. It has been the right of a client to assert the attorney-client privilege since the 16th century. It grants a client the right to refuse to disclose and prevent his attorney from disclosing confidential communications between the client and his attorney. While Judge Howell allowed Smith to obtain evidence in discovery from Trump’s lawyers, that ruling will be reviewed by Judge Cannon before the evidence can be used at trial.

Trump’s new legal team will likely move to preclude at trial the use of any evidence obtained from Trump’s prior attorney, which is the foundation of Smith’s case. If Judge Cannon excludes the attorney’s testimony as privileged, the prosecutor has a much weaker to non-existent lawsuit against Trump. Again, Smith can only win by using “boundless interpretations” of the law.

Compounding the boundless interpretations of the law, the prosecutor is making an ex post facto (retroactive) change in the policy of the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice ended the Hillary Clinton investigation involving the destruction of documents by concluding her actions were not intentional. Clinton used bleach bit to purge all computer files and a hammer to destroy her cell phones. While the FBI concluded Clinton was extremely careless in handling very sensitive, highly classified information, it concluded that under existing policy, there was no clear evidence of intent to violate the law. Then FBI director Comey, based on past similar situations, pronounced the standard for prosecuting presidential candidates as requiring clear, intentional, and willful mishandling of classified information in a way that indicated disloyalty to the U.S.

While the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing retroactive laws, the Supreme Court has applied that prohibition to federal agencies, like the Department of Justice, that have been granted legislative power to make law through notice and comment rulemaking. As a result, an agency must go through a public rulemaking process before changing its policy.

Under such reasoning, the legal standard set by FBI Director Comey in the Hillary Clinton investigation is the standard that must be applied to Trump. If Clinton’s use of bleach bit to destroy all information and a hammer to destroy cell phones is considered non-intentional conduct, Trump’s mere possession of files cannot be criminal under the Comey rule since the files still exist. If the Department of Justice wants to change existing law or policy, it must follow a rulemaking procedure.

Government cannot retroactively change the legal standards that determine criminal conduct. Justice Cardozo summed up the problem of retroactively changing policy without going through the proper procedures when he stated:

‘Law as a guide to conduct is reduced to mere futility if it is unknown and unknowable.”

The federal government’s actions are reprehensible, unconstitutional, and destructive to the Republic. The mistrust of the federal government is almost universal. Rasmussen found that 37% of all U.S. voters “fear the federal government.” More than half of voters (54%) believe the federal government threatens individual liberty, and only 22% view it as a protector of freedom. A Chapman University study of “Fear” found the number one fear among Americans is corrupt government officials. Seventy-nine percent were very fearful or fearful of a corrupt government. Pew found only 20% of Americans trust the government.

Every action by the federal government that gives the appearance of abusive power destroys Americans’ faith in their government. Why would a federal government regularly act in a manner that weakens the bonds of union? Is the real intent of the federal government to destroy the United States? The American people are answering the question with a “yes.”

First published in The Thinking Conservative.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • WH Admits Working with Big Tech to Censor, Many Implications

WH Admits Working with Big Tech to Censor, Many Implications

William L. Kovacs

July 2021

WH Admits Working with Big Tech to Censor, Many Implications

The Biden administration confirms it aggressively works with Big Tech “…to flag ‘problematic’ posts “that spread disinformation on Covid-19” on the Internet. George Orwell would call such activity propaganda. Historians characterize such a close working relationship between government and big business, as fascism. To the Biden administration, it’s merely cleaning up “misinformation”.

Whatever the American people believe this close working relationship might be, the key fact is whatever information is allowed into the public square depends on Big Tech’s willingness to allow the “information” into the public square.

A little of the history on this matter before discussing how the Biden administration has opened itself up to significant discovery (written and oral questions under oath) in civil litigation.

On April 15, 2021, this blog was one of the first to post an article on Big Tech as State Actor Having Constitutional Obligations to those whose speech in the public square it denies. At that time, the article had a theoretical evidentiary link based on second-hand media reports. It was part of three articles on breaking up Big Tech without new laws. A second article discussed the fact Congress does not have the constitutional authority to delegate to Big Tech the power to regulate other private parties. The third article discussed how citizens can break up big tech using the techniques of the Left.

Notwithstanding Biden’s broad-ranging Executive Order to twelve agencies to ensure competition in the tech market, it is highly unlikely the Biden administration will seriously take on Big Tech, with new legislation, new regulations, or challenge it in the courts. Big Tech companies are the friends, donors, protectors, and the sycophant speech censor for the Biden administration.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric, if the Biden administration wanted to break up Big Tech, is could bring an antitrust action today. It has not. If Biden wanted to subject Big Tech to lawsuits, Biden could ask Congress to repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that provides Big Tech with immunity from suit. Biden would likely have Republican support but he has not asked Congress for help. Or, Biden could direct the FCC to narrow section 230 immunity through rulemaking by limiting the section to child pornography. He has not directed it. So, more talk, talk and talk from a politician.

To take on Big Tech, other ways must be explored.

The most likely way to take on Big Tech/White House censorship will be in Former President Trump’s class-action lawsuit against Big Tech. Trump claims the Big Tech’s close cooperation with the government makes it a state actor. The Biden administration could also join the lawsuit if it truly believes what it claims. It has not.

Trump’s lawsuit has relied on much the same public information as my April article, which is not sufficient evidence for a court of law.

All changed with Jen Psaki’s (White House Press Secretary) admission, at a press conference on July 15, 2021, that the Biden administration is in regular conversation with Big Tech on censoring “misinformation.” Since the press conference, social media has exploded with commentary on the issue. More commentary is not needed. Psaki’s actual words are what people need to read to appreciate how she opens up many lines of discovery in Trump’s civil lawsuit.

A complete transcript of Psaki’s comments on “misinformation” opens the White House to civil discovery procedures.

[The content in brackets in the brackets after Psaki’s statements identifies the information that could be obtained through civil discovery.]

“Alex: (16:19)
Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation. Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation? Because we’ve seen from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms.

Jen Psaki: (16:38)
Sure. Well, first we are in regular touch with these social media platforms and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team. Given as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of all participants in the conversation, the substance of each conversation, documents identifying specific disinformation and the basis for determining disinformation.]

Jen Psaki: (16:57)
In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken, or we’re working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connected medical experts who are popular with their audiences with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of all disinformation being conducted and tracked by the Surgeon General’s office, all post flagged for Facebook, the identity of all “trusted” doctors and professionals who will do the outreach.]

[Psaki discusses other issues not relevant to Covid – 19 “misinformation.]

Jen Psaki: (17:27)
We also created the COVID Community Court to get factual information into the hands of local messengers. And we’re also investing, as you’ll have seen, in the President’s, the Vice President’s, and Dr. Fauci’s time in meeting with influencers who also have large reaches to a lot of these target audiences who can spread and share accurate information. You saw an example of that yesterday. I believe that the video will be out for tomorrow. I think that was your question, Steve, yesterday, full follow-up there.

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of all local messengers and influencers who share the administration’s version of the facts. Discovery would also include the soon-to-be-released video, who made it, what information was relied on in making it, and What is the COCID-19 court, what will it do and who is on it?]

Jen Psaki: (17:56)
There are also proposed changes that we have made to social media platforms, including Facebook. And those specifically are four key steps. One, that they measure and publicly share the impact of misinformation on their platform. Facebook should provide, publicly and transparently, data on the reach of Covid – 19 vaccine misinformation. Not just engagement, but the reach of the misinformation, and the audience that it’s reaching. That will help us ensure we’re getting accurate information to people. This should be provided not just to researchers, but to the public so that the public knows and understands what is accurate and inaccurate.

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of how the government believes Facebook should measure misinformation and the reach of such misinformation? How the government believes Facebook should inform the public of what is the specific misinformation. Additionally, identification of the target audiences and the “accurate” information government wants to reach the public?]

Jen Psaki: (18:32)
Second, that we have proposed that they create a robust enforcement strategy that bridges their properties and provides transparency about the rules. So I think this was a question asked before. There are about 12 people who are producing 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms. All of them remain active on Facebook, despite some even being banned on other platforms, including ones that Facebook owns.

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of what the administration considers an appropriate, robust, enforcement strategy Facebook should undertake?  Also, what is the identity of the 12 people producing 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation and the specific misinformation?]

Jen Psaki: (18:58)
Third, it’s important to take faster action against harmful posts. As you all know, information travels quite quickly on social media platforms. Sometimes it’s not accurate, and Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful violative posts. Posts that will be within their policies for removal often remain up for days. That’s too long. The information spreads too quickly.

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of the administration’s discussion of what does it want Facebook to do “more quickly?” Additionally, what does the White House consider a quick removal, and how does it determine what “misinformation” should be removed?]

Jen Psaki: (19:19)
Finally, we have proposed they promote quality information sources in their feed algorithm. Facebook has repeatedly shown that they have the leverage to promote quality information. We’ve seen them effectively do this in their algorithm over low-quality information. And they’ve chosen not to use it in this case, and that’s certainly an area that would have an impact. So these are certainly the proposals. We engage with them regularly, and they certainly understand what our asks are.

[Possible Civil Discovery: What proposal has the administration made to Facebook on promoting quality information on their algorithms? What does the administration determine quality information? Is the White House following the guidelines in the Information Quality Act to determine “quality information?” Identify each time the administration has engaged with Facebook or any other Big Tech company on this issue?

[The Information Quality Act requires Federal agencies to comply with data quality guidelines to ensure and maximize the quality, utility, objectivity, and integrity of the information disseminated by the Federal government.]

Alex: (19:45)
One of the problems with vaccines right now is that they become politicized. The White House has obviously made the calculation that it’s important to be more aggressive in confronting this information, but is there at all concern that that could backfire and further contribute to politicization? And is there anything that you can do to prevent that at this point?

Jen Psaki: (20:02)
Well, you’re absolutely right, I should say, Alex, in that we have to be very careful and we are mindful of being quite careful of not politicizing the effectiveness of vaccines. The fact that they can save lives, young people, old people, middle-of-the-road people. It’s important for us, we’ve made a calculation, to push back on misinformation. You’re right.

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identify all the information relied upon in making the calculation to push back on misinformation? Who reviewed the data to make that determination and was all the data subject to the guidelines of the Information Quality Act?]

Jen Psaki: (20:22)
But that’s one of the reasons, as Dr. Murthy was conveying, we have empowered, engaged, funded local voices because they are often the most trusted voices. Doctors, medical experts, clergy, people who are civic leaders in communities. That’s where we are putting most of our resources, even as we are working to combat misinformation that’s traveling online or traveling, unfortunately out of the mouths of elected officials from time to time.”

[Possible Civil Discovery: Identification of all local “trusted” voices to be participants in the administration’s outreach, as well as what resources the administration deploying and the cost of such effort?]

With the July 15, 2021 press conference, Jen Psaki, opened up the administration to answer questions under oath in a civil deposition or by written question. This discovery will likely be used by Trump’s attorneys. With even reasonably good lawyering, the public will discover what the Biden administration believes is misinformation and what is good information, who possesses which type of information, and the rigors of ensuring “good information” is tested against the Information Quality Act. It will also let the public know what information the Biden administration wants us to know is the “truth.” That by itself will be interesting in a day when 58% of people believe media has become “the enemy of the people.”

 

 

  • Home
  • Libertarian Party’s Future is at Fork in Road

Libertarian Party’s Future is at Fork in Road

William L. Kovacs

March 2021

Libertarian Party’s Future is at Fork in Road

After the 2020 election, there were several articles on the future of the Libertarian Party (“LP”) fighting to be heard in a duopoly, (“Democrats and Republicans”), a controlled political system. In “Guerrilla Politics” the author argues the LP should admit it cannot win significant elections, that ballot access is a “vanity project” and the party needs to focus on a few states and high-level races so it can be a “spoiler” to incumbents and at times, support the incumbent if it agrees with a few of LP principles. Another article in  LP.org discussed how the duopoly uses constant litigation to drain the resources of the LP.

While both articles provide interesting perspectives, both avoid the central question – does the LP want a future as a major political party?

While the duopoly controls politics there are bright spots for LP

This question is asked against the stark reality that the duopoly controls 99.92% of all elected offices in the U.S., spent in the 2020 presidential race almost $3 billion dollars vs $2.9 million by the LP candidate; and obtained over 98% of the national vote. Even more humiliating to the LP is that out of 328 million citizens, the duopoly elected “sleepy” Joe Biden, a gaffe-prone, plagiarist who has difficulty with sentence structure and avoids answering questions on issues.

There are several very bright spots for the LP. It is the only minor party on the ballot of all 50 states, an impressive achievement. Moreover, a very recent Gallup poll finds 62 % of Americans stated a third party was needed, the highest level ever.

What is the goal of the LP?

The difficulty in commenting on the future of the LP is while its slogan is “The Party of Principle,” there is no discussion of how these principles translate into practical policies that improve life in the U.S. A statement of principles is merely a statement of surface-level belief. Fighting to transform principles into reality, is costly. It involves a tremendous amount of hard work, action, communications with people outside of the party circle, coalition building, education, recruitment, and an openness to others who might support many of the LP principles, but not all. In short, the LP must recognize political success is achieved by addition, not by principles.

Professor Devine, in his book on minor political parties, writes that for America’s third-largest political party, “there is growing disconnect between the party’s radical platform and the more mainstream, “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” policy preferences of its rank-and-file supporters.”

To be successful the LP must decide if it wants to be a political party that leads the nation or be a social club discussing political issues. With freedom under attack and censorship viewed as “truth-telling,” it is the perfect time for the LP to decide its fate. If the LP decides it wants to win elections it needs to continue its very effective ballot access litigation and its minimal efforts at candidate recruitment and education. But it must go well beyond the minimum.

A few modest suggestions for the LP.

  • Explain how LP principles can be implemented to help the American people. This is essential since most Americans have little knowledge of the LP. 44% of Americans don’t even “know the correct definition of the party,” let alone its platform. Without knowing what it stands for, it is hard to vote for it. LP’s primary issues are individual freedom, free markets, freedom in personal relationships e.g., drug legalization, and a foreign policy used for defense rather than as the policeman of the world. LP has an opportunity to explain to a public locked in homes, under massive government surveillance, suffering assaults on privacy, paying for massive corporate bailouts and $5- 6 trillion spent on wars and nation-building, how its policies will make for a better U.S. Explaining its positions to the public will win significant additional support.
  • Develop coalitions with groups on specific issues of agreement. An excellent example is the decriminalization of drugs and prison reform. While there are many social organizations involved in this issue, there are also many minority organizations that have an interest in it. Reach out to the minority community, especially its business community, that has a strong history of entrepreneurship and is very understanding of the stigma of incarceration. Also, reach out to anti-war groups, they need allies as much as the LP does.
  • Consider the joint establishment of a litigation center with other minor parties to keep costs reasonable. Since all minor parties have similar concerns with the duopoly harassment on ballot access, having a cadre of experienced lawyers able to take on the cases nationwide is essential. Research how the many non -profit litigation centers have dramatically influenced the courts and national policy at a very reasonable cost.
  • Expand the legal theories beyond obtaining ballot access. Use the Civil Rights and Anti-trust laws to put an end to the constant harassment of litigation, and election law changes to deny ballot access to minor parties. Put the duopoly at financial risk by seeking damages for all the harm caused by a century-long conspiracy by the duopoly to deny civil rights and restrain trade.
  • Start this second to get on the debate stage for the presidential debates. Yes, the LP and Level the Playing Field, in June 2020, lost another case seeking to include minor parties in the debates. It is essential to grasp that judicial appointees are not dispensing justice; they were appointed to do the duopoly’s work. There are two options that have strong possibilities to put the LP message on stage.:
      1. Pass a law. Develop and have introduced legislation that has reasonable and achievable standards for participation by minor parties in the debates. Involve all minor parties in recruiting citizen lobbyists in every congressional district in the nation. Have them lobby their members of Congress and Senators in their home offices. Make the campaign local and public with visits and press releases. Make the campaign national by starting a social media campaign to raise awareness and support.
      2. Petition the IRS to deny non – profit status of the Commission on Presidential Debates (“CPD”). The CPD is merely a front organization for the two political parties. It uses tax-exempt status to raise money to host a debate that only provides exposure to the duopoly. In essence, corporations receive a tax deduction for making a political contribution. The IRS can investigate and change its status if it finds its goal is political, not educational. If big business loses the tax-deductibility of its “lobbying” contributions, the contributions evaporate. If the petition is denied sue the IRS.
  • Seriously think about this “wild and crazy option”. There is a large section of the electorate that would like to vote against Trump and Biden-type candidates, but it needs someone to vote for. If the LP wants a sizable part of those votes, it must nominate a candidate that has some name recognition, an ability to speak to the voters, a concise message that explains how libertarian policies would help Americans and can raise money. A few names come to mind: Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Massie, Jim Justice, or Justin Amash. Each of these candidates are proven vote-getters and can raise money. Each of them has the ability to secure over 15% of the vote. If that happens LP will be recognized as a major party and will have a massive impact on the 2024 election and future elections.

The LP is at a fork in the road. Its current path leads to irrelevancy under duopoly domination.  Taking the less traveled path has the chance to break the duopoly and start implementing libertarian principles. Shock the political system! It deserves it!

  • Home
  • Trump: “To Pardon or Not to Pardon Me, Is the Question”

Trump: “To Pardon or Not to Pardon Me, Is the Question”

William L. Kovacs

December 2020

Trump: “To Pardon or Not to Pardon Me, Is the Question”

President Trump’s 2020 election loss raises the question – Will he pardon himself before leaving office? It would free him of all legal liability for any past federal criminal acts he might have committed. Such liability or defending himself against charges of wrongdoing is certainly a real possibility. Many Democrats are seeking criminal action against President Trump after he leaves office. Congressman Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) recently stated Trump and his worst enablers “…must be tried for their crimes against our nation and Constitution.”

The pardon power in the Constitution is straightforward: “The President shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”  It contains no limitations such as “a president cannot pardon himself.” Why not pardon himself, family, and friends before walking out the door? Why not use the pardon power to give himself a long, peaceful life after the White House? Trump and his family would be free of alleged conspiracies with Russia, tax evasion, or any other federal crimes.

New York state would likely still pursue him for business crimes but such crimes are civil violations or if criminal, complicated document crimes, requiring proof of intent. Crimes usually settled by a check and a harsh-sounding press release.

Whether a president can pardon himself has never been determined. Once he pardons himself, however, unknown consequences will follow. It will also be irrevocable, uncertain and could be Trump’s real hell.

While the few words of the pardon power do not contain any limits, the Constitution has many clauses that must be read together. Every clause is related to and limited by some other part of the Constitution.

For example, Article I reads: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress.” Certainly today, legislative powers are delegated to a president that makes law through regulation, Executive Order, and now seemingly with tweets. Congress holds the power to declare war, yet it the executive, without congressional declarations of war, has taken us into several wars for the last seventy years.

While the role of the courts is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution as it applies to controversies, many times the Court has “discovered” massive federal powers in the Constitution that our founders did not write. The Supreme Court has bestowed the absolute power on the federal government to declare “sovereign immunity;” thereby exempting itself from lawsuits and associated damages for harm it causes. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionally of the Affordable Care Act by magically finding it a tax, a characterization rejected by Congress. U.S. history is replete with judicially imposed constitutional changes from civil rights, to property rights, to abortion. Predicting what the Supreme Court will do with a pardon power case is unpredictable.

What is likely, however, is that the scope of presidential pardon power will be balanced against the president’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This faithful execution of law means the president, as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, must enforce the law. He may not break the laws he enforces. Allowing a president to break the laws he enforces, nullifies the “take care” clause of the Constitution. If a president can pardon himself, he nullifies one of the primary duties of his office.

Worse, however, if the president pardons himself for violations of law, the pardon itself may establish a continuing violation of law by obstructing justice, i.e. the interference with the orderly administration of law and justice. Granting himself a pardon would be viewed as a continuation of obstructing justice. Were such pardon deemed to be “faithful execution of the law,” presidents would be “above all law.” They would be supreme rulers, exempt from the law.

It is likely, for similar reasoning, then-President Richard Nixon left to his successor Gerald Ford, the power to grant him a pardon in accordance with the law. President Trump faces the same existential dilemma as Nixon; if he leaves office without a pardon, he risks vengeful Democrats wanting to prosecute and imprison him for what could be the rest of his life.

Trump has two choices, resign and hope a president Pence gives him a pardon, or serve out the rest of his term and hope a president Biden pardons him. It may be a step too far for Trump to resign and expect a pardon from President Pence. Unlike Gerald Ford, who put the healing of the country ahead of his political future, a President Pence is unlikely to put his presidential ambitions at risk for Donald Trump.

This leaves a pardon to a president Biden. A person promising exactly what President Ford delivered, bringing unity to a divided nation. President-elect Biden has signaled he is a transition president, likely only to serve one term. Biden is perfectly positioned to make “This is the time to heal America,” happen.  Pardoning Trump would be the overt action that tells 70 million Trump voters, it is time to heal a divided America.

The John F. Kennedy Library Foundation bestowed on President Ford its Profiles in Courage Award for his bold actions to bring the nation together. Will a President Biden have the courage to heal a divided nation or is his talk of “unity” just more talk?

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • The Limits on Governing in a Biden Presidency

The Limits on Governing in a Biden Presidency

William L. Kovacs

November 2020

The Limits on Governing in a Biden Presidency

If the winner of the 2020 presidential election is Joe Biden, the real question is – what exactly can he do to govern the country? Can he form a government that works for citizens or is he locked into a political system he helped form in over forty years in the DC swamp?

Biden is likely to exercise the powers of the presidency with a majority Republican Senate, run by Mitch McConnell, a master of Senate strategy. McConnell’s Senate is the graveyard for Democrat nominees and legislation, e.g. judge Merrick Garland, multi-trillion-dollar House of Representative’s Coronavirus relief plans. McConnell’s Senate can literally block all of Biden’s judicial nominees and cabinet officers. If however, Democrats win the two Georgia Senate seats in the January 2021 run-off elections, this scenario flips on its head. The filibuster is eliminated and more social legislation will be passed in the next two years than was passed during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. My assumption is that the Republican party will keep control of the Senate.

Even the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives lost several members from its majority. In fact, Democrats lost six seats and failed to defeat any Republican incumbents. What should be most concerning to a Biden presidency is how to fund the government. The temporary budget expires on December 11, 2020, and the Senate has not passed any of the appropriation bills. At worst, another government shutdown. At best there will be a temporary appropriation that moves the funding problem from the Trump to the Biden administration.  A Biden presidency is unlikely to get much, or any, of its Democrat wish-list, e.g. funding for state pension plans, additional funding to address climate change and infrastructure, or tax increases on those earning over $400.000 a year.

There are a few issues a President Biden could put into motion without Congressional assistance. He could rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement that President Trump withdrew from. As an Agreement, not a treaty, he does not need Senate advice and Consent. Presidential Agreements are as solid as wind and change with administrations. President Biden could also remove the tariffs on China imposed by Trump to benefit consumers’ pocketbooks.

Going across the street from the Capitol, there is a six-to-three conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. How it rules on ObamaCare is only one of the Democrats’ concerns. The Supreme Court will have the power to review all regulations issued by Biden’s administration. Regulatory power is the one power presidents can freely exercise without Congress. Moreover, Biden will likely reverse many of Trump’s deregulatory environmental actions, specifically Trump’s rollbacks of water and wetland regulations, the disposal of mining waste, the Clean Power Plan and almost one-hundred other Obama issued regulations.

A majority conservative court, however, can severely keep in check expansive new regulations and de-regulatory actions it believes not to be “reasonable.”

A President Biden may find some Trump inflicted pain before even being sworn into office. Trump may persuade Attorney General Barr to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden’s alleged illegal Burisma activities. After being sworn in it will be difficult for Biden to personally stop a criminal investigation of his son after taking an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the U.S.

Biden’s revenge maybe for the U.S. Attorneys in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York to open investigations of Trump, especially on alleged tax fraud and money laundering. When exercising the powers of government, opening an investigation of Trump’s tax filings would be as easy as sending a birthday card.

The final and most serious attack on the Biden presidency might come from Donald Trump himself. Trump is not leaving the grand stage quietly. He will do something “big,” “loud,” and “highly critical” of the Biden administration. Trump will be the resistance leader against high taxes, over-regulation, and programs that move the U.S. toward socialism. Perhaps Trump will start the often discussed Trump News Network. It is estimated he has a combined social media following of 87.7 million followers. Fox News only has 3.6 million viewers and the other channels have far fewer viewers.

Trump would dominate the news during a Biden presidency. Under such withering, constant criticism, Biden would have to work with, around or in conflict with, a hostile Senate, a conservative Supreme Court, almost half the nation disagreeing with his policies, his son under criminal investigation, and a 24-hour news channel actively organizing opposition to his presidency.

At a time when Biden will need help from every person capable of giving it, the radical left will push him further and further to the left, leaving him “hung out to dry.” A nightmare for Biden would be for Speaker Pelosi to lose the speakership to a far-left progressive. Unlikely, but worth noting as a possibility.

Trump believes Biden, the FBI, and others in the Obama administration, engineered attacks on him before he was even sworn into office. He believes they continued the attacks for his entire presidency. They manipulated events to have a special counsel to investigate him. They impeached him. There was not a day President Trump was not attacked by his enemies.  Biden will likely be subjected to similar working conditions in his White House.

Welcome, President-elect Biden to American politics 2020.