FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Oct 7

Would Trump Really Enact the Insurrection Act?

by bcurry

The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to use active-duty military personnel to perform law-enforcement duties inside the U.S.  Unfortunately, the Insurrection Act was written in fairly broad terms, with little specific guidance on how and when the powers can be used.  It apparently gives presidents wide latitude in deciding when to mobilise military personnel for domestic operations.  Presidents can invoke the law if they determine that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” against the government make it “impracticable to enforce” U.S. law “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”.  To date, President Trump has chosen not to invoke this Act.  One important reason is that if he chooses to invoke the Act, it remains unclear what further legal challenges he might face.  Since the start of his second term, he has sent or talked about sending troops to 10 American cities.

Already, the Trump administration is facing numerous challenges to his use of federalizing the National Guard in cases involving Los Angeles and Chicago.  Most recently, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying any National Guard units to Portland, Oregon, including the California National Guard.  U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, issued the order pending further arguments in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.  She said the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.  California and Oregon also sought the temporary restraining order after U.S. President Donald Trump sent guard members from California to Oregon.  The same judge temporarily blocked his administration from deploying Oregon National Guard troops to Portland.  This upset Trump who then talked about invoking the Insurrection Act.

The use of the Insurrection Act has normally been under very exceptional circumstances since its first use by Abraham Lincoln when the southern states rebelled during the US Civil War, and by former President Ulysses S Grant against a wave of racist violence by the Ku Klux Klan after the war.  It was last used by President George Bush in 1992 when massive riots broke out in Los Angeles over the acquittal of four white police officers in the beating of Rodney King, a black man.  The American government has traditionally worked to limit the use of military force on American soil, especially against its own citizens.  Its use would be an extreme option in order to allow the Trump administration to circumvent legal hurdles.  It was reported that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller in creditably declared that the government was facing a “legal insurrection”, and that court rulings against its law enforcement efforts were tantamount to “an insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States”. 

Suggesting that the use of the military to assist local police forces, as was the case in Washington, D.C., in fighting urban criminal activities would appear to be an extreme measure and one which does not inspire confidence in local and state police forces.  There has to date been no real evidence of any form of organized insurrection in American cities.  Suggesting that the police cannot deal with civil protests against such policies as the Trump administration’s approach to the potential arrests of illegal undocumented persons has been greatly exaggerated.  In effect, the appearance of military personnel on the streets only makes the potential angry reaction of peaceful protesting groups even more likely, especially when they are exposed to the use of tear gas and other riot control measures.

Invoking the Insurrection Act under the current circumstances would be a serious political and policy mistake on the part of the President.  It would certainly strengthen the perception that this administration has become increasingly authoritarian in its use of presidential powers, very often attempting to circumvent the judicial system.  I strongly believe that given its very definition, there is no existing insurrection in the U.S., armed or otherwise.  The very use of this term has been severely abused by the Trump administration, and can only lead to much more unrest by the citizenry in the affected cities of this great nation. 

Civil Rights Donald Trump Judicial System Urban Issues US

Leave a comment »
Mar 30

U.S. Increasingly Moving Towards Police State

by bcurry

President Trump is obviously clamping down broadly on dissent using the tools of the federal government.  Now, the administration has put the pressure on universities themselves to crack down on student protesters.  Increasingly, for example, one is seeing that colleges are using surveillance videos and search warrants to investigate students involved in pro-Palestinian protests.  Some experts believe that it’s this new frontier in campus security that could threaten civil liberties.

In addition, it has been pointed out in the media that some colleges, such as the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, George Mason University, University of California, Indiana University Bloomington, and University of North Carolina to name a few, have had the university police obtain warrants to search personal property such as a student’s car, laptop or cellphone.  In most cases, no actual crime has been committed by the affected student.

Zach Greenberg, a First Amendment lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech group, reportedly notes that university police have sometimes even cited social media posts to justify warrant requests.  But as he states, such posts are constitutionally protected speech, and he goes on further to stipulate that such campus police tactics could very likely chill free expression.  Furthermore, lawyers representing affected students argue that a college seeking a search warrant against one of its own students is not because that student committed a crime, but purely because in many cases a student attended a protest and was filmed at the protest.  In most cases so far, few students end up not even being charged.  In some cases, the university may simply threaten them with possible suspensions should they continue to participate in protests, including those that are peaceful.

In addition, for months now, President Trump has been threatening to deport foreign students who took part in last year’s campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war.  Apparently, investigators from a branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have begun scouring the internet for social media posts and videos that the Trump administration could argue showed sympathy toward Hamas.  Curious indeed since ICE typically focuses on human traffickers and drug smugglers for possible deportation.  As in the recent arrest by ICE of Mahmoud Khalil, a young U. of Columbia graduate student with a green card living in New York, the government is using an old provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to argue that his actions during protests at Columbia University harmed U.S. foreign policy interests by fomenting anti-Semitism.  As of yet he has not been charged with an actual crime.  The Act was passed in the context of Cold War-era fears and suspicions of infiltrating Soviet and communist spies and sympathizers within American institutions and federal government.  Anticommunist sentiment was associated at the time with McCarthyism in the U.S., led by an administration aiming to push for selective immigration to preserve national security.  Since then, there have been very few cases where similar powers were cited in deportation proceedings under the Act.  Its current use would certainly be difficult to defend in the courts.

While some search warrants may be related to an ongoing campus vandalism investigation, few of the campus police seizures have actually resulted in charges being laid.  Indeed, without just cause I would argue that such search and seizure practices by campus police endanger free speech and the civil liberties of those affected university students.  As was the case in the 1930s Nazi Germany, today it’s students, but tomorrow it could be anyone; including those living, studying and working legally in the U.S.  This new reality certainly meets the definition of a police state.

Civil Liberties Donald Trump Education in U.S. Federal Government Judicial System Social Media US

Leave a comment »
Mar 17

Donald Trump’s Administration Is Clearly Showing Signs Of Becoming Despotic

by bcurry

The Oxford English Dictionary states that a despot is “a ruler who exercises absolute power especially in a cruel and oppressive way.”  Anyone who has studied American governance under the constitution understands that it provides for “checks and balances.”  In order to do this, there are three basic pillars: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.  However, today we are seeing an evident weakening of two of these principle pillars under the Trump administration.  There is little doubt that attacks are being made against the justice system and the rule of law.  The President has entered into a new process never before witnessed in the U.S., other than during times of wars.  The President is abusing his powers while contesting the roles of the courts and of Congress.  He is undermining the very constitutional rights of many people, whether citizens, legally living or refugees in the U.S.

The latest example is that of Mahmoud Khalil, a young U. of Columbia graduate student who is married to an American citizen, living in New York, and recently obtained a green card giving him permanent residency in the U.S. Mr. Khalil has never been charged with a criminal offence.  On March 8th, Mr. Khalil was arrested by ICE officers and flown to LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana.  On March 10th, District Judge Jesse Furman ordered that the Trump administration not deport Khalil pending judicial review of his arrest.  Mr. Khalil was a student activist and negotiator in the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupations.  After student protests on numerous American campuses, President Trump issued an executive order promising to combat anti-semitism and prosecute or “remove” perpetrators of such views.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cited a little-used 1952 Cold-War era statute as the rationale for Mr. Khalil’s detention. The law says that the government can initiate deportation proceedings against anyone whose presence in the country is deemed adversarial to the U.S. foreign policy interests.  Rubio subsequently posted a threat to deport Hamas supporters. No one has yet provided any proof that Mr. Khalil has a direct or indirect connection Hamas.  If anything, he was actively exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech in a peaceful manner.  Needless-to-say, there were those, including Trump who would deny this right because they simply did not agree with his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including some Columbia administrators.  For this reason, he was targeted from the outset.

Just this past weak, Trump signed an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to rapidly arrest and deport those the administration identifies as gang members without many of the legal processes common in immigration cases. The enemies law allows for summary deportations of people from countries at war with the United States.  One result is the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador, some of whom are claimed by the administration to be gang members.  Subsequently, Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order blocking the government from deporting any immigrants under the law after Trump’s order invoking it.  In a hastily scheduled hearing sought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the judge said he did not believe that federal law allowed the President’s action.  Now there is serious contention over whether the Trump administration had ignored an explicit court order, given that the deportees are currently in the El Salvador prison.

Moreover, there appears to be an apparent use of unproven assertions pertaining to ensuring matters related to “national security”, without undergoing the normal “due process” in providing proof or clear evidence before the courts.  In addition, it is obvious that Trump is blatantly “weaponizing” the Department of Justice to do his bidding, something that he falsely claimed had be done to him in the past.  In my opinion, Trump’s actions are increasingly becoming those of a despot.  Whether you agree with me or not, these are certainly dangerous times for American governance!

Civil Rights Donald Trump Free Speech Immigration Judicial System US

Leave a comment »
Apr 9

Gag Orders by Judges Against Trump Just Par for the Course

by bcurry

The latest gag order on April 4th against Donald Trump was issued by State Justice Juan Merchan, who will preside over his trial in New York state court in Manhattan.  The trial is over criminal charges of covering up a $130,000 payment before the 2016 election to porn star Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about an alleged sexual encounter.  The trial is now set to begin on April 15th.  The judge expanded an existing gag order that had barred Trump from publicly commenting about witnesses and court staff to make clear that it also applies to family members.  He did so after Trump disparaged Merchan’s daughter who worked as president of Authentic Campaigns, a firm Vice President Kamala Harris used for digital fundraising and advertising during her presidential campaign.  Judge Merchan asserted that “It is no longer just a mere possibility or a reasonable likelihood that there exists a threat to the integrity of the judicial proceedings. The threat is very real.”

At this time, the looming hush-money trial, one of four criminal cases Trump is confronting ahead of the U.S. election, is the most important one.  It could be the only one to reach trial before the election.  Trump has pleaded not guilty to all and has called them politically motivated.  Furthermore, given the charges against him, Trump will have to be present during this trial.

Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that it would be a great honor to go to jail for violating the gag order imposed by the judge.  What is more ridiculous, he has compared himself to a modern day Nelson Mandela, the South African leader and anti-apartheid activist who spent 27 years in prison for his opposition to apartheid.  Unbelievable!  Mandela passed away in 2013, partly as a result of his poor health condition attributed to his time in prison.  Globally, Mandela was given over 250 awards, accolades, prizes, honorary degrees and citizenships in recognition of his political achievements, including the Nobel Peace Prize.  Trump’s mere comparison to Nelson Mandela is an insult to his very memory and legacy!

While in office and now as part of his campaigning, Donald Trump has disparaged the traditional Republican support for law and order matters.  Attacking the judicial system and those responsible for carrying out their judicial responsibilities is an affront to all Americans.  This is nothing more than a political stunt which unfortunately few Republicans appear to discredit.  In particular, attacks of any kind upon jurists undermine our respect for our courts and our legal processes.

I’m certain the Trump’s lawyers are not happy with his public outbursts against judges as it may affect the general mood of the courts in their deliberations.  Not a good idea!  If there are any improper actions by judges or court officials, including prosecutors, then the system provides for the applicable investigation and appropriate responses.  Trump is also separately calling on Justice Merchan to recuse himself from the case, similar to his first recusal motion more than 10 months ago.  The court previously considered and rejected that motion and is likely to do so once again.

In the past week, in another unorthodox move, Trump’s lawyers indicated that they plan to file a type of lawsuit against the Justice Merchan.  Such an unusual move is essentially an appeal in the form of a suit, and is unlikely to succeed, particularly so close to trial date.  Legal experts note that actions against judges are unusual.  However, this is not Trump’s first attempt to use that tactic to try to delay a trial.  Last year, he sued the New York judge presiding over his civil fraud trial — an effort the appeals court ultimately rejected.

It is obvious that the former president, who unfortunately is again the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is aiming to push all four of his criminal cases past Election Day next November.  In light of his continuing desperate and unethical conduct, Trump is not doing himself or the Republican Party any favours. 

Donald Trump Judicial System Presidential Election 2024 US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Aug 9

Political Polarizations Has Increased Mistrust in Many of Our Public Institutions

by bcurry

The New York Times in a very recent article (August 7th) notes that Republican (G.O.P.) contenders in the presidential primaries are bent on feeding voter distrust in public institutions such as the courts, schools and the military.  Obviously, most appear to be following the lead of Donald Trump who, for example whenever he has the chance, publicly attacks the U.S. Justice Department and the F.B.I.  During the pandemic Trump even disparaged the Surgeon General, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Health and Human Resources.  Now, facing a barrage of indictments by the Justice Department, Trump has further accelerated his personal attacks on these major institutions.  Unfortunately, several other G.O.P. candidates have followed suit in an apparent attempt to appease Trump’s core followers.

All of the rhetoric, including that disseminated by social media and right-wing media, has created an environment where recent polls show that Americans’ trust in their institutions has apparently fallen to historical lows.  Feeding on voters’ already deeply embedded scepticism might have once been seen as politically risky, but social media and the right-wing media have helped change that.  The Republican governor of Florida and a candidate, Ron DeSantis, has led the charge against what he sees as a biased and liberal-influenced education system in his state.  Not to be outdone, another G.O.P. candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, has gone on record that he would shut down the F.B.I. and the I.R.S. as part of his fight against the so-called “deep state”.

My primary question is what would replace all these important institutions in a democracy that claims to need independent bodies to deal with issues like law and order, public health, the environment, new technologies and the role of the military?  In a modern society, freedoms are important, but there still has to be some oversight of those matters as they relate to the public good.  Campaign rhetoric perpetuating conspiratorial themes does not help to ensure a rational and knowledge-based debate on many of the challenges that, as a democracy, we face daily.  It’s easy to argue that things should be eliminated, but no one Republican has yet rationally put forward any ideas about how one would go about replacing these institutions — and with what.

The Republican Party, just as the Conservative Party in Canada, has long stood for “smaller government in size and role” going back to the days of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.   However, the current G.O.P. extreme rhetoric goes far beyond the past political stances of Republican presidents, from Richard Nixon to the Bushes.  As the Times article notes: “The proliferation of attacks has alarmed both Republicans and Democrats who worry about the long-term impact on American democracy.  Public confidence in core institutions — from the justice system to voting systems — is fundamental to a durable democracy, particularly at a time of sharp political division.”

Just as I am certain that there are a good number of moderate Republicans in the U.S. and conservatives in Canada who oppose such extreme rhetoric, I am hoping that cooler heads will prevail among our electorates in both countries.  Our democracies are closely watched by countries around the world, and defending our democratic institutions has never been more important in the face of the growth of autocratic regimes globally.  These institutions are essential to defending our democratic values and promoting the public good.  We need to strengthen them rather than knock them down as the result of excessive political polarization.  It’s one thing to push for smaller government influence in our lives, it’s another to suggest that one can simply eliminate or emasculate its influence in highly complex modern societies.  Doing so would just replace democracies with autocracies by centralizing political and economic powers under one regime.  We now have checks and balances, including the courts and justice system, to prevent this from happening.  Unfortunately, the Republicans appear more than willing to minimize such oversight.  Ultimately, the current split in their party, led by Donald Trump’s extremism, could greatly weaken their platform in the eyes of the American electorate, and particularly those of independents.

Donald Trump Judicial System Media Populism Populism in Canada Republican Party Social Media US Politics

Leave a comment »
Jun 12

The Rise of Conspiracy Theories in the U.S. and Canada

by bcurry

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “conspiracy” as a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.  “Conspiracy theory” is defined as a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.  Of course, in 2017, influencial QAnon surfaced with its origin in the American far-right political sphere.  QAnon centers on fabricated claims made by an anonymous individual or individuals known as “Q”.  According to Wikipedia, the core QAnon conspiracy theory is that a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic child molesters were operating a global child sex trafficking ring, led by the Democratic Party and in particular former President Barack Obamak Hillary Clinton, and George Soros.  They were alleged to have conspired against former U.S. President Donald Trump prior to and during his term in office.  According to Media Matters for America, as of August 20, 2020, Trump had amplified QAnon messaging at least 216 times by retweeting or mentioning 129 QAnon-affiliated Twitter accounts, sometimes multiple times a day.  An article in The Atlantic in February 15, 2022 wrote that QAnon followers came to refer to Trump as “Q+”.  QAnon followers also had emerged in Canada, often accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and members of his Liberal government as part of the same global movement.

Most recently, an ecoterrorist conspiracy theory emerged that accused environmentalists of setting recent wildfires in Canada in order to make a point about the impact of climate change in North America.  While totally ridiculous and contradictory in nature, this conspiracy theory emerged in social media and notably among certain ultra-right groups.  Maxime Bernier, a former Conservative federal foreign minister-turned fringe party leader of the People’s Party of Canada, said in a June 5 tweet: “I bet a good portion of the wildfires raging across the country were started by green terrorists who want to give their climate change campaign a little boost.” This conspiracy theory is nothing new as, for example, in California in 2021 some people claimed online that arsonists were behind several wildfires — but there was no evidence that environmentalists were pushing a climate change agenda.  Moreover, officials of provincial agencies investigating the causes of wildfires in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta have more or less determined such theories are bogus.  They note that there are several which are caused by humans, but these are almost always accidents and that recent lightning strikes were to blame for many of the wildfires.  Unless lightning is involved, a blaze classified as human-caused normally can be accidental, intentional or undetermined.  This does not exclusively mean arson.

Most recently, former President Trump is facing numerous federal charges that include willfully retaining national defense secrets in violation of the Espionage Act, making false statements and a conspiracy to obstruct justice.  Trump has repeatedly characterized the investigation as being politically motivated, and in recent weeks his lawyers have sought to raise what they say are issues of prosecutorial misconduct.  His defence is implying that there is a conspiracy within the Justice Department and the F.B.I., spearheaded by the White House and the Democrats, to go after him in order to prevent him from running for president in 2024.  Trump continues to refer to the investigation by federal officials as a “witch hunt”, for which there is currently no evidence to support his claims.  Although the evidence against Trump appears to be overwhelming, a majority of his supporters state their belief that there is a conspiracy against the former president aimed at preventing him from running in the next presidential election.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump is the main culprit purposely promulgating conspiracy theories and continues to have the support of a large base of rank and file members of the Republican Party.  Even some notable members of the Party, including Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, Republican Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Matt Gaetz of Florida, have backed Trump’s conspiracy theory regarding what is often referred to as “the weaponization of federal law enforcement.”  When it comes to governance today, there appears to be no shortage of conspiracy theories, ludicrous or not.  What’s worst, a large percentage of Americans and Canadians appear to be accepting such theories as gospel.

Canada Elections Judicial System Republican Party Social Media US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Dec 21

Differences in Governance Systems in Canada and the U.S. Do Matter

by bcurry

Back in high school and in university we were introduced to the two systems of governance in Canada, Great Britain and the U.S.  Canada like the U.K is a parliamentary system, with the normal three levels of governance: the legislature, executive and judiciary components.  As a republic, the U.S. has a similar constitutional makeup, although how each of the members is selected varies greatly.  In Canada, the Prime Minister is selected by which party gets the most seats in the House of Commons.  The PM also sits in Parliament.  Sometimes, if a party doesn’t win the majority of seats to form a government, the party with the most seats can negotiate with another party to form what is referred to as a “minority government”.  Minority governments are tricky because they can be toppled by a “confidence vote” on critical motions such as a budget.  Canada currently has a minority government as a result of the last federal election in September 2021. The PM currently selects the members to Cabinet who are normally members of Parliament, unlike in the U.S. where the President selects Cabinet members who do not sit in Congress.

In the U.S., citizens vote separately for the President and for candidates to the House of Representatives and the Senate, often in what are referred to as “mid-term elections”.  Unlike in Canada where there are mainly five official parties, the U.S. only has two parties: the Democrats and the Republicans.  As a result, Congress can often see a split in control between the House of Representatives and the Senate, as is the case now with the Republicans controlling the House and the Democrats the Senate.  In addition, there are those members who are independents.  The Canadian Senate on the other hand is made up of appointed members (by the Governor General on the PM’s recommendation) who now do not have any party affiliation.  Compared to the American Senate, the Canadian Senate does not have much power, especially when it comes to financial matters such as the budget.  It examines bills referred from the House and can recommend amendments which the governing party can accept or ignore in the final reading before parliament.  While committee hearings before the U.S. Senate can make or break policies or federal appointments, the Canadian Senate’s committees can simply provide reports on selected subjects which the Government most often ignores and get shelved.

Appointments to the Supreme Court are a whole other matter.  In the U.S., such appointments are highly politicized and depend on which party the President and Senate members come from.  In recent years, the majority of Supreme Court justices have been appointed under Republican regimes, resulting in a prevalent conservative court.  In Canada, on the other hand, Supreme Court appointments are more or less apolitical and made to reflect regional, ethnic and affirmative action considerations.  Frankly, given recent decisions by the American Supreme Court (e.g. Roe vs. Wade), I must say that I prefer the more independent Canadian version when it comes to appointing jurists.

There will always be debates over which system is better.  The fact of the matter is that both have their benefits and flaws.  One major concern with the American system is how the President is elected and the role of the “electoral college”.  For example, in the case of Donald Trump, he had smaller percentage of the popular vote than Hillary Clinton and yet won the election.  In both countries, it is especially important to win certain urban and rural areas in order to be politically successful.  For this reason, parties target certain key states in the U.S. and certain key provinces in Canada.  One major difference is how candidates in the election process are funded.  In the U.S. there is no end to the hundreds of millions of dollars that candidates can gather from such sources as Super PACs (political action committees).  For example, this year’s midterm election was expected to set a new spending record, with over $9 billion being raised. This is significantly higher than the previous record of $7 billion, which was set in 2018.  In Canada, contributions to candidates are far less and are regulated by controls enforced by an independent agency, namely Elections Canada.

To change the current governance systems in both countries would require significant constitutional amendments which don’t appear to be on the horizon anytime soon.  I would suggest, maybe just maybe, the time is right for governments to re-examine the governance processes in light of our histories and the continuing changes in both societies.

Canada Conservative Political Groups Elections Federal Election Federal Government Federal Government Judicial System Presidential Election 2020 The Senate U.S. Primaries US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Aug 14

Once Donald Trump’s Actions Were Considered Farcical, Now They’re Considered Dangerous

by bcurry

During the former president’s term in office, Donald Trump often became the butt of many a comedian jokes, most notably on NBC’s Saturday Night Live.  Yes, previous presidents have been made fun of from time to time.  However, once Trump lost the election and his declaration that the election was stolen led to the January 6th assault on the Capitol, he has now become even more dangerous.  No longer as the president, recent events have shown how his actions and statements have created a precarious situation.  The search this past week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of his private residence at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida., was one more incident of now citizen Trump believing he is above the law.  The legal search appeared to be part of a long-running investigation of whether documents — some of them top-secret — were taken there instead of being sent to the National Archives when Trump left office.  There could be several violations falling under federal statutes, including the Espionage Act and Presidential Records Act.  Apparently, about twelve boxes containing classified documents were seized by the FBI.

Immediately after news broke of the FBI search at Trump’s Florida residence, posts began appearing on Truth Social, the Twitter-like social media platform backed by former Trump’s media and technology company.  Truth Social users called for civil war and advocated for violence against the FBI, some of the posts remaining online days after they were originally posted, according to NBC News.  Unfortunately, a number of Republicans and media sources such as Fox News and Breibart News attacked the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and the FBI agents as part of the Democrat’s plot to tarnish the reputation of Donald Trump and to prevent him from running again in 2024.  According to the warrant and receipt of what authorities seized, Trump is being investigated for possibly breaking three federal laws: removal or destruction of records, obstructing an investigation and violating the Espionage Act.  Serious stuff!

The result of Trump’s accusing the DOJ and FBI of contributing to a witch hunt and that he had done nothing wrong, talk of violence by his supporters continues to mount.  Threats have been made against the federal judge who authorized the warrant to search for classified material and FBI agents whose names were on the warrant and receipt.  Then on August 11th, a 42-year-old Ohio man, identified as Ricky W. Shiffer, showed up at the Cincinnati field office of the FBI with an AR-15-style rifle.  Subsequently, he was shot to death after firing multiple times at the police during a standoff.  Mr. Shiffer’s social media posts later revealed that he was full of rage about, among other things, the search at Mar-a-Lago.

As Alan Feuer of the New York Times notes, as right-wing rhetoric escalates, so do threats and violence.  In his August 13th article, he refers to a study by Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago who studies political violence.  Professor Pape conducted half a dozen nationwide polls since the Jan. 6th attack and has repeatedly found the same alarming results: that between 15 million and 20 million American adults believe that violence would be justified to return Mr. Trump to office.  Instead of defusing the situation, Donald Trump, along with his supporters, continue to promote conspiracy theories.  He believes that a number of current investigations are simply examples of his ‘persecution’ by Democratic administrations in Washington and New York State.  Once again, the whole affair is a hoax.  He and members of his family have even suggested, ridiculously, that the classified documents were likely planted by the FBI during the search.  Even former Vice-President Mike Pence was quoted as sharing the “deep concern of millions of Americans over the unprecedented search of the personal residence of President Trump.”  Pence declared that after years where FBI agents were found to be acting on political motivation during his administration, the appearance of continued partisanship by the DOJ had to be addressed.  Remember how Trump fired then FBI Director James Comey in 2017 because he refused to pledge his loyalty to the President, no matter what!

Unless the hostile rhetoric and threats are quickly dealt with, there is little doubt that more violent incidents could occur, particularly against the targeted individuals noted above.  Obviously, the investigation by the DOJ and FBI is no joke.  This is the first time since Nixon and ‘Watergate’ that a former President is under investigation for violating several federal statutes.  My understanding is that no one is above the law.  However, under the current climate, the political ramifications of pursuing Donald Trump could determine whether further violence occurs and what will be the potential impact on the 2024 presidential election.

Donald Trump Extremist Groups Judicial System Republican Party Social Media US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Nov 27

Tale of a Young American Vigilante Becoming an American Hero

by bcurry

As a young 17 year old American teenager, I can become an American hero by pursuing a vigilante course of action.  First, I will need to travel thousands of miles from my home to another city to defend others’ property from protesters creating disorder in the city’s streets.  After all, local officials would have declared a state of emergency amid mass protests and street unrest over the shooting of some black man.  These same officials will need my help, so I then illegally choose to pick up an AR-style semiautomatic rifle from a friend on the way.  With my rifle, I will begin to patrol the city’s streets in order to help protect property from the unrest on the streets.  The local police will appear to welcome my help.  However, I would then notice multiple people converging upon me because of my actions.  I will react justifiably by shooting several people in self-defence.  Unfazed, I then will walk away to the police with my hands up at times.  All of this, of course, will be caught on video.  However, I will not be immediately arrested by the local police at that moment, but will instead turn myself in to police back in my hometown shortly after.  Naturally, I will end up going to jail and being charged with reckless homicide, intentional homicide and recklessly endangering safety.

During the trial, my defenders will declare that I was simply exercising my right to bear arms, in defence of liberty.  The prosecution on the other hand must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I did not act in self-defence, even though I believe that my life was being threatened at the time of the shooting.  When it comes to the 20-person jury, my lawyers will attempt to pick a mainly white jury made up of mostly women and a few men.  Given my age, women would most likely be influenced by my youthful appearance, personality and testimony.  My defence will allow me to testify on the stand which isn’t the norm, but will probably work in my favour by personally telling my story.  During my testimony, I will break down sobbing in forlorn tears which will very likely have an impact on the jury, emphasizing that I had fired upon the protesters in self-defence only after having been attacked.  After all, I’m just a scared kid, although I’m being tried as an adult.

Before the deliberations began, by reaching into a tumbler, I curiously will even get to select the 12 jurors needed for the deliberations.  In the end, I will be judged to be not guilty of all charges, although not to have been found innocent — for no one would deny that I had fatally shot protesters.  Subsequently, I will be a hero for those people supporting gun rights and the right to defend one’s self and one’s property, including several militia groups.  Following my acquittal, one gun rights group will even award me a brand new AR-15 for my actions in ‘Defence of Gun Rights’.  Next, a Republican representative in Congress will introduce a bill to award me the Congressional Gold Medal for “protecting the community”.  Two other Republican representatives will offer me internships within their offices.  Shortly after my acquittal, I will also meet with my hero, former President Donald Trump, at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.  President Trump will be one of my biggest supporters.  Of course, the media will not end its coverage of my future endeavors anytime soon.  In the end, I will just want to get on with my life.  Or so I would hope?

Donald Trump Gun Control Judicial System US

Leave a comment »
Nov 5

Two Trials in U.S. May Be Putting the American Justice System Itself on Trial

by bcurry

There are currently two trials of particular interest in the U.S. which reflect notable elements of American society.  One involves the killing by three white suspects of Ahmaud Arbery, a young black man, in a South Georgia community in February 2020.  The other involves the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, who is charged with killing two men and wounding another during disorder in the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin in August 2020.  In both cases, the accused are arguing that the shootings were in ‘self-defence’.  Both events were video recorded and covered by American media outlets, including several national television news networks.  Both were tragic events and appeared to be partly racially motivated, at least according to the prosecution.

In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, you have a 17-year-old who travelled from his home in Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, in neighbouring Wisconsin.  He then picked up an AR-style semiautomatic rifle illegally from a friend and set out to act in response to mass protests and street unrest over the shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man.  He is consequently charged with killing two men and wounding another during disorder.  All three victims were white.  Mr. Rittenhouse’s defenders say he was exercising his right to bear arms, in defence of liberty, and have claimed self-defence against perceived threats by the three victims.  However, there are a number of questions.  Why did Mr. Rittenhouse believe that it was necessary to carry out what is described as a ‘vigilante action’, especially since he was not protecting his own property and was outdoors long after an 8pm curfew imposed by Kenosha officials?  How will jurors decide whether or not the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances?  The law generally does not recognise your right to use deadly force to defend property, only your person.  Will the jurors condone such ‘vigilante’ action?  Some people see him as a hero and not as a villain.  As this highly politicised case unfolds, answering these questions will be a major challenge ahead for the jurors.

Then we have the case of three white men involved in the shooting of a black jogger, Ahmaud Arbery.  One of the defendants actually video recorded the incident which then went viral.  The two shooters claim to have shot the unarmed Mr. Arbery in self-defence.  Apparently, they chased him down believing that the jogger resembled the suspect in a series of alleged break-ins.  They have accused Mr Arbery of attacking them while they attempted to make a “citizen’s arrest”, resulting in his being shot and killed.  What’s really interesting in this high profile trial is the fact that a nearly all-white jury, with just one black member, has been selected.  The prosecution accused the defence of eliminating potential jurors based on race, noting that defence attorneys used 11 of their allotted 24 strikes to reject black jurors.  This in a town which is majority African American and a county where more than a quarter of people are black.  Kind of reminds one of a time when no black persons were allowed to serve on jury duty in Georgia, often related to the trials of white men involving the killing or injuring of black people.  Interestingly, studies have pointed out that Americans from ethnic minorities tend to be under-represented on most juries.  Should be also interesting to see the results of this highly politicised case!

With so many Americans armed today, these two incidents once again raise the ultimate question about whether one can legally act forcibly in ‘self-defence’ or pursue ‘vigilante’ actions with impunity?  Where does one draw the line?  Significant cases such as those described above may provide more answers or may result in even more questions being asked.  These trials are being closely watched by people around the world, including here in Canada.  Just as in the case of past police shootings, the performance of the American judicial system is also on trial.

Judicial System US

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.