UPDATED: I Do Moderate All Comments

I disallowed a comment just now. That's not something I like to do and, in fact, I have done so only very rarely. This comment by a regular stated that named individuals "need to die" and "should be put down."

I don't have any real rules for moderating comments, but I'm not gonna allow those types of comments.

UPDATE: Thanks to everyone for the support. I'll say it again: I feel a real sense of obligation to those who take the time to comment--and whose contributions add so much.

Is Trump Derangement Syndrome A Killer?

It's an interesting question, and it's posed at the end of an article at Pajamas Media today. The article,

Remember Those Studies Linking Hydroxychloroquine to Higher Mortality? They Were Based on Possibly Bogus Data

was based on an expose in The Guardian that debunks the slew of recent stories that cited "scientific" studies purporting to prove that HCQ can kill you--so, for God's sake, don't take it! Remarkably, two of the leading medical journals in the world--The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine--published articles that were co-authored by the CEO of the very dodgy sounding firm that was behind the "studies". Those journals have been compelled to issue "expressions of concern" (EOC) about what appears to be fake science appearing in their prestigious pages. Writes The Guardian:

A Guardian investigation can reveal the US-based company Surgisphere, whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model, has provided data for multiple studies on Covid-19 co-authored by its chief executive, but has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology. 

Data it claims to have legitimately obtained from more than a thousand hospitals worldwide formed the basis of scientific articles that have led to changes in Covid-19 treatment policies in Latin American countries. It was also behind a decision by the WHO and research institutes around the world to halt trials of the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine. 

Two of the world’s leading medical journals – the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine – published studies based on Surgisphere data. The studies were co-authored by the firm’s chief executive, Sapan Desai.

That's some hoax! You'd be hard pressed to make it up, but hoaxes will happen when "scientific" journals don't do the most basic fact checking. The question is, why were those basic checks not done? After all, the whole crusade against HCQ was "absurd on its face," as PJ Media points out:

UPDATED: Rosenstein's Day In The Senate

The Rosenstein testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is over. Overall, I found the questioning to be rather unimpressive. Unlike many commenters on blogs and Twitter, I found the hammering away at FISA related issues to be, in the main, fairly pointless. 

The important takeaway can be summarized fairly quickly. While numerous commenters on Twitter (including John Cardillo and Jonathan Turley) picked up on two major and closely related points, John Solomon does so in readable style. Both of what I consider to be the most important points were brought up by Senator Graham. The first major admission had to do with the lack of any basis for the claim of "Russian Collusion" that was the basis for his authorization of the Team Mueller witchhunt:

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein conceded on Wednesday that by August of 2017 there was no evidence that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russians to sabotage the 2016 election, even though the investigation into that allegation would persist for another year and a half.  

The jaw-dropping admission came during a contentious hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is actively investigating the F.B.I.'s Crossfire Hurricane investigation that sought to uncover whether Trump campaign officials had colluded with Russian agents to sabotage the 2016 election. 

Addressing Rosenstein during the hearing, committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham asked him: "The whole concept, that the campaign was colluding with the Russians, there was no 'there' there in August of 2017, do you agree or not?" 

"I agree with the general statement," Rosenstein replied. 

The second major admission by Rosenstein is related to the first and concerned Michael Flynn:

A Tale Of One Bishop And Two Politicians

From Fox News:

The Washington archbishop is facing backlash from Catholics for his scathing condemnation of President Trump's visit to the Saint John Paul II National Shrine, coinciding with an international religious liberty executive order Tuesday. 

Wilton Gregory opposed the long-planned visit by Trump and first lady Melania Trump, who is Catholic. 

"I find it baffling and reprehensible that any Catholic facility would allow itself to be so egregiously misused and manipulated in a fashion that violates our religious principles, which call us to defend the rights of all people even those with whom we might disagree,” the archbishop said in a statement. 

“Saint Pope John Paul II was an ardent defender of the rights and dignity of human beings. His legacy bears vivid witness to that truth," Gregory added. "He certainly would not condone the use of tear gas and other deterrents to silence, scatter or intimidate them for a photo opportunity in front of a place of worship and peace.”

I'm not sure how Gregory knows what John Paul II would have condoned in the circumstances, nor do I necessarily consider such hypotheticals to be determinative of anything. The shrine posted this statement:

6/2/2020 – Many are aware of a presidential visit to the Saint John Paul II National Shrine today. Here is a statement from the Shrine: “The White House originally scheduled this as an event for the president to sign an executive order on international religious freedom. This was fitting given Saint John Paul II was a tireless advocate of religious liberty throughout his pontificate. International religious freedom receives widespread bipartisan support, including unanimous passage of legislation in defense of persecuted Christians and religious minorities around the world. The Shrine welcomes all people to come and pray and learn about the legacy of Saint John Paul II.”

A number of well known Catholic intellectuals and pundits suggested that a certain measure of hypocrisy and, yes, partisan politics may have been involved in Gregory's harsh condemnation of Trump:

Edward N. Peters, a Roman Catholic canonist and professor at Sacred Heart Major Seminary of the Archdiocese of Detroit, tweeted that Gregory's condemnation is "devoid of any sense of Christian sentiment." 

Dwight Longenecker, a Catholic priest, shared an image of Gregory with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with the caption: "I find it baffling and reprehensible that any Catholic facility would allow itself to be so egregiously misused and manipulated."

Pelosi, a nominal Catholic, has long opposed Catholic moral teaching, yet presents herself to receive the Eucharist when it suits her for the purpose of partisan posturing. Gregory is happy enough to participate in that charade. Trump, by contrast, has (whatever Catholics might think of some aspects of his personal life) strongly supported notable principles of Catholic morality--including not only the need to protect the full spectrum of human life but also principles that are fundamental to our constitutional order. I think especially of the idea of rule of law but also those principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident ..."

NOTE: I've reverted to the original Blogger since the new version lacks many common features--such as the ability to embed images and videos.

Oral Arguments In The Flynn/Sullivan Case 6/12/20

The order setting the oral arguments for 6/12/20 is embedded below. What follows is commentary by appellate lawyer John M. Reeves, as unrolled from his Twitter thread:

1) WOW--the DC Circuit just entered the below order that, among other things, sets the Flynn mandamus petition for oral argument TEN DAYS FROM NOW, on FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2020. This is a VERY GOOD development for Flynn.

2) The setting of oral argument shows that the DC Circuit is gravely concerned about this matter, and wants to hear further from all sides.

3) This will give the DC Circuit the opportunity to pepper Sullivan's lawyer with as many questions as they want about the arguments raised in her brief. They can interrupt her as much as they want.

4) What is also noteworthy about the order is that it sets oral argument only TEN DAYS FROM NOW. For appellate oral argument, that is an INCREDIBLY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME.

5) Typically, when a federal appellate court sets a matter for oral argument, it gives the lawyers at least THIRTY DAYS, if not more, advance notice.

6) Here, by contrast, the DC Circuit gave the parties--including Judge Sullivan's lawyer--a mere TEN DAYS to prepare for oral argument.

7) For non-lawyers, a ten day notice for oral argument may seem like a long time, but it isn't. It's an increidibly short amount of time.

8) I'm not a builder or construction worker, but I'll make a comparrison: the DC Circuit's ten-day notice to Judge Sullivan's lawyer is equivalent to...(cont)

9) (cont from previous) ...telling a construction crew they have only ten days to demolish the local library, completely rebuild it according to the new blueprints, and ensure the interior of the new building is refurbished, along with all the outdoor landscaping being in order.

10) It's POSSIBLE to do, but incredibly difficult and demanding to fulfill.

END

UPDATED: Three Good Reads--Looking To Election 2020

Here's a brief roundup of three articles that--each in slightly different ways--point out ways in which the landscape for Election 2020 is being prepared. It's all, in my view, highly favorable to President Trump.

You'll recall that I keep saying that the Flynn case leads to the heart of Team Mueller. Margot Cleveland has an excellent article at The Federalist that bears this out:

New Flynn Transcripts Confirm Mueller Team Lied To The Court And The Country

Lies to the court? Isn't lying to a court, like, a crime? Yes, it is. And Cleveland didn't choose those words lightly--she means exactly what she's saying in the title. The article is long and detailed, but here's the nub of it--there's an important distinction to be made between expulsion of diplomats and sanctions. Team Mueller deceived first Flynn and then the Court in that regard:

Now They Tell Us

Via ABCNews:

MINNEAPOLIS -- A medical examiner on Monday classified George Floyd’s death as a homicide, saying his heart stopped as police restrained him and compressed his neck, in a widely seen video that has sparked protests across the nation.

“Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s),” the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office said in a news release. Cause of death was listed as “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression.”

Under "other significant conditions” it said Floyd suffered from heart disease and hypertension, and listed fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use. Those factors were not listed under cause of death.

What could go wrong with mixing fentanyl and meth? Says the NYT:

Dr. Giroir said combining meth and fentanyl could be the most dangerous move of all, although researchers are still trying to figure out how the drugs work together.

“We definitely want to dissuade people from the notion that somehow a downer and an upper cancel each other out,” he said. “Early data suggests the combination is probably more deadly than the sum of its parts.”

American Addiction Centers:

The abuse of this stimulant [meth] is related to many cardiovascular disorders and adverse events. 

Opioid use over time may also aggravate the risk of cardiovascular disease by elevating the biochemical hallmarks of disorders related to these conditions.

I've read that he was trying to get into his car when he was arrested.

Imagine the pressure on the medical examiner to call the death a homicide. But it might not be so simple as that--which is the way reality often is. OTOH, a lot of people got a lot of free stuff in the meantime.

MAJOR UPDATES: Briefs Being Filed In Sullivan Mandamus Case

That's right. It's the Sullivan case, now.

According to the WaPo, Beth Wilkinson has filed a brief for Sullivan with the DC Circuit. The article doesn't provide a link to the brief at this time--it probably won't be long (for legal masochists the brief is now available here). From the tone of the article Wilkinson's brief sounds like a basically emotional appeal and that is notably short on legal substance:

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan should not be required to act as a “mere rubber stamp” for the government’s unusual move to undo the guilty plea of President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, the judge’s lawyers told a federal appeals court in Washington on Monday.

Sullivan’s attorneys asked the appeals court to stay on the sidelines to give the judge an opportunity to ensure the “integrity of the judicial process” and to rule on the Justice Department’s request to dismiss Flynn’s case. 

The judge must evaluate Flynn’s dramatically different claims, Sullivan’s lawyer Beth Wilkinson told the court: “What, if anything, should Judge Sullivan do about Mr. Flynn’s sworn statements to the court, where he repeatedly admitted to the crime and to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, only to now claim that he never lied to the government and was pressured and misled into pleading guilty?”

The point, of course, is that Sullivan thinks he can usurp the Executive and somehow ensure the "integrity of the prosecutive process"--which isn't his job and is beyond his authority. The WaPo article doesn't hint at any way in which Wilkinson's brief addresses that fundamental issue--and the binding DC Circuit precedent that says so. Sullivan himself agreed in 2015 that a judge is ill positioned to make such claims, but he has before him now a defendant whom he very much wishes to prosecute, no matter what the prosecutors may say.

According to The Federalist, seven Republican senators have also filed an amicus brief in the case--In New Court Filing, Top Senators Blast Rogue Judge’s Refusal To Dismiss Flynn Case. In what seems to be sharp contrast with Wilkinson's lightweight brief, the Republican senators are reported to have stressed the fundamental and supremely important constitutional issues raised by Sullivan's rogue actions (again, I could find no link to the brief):

The actions of the rogue federal judge in the Michael Flynn criminal case are an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power that represent a “recipe for tyranny,” seven top senators, including the Senate Majority leader, told a federal court on Monday. In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) blasted the refusal of Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to grant the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss charges against Flynn. Sens. Mike Braun (R-Indiana), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Rick Scott (R-Florida), and Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) also signed the brief.

...

No less than the former Chief Justice John Marshall described prosecutorial discretion as “‘an indubitable and a Constitutional power’ which permitted [the President] alone to determine ... when to pursue and when to forego prosecutions,” the senators note, quoting the former chief justice from his time as a congressman. The senators reminded the court that Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 that “while the Executive ‘holds the sword of the community,’ the Judiciary ‘can take no active resolution whatever’ because it has ‘neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment.'” They quote James Madison in Federalist No. 47 that “[a]lthough individual liberty has ‘nothing to fear from the judiciary alone,’ it has ‘everything to fear’ from the union of the judicial and executive powers—which is a recipe for ‘tyranny.'”

DoJ will be filing its brief later today and will surely stress similar issues.

The New Blogger Platform

Blogger is moving to a new interface for managing blogs. The blog itself will be the same, but the tools will have a bit of a different look and feel. Two days ago I switched over, since it'll happen at the end of June anyway. Not everything is smooth, but it seems to be getting better.

I noticed that Joe commented that his comment had come out as by "Unknown." That's a glitch that I've noticed. I've always set things so that all comments go to an email account, then I handle them with the Blogger software--it works for me and allows me to recover from mistakes. Since switching over, I've noticed that--for no reason I can discern--while the comments in the email inbox show the proper commenter names, they don't always show up that way in the Blogger comment management software. They normally do show up correctly once published. That's all I can say for now, and presumably Blogger is trying to iron those things out.

Great! Looks Like Trump Is Starting To Act On Good Advice

Reality is complicated and it's usually not a good idea to simply react without considering. However, we've had several days of attempted anarchy and people are anxious for ... leadership. I posted the handy reference to insurrection so everyone would know what the legal framework is. However, short of invoking the Insurrection Act, the president can do things. Things that Trump is good at. Like, providing principled leadership, articulating what the response of local government should be--because, in our federal system, that's how it has to work. Short of a total breakdown, and we're far from that.

So I was thinking of a new post along the lines of how Trump should deal with this. My thoughts were that:

1. He should offer all the help to the locals that is at his disposal, but

2. At the same time he should demand that they fulfill their own obligations--local government has the resources to deal with this, but too many have abdicated the streets to the anarchists;

3. Before they ask him for help they need to show they're doing their part or are willing to turn over total authority.

In other words, none of the BS we've seen with the Covid crisis--Blue state governors trashing the president and trying to shift blame for their own mistakes and their own irresponsible actions, while offering nothing constructive.

If you want federal help, here are the terms. Here are the conditions to fulfill, and if you fulfill them but still can't regain control, then you have to tell the president that you can no longer handle the situation and ask for his help as set out in the law.

Just before I started typing I was greatly heartened to see that Trump had a conference call with the governors this morning and he got exactly that process in motion. TGP provides some tweeted accounts of the president's words. Good for Trump. He paused, got advice, thought it through, and now he's acting--in this context, words are action, too. It's encouraging to see CBS News appearing to play this pretty straight:

CBS reporter Ed O’Keefe reported on the leaked recording:

“JUST IN: President Trump unloads on the nation’s governors on a call, calls on them to step up enforcement: “You have to dominate, if you don’t dominate you’re wasting your time. They’re going to run over you, you’re going to look like a bunch of jerks. You have to dominate.”

“MORE: Trump tells governors later: “You’re making a mistake because you’re making yourselves look like fools. And some have done a great job. But a lot of you, it’s not – it’s not a great day for our country.”

“TRUMP ADDS: “You know when other countries watch this, they’re watching this, the next day wow, they’re really a push over. And we can’t be a push over. And we have all the resources – it’s not like we don’t have the resources. So, I don’t know what you’re doing.”

Of course the Fake News media will try to distort his words. Americans of good will will understand.  

And in the meantime you can bet that Bill Barr is pushing everyone under his authority to develop action plans for dealing forcefully with Antifa.

Insurrection: A Quick Reference

Dealing with insurrection is provided for by the laws of the United States--specifically in Title 10, Chapter 13. I'm not making any recommendation here, just providing a handy reference point so you'll know what laws are in play. Fortunately, these laws are very short and to the point. 

Here's an article that deals with insurrection in a general way, addressing the two most pressing questions--Can the president respond to civil insurrection with military force? and What are the rules for the use of force? The President, the Military and Minneapolis: What You Need to Know. The 25 words or less version: Yes; but the JCS would need to issue Standing Rules for the Use of Force, which would stop short of aggressive use of deadly force against looters. That doesn't address the use of life threatening violence by insurrectionists. Informative

CHAPTER 13—INSURRECTION

251.1 - Federal aid for State governments.
252.1 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority.
253.1 - Interference with State and Federal law.
254.1 - Proclamation to disperse.
255. - Guam and Virgin Islands included as "State".
        

§251. Federal aid for State governments

Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

§252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

§253. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

§254. Proclamation to disperse

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

§255. Guam and Virgin Islands included as "State"

For purposes of this chapter, the term "State" includes Guam and the Virgin Islands.

Good Advice, Bad Advice

Which will Trump follow?

Steve Sailer, at Kushner Puts Kibosh on Trump Speech in Favor of Law and Order, quotes Politico:

As protests continue to flare across the country, President Donald Trump and his top aides cannot settle on the next steps the White House should take to ease tensions after the latest death of an African American man detained by a white police officer.

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has been pushing for the president to deliver a formal address to the nation to emphasize his support for law and order and police officers, a familiar trope for the Republican Party and one that typically plays well with its base.

Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, along with several other top aides, argued against such a move, fearing the tone could alienate key voters ahead of the November election, including African Americans whose support the administration has been trying to court.

Perhaps they need to wait a little longer while the meaning of Liberalism sinks a bit more deeply into America's consciousness.

My wife heard an interview with a 7-11 owner whose store in Downtown Chicago was trashed. He expressed doubt that cities could truly come back from this. It's an open question.