Joe Biden’s campaign has been taking some heat for sponsoring Tuesday’s appearance outside the scene of Donald Trump’s trial by Robert De Niro and police officers who were assaulted by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.  Yesterday morning, Anand Giridharadas, publisher of the online news service The.Ink, came to the campaign’s and actor’s defense.  He explained how the Donald Trump’s daily comments about his trial was what he called “making meaning” of the proceeding, creating a pre-verdict narrative of prosecution and victimhood.  Giridharadas then pivoted to Democrats’ frustration about their failure to get their message across to voters which he blamed on the campaign’s lack of a clear narrative.

Who better than an actor to engage an audience with a Marvel Universe-like script where the future is at stake due to the efforts of a political Thanos who will do anything to vanquish his enemies and consolidate power under his control.  On Tuesday, De Niro delivered the prologue to that screenplay, describing Trump as a two-bit wannabe dictator who will bully his way to power, if we let him.

We New Yorkers used to tolerate him when he was just another crappy real estate hustler masquerading as a big shot. I love this city. I don’t want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city but the country, and, eventually, he could destroy the world.

There is evidence the De Niro’s presence had the desired effect.  The event was covered by entertain news outlets such as “TMZ” and “Hollywood Tonight” which normally do not feature Biden campaign events.  Moreover, it put Trump on the defensive.  In the middle of closing arguments in his election interference trial, Trump found time to post the following on Truth Social.

I never knew how small, both mentally and physically, Wacko Former Actor Robert De Niro was. Today, De Niro, who suffers from an incurable case of TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, commonly known in the medical community as TDS, was met, outside the Courthouse, with a force far greater than the Radical Left – MAGA. 

His response, as hoped, reminded non-MAGA conservatives that all he cares about is himself and a movement that is no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan.  However, one scene does not translate into a compelling narrative.  It has to be reinforced.  And yet, the campaign does not take advantage of the wealth of material Trump gifts them.  Consider the following example.

On the same day De Niro, et. al., appeared outside the Manhattan courthouse Trump took to Truth Social to endorse MAGA candidate John McGuire, who is challenging House Freedom Caucus chair Bob Good in the GOP primary for Representative Good’s seat.

Bob Good is BAD FOR VIRGINIA, AND BAD FOR THE USA. He turned his back on our incredible movement, and was constantly attacking and fighting me until recently, when he gave a warm and ‘loving’ Endorsement – But really, it was too late.

What was Good’s crime?  He endorsed Ron DeSantis for the Republican nomination for president. However, a la Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell and every other spineless member of the Trump cult, Good genuflected before the MAGA god including an appearance with the blue suit, red tie brigade two weeks earlier at Trump’s trial.

Although I ultimately decided not to throw my hat in the ring for election to the House of Representatives from Florida’s 4th District, I still wake up most mornings thinking about the message I would post.  Here is the my imagined response to Trump’s conviction.

Last night, our incumbent congressman Aaron Bean posted the following on Twitter/X.

STATEMENT ON TRUMP VERDICT: The unprecedented and retaliatory verdict out of New York today was a travesty of justice, plain and simple. This was not a declaration of guilt or indicative of the evidence or the case presented. This was an attempt to derail the election of President Trump in November, and it will not work! We will fight this, and President Trump will have the ultimate verdict in November!

Since the day of Trump’s first indictment, he and sycophants like Aaron have been telling you that Donald Trump is the only thing between you and the deep state which has you next on their list.  Let me ask you a couple of questions.  How many of you have been indicted for having a marital affair?  How many of you have had your homes raided by the FBI?  How many of you have had armed IRS agents raid your home?  I’m pretty sure the answer is ZERO.  And allow me to suggest why.  Because none of you falsified business records to cover up payments to the person with whom you violated your marriage vows.  Because none of you are illegally holding on to classified documents.  Because there are no armed IRS agents out in the field.  If I am your congressman, if there ever was an instance in which the “deep state,” regardless of who was in the White House, violated your rights to privacy and protections under the Constitution, I would make sure there was an investigation and if there was wrongdoing, I would make sure the responsible individuals were held accountable.  However, for 240 years, from 1776 to 2016, no congressman needed to make that pledge because the topic never came up before. But Trump wants you to be scared of something that has never happened before.

Do you honestly believe Donald Trump thinks he needs commission of an actual crime to come after someone?  Based on Trump’s choice to endorse Bob Good’s challenger, even after Good skipped a session of Congress to help Trump circumvent Judge Merchan’s gag order, you now know it is Donald Trump and Aaron Bean who are more likely to turn on you, than it is for the FBI, IRS or any other imaginary enemy in the “deep state.”  Good turned his back on the MAGA movement only if believe Ron DeSantis never ran for governor or president as the post-Trump leader of the MAGA movement.  Which you know is not true.  Therefore, the only thing Good turned his back on was Trump.  For him, that is an unforgiveable crime.

For things I have written about Trump, I assume I am on his retribution list.  If you support the MAGA platform or currently plan to vote for Trump in November, you probably assume you are NOT.  But guess what.  So did Bob Good.

Every Democratic candidate for office this election cycle needs to realize, as marketing guru Donny Deutsch reminded us this morning, the Trump brand took a big hit yesterday.  He is now branded as a convicted felon.  Twelve ordinary citizens proved he is no longer invincible.  And he now holds a place of honor in the “Loser Hall of Fame.”  He has been exposed as a business fraud.  He was held liable in civil court for sexual assault and defamation.  After he became the titular head of the MAGA dominated GOP in November 2016, they have lost majorities in the House, Senate several state legislatures as well as governorships.  And now he has proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of 34 felonies.

Reinforce that message every day, a la Robert De Niro, to “make meaning” of Trump’s behavior and words.

For What It’s Worth.
Dr. ESP

I hope you did not pack up and store your climbing paraphernalia.  Why?  No sooner had we rappelled down from our last trip to the summit of Bullshit Mountain, we need to scale it once more.  And again, our guide is none other than Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch.

To unlock the courthouse doors in the two federal cases–conspiracy to overturn a election and violation of the espionage act–special counsel Jack Smith  petitioned the Court to rule whether Donald Trump was immune from prosecution.  In the hearing that should be focused on those specifics, latest Marvel Universe villain Gorsuch sidestepped the facts enumerated in the petition and tried to broaden the scope of the case before the Justices.

JUSTICE GORSUCH:  I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the the criminal law to target political opponents on accusations about their motives.

Michael Dreeben, representing the special counsel’s office, pushed back, reminding Gorsuch the petition was not about the future.  It applied only to the alleged crimes committed by Donald Trump.  He viewed Gorsuch’s approach so absurd, he prefaced his remarks by pointing out the unprecedented nature of his own argument.

MR. DREEBEN:  And I’m going to say something that I don’t normally say, which is that’s really not involved in this case.  We don’t have bad political motive in that sense.  I would…

Gorsuch in a “I can’t hear you” moment cuts him off and makes it clear he is not interested in why future uses and motive are irrelevant.  However, he does not need Dreeben’s rationale as he admits that Dreeben is correct and literally says “I don’t care,” then reverts back to his claim the case is of monumental importance.

JUSTICE GORSUCH:  I understand that.  I appreciate that, but you also appreciate that we’re writing a rule for the ages.

A rule for the ages?  A decision so important that it sidesteps the facts and laws enumerated in the petitioner’s filing.  Justice Gorsuch, if the future of the presidency rides on the outcome of this case, “a rule for the ages,” why then would the Court take ages to hear it and decide it?  Were you projecting when you said, “I am concerned about future uses of the the criminal law to target political opponents on accusations about their motives.”  Should Americans be concerned about your motives?  Or how you and your “conservative” colleagues are using the protections under criminal law to benefit a candidate for political office?

Jack Smith filed this petition in December 2023.  Do not tell us you could not have immediately granted certiorari.  The Constitution gives Congress the right to determine when the Supreme Court can invoke original jurisdiction.

ARTICLE III, Section 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. (Emphasis added.)

Equally important, the Supreme Court has affirmed its own right to original jurisdiction even in cases where it has chosen not to employ it e.g. Missouri v. Holland (1920) where the Court reserved the right but declared “our original jurisdiction should be invoked sparingly.”  In Wyoming v. Oklahoma (1982), the Court suggested the criterion for such sparing use should be “claims that are of sufficient seriousness and dignity and resolution by the Judiciary is of substantial concern.”  Yet Gorsuch and his colleagues found what he describes as “a case for the ages” does not meet that test.

Your honor, we the people object.  According to a recent Politico poll, more that 70 percent of Americans object.  Either this case is truly “one for the ages” and needs to be resolved, to famously quote the Court, WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED.  Or it is limited as Jack Smith’s team suggests and was adequately resolved by the Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit.  A third path suggests some ulterior motive that is not grounded in the facts nor the law.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Yesterday, in the Supreme Court of the United States, Americans witnessed the hypocrisy of “Constitutional originalists” from the very top of Bullshit Mountain.  The most egregious example of their own judicial philosophy, oddly, had nothing to do with the most absurd arguments put forth by Donald Trump’s attorney John Sauer’s response “it depends” to the question whether a sitting president could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political opponent.  Or “conservative” justices who appear to believe there must be hearings to determine whether overturning a free and fair election could be considered an official presidential act.

While questioning Michael Dreeben, who argued the case on behalf of special counsel Jack Smith’s office, Justice Neil Gorsuch raised the following hypothetical.

So, for example, let’s say a president leads a mostly peaceful protest sit-in in front of Congress because he objects to a — a piece of legislation that’s going through.  And it, in fact, delays the proceedings in Congress.  Now, under 1512(c)(2), that might be corruptly impeding a proceeding, an official proceeding. Could — is that core and therefore immunized or whatever word, euphemism you want to use for that?

Keep in mind Gorsuch graduated from Harvard Law School, practiced law at a private firm for 10 years, was the principle deputy associate attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice and served on the 10th District Court of Appeals before his appointment in 2017 to the Supreme Court.  First of all, with such a distinguished education and experience one would think he would be more precise in his questioning of a witness or solicitor.  What the hell does “in front of Congress mean?”  If it refers to a peaceful sit-in in front of the Capitol, there is little if any chance it would delay a congressional proceeding.  More importantly, neither the president or any other citizen would have to rely on immunity because this is not crime.  If only the ghost of Joseph Welch, chief counsel for the U.S. Army during the McCarthy era had appeared and asked Gorsuch, “Have you no common sense, sir?”

Equally puzzling is Gorsuch’s supposition that legislation is considered “in front of Congress.”  It never works that way.  The only joint sessions of Congress are generally ceremonial (e.g. counting of the electoral votes).  The introduction, debate and passage of bills occurs in either the House or Senate.  To which, Welch’s specter would have asked, “Have you no sense about how the legislature works, sir?”

What the confused justice must have been referring to is something akin to the June 22, 2016 sit-in organized by the late congressman John Lewis in protest of then Speaker Paul Ryan’s refusal to bring a gun safety bill to the floor for a vote in the aftermath of the mass shooting at an Orlando, Florida nightclub.  To avoid CSPAN televising the protest, GOP speaker pro tempore Dan Webster called for a recess.  If that was Gorsuch’s intent, this self-proclaimed originalist should know that the Constitution speaks directly to this issue.

First, let’s address the issue whether Lewis and his “good troublemakers” committed a crime.  Article I, Section 5 states, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour (sic), and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”  The current rule under which the House operates, in effect at the time of Lewis’ protest, allows all current and former members of the House to be on chamber floor without prior permission.  Proof of this provision was George Santos’ surprise appearance on the floor of the House during this year’s State of the Union address after having been expelled the previous December.  [NOTE:  On April 12, 2024, Representative Anthony D’Esposito (MAGA-NY) introduced a resolution that would amend House rules to “deny certain privileges” to former members who had been expelled.  According to D’Esposito, the purpose of the amendment is to “…establish new standards by which expelled frauds are barred from further staining this storied institution.”  Much less being a continuing embarrassment to his own party.]

How did the MAGA controlled House feel about sit-ins in their chamber following Trump’s election as president?  According to Wikipedia: 

On January 3, 2017, the House convened the 115th Congress and passed rules intended to prevent future sit-ins. The new rules included language against disorderly or disruptive conduct, in addition to bans against members of Congress taking pictures and video on the House floor, though an exemption for the latter occurs for events such as the State of the Union addresses. Fines are also included within the new rules, with $500 being mandated for first offenses and $2,500 for each additional offense.

All perfectly consistent with Article I, Section 6 which authorizes each chamber to make its own rules.

But the 2017 rules amendment applies only to members of the House.  Which brings us back to Gorsuch’s question about the president acting in a similar manner. To which Joe Welch’s apparition would surely materialize for a third time.  “Have you no sense of the separation of powers, sir?”  Welch would find it interesting that Gorsuch inserted the word “peaceful” into his question.  Why?  Because aiding and abetting a “violent” disruption of a congressional proceeding is no longer a hypothetical.  Which makes it all the more shocking that the MAGA justices would not immediately agree January 6, 2021 was not subject to any level of presidential immunity.

What else did Gorsuch forget?  According to his theory of originalism the Constitution only protects those rights specifically enumerated in the document with amendments and imposed on the states per the 14th Amendment.  Article II, powers of the executive, does not give the president unfettered authority to go to the floor of either chamber.  Consider the following.  Article II, Section 3 states:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.

Does a strict constructionist such as Justice Gorsuch not understand the meaning of the words “convene” and “adjourn?”  As was the case on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush could have, if Congress had not voluntarily adjourned for its own safety, ordered the House and Senate to vacate the Capitol.  Or if Congress was in the middle of one of its many, lengthy scheduled recess, he is also authorized to bring them back to Washington to address a real or even perceived emergency.  However, it does not authorize him to go to the floor and disrupt a legislative proceeding. Ironically, instead of sending an armed mob to do his bidding on January 6th, he could have simply adjourned Congress and argued he was authorized to do so based on the language in Article II, Section 3.  Despite the political implications, there may not have been grounds for a second impeachment since adjourning Congress was neither a high crime or misdemeanor.

Equally important, when he is authorized to interact with the Congress, he cannot do it on a whim, the best example being the State of the Union address.  Article II, Section 3 does not specifically require an in-person address to a joint session of Congress.  Then how does this happen?  Again, according to Wikipedia:

Because the address is made to a joint session of Congress, the House and Senate must each pass a resolution setting a date and time for the joint session. Then, a formal invitation is made by the speaker of the House to the president typically several weeks before the appointed date.

Simply put, Justice Gorsuch, the president must be invited to be in either chamber, just the same as any foreign or domestic dignitary (e.g. the Pope or General Douglas McArthur) Therefore, if as he had threatened, Trump followed the mob to the Capitol on January 6th and taken the floor of either house uninvited, he would have violated his oath to faithfully defend and protect the Constitution.  What’s more, this applies not only to the legislative branch.  Imagine if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez led a sit-in in the Cabinet room to disrupt one of Trump’s meeting because she disagreed with his family separation policy on the Southern Border.  Is there any question Trump would order Bill Barr to arrest her and charge her with criminal behavior? Or if AOC had led a sit-in that disrupted arguments before this Court in the Dobbs case?

Justice Gorsuch, to go back to your hypothetical about whether a president leading a “mostly peaceful sit-in” to disrupt a legislative proceeding is a crime, the answer is simple.  HELL, YES.  Whether he should be prosecuted is a decision for members of Congress to make (through a criminal referral to the Justice Department) and the Attorney General to decide whether to indict based on the facts and the law. 

Most states require continuing legal education for members of the bar to maintain their certification.  Florida statutes specify the following:

(f) Education. The applicant must complete 50 hours of approved continuing legal education since the date of the last application for certification. Accreditation of educational hours is subject to policies established by the civil trial law certification committee or the board of legal specialization and education.

Based on the nonsense presented by Gorsuch and other members of the panel yesterday, perhaps the same standard should be applied to state and federal justices including those on the Supreme Court.  The “Introduction to Constitutional Law” course I took as an undergraduate at the University of Virginia seems like a good remedial class for Justice Gorsuch.  Of course, there would have to be a module on “conflicts of interest” for Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP