Merriam-Webster defines “plagiarism” as a transitive verb meaning “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source.”  During my time as a professor at Miami University, I always made a distinction between “words” and “ideas”.  Two people, with similar observations and experiences, can independently come up with similar ideas.  I often joke with my wife, “They must have seen yesterday’s blog,” when a Post or Times editorial or op-ed makes the same point I covered before they did.  However, I know two people independently reaching the same conclusion is not a crime.

That is why I always focused on the second definition.  I expected any student who wrote about entrepreneurship as “creative destruction” to credit Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter with coining the phrase.  Knowledge is built on the shoulders of those who came before us.  We need not agree with everything they said or did, but we have a sole obligation to recognize their contribution.

We now have a new kind of plagiarism under the second definition, political plagiarism, which President Biden pointed out during his State of the Union Address.

And thanks — and thanks to our Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 46,000 new projects have been announced all across your communities.

And, by the way, I noticed some of you who’ve strongly voted against it are there cheering on that money coming in. And I like it. I’m with you. I’m with you.

My congressman Aaron Bean must have been napping at this point because just four days later he issued a press release about a $147 million federal grant to Jacksonville which included the following.

I’m excited to have worked with Congressman Rutherford to help secure over $147 million in direct grant funding to support the City of Jacksonville and Jacksonville Transportation Authority’s master plan to transform 14 historic neighborhoods and downtown into the Emerald Trail.

Where did the money come from?  It was one of 143 projects funded through the Reconnecting Communities Program authorized as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed into law by President Biden on November 15, 2021.  Bean was not elected to Congress until November 2022, so we do not know how he would have voted on House Bill 3684.  But we do know how John Rutherford, our congressman before redistricting, voted.  He was one of the 201 (out of 203) House Republicans who voted “NAY.”

Now Bean could argue, “If I’d been there, I might have voted for the bill.”  But unlikely, since taking office, he has followed the GOP house leadership on virtually every bill and resolution. But that is speculation.  Therefore, if ever asked, he can honestly say, “I did not vote against HB 3684.”  You know, just like President Bone Spurs claimed he would have come to the rescue of students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, “Even if I didn’t have a weapon, and I think most of the people in this room (a meeting at the White House) would have done the same.”

But honesty is not only about what we do.  It also takes into account what we do not do, which brings us back to definition #2 of plagiarism.  Let me repeat it.  “Use (another’s production) without crediting the source.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)  As we know, the Biden administration worked tirelessly with both Republicans as well as members of their own party to “produce” a filibuster-proof bill that would eventually pass 69-30 in the Senate.  [NOTE:  Florida’s two senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio were among the 30 nays.]  What better example of two congressmen committing political plagiarism than Bean and Rutherford taking credit for something that would not have happened if they and their colleagues had their way.

If they do not want this to be an issue in the 2024 election, they can file a motion with Judge Aileen Cannon claiming Article I of the Constitution is too vague to allow citizens to chastise members of Congress for taking credit for things which they opposed.  I’m sure she would hold a hearing on their motion sometime in December.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Since 1952, beginning with Harry Truman, the president of the United States has authorized security briefings for the nominees of both parties by representatives of the government intelligence community.  This courtesy is intended to create “an even playing field,” particularly on occasions when, as is now the case, one candidate is the incumbent.  I refer to it as a courtesy because the practice is not required by law or by federal courts.

Never in the nation’s history has there been a situation when the potential recipient of these briefings is under indictment on 38 counts related to:

• willful retention of national defense information,
• conspiracy to obstruct justice,
• withholding a document or record
• corruptly concealing a document or record,
• concealing a document in a federal investigation, and
• false statements and representations.

Various Joe Biden advisors and supporters have urged the president to forego this tradition based on Jack Smith’s 44 page indictment which documents Trump’s alleged criminal activity.  Especially following the former president’s hosting of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, they suggest Trump would share the briefing contents with his political allies.  Relax!  Individuals who have participated in preparation of the briefings or conducted them describe the content as no different than that regularly provided to members of Congress.  It is limited to country by country assessments and includes no information related to administration responses, methods or sources.

Trump’s team, of course, argues he is entitled to such briefings (not true under any circumstances) because he has done nothing wrong.  What better time to call his bluff.  Therefore, I suggest the White House send the following letter to the presumptive Republican nominee.

March 11, 2024

Donald J. Trump
Palm Beach, Florida

Donald:

Congratulations on your showing in the Super Tuesday primaries.  With Nikki Haley  suspending her campaign, I have no doubt you will be the Republican nominee in 2024.  As much as I would like to honor the 70 year tradition of providing intelligence briefings to an opponent, I have a greater responsibility to honor my oath to defend and protect the Constitution.  Therefore, I have decided not to authorize such briefings while you are under indictment.

There is, however, a solution to this conundrum.  If you are correct that you have done nothing wrong, you have always had an opportunity to prove that in court.  I suggest, therefore, that you ask your lawyers to withdraw all their motions to dismiss the case and encourage Judge Cannon to schedule the trial as soon as possible.  If a jury of your peers finds you innocent of the charges in the indictment, I will authorize intelligence briefing immediately.  I make this recommendation knowing that, if you prevail, it will be to my electoral detriment, reinforcing your claims the indictment was a case of election interference.

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.  I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Trump’s choice is clear.  If he prefer BRIEFS he needs to face a panel of his peers, otherwise known as “Jury-BOXERS”.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Today’s post is directed to those Americans who think that Donald Trump committed crimes but plan to pass on the general election for president. By their action yesterday, in the case of Trump, Donald J. v. United States,  at least five members of the Supreme have both granted certiorari (i.e. to hear the case) and extended the stay imposed by the Circuit Court when Trump appealed the unanimous decision that a president has no immunity from alleged criminal acts performed while in office.

There are three issues associated with this ruling that should worry all Americans.  First, despite the public’s interest in quickly resolving this issue, the Court took 15 days to draft a less than one page justification for their action.  On top of that they scheduled the hearing for April 22, delaying the trial for a minimum of 54 additional days plus the time to issue a decision which could come as late as June 30, at the end of the current Court term.

Additionally, the presiding trial judge Tanya Chutkan initially gave Trump and his defense team 88 days to prepare their case.  Even if the Supreme Court rules on immunity as early as May 1, the preparation timeframe would put the earliest trial date in late July.  Jack Smith has estimated the trial would take three months excluding a prolongated jury selection process, illness of any participants, etc.  That means closing argument and jury deliberations would begin in late October.  This is problematic since early voting in some states will have already begun.  And the whiner-in-chief would love nothing better than to have a reason to again claim he was the winner, if only the outcome had not been rigged.

Second, Trump’s immunity claims beg for a broad nullification of his legal team’s theory that a sitting president can do anything and escape prosecution for any criminal act unless he impeached and convicted of a “high crime or misdemeanor.”  Sadly, the certiorari ruling states the Supremes will take a much narrower approach.

[The] petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

The word “alleged” is used to described Trump’s contention that his actions were part of his official duties.  Isn’t that backwards?  The proper use of the word would be, “To what extent does a former  president enjoy immunity from alleged criminal activity during his tenure in office?”  In other words, the Court is saying, “We will decide if engagement in a conspiracy to overturn a secure and safe election is among the chief executives official acts.”  Rather than a constitutional issue, this sounds like a defense to be presented at trial, equivalent to a murderer pleading self defense.  Even if they rule in favor of the trial going forward, they will have given one of Trump’s defense arguments more credence than the Constitution or any other document affords it.

Finally, it’s time to call the conservative justices’ bluff that they are wedded to the original language drafted by the Founding Fathers.  The headline in many of this morning’s papers was some variation of “SCOTUS Hits the Brakes.”  It should have instead read, “Faux Originalists EXPOSED!”  There are few instances in the Constitution which are as clear as Article I, Section 3 which lays out the penalty for impeachment and conviction.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

During arguments before the 3rd District Court of Appeals, Trump lawyer John Sauer argued a president could not be charged with a crime unless he was first impeached and convicted.  It should take a TRUE originalist less than a New York minute, much less 70 days, to understand the penalty for impeachment is only removal from office.  Fines and incarceration remain the purview of the judicial system.  If the constitutional language was insufficient to guide these hypocrites, the 57 page unanimous opinion of the Court of Appeals, which relied on previous decisions, should have.  Their inability to accept the Appeals panel findings exposes the Republican judges, all of whom pledged deference to judicial precedence during their confirmation hearings, as bold-faced liars.  And Chief Justice John Roberts still does not understand why approval of the Court is at a historic low.

In closing, the super majority of Republican appointed liars, grifters, cowards, incompetents or hypocrites (you choose which are which) on the Supreme Court, by likely denying the American people the right under our system of justice to know whether Donald J. Trump is innocent or guilty of one or more crimes, have left his fate up to voters this November.  During his February 24 speech at CPAC, Trump said:

For hardworking Americans, Nov. 5 will be our new liberation day. But for the liars and cheaters and fraudsters and censors and imposters who have commandeered our government, it will be judgment day.

It may be the only occasion during this election cycle he has NOT lied.  November 5 will be “judgment day.”  Why?  Because each of us is now an empaneled juror.  Unfortunately, we will not have the benefit of seeing all the evidence or deciding which witnesses are credible.  But we all have access to special counsel Jack Smith’s filings and Trump’s defense team’s responses.  Therefore, I implore you not to read either candidates’ emails, go to their rallies or watch their commercials.  Instead, take your civil duty seriously and review the available public record of Trump’s alleged crimes and his defense.  That is the only way we can make the informed decision with which the Supreme Court, having shirked its own responsibility, has charged us.  A vote for Biden equals guilty.  A vote for Trump equals innocent.  As a juror, you do not have the option of staying home or voting “present.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

No, this is not a crass commercial advertisement for my recent fictional account of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, In the National Interest, available locally at Story and Song Bookstore and Bistro and from all on-line booksellers.  (Well, maybe it partially is.)  Nor is it in response to the many other books, podcasts and documentaries which coincided with the 60th anniversary of the events in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.  The title refers to another Kennedy murder but again not the one you might imagine, the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy at the hand of Sirhan Sirhan.  But you are getting warmer.  Today’s post explores a conspiracy surrounding a crime that is yet to be committed.

Any reference to a “second gunman” should not be taken literally.  There is no Italian-made Mannlicher-Carcano rifle like the one owned by Lee Harvard Oswald.  There is no grassy knoll.  And the intended victim is not a human being.  Most importantly, the targeted victim is not a Kennedy.  Quite the opposite.  The role of “second gunman” is played by none other than Robert Kennedy, Jr.  And the quarry is American democracy.

If the latest Emerson poll is to be believed, the 2024 presidential election is a toss-up.  In a two-way race, Trump has a one point lead over Biden 45-44.  As I have said many times in an effort to talk Democrats off the ledge, Trump’s 45 percent is a ceiling while Biden’s 44 is a floor.  It is hard to imagine the 11 percent still undecided voters are going to break for Trump, especially as the former guy continues to insult and shock those who are not totally committed to him.  As any campaign manager will tell his/her candidate, “Electoral victory is about addition, not subtraction.”

When the Emerson poll adds three independent candidates–Kennedy, Cornell West and Jill Stein–to the mix, both Trump (40 percent) and Biden (38 percent) lose support.  West and Stein garner a combined total of two percent and Kennedy has the support of seven percent of those surveyed.  More importantly, the percent of undecided voters increases from 11 to 13 percent, something I find quite curious.  Instead of the original undecideds finding a home with one the independents, two percent abandon their initial Trump/Biden choice but do not to gravitate toward anyone else.

The greater the number of undecideds as election day approaches, the more volatile the electorate becomes.  Take 2022 as the premier example.  On October 23, just two weeks before the mid-term elections, a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll identified 11 percent of likely voters as still undecided.  Based on questions related to Biden’s job approval, an unfavorable opinion of Nancy Pelosi and whether the nation was headed in the right or wrong direction, POLITICO analyst Steven Shepard wrote, “The news isn’t good for Democrats.”  However, as Shepard noted in his article, “The poll was conducted prior to the attack on Pelosi’s husband in their San Francisco home on Friday.”   Yet, everything still pointed to a “RED tsunami.” However, late deciders, who historically, in mid-terms, vote against the party that holds the White House, broke for Democrats in House, Senate and gubernatorial races across the country.  The “RED tsunami turned out to be an unprecedented mid-term victory for the party in power.

We know Trump and MAGAworld will be “gunning” for Biden.  In a two way race, the outcome will depend on what it always does.  If Democrats vote, Democrats win.  If they don’t, they lose.  And Democrat turnout relies heavily on early and mail-in voting as again proven during last week’s special election victory by Democrat Tom Suozzi in New York.  Which is why Kennedy is the potential “second gunman.”  He will not be the next president.  He may even take an even number of votes away from each candidate.  The bigger danger is his ability to maximize the number of voters who remain on the fence until election day, on which they may decide not to vote at all, increasing the odds of a second Trump presidency and the end of American democracy we have known for the past 247 years.

The United States will have its first king, if not worse, with all the pomp and circumstance afforded such title.  I have no doubt Trump will use the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026 to hold a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue.  How do I know that?  On January 18, 2018, during a Pentagon meeting with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford, Jr., Trump gave them a directive.  He wanted a Veterans’ Day parade with soldiers, wheeled military vehicles, tanks positioned for his address at the Lincoln Memorial and a flyover of 50 aircraft to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the World War I armistice.  He told reporters that his idea followed his attendance at the 2017 Bastille Day parade in France which he promised “to top.”  When Defense officials cunningly told him the parade would cost $92 million, three times the original estimate, Trump cancelled the event.  This time no one in the Pentagon or the cabinet will say “No,” including Secretary of  Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

For what its worth.
Dr. ESP