If there is reason to believe that outgoing California Governor Gavin Newsom, or his wife, has committed a crime, then it should be investigated. If probable cause is supported by evidence, then he, or she, should be prosecuted. Neither being a governor, a Democrat, nor a potential presidential candidate, means he is either above the law or immune from investigation or prosecution.

But the flow begins with a reason to believe a crime has been committed, not a person who presents a threat to Trump or the Republicans. You don’t first identify a target and then go in search of a crime, unless you’re Lavrentiy Beria. That’s what Newsom claims is happening. Continue reading →

The Petite Policy, named for the Supreme Court’s decision in Petite v. United States, prohibited federal prosecution of a defendant who had already been prosecuted for the same offense by the state in the absence of a strong demonstrable federal interest that went unvindicated. While the Double Jeopardy Clause didn’t apply under the Dual Sovereigns Doctrine, the policy precluded overbearing and unnecessary federal “piling on” when the defendant had already been punished for his acts. While the policy was vague and voluntary, the idea behind it was good, as it prevented prosecution that violated the spirit, if not the doctrine, of double jeopardy.

But that was back when the DoJ cared about such matters, and when federal prosecution was the superior mechanism for assuring that crime would not go unpunished or insufficiently punished due to state parochial concerns or bias. Continue reading →

Trump turned 80 today, and coincidentally according to Trump, the south lawn of the White House has been turned into a UFC cage match extravaganza. The images of the “claw” with the White House behind it and the names of various corporate sponsors emblazoned on the cage has already gone viral. At least Trump has a financial interest in the company behind the fight, so the sale of the White House to commercial interests won’t be wasted. 

The Claw is a 600-ton steel arch built in Belgium. Jumbo-sized and star-spangled, with huge television screens hanging from every corner, it coexists strangely with the rest of its environs.

Continue reading →

Friends, as I write this it’s the start of the FIFA World Cup 2026. The tournament that’s supposed to embody the spirit of “The Beautiful Game.” It’s America’s turn at hosting the major sporting event the rest of the world loves so much.

I have questions.

Mind you I’m not exactly the person the World Cup wants to reach. I’m a middle-aged white guy from Tennessee who loves college football (the kind that involves hands) and my New England Patriots. My last sporting event I attended was a local minor league baseball game. Continue reading →

In the face of a Republican senatorial revolt, including refusal to approve the extension of FISA § 702, which will lapse as the House took off for yet another vacay, to Trump’s appointment of Bill Pulte as the acting DNI, Trump has announced the nomination of Southern District of New York United States Attorney Jay Clayton as the next DNI.

Clayton, whose qualifications to be US Attorney* were dubious given his complete lack of prosecutorial experience, was at least a decent lawyer. Compared to Pulte, who has no qualifications for the job whatsoever, Clayton seems almost like a decent choice, even though he too fails to meet the statutory qualification of “extensive national security experience,” and he’s very much a Trump sycophant. Continue reading →

Adhering to the terms of international trade deals, or any international deals for that matter, has always been a matter of trust. And trust mattered, for without it, no deal was a deal, and no country could be held to its end of a bargain if it simply chose not to honor its obligations. After all, what can really be done about it? Complain to the United Nations? Take it to the Hague? Go to war?

Since World War II, there has been one alliance where the trust was so deeply grounded that the idea of breaching agreements seemed unthinkable. That was between the United States and Europe, since refined to the European Union. We were allies against Hitler and the Nazis, partners in NATO and the bastion of first world democracy. It was us against the world, the world being the Soviet Union and Communist China, with third world countries being off to the side for occasional plunder or noblesse oblige. Or both. Continue reading →

Every once in a while, someone calls for a new constitutional convention to fix the myriad problems people have with the existing Constitution. Do away with the Electoral College? Make the Senate more democratic? Allow for the criminalization of hate speech? End the right to keep and bear arms?

But what if that same convention decided to do away with the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and/or Eighth Amendments? It’s not that people hate constitutional rights, but that they hate the rights that enable others to do what they don’t want them to do, often under the same protections they hold dear for themselves. People are funny that way, being overwhelmingly clear that should the Constitution be changed, it will be to their benefit and not to the benefit of their adversaries. Silly people. Continue reading →

Trump has officially nominated his criminal defense lawyer, now on the payroll of the Department of Justice as the Acting Attorney General following the firing of Pamela Jo Bondi, who replaced his first choice, Matt Gaetz, to be the Attorney General of the United States. While this might not come as much of a surprise to anyone, even if other names were floated earlier and Blanche told the press that if the president was to nominate someone else, he would still say “thank you very much. I love you, Sir.”

Continue reading →

President Trump was interviewed by Kristen Welker for Meet The Press. It did not go well. But for whom?

For some, this was one of the most revealing interviews, reflecting Trump’s detachment from reality, abusiveness toward the media in general and a woman interviewer in particular, and inability to deal with any challenge to his delusional beliefs. Was it possible that anyone could watch this interview and reach any conclusion other than Trump being manifestly unfit for office? Of course it was possible. Continue reading →

While I was hardly a regular watcher of The Apprentice, I did watch occasionally, particularly in the early seasons. One thing stood out to me then. The losing team would have a leader, and Trump would ask the leader who was at fault for the team losing. Most of the time, the team leader would blame a team member for being uncooperative, or incapable of performing the task, or some variation of lazy, stupid or ugly.

Once in a while, however, the team leader would reply to Trump that he or she, as team leader, was responsible for the team, regardless of who did what to whom. The leader would take responsibility rather than shift the blame to someone else. In other words the team leader would be a leader.

Trump’s reaction? Continue reading →