unsealing the Mueller report

Both within the United States and across the Atlantic, attempts to overturn the results of free and fair ballots have been turned back, and those who perpetuated the move now face severe repercussions.

President Trump has instructed federal intelligence agencies to cooperate with the Department of Justice in the effort to uncover how false charges against his campaign, and the ensuing investigation,came about. There are deep-seated and well-founded concerns that the FBI and the CIA violated the law by engaging in highly partisan activities on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Substantial penalties may be incurred by those responsible.

Within the United Kingdom, a 2016 referendum which demonstrated the will of the British people to leave the European Union was essentially ignored by leading politicians, who concocted repeated schemes to ignore the practical results of the ballot. Prime Minister May will soon be forced to leave office as a result.

There is an important lesson to be learned from these two related incidents on opposite sides of the ocean within the two nations most closely associated with freedom. Constitutional safeguards and long-standing traditions do not guarantee that a government will abide by the will of the people, absent firm vigilance by the citizenry.

A counter-revolution against the legacy of personal freedom has dangerously arisen. It can be seen in as ascendancy of elitism within the European Union, and the rising prominence of socialism in the United States. It is evident in the disdain for free speech on university campuses, and the abandonment by many key media outlets of their responsibility to serve as a conduit of objective information to a population that needs it to make electoral decisions.

While a few have pointed to the growing danger, far too many have remained apathetic, mistakenly convinced, despite the rising tide of authoritarianism, that the legacy of liberty is unassailable.

The flood tide of influence against individual freedom is overwhelming. Increasingly, academia scrounges for every anachronistic character flaw in the founding fathers and uses that in its ongoing diatribe against the philosophy they instituted, which has provided more freedom for more humans than anything else in history. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic rely on every emotion of envy to attack capitalism and foster support for collectivist systems that never work but allow excuses for the reduction of individual rights.

And, looming over it all, is the hyper-partisanship of the left that willingly sacrifices bedrock principles if it results in any electoral gain. Senior Democratic Party officials have discussed abolishing keystone portions of America’s governing structure, including the electoral college and even the U.S. Senate because they believe they would gain an edge. They absurdly ignore the 100,000-plus illegal immigrants streaming across the border resulting in vast expense to the taxpayers as well as danger of crime, disease and terrorism because statistics indicate they would vote Democratic upon reaching citizenship. Those same party leaders vigorously oppose any safeguards against illegal voting so the illegals’ votes can be obtained even before that. The clear, obvious misdeeds of former Secretary of State Clinton, in Benghazi, email security, and the trading of the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons to the Russians in return for “contributions” to her foundation were blithely overlooked by the Justice Department under the belief that she would be the next president. In the same vein, during the Obama Administration, there was no punishment for Lois Lerner’s turning the IRS into a partisan attack machine, or Loretta Lynch’s discussion of criminally prosecuting organizations for merely disagreeing with Obama’s stance on climate change.

There are profound and escalating challenges facing the survival of freedom. They have been ignored for far too long.

Families should take the responsibility side effects viagra of providing their women martial arts lessons. Consequently, males can satisfy their female partners successfully. cipla tadalafil 20mg viagra for women uk http://downtownsault.org/salvation-army/ If being affected by renal disease, liver organ problem, abdomen ulcer, center related illnesses etc. totally takes the therapy on physician’s advice only. Testosterone deficiency is the underlying cause of problem and improves the reproductive health of person naturally. 100mg viagra online

Photo: State Symbols USA

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]