Why Lying is Bad for America
Lying, a ubiquitous aspect of human behavior, has been a long-standing issue in societies worldwide. While deception may seem harmless in certain situations, its detrimental effects on trust, democracy, and social cohesion cannot be overstated. In the United States, a nation founded on principles of transparency and honesty, the prevalence of lies poses significant risk to America’s fabric.
This article explores the multifaceted reasons why lying is detrimental to America, spanning political, social, and moral spheres. Let’s explore.
Let’s establish exactly how lying poses a threat to America:
- Erosion of Trust
Trust is the foundation of any healthy relationship, be it personal, professional, or societal. Lying fundamentally undermines trust, making it difficult for individuals and institutions to rely on one another. In the political realm, when elected officials deceive the public, it creates a sense of cynicism and disillusionment among citizens. This erosion of trust weakens the bond between the government and the governed, hindering effective governance. Moreover, mistrust fueled by lies can lead to conspiracy theories and the spread of misinformation, further polarizing the population. - Deterioration of Democracy
Democracy relies on the informed participation of citizens. When lies are perpetuated, the truth becomes obscured, impeding the ability of people to make well-informed decisions. Political campaigns based on false promises and misleading information undermine the democratic process, manipulating voters and distorting election outcomes. Additionally, lying can hinder accountability, as it allows politicians to evade responsibility for their actions. A healthy democracy requires transparency and honesty to ensure the will of the people is properly represented. - Weakening of Social Cohesion
Lying erodes social cohesion, the glue that holds a society together. When lies become pervasive, individuals become suspicious of one another, leading to a breakdown in social bonds. In a diverse nation like the United States, trust and understanding among different groups are vital for societal harmony. When lies and deception permeate the social fabric, it deepens divisions, exacerbates prejudice, and fuels social unrest. Open and honest communication fosters empathy, cooperation, and a sense of shared purpose, all of which are crucial for a united and inclusive society. - Moral and Ethical Implications
Lying carries profound moral and ethical implications. It violates the principles of honesty, integrity, and respect for others. When lying becomes normalized, it weakens the moral fiber of a society. By condoning or tolerating deception, we create a culture where honesty is undervalued, undermining the ethical foundations that guide our actions. Furthermore, lying can have severe consequences for individuals and communities. False accusations, damaged reputations, and shattered relationships are all byproducts of deceit, causing immeasurable harm.
Lying, in all of its forms, is deeply harmful to America. The erosion of trust, deterioration of democracy, weakening of social cohesion, and moral implications of lying have far-reaching consequences. Addressing this issue requires a collective effort from individuals, institutions, and leaders; necessitating promoting a culture of honesty, fostering open dialogue, and holding accountable those who perpetuate falsehoods. Individuals must also cultivate critical thinking skills, fact-check information, and reject deceptive narratives.
Media outlets also have a responsibility to prioritize truth and objectivity over sensationalism and misinformation. Political leaders must lead by example, upholding the principles of transparency and integrity. Finally, education plays a vital role in fostering a society that values truth and rejects deception. By recognizing the detrimental impact of lying, we can work towards restoring trust, strengthening democracy, fostering social cohesion, and upholding the moral fabric of America.
Better to get hurt by the truth than comforted with a lie
—Khaled Hosseini, “The Kite Runner”
Truth Disclosure: Most of this article was written using ChatGPT. This article is simply an experiment to determine if ChatGPT has value in crafting articles that seem genuinely written by a human. The jury is still out, yet ChatGPT nails this topic. Leave a comment below with your thoughts.
↩︎
Disney and DeSantis: Who wins?
With Disney canceling its plans to spend $1 billion on a new Florida campus, this is Disney’s first salvo lobbed directly at Ron DeSantis. Can Florida survive this fight? Let’s explore.
Ron DeSantis is Playing with Fire
Tourism in Florida accounts for more than $40 billion each year. Tourism also generates massive tax revenue; tax revenue that grosses $11.4 billion in state and local taxes and $13.3 billion in federal taxes annually. DeSantis and Florida clearly stand poised to lose hard when Disney pulls the plug on its Florida Disney resort properties entirely. Yes, “when”, not “if”. The United States also stands to lose a lot of federal tax revenue as well. This article, however, intends to focus primarily on the ramifications to Florida.
Once DeSantis makes Florida’s actions so punitive that Disney can no longer make money in Florida, Disney WILL pull out and leave Florida. DeSantis has wrongly assumed that Disney will remain in Florida. That’s a completely wrong assumption. When state legislators make doing business in a state a major problem to the bottom line, corporations have to make hard, but necessary choices. Some of those hard choices may involve leaving that state.
Musk and Tesla made that choice after California and Gavin Newsom made doing business in California almost impossible for Tesla. Tesla moved its headquarters to Texas and is likely poised to cease all of its operations in California eventually, manufacturing or otherwise. Even though Musk has made a small move to bring some portions of Tesla back to California, that doesn’t mean Musk embraces California for its business structure. Moving a portion of Tesla’s engineering staff closer to Twitter is likely more of a strategic and convenient business arrangement than it is embracing a move back to California. Musk is simply attempting to keep Twitter from collapsing most likely by leveraging Tesla software engineers when possible to do double duty between Tesla and Twitter. Dividing work time between two separate companies is not a job I’d want to do. We digress.
Disney’s stance, after cancelling its $1 billion campus project, is now crystal clear. Disney is on the verge of making a similar hard choice that Tesla was forced to make. Nothing says that Disney’s entertainment parks must remain in Florida.
Disney’s Contributions to Florida
Disney properties are responsible for generating at least $1.1 billion in tax revenues annually TO Florida. Ten percent (10%) of the entirety of gross taxes generated in Florida are generated by one single entity, Disney. Yes, that’s 10% from Disney alone. When factoring in all of the non-Disney owned businesses which exist because Disney drives massive tourism to Florida, such as restaurants, hotels and transportation, tax revenue attributed to Disney’s presence in Florida could account for as much as 40-50% of all of Florida’s tax revenue. Meaning, when combining Disney’s income with income generated by all other businesses which rely on Disney remaining in Florida, that’s a number that could literally tank Florida’s economy were it to dry up overnight.
Putting a number on it, this equates to between $4.6 billion and $5.5 billion of tax revenue lost were Disney to close shop and leave Florida. On top of the tax base lost, Disney closing shop would definitely cause most, if not all of Disney’s 75,000 Florida workers to lose their jobs. Further, the loss of Disney’s tourism industry would have massive repercussions on tertiary businesses which partially or fully rely on Disney remaining open in Florida. Thus, Disney leaving Florida could potentially cause the loss of another 100,000 or more Florida jobs simply BECAUSE Disney has left Florida. That’s just the beginning of Florida’s woes. Disney leaving Florida would likely cause a massive recession in Florida, followed by major unemployment in Florida, which, in turn, could potentially trigger a massive recession around the rest of the United States, particularly around tourism. This at a time when tourism is just beginning to rebound from COVID.
Because Airlines carry so many passengers to and from Florida almost entirely for Disney’s tourism, such a closure could mean almost certain problems for the whole of the United States. In fact, a Disney Florida closure could potentially even bankrupt some smaller airlines; airlines which may rely on as much or more than 20-40% of their business ferrying tourists to and from Florida. Car rental companies could also be impacted. The gasoline industry might even be impacted as far fewer people hop onto the roads to visit Florida. Even national and state parks could be impacted as fewer RVs show up due to a Disney closure. There are too many industries that wholly or partly rely on Disney’s continued operations in Florida. Without Disney parks, what incentive is there to visit Florida?
This right here 👆 is exactly how Ron DeSantis is gambling with Florida and the rest of the United States economy.
Juggernaut without Federal Response
At this point, Biden and the feds need to step in and stop DeSantis from further meddling with Disney. The longer this DeSantis vs Disney fight drags on, the more likely Disney will consider moving its operations somewhere else, thus ceasing operations in Florida. Worse, the more DeSantis pokes at Disney’s Country Bear Jamboree, the more likely Disney is to perform a knee-jerk reaction by shutting it all down instantly… leaving Florida, the tourism industry and the rest of the country reeling.
As with most types of shutdowns like this, it won’t be felt instantly around the nation. It’s one of those slow trickle economic problems. Florida, particularly around the general vicinity of Disney’s campuses, will feel the closure pinch almost instantly. The unemployment of Disney workers will throw a huge crimp into Florida’s unemployment statistics. From there, like a juggernaut, it will continue to roll downhill gathering momentum and growing bigger, expanding its damage across Florida, then across hotels, airlines and transportation as a whole and finally affecting the whole of the United States.
The stock market will reel at first over Disney, but then those stock losses will expand into the tourism industry as a whole, including the entirety of both the transportation and tourism sectors. Even restaurant chains like Olive Garden and McDonald’s alike, chains which at least partly rely on Disney to keep their restaurants full in the immediate vicinity of Disney’s properties, will also likewise begin to feel the pinch; first at the cash register, but later as Wall Street outlooks dim over Florida’s economy.
Disney as a Global Entity
The loss of revenue from Disney will be immense as Disney ceases its Florida operations. There is no doubt. However, moving Disney’s Florida properties to a new location is definitely possible. Disney isn’t beholden to anyone to maintain its Florida resort properties other than Disney and Disney shareholders. If Disney cannot maintain appropriate income under Ron DeSantis’s oppressive government ideologies, Disney will have no choice but to close down its properties and move to a better location.
For example, Texas would likely welcome Disney with open arms, even though Greg Abbott has the potential to become just as oppressive to Disney as Ron DeSantis. Disney would have to weigh the risks of moving its operations under a Greg Abbott controlled Texas as a result. For Texas, out of the frying pan and into the fire comes to mind.
What this might ultimately mean is Disney could choose to move its biggest resort property outside of the United States entirely. It could find property in Dubai, for example. Don’t think that Disney doesn’t have a task force actively searching the globe for possible properties to replace its Florida resorts at this very moment. If Disney finds a property that’s an equal or better value to the deal it formerly had (past tense) with Florida, Disney would be stupid not to choose to move to that new location, leaving Florida’s economy and, by extension, Ron DeSantis reeling.
The best way for Disney to fight Ron DeSantis is not to fight with him at all. Instead, closure of all of Disney’s Florida properties would say all that needs to be said. It might be just the trigger that causes a massive United States recession, but that’s not Disney’s concern. It is the concern of the Federal Government, however. Disney’s concern is to continue to make money at its resorts. If Disney is unable to do this because of an oppressive government leader, the only choice is to move on and find a new, better property to again house its resort operations.
These are the matches 🔥 to which Ron DeSantis feels compelled to light and throw at Disney. Ron DeSantis, be careful throwing matches because when fires start, someone gets burned.
As a Florida resident then living under a massive recession after a Disney closure, just remember that it is you who chose to vote Ron DeSantis into office.
Can this situation be defused? Yes, but don’t think that it also can’t escalate for Florida? We’ll simply need to wait this one out.
Who Wins?
No one, not even Disney. If Disney closes its Florida properties as a result of DeSantis’s meddling, this closure has the potential to be the catalyst which causes a United States recession.
↩︎
Should TikTok be banned in the US?
Clearly, TikTok’s executives would have you believe that there is no risk when using TikTok. Is there a national security risk, though? Yes. Let’s explore.
Bytedance
TikTok is presently owned by Bytedance. Bytedance’s company headquarters are located at Room 10A Building 2 No. 48 Zhichun Road, Haidian District, Beijing China. We also need to understand that businesses operating in Beijing China operate under Chinese law (such that it is). What that means for TikTok is that in order for this company to operate within China, it must always abide by China’s rules and regulations including spurious Chinese government requirements and mandates both existing and instantaneously required by the government.
For example, if Xi Jinping decides that Bytedance must turn over all information it has acquired to the Chinese government, Bytedance must comply or face the possibility of China pulling its licenses to operate its business in mainland China.
On the one hand, you have the TikTok CEO Shou Chew claiming that TikTok’s user data is safe. On the other hand, you have China’s government which can instantly require (i.e., force) Bytedance (or any Chinese based company) to hand over its data or face the loss of operating a business in China. Because China is a communist government, whatever China wants, China gets. Meaning, TikTok can absolutely make no assurances that user data is truly safe while Bytedance remains under China’s overreaching communist government authority. The rule of law only applies in China when the Chinese government WANTS it to apply, a key takeaway here. Internationally, China’s government does whatever it wants under the guise of appearing to support the rule of law.
Oracle Cloud
TikTok’s CEO has assured congress that it could move its data to within the Oracle cloud environment. While moving TikTok’s data storage to a United States owned business might sound great on paper, in reality it means nothing. Data stored in the US can STILL be easily exported, backed up, copied and recovered to computer equipment which resides in China. In fact, it would be entirely surprising if TikTok didn’t keep live backup copies of all user data somewhere on Chinese servers.
In other words, the CEO’s statements about using data storage on US shores as a “protection scheme” rings hollow. It’s far too easy to create copies of data and put it anywhere you want. It’s also guaranteed that if the Chinese government were to mandate that Bytedance turn over all relevant data to the Chinese government, TikTok would be forced to comply with those orders or face China’s government retaliation. In this case, not only can Bytedance not protect user data, they would have to appear completely willing to hand it over to the government instantly. Why? Because of Bytedance’s allegiance to China and not the United States… and because if TikTok doesn’t, China will close them down.
Allegiance
This word denotes a whole lot of things all at once. However, the most important thing this word signifies is what happens if China requests something from Bytedance and they refuse? A US based company protects all data of its users under the laws of the United States. If there were a subpoena by law enforcement issued for that data, a US based company would either have to comply with the subpoena or file an objection to quash the subpoena under specific grounds. In China, such avenues of refusal don’t necessarily work.
Because the United States is, at least thus far, based on the rule of law, the government would be required to allow an objection to funnel through the court processes before requiring the company to turn over whatever data is required by that subpoena. Even then, it would only be required if the court upheld the subpoena instead of siding with the appeal.
On the flip side, because China is a communist operated government, businesses operate under the whims of the Chinese government, which is not always based on the rule of law. While China does put up appearances suggesting that rule of law exists, the realities within China don’t always match that “rule of law” narrative. Meaning, China’s rule of law facade is just that, a facade.
For this reason, Bytedance’s allegiance must remain with China and never with the United States. The only reason Bytedance can operate within the US borders is because the United States, at present, allows it. But, that may be changing…
Is My Data Safe with TikTok?
The short answer is, no. Why? Because Bytedance’s allegiance remains solely with China because that’s where its business is incorporated. Regardless of what the executives of Bytedance may claim, that Chinese allegiance means that if Xi Jingping requires Bytedance to turn over all user data to China’s government about TikTok users, Bytedance must comply… and with no questions asked.
It doesn’t work like this if Bytedance were a company owned and operated within the United States. Rule of law actually matters in the United States where in China it only appears to matter, but doesn’t actually matter when the Chinese government wants what it wants.
What’s Wrong with China Knowing About Me?
If you don’t live in China or plan to visit, it might not matter that much. However, if you were ever to visit China, what you post on TikTok might be considered a legal offense in China and could see you legally apprehended, detained and/or jailed.
In other words, if you intend to post on TikTok and you have said or done anything that China takes offense to, you could become wanted in China. That’s a fairly extreme outcome, but China takes offense easily to many things and it takes those offenses seriously… so why poke that bull if you don’t have to?
Worse, because China is all about the money, having critical data from your phone device could allow would-be Chinese hackers to infiltrate your device, steal your identity and steal your money.
Should I use TikTok? — Should I allow my kids to use TikTok?
If you value your family’s privacy, no. YouTube and Facebook both offer similar enough video sharing features to more than make up for TikTok’s functionality. Both YouTube and Facebook are US based companies not under the Chinese government’s thumb. Why risk potentially losing your (or your child’s) personal data to China needlessly when you don’t have to?
This author definitely recommends avoiding the use of TikTok entirely. There’s really no reason to risk losing your family’s personal data to China over the use of a silly video sharing platform… a platform that already exists on YouTube and via other US operated companies.
Creators
The argument on not banning TikTok seems to stem mainly from both the TikTok executives (naturally) and from TikTok’s creators. Ignoring TikTok’s weak executive arguments for the moment, let’s focus on TikTok creators. While I agree that many creators may not have understood the ramifications of investing their creative efforts and skills into a platform of questionable origin, unfortunately they have. What that means is that a ban on TikTok in the US means that these creators must lose the audiences they have worked to gain. I get it, but that’s not reason enough.
For creators, this is a problem. However, it’s relatively simple for creators to ask their audience to move with them to a new platform. If a creator’s audience is truly committed to that creator’s content, most (if not all) of that audience should will be willing to move to any other platform that that creator may choose to use. A simple video which requests fans to sign up for and move to a new platform shouldn’t be a big deal.
If you’re a TikTok creator considering that you may lose your ability to create on the TikTok platform, you should definitely consider a movement plan to another platform. Whether that be YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat or any other short video sharing platform, moving away from TikTok is the key. You shouldn’t remain complacent and simply assume a ban won’t happen. You should take action now and, yes, complain if you like, but you should also prepare to move your fans and content to another platform. Don’t wait, take action now!
Creator arguments about engagement or loss of revenue or any other such arguments are simply not strong enough arguments to sway regulators away from the above China data sharing problem. There are too many other platforms owned and operated by US companies for such creator arguments to hold any weight at all. Simply, they don’t. This is why creators need to be proactive and take steps to plan to move both your fanbase and content to another platform now. Don’t sit on your hands and think it won’t happen. Plan ahead.
TikTok Audience versus TikTok CEO
While creators make up a relatively small portion of TikTok users, they are the ones responsible for bringing in the viewers. Still, having an audience is not an argument to keep TikTok from being banned. It’s not whether TikTok offers a valuable video sharing service, it’s that a Chinese based company manages TikTok’s data and always remains at the whims of China.
The CEO has stated that TikTok is beholden to no country, but that’s simply not a true statement. That statement cannot possibly be true. Every company must go into business under some country. Every country has laws and requirements for businesses to remain in business within that country. Bytedance incorporated its business within China. That means that Bytedance is beholden to China’s laws and regulations, no matter how, when or why they might appear. Because China’s government only appears to abide by its written laws and regulations, it only does so when it is convenient to the Chinese government. When it’s not convenient, new laws instantly come into being to cover whatever “thing” China is trying to make happen.
Instant laws don’t occur in the United States. It takes time, effort and lots of congressional or state legislator bickering and months of wrangling before a new law can come to exist. Most new laws require ballot measures to be voted on by the population, something that China doesn’t offer to its citizens.
What this all means is that TikTok’s CEO can say whatever he wants, but the realities of the way China operates remains. If Mr. Chew is so willing to lie about Bytedance’s allegiance to China, what else is Mr. Chew lying about? Lying to congressional members really doesn’t say great things about Bytedance or TikTok.
Should TikTok be banned in the United States?
We’ve come full circle from the beginning of this article. After all the above arguments are considered, I’d say that it is most definitely worth banning TikTok (and any other Chinese based apps) from the app stores. This situation shouldn’t be limited to TikTok. TikTok is simply so visible because it’s now used by more people than, in some cases, YouTube. The shear audience sizes alone for some TikTok creators means ever more and more people are signing up to use the service. Many of these new users are children (aged 17 and younger).
Children are unable to comprehend what sharing of personal data to China really means. They just see silly videos, but have no idea what information TikTok may be collecting while these children use TikTok.
Additionally, because Bytedance is a Chinese operated company, it doesn’t have to abide by federal regulations like COPPA. TikTok might choose to voluntarily comply (or simply put up a facade of doing so) as a measure of apparent goodwill. However internally, it may not at all comply with COPPA because it doesn’t have to. Because the TikTok company exists and operates outside of the US’s borders, United States federal laws don’t apply and cannot be enforced upon TikTok. This aspect right here is the single biggest elephant in the room and the single biggest reason why TikTok should be banned.
Without the federal regulations to help protect US citizens from nefarious or malicious use of data collected, Bytedance can literally do almost anything to non-Chinese citizens without any legal ramifications by the United States. Even if the United States were to try and bring suit, China wouldn’t allow it. This situation alone is why TikTok (and other Chinese operated services) should not be allowed to operate within the United States. TikTok is literally one Chinese company among many taking advantage of its Chinese locale to avoid being held accountable to United States laws.
The United States has every right to protect its citizens from unlawful interference by other countries. TikTok is one among many companies where this reality now exists, not just companies located in China. The United States legislators need to take a step back and really think long and hard about (the lack of) legislation around companies operating in countries which are mostly unfriendly to the United States.
China only tolerates the United States at this point because of the buying power the United States offers. Other than buying power, that’s where China’s civility with the US ends. China (and a Chinese operated company) doesn’t care how many people in the United States die, get maimed or get injured as a result of products made in China. The same can be said of services like TikTok. Anyone who legitimately believes that the TikTok CEO legitimately cares about United States citizens, other than for their wallets and the almighty dollar, is clearly deluded.
Yes, TikTok should be banned, along with every other app-based service operated out of unfriendly territories around the globe.
First Amendment?
Some have claimed that the First Amendment will be violated by banning TikTok. Let’s definitively state here and now that there is no First Amendment problem at play. Because TikTok is a Chinese company wholly operating out of China, Constitutional laws don’t apply to TikTok. The executives who operate TikTok aren’t United States citizens.
Even though there are United States users using the service as creators and viewers, the service itself is not bound by the United States Constitution. In effect, by you as a user choosing to invest your time and effort into putting your videos onto a wholly owned Chinese entity, you’ve effectively forfeited your right to First Amendment protections.
While some First Amendment advocates might disagree with the above stance, one thing is certain, the United States Constitution does not apply to non-US citizens… which would include any and all executives and staff who were hired and operate out of Bejing China. While it is possible that Bytedance has hired some United States citizens to help operate its service globally, that doesn’t wholly, suddenly or automatically then make Bytedance as a company bound by the United States Constitution.
↩︎
President Biden’s Classified Documents
Biden is currently the sitting President of the United States. Let’s make this perfectly clear right from the go. Does a President of the United States have legitimate access to be in possession of classified documents? Yes, but let’s explore.
Republican Agenda
Ever since the Department of Justice (DOJ) has begun investigating Donald Trump for a number of alleged wrongdoings, the Republicans have treated Biden as if he is in the wrong. While the DOJ does operate as part of the Federal Government, it is an autonomous entity not under direct control of the White House. While the White House, or more specifically President Joe Biden, can agree or disagree with the DOJ’s handling of matters, his opinion is not relevant to that department’s investigations.
Let me even clarify the heading of this section. The ‘Republican Agenda’ specifically refers to the MAGA Republican agenda, a small sect of the overall Republican party that is extreme in all aspects and is willing to take their agendas to extremes. These specific Republicans are unwilling to compromise, hold firm on conspiratorial ideals, wish for the government to topple and are doing their level best to instigate a civil war. This began under Donald Trump. Like the other MAGA Republicans, Trump also holds unrealistic and extreme points of view; points of view that are dangerous to Democracy and, frankly, to the rest of the world.
These MAGA extremist points of view may ultimately be the undoing of not only American Democracy, but unravel America itself. Meaning, the United States Government may be on the verge of disappearing if MAGA get their way… and with it, not just America, but the economies around the rest of the world. In other words, America’s economy is so intertwined with the rest of the world economies, if America falls, so will many other countries, likely including China and Russia. MAGA Republicans are playing with fire.
Mainstream Media
Unfortunately, mainstream media is helping this MAGA agenda along by pushing stories that further these MAGA narratives; narratives that only serve to undermine Democracy, but also undermines all of the foundational democratic institutional glue of the United States Democracy including the judicial system, the executive branch and the legislative branch. There is no branch of the US government that is not currently under internal siege by these MAGA extremists.
Mainstream media is making this situation worse by perpetuating and perpetrating fraudulent stories on the unsuspecting public (Democrat, Republican or Independent).
Stupidity Runs Rampant
One thing that’s become abundantly clear is that stupidity is running rampant throughout far too many MAGA Republicans. Yes, even from people who’ve been elected to government positions. These people have demonstrated they are severely under-educated and do not possess the cognitive or critical thinking skills to understand fact from fiction from fabrication. These are people who that when told something by someone even slightly trustworthy (to them), they believe every single word as though it were written as gospel in the Bible.
Mainstream media is taking full and complete advantage of this fact and are now writing not only extreme propaganda articles, they’re writing the absolute worst form of tabloid garbage. Case in point. Dailymail writes this entirely propagandistic article: THIRD batch of files found at Joe Biden’s Delaware home.
By ‘files’, this article means “classified documents.”
Presidential Power and Classified Documents
As the duties and powers confer to the duly elected President of the United States, that elected individual is given absolute clearance over the documents presented to him and created by him. This means that as President and while remaining the sitting President, that President inherits all clearance levels needed to perform and execute his or her duties as President of the United States.
This clearance level includes possession of and creation of classified documents at any level needed to perform those duties.
It also means that wherever the President chooses to work, classified documents are likely to be present, either previously created by someone else or, indeed, created BY the President of the United States himself as part of his job responsibilities. Having this clearance level is entirely part of being President of the United States.
Possession of Classified Documents as a Crime
To circle back around to that insanely stupid Dailymail article, it attempts to insinuate that Biden somehow should not be in possession of said documents. The President needs to be in possession of whatever classified documents allow him to perform and execute his responsibility as President of the United States. There is no crime here. Biden is not a criminal for being in possession of such classified documents.
Let’s liken this situation to Donald Trump. After Biden was sworn into office as President of the United States, Donald Trump became an Ex-President or if you prefer, a former president. As a former president, each former President gives up their role as sitting President including giving up access to various classified top secret documents.
Donald Trump was found to have been in possession of said documents at his Mar-A-Lago residence. However, the stark difference between Biden and Trump is that Biden is STILL the sitting President of the United States and still possesses the rights to own, hold, read and manage classified documents. Ex-President Trump, on the other hand, no longer holds the right to own, hold, read or manage such classified documents.
Questions without Answers
The question surrounding Trump is whether the documents were duly and properly declassified prior to those documents landing at Mar-A-Lago. As an Ex-President, Trump no longer holds the power to declassify such documents after leaving office. Biden, as President of the United States, still holds the power to declassify any document he chooses.
Thus, any such rousting by the Dailymail to make it appear as if Biden is somehow in the wrong or has performed a crime, there’s a simple Presidential fix. Biden, as President of the United States, can immediately and instantly declassify any and all such documents in question, leaving the people trying to make Biden look bad standing firmly with egg plastered on their faces. The President can nullify any such alleged criminal situations.
Biden being in possession of classified documents is not only NOT a crime for Biden, it’s actually part of his responsibility as President of the United States. As I said, stupidity reigns supreme with the MAGA Republicans.
Smart or Not?
The question comes down to NOT whether Biden’s possession of such documents was (or is) illegal, but whether it was a smart idea to leave them in his Delaware home. That’s the only situation that has any problems for the Government. Biden firmly has every right to BE in possession of those documents. The problem is only if those classified documents remain in the home unsecured when Biden is not actively there.
No, it’s probably not the smartest of ideas to leave such documents unattended. So long as there is sufficient security at the home to protect that home from intruders, and one would hope that as a sitting President, his home would be not only duly protected by active armed security forces, it would be outfit with an active security system. Even then, so long as the documents were placed into a properly secured safe or other such similar and nearly impenetrable storage unit, then the documents are considered properly secured even at his Delaware residence.
If someone who accessed Biden’s premises managed to gain access to such documents and read them, the illegal activity is actually on the people who found and read the documents. It is illegal for those people searching for them to be reading those documents, not Biden. Meaning, it is THEY who should be arrested for reading Biden’s classified documents.
Biden’s Desk
It gets worse. Any document that Biden writes while sitting at his desk could be considered instantly classified from the moment the pen hits paper. This means that finding a piece of paper with writing sitting on top of any desk, surface or object within Biden’s home could always be considered classified at some level. That means that anyone reading such documents without any clearance level granted could be considered having committed a crime. Not Biden, mind you, but the reader.
If there’s a crime having been committed here, it’s the people who infiltrated Biden’s home to find such classified documents. That means that the United States has a major security problem on its hands around Biden’s home.
If people (likely MAGA Republicans) are so easily able to penetrate the President’s residence to find such documents, security is no where near where it should be for that residence. This is clearly both a crime called breaking and entering and possibly even stalking.
Biden’s Security
Someone on Biden’s security team needs to quickly ferret out who gained access to the Biden Delaware home and how they managed to gain that access. This is a question no one is asking. However, this is a serious security breach at the top levels of government. No one should have access to Biden’s home with the exception of the Biden family and the Presidential security detail. All others should not be allowed onto the premises unless under escort by said security and only when a member of the Biden family is present. Otherwise, the Biden house should be firmly and completely secured and barred from entry except for Biden family members only. In other words, “Houston, we have a problem.”
Apples to Oranges
Let me get to the heart of why this all matters. Someone or several someones in the MAGA Republican party is simply trying to craft an illusion that appears like Trump’s classified document situation. This crafted situation is intended to make it seem like there’s something hypocritical going on. Except, there isn’t.
The only way the same situation between Trump and Biden can unfold is only after Biden leaves office as President. Only then can Biden be held accountable for holding onto classified documents at a personal residence.
While Biden remains a sitting President of the United States, he is a duly sworn officer of the United States Government and remains in power with all of the duties, responsibilities and, yes, clearances needed to perform that job.
On the other hand, Trump lost those powers, duties and clearances the moment he left office as President. For this reason alone, there is absolutely no comparison here.
Trump’s legal woes over classified documents remain. Donald Trump has no right, power or clearance to hold onto such still classified documents at his Mar-A-Lago residence. Biden, on the other hand, still holds every right, power and clearance to BE in possession of such classified documents wherever he chooses to work.
What Trump has done may be found to be illegal. What Biden has done (and continues to do) is perform his duties as sitting President of the United States. Until Biden leaves office, no crime has been committed involving classified documents. Dailymail, your article is a red herring and it’s damaging America.
Mainstream Media Stirring the Pot
Such articles by the likes of Dailymail only seek to stir the pot of dissent. They use people’s stupidity against them by making it seem like someone is in the wrong when clearly they are not. Thus, it only comes down to the editors and producers of said articles earnestly trying to undermine Democracy by making something appear as illegal when it clearly is not.
What Trump has done may very well be illegal and that remains to be seen by the investigations the DOJ is performing. Biden has done nothing yet illegal, but it might not be the brightest of ideas leaving such documents lying around in the open. Joe Biden, buy a proper document safe.
However, the question remains, how did someone gain access to Biden’s Delaware home to find such documents? No one should be allowed on the premises without Biden’s or his Secret Service detail’s authorization.
Something around Biden’s situation is clearly amiss, but it has nothing to do with classified documents. No one is investigating this.
Dailymail Comments
Reading some of the entirely misguided and, dare I say, stupid comments I’ve read on that Dailymail site, it’s clear that stupidity reigns supreme among MAGA conservatives. It’s like MAGA Republicans check their brains at the door when they walk into a room. They want to find anything and everything to attempt to discredit and, ultimately, impeach Biden. They are even willing to attempt to turn Biden’s daily and standard Presidential duties into a criminal activity.
While impeachment (using whatever junk they can fabricate) may be possible with the House now under Republican control, there is absolutely no way the Democrat controlled Senate will ever vote to convict and remove Biden from office. The MAGA Republicans know this, but they’re still trying quite hard and stupidly to discredit Biden. The only thing the MAGA Republicans are doing is making sure they never ever get elected again.
That’s the reason for such lame and stupid arguments as in this insipid Dailymail article allegedly finding classified documents at Biden’s residence. I’d honestly be more surprised if there WEREN’T classified documents found at Biden’s residences.
Planted Documents
Some have also supposed that the documents were planted by Republicans. While anything’s possible with MAGA extremists, they wouldn’t need to plant classified documents at Biden’s residence. Biden has been actively working at this residence and it makes perfect sense that some classified documents might remain there.
The question isn’t whether the documents were planted or even why the documents are there, but how someone managed to infiltrate Biden’s residence to find them? Why was someone snooping about Biden’s property? How did they get in? Why were they reading said classified documents of a sitting President without permission? These are bigger, more important security questions that need to be addressed… especially by Biden’s Secret Service Detail.
Vice President Documents
To close this article, you’ll notice that I didn’t mention the fact that these documents were from Biden’s time as Vice President until just now. Why is this fact not important? It’s not important because very likely there’s no way to establish exactly when the documents landed at Biden’s Delaware home. The presumption is that these documents landed at his home prior to Biden becoming President. We can’t know this.
Unless strict chain of custody for ALL classified documents is maintained, including exact dates when said documents changed hands, there is very likely no way to verify the exact date any specific document ended up at Biden’s home. Additionally, as President, Biden might need access to classified documents back from his a time as Vice President to handle matters occurring today. For this reason, he could have requested those documents and brought them to his home WHILE PRESIDENT… which is perfectly legal.
Finally, I’ll also point out that while the DOJ is investigating these documents found at his residence, they will likely exonerate Biden over all of the above points. I also hope that someone at the DOJ is smart enough to point out the security flaws and weaknesses with people snooping around Biden’s home in search of such documents… which honestly discloses the much, MUCH bigger problem here.
Let’s Suppose
Even if it’s possible to establish the documents were kept at the Biden residence prior to Biden becoming President, the fact that he is NOW President of the United States overrides that problem. The fact that he has clearance NOW overrides his possession of them when he wasn’t president and wasn’t vice president. Let’s take this one step further. The only way this information can truly be used against Biden is at an impeachment hearing.
The DOJ cannot easily (or possibly at all) bring criminal charges against a sitting President of the United States for activity prior to his being in office. The US Constitution is crystal clear on how to remove a President from office and that is strictly through impeachment and conviction via the House and Senate. That same constitution is entirely silent on bringing criminal charges against a sitting president and, up to this point, so has the Supreme Court remained silent on this point.
Political Stunt
This update is from Feb 4th, 2023. I’d like to point that in the same form as Republicans always like to call out against the Democrats, the Republicans are now guilty of doing exactly the same thing TO the Democrats. This whole situation is born out of a Republican agenda to discredit the Democrats. The point in “lawyers” “finding” documents at Biden’s home is strictly for the purposes of trying to weaken any DOJ case against Donald Trump.
The point here is that Donald Trump wants leverage when a DOJ lawsuit is finally brought against him (DJT). Trump can now point to Biden as an example of “the same classified document situation” and then ask why Biden is not being brought to justice over having similar documents at his house.
Let’s summarize the primary differences here:
- One is president, one is not…
- Biden is the sitting President of the United States.
- Donald Trump is NOT president.
- When exactly the documents arrived at the dwellings in question…
- It cannot be established when Biden’s documents arrived at Biden’s Delaware home (i.e., before or after his presidency).
- Donald Trump’s documents definitely arrived at Mar-A-Lago AFTER Trump left the White House and was, thus, no longer President and no longer held clearances high enough to possess some of those supposedly (de)classified documents.
- Level of Classified Documents…
- Biden’s documents were from a time when Biden was Vice President. It has not been established the level of classified documents involved, but likely were NOT the highest levels of top secret.
- Allegedly, some of Trump’s classified documents involved documents so Top Secret, they could not be declassified by a sitting President under any circumstances.
These three basic points are what the Department of Justice must establish against both Biden and Trump. However, Biden is still the sitting President. Even if the DOJ were to find criminal actions allegedly involving Biden, his being President overrules that criminal action. It is unlikely Biden can have any criminal actions brought against him while he is sitting President of the United States.
The only action afforded against a sitting President is those powers given to Congress to impeach (House) and convict (Senate) the President. Even then, these powers are political in nature, performed by politicians, not judicial actions performed by a justice or jury. In other words, there is no other actions available to the government against a sitting President.
The DOJ could hold its legal actions against Biden until Biden is no longer President. As long as Biden remains President, he is shielded from criminal actions by the DOJ. That doesn’t preclude individuals from suing Joe Biden in civil court, but the best that can be extracted from such civil actions is money. Civil proceedings are never criminal actions and cannot produce criminal consequences.
Difference between Biden and Trump
As for Donald Trump, his classified document case is fairly clear cut in most regards. The only real questions that must be answered around Donald Trump’s case is, “Were the documents actually declassified?” It is on the DOJ to establish whether or not some or all of the documents were declassified. If all of the documents were declassified, then there’s no case against Trump. If the DOJ had established this by now, then the DOJ would have already dismissed its case. It has not.
Further, it is also on the DOJ to prove that if some of documents couldn’t be declassified by a sitting President, then there is now a clear violation by Donald Trump in retaining those documents after becoming an ex-President.
Once the DOJ has established that Donald Trump had classified documents in his possession and that those documents were not declassified (and at what level), then it is on the DOJ to establish the level of crime that Donald Trump committed while by being in possession of said documents. After this point, it is, once again, on the DOJ to further ascertain if foreign nationals visited Mar-A-Lago (via registration at Mar-A-Lago and/or flight records and/or cab records and or rental car records) and determine if those visiting foreign nationals might have had access to said documents in Donald Trump’s possession.
Being in possession of classified documents is a separate crime (possession) from allowing foreign nationals access and, more importantly, to view and read such classified documents (espionage / treason).
The Department of Justice has a long road of research ahead for all of the above.
With Biden, possession of such classified documents isn’t currently a crime. Even then, the only way to try and convict Biden is through impeachment. With Trump, there is absolutely nothing shielding Trump against such criminal legal actions. Trump can try to point at Biden as an example, but Biden’s Presidential shield is pretty impenetrable. Trump has no such shield at all against DOJ actions. Even as much as Trump wishes to use Biden as a punching bag, it’s not going to work in the long run.
Once the DOJ chooses to bring criminal action against Trump, there’s nothing Trump can say, do or point fingers at that will reduce his liabilities… no, not even Biden’s having documents at his Delaware home.
Political Stunt Conclusion
And yes, the entire reason for Trump to use Biden as a “classified documents” punching bag is strictly a political stunt. It hasn’t even been established if the documents were planted at Biden’s residence strictly to facilitate this political stunt. Knowing Trump’s callous disregard for, well, just about any law in existence, there’s absolutely know way to know if Trump orchestrated this whole shenanigan against Biden. If I were working in the Government, I’d definitely begin an investigation over the lawyers who allegedly found these documents at Biden’s residence to find out what connections they may have to Trump…. see six degrees of separation.
Note: Randocity prefers using Reuters and the AP as sources whenever possible. These two news organizations have regularly proven to be mostly unbiased when reporting, unlike all major TV “cable news” networks.
Have a thought or idea to discuss? Please leave a comment below. If you like reading Randocity, please click the follow button in your mobile app or web browser.
↩︎
Republican Brinkmanship
The Republican party has a cancer within. That cancer is fairly obvious as well. You might be thinking, “Well, what is that cancer?” That’s today’s article. Let’s explore.
Democrats
Before I get into the meat of this article, let me be perfectly clear. The Democrat party isn’t a bunch of saints. Oh, no no no. These Democrat Senators and House representatives have their own fair share of problems, too. It’s just that at this very moment, the Republican party is in much more shambles than the Democrats. At least the Democrats did not urge their constituents to lay siege to Capitol Hill. The Democrat party is also at least holding onto the purpose of their platform unity and party, unlike many in the Republican party.
Note, I’m not planning on getting into the ‘right’ vs ‘left’ arguments in this article. Why? Because the cancer within the Republican party has nothing to do with ‘right’ vs ‘left’ points of view and everything to do with embracing the wrong ideology for this political party.
Republicans and Trump
The Republicans (also known as the Grand Old Party or GOP) is a party that stretches back to somewhere around 1854. Today (or at least prior to Trump’s election as President), the party’s platform primarily espoused conservative leanings and smaller government. Not all party members believe in that point of view, but most of the Republicans do.
Enter Trump in 2016. Trump is a capitalist businessman who is the child of a wealthy well-to-do real estate family. Much of his fortune was inherited from his parents. However, he has also made a mark for himself in real estate. His tactics have been mostly ruthless in his business dealings. That became fairly obvious fairly quickly once he took office as President, but it should have been obvious on his earlier TV reality show, The Apprentice… where the point was to fire those who didn’t perform. That firing action is actually a key element of the show and you could tell that Trump actually enjoyed every minute of that segment. One might even assume that Trump enjoys inflicting pain on others.
As Trump stepped into power, so began his concerted effort to win the 2020 election even in 2016. He sowed seeds of discontent and doubt surrounding the election early. His whole “mail in ballot” rhetoric began very early in his tenure as President and then he ramped it dramatically over time. It was clear that Trump intended to try and subvert the election process in some way if he could. He sowed these seeds early to let the weeds grow, and grow they did.
He gained a substantial following of people with extremist points of view… with people who wholeheartedly believe conspiratorial efforts are under foot. That, most importantly, the Democrats hold enough sway and power to actually subvert an election… never mind that the Democrat party is no more or less powerful than the Republican party. In fact, the Republican party was more powerful than the Democrat party with Trump elected, yet Donald Trump needed to pretend that the Democrat party had the upper hand so he could force lies down people’s throats.
More specifically, Trump offered a big election lie that somehow the Democrats subverted the election and managed to get Joe Biden elected by cheating. Trump tried time and time again to put forth his election rigged assertion in court. Every court that reviewed his claims dismissed the suit as meritless… yes, even from judges who were appointed by Trump himself. None of the judges would entertain that the election was “rigged”. Trump simply had no proof. However, there were a lot of statements from people who claimed to work for the election, but they were simply statements with no proof to back up the claims. They were mere accusations, or lies, if you will.
Trump’s Presidency
As Trump grows his presidency through his 4 years, he begins facing the real possibility of being a one-term president. He realizes that the populous could, in fact, choose a new candidate and force Trump out. Trump has already admitted that he’s not a good loser. Well, that’s as obvious as the day is long. To avoid his being ousted, Trump begins the election lie early… by targeting mail-in ballots. His attack on mail-in ballots is the basis for beginning the “big lie” that grew and grew over time… particularly once it was clear that Trump had lost both the popular vote and the election and the fact that COVID-19 more or less ensured mail-in ballots.
After his lie begin in earnest, Trump was relentless in perpetuating this lie every day after the election closed. Not only did he perpetuate the lie using his voice via videos, he perpetuated it on Twitter and social media and by enlisting his Republican party-mates to help him perpetuate his lie. He even enlisted his attorney to lie for him. Anyone Trump could enlist to perpetuate his lie he would manipulate and use. Trump’s lie agenda stopped at nothing to make sure his lie could reach far and wide.
This lie not only continued unabated, it grew to a point where gullible voters began believing this lie because such news services like Fox News perpetuated this lie through its very own anchors spreading false narratives. Even to this day, Trump still insists on perpetuating this election lie… an outrageous lie that is actually so absurd that anyone with half a brain can realize there’s no possible way that the election could have been rigged in the way that Trump has claimed. Trump could have at least tried to come up with an election narrative that was even marginally believable, but he didn’t. You don’t have to be a Republican or a Democrat to see the absolute absurdity in his lie.
Republican Party
The lie by itself wouldn’t have been a problem on its own. However, it’s how Trump mobilized that lie into action by extremist groups that led to the riot on Capitol Hill on January 6th.
Trump supporters would like to disconnect each linked event from one another and claim that the whole isn’t the sum of its parts. Meaning, that Trump’s connection to Qanon months earlier had nothing to do with those Qanon groups that up showed up on Capitol Hill on January 6th. Again, anyone with half a brain could figure out that these events were conclusively linked. One would not have happened without the other. It was these series of events that are all linked together and which led up to the riot on Capitol Hill.
Trump can most certainly feign ignorance over the matter, but that’s not only disingenuous, it’s an outright lie. Trump knew most certainly who Qanon was months before the election. He knew exactly what they were capable of doing… that’s the reason he invited them to Capitol Hill. That’s the reason he invited all of those extremist groups to Capitol Hill. You can’t invite extremist groups to an event and then not expect extremism to occur. That’s like hiring a clown for a party and then claiming you didn’t know the clown would act like a clown.
Speaking of parties, let’s move into the meat of this article. The Republican party has allowed and indeed perpetuated Trumps lies and cancer to infect the party. The party has even endorsed elections of people into House and Senator Republican roles who have extremist viewpoints and potential extremist affiliations. In other words, the Republican party appears to have been infiltrated by extremist groups. Yet, the Republican party turns a blind eye to all of this.
Republican Insanity
The Republican party was formerly about conservatism, smaller government and lower governmental spending. Today, the new extremist version of the Republican party is more about bearing arms to coerce people into action and tell lies that get people to mobilize. That form of extremism has no place in any political party, Democrats, Republican, Libertarian or Independent. Governing people in congress is about words, not about violent actions.
Worse, these extremist republican party members… who will remain nameless because you know who you are… are about as dumb as a brick if they think the American people (Republican or Democrat) won’t see through their failures and lies while in office.
For example, by ignoring the Impeachment trial, by failing to vote to convict, that sends a clear message, not that Donald Trump is innocent, but that the Republican party is firmly corrupt. Any elected Republican who actually believes that the extremist Republican contingent is large enough to vote to keep these sad lying sacks in office is literally delusional.
The vast majority of Americans, Republican or Democrat, do not hold extremist beliefs. They do not believe that guns and violence are the answer. Most Americans know that guns and violence aren’t an answer. Yet, you have an elected Republican official holding up his fist in solidarity towards known radicalized extremist groups who believe in conspiracies… people who are the exception, not the rule. What does that solidarity say? It doesn’t say good things. As I said, the vast majority of Americans believe in the rule of law, not in radical extremist agendas, such as attacking Capitol Hill by beating cops over the head with the American Flag or by pummeling them with fire extinguisher.
For so many duly elected Republicans to actually believe in violent extremism says that these people are literally delusional. Worse, these elected people aren’t likely to remain in office come next election… if those elected officials can even manage to remain in office that long. Few Americans want someone who’s literally loony toons representing them… particularly people who endorse violence against other Americans.
Impeachment Voting
What it comes down to is how these Republican Senators choose to vote. Their vote says all that it needs to say about those in the Republican party.
Literally, President Trump incited into action groups known to have extremist tendencies. He used ‘fighting words‘ like ‘Fight Like Hell’ which is not in any way protected speech. Inciting people into action regardless of whether you knew that it would erupt into violence, but that did is enough to exempt those words from First Amendment Rights. The sheer action caused by the utterance of the words ensures the words are not protected speech.
A number of people have tried arguing Trump’s ignorance of Q and their motives. Yet, those arguments are effectively invalid. You might not know the first time, but you would definitely know the second time. Inviting known extremist groups to a rally and then setting them loose with those words defines those words as ‘fighting words’ which are excluded from First Amendment protections.
These Republicans who wish to ignore all of the above and attempt to paint a picture of an ignoramus President is about is sincere someone running a red light camera and stating the picture is not them, when it clearly is.
We have not only the speech that President Trump let loose just minutes before the riot, but we also have images from within Capitol Hill showing the damage inflicted not only on the building grounds, but the injuries sustained to the police and the deaths which occurred. It clearly shows a sad day for America when a sitting President lets loose an extremist mob on Capitol Hill to inflict as much damage as they can.
It gets worse when the President sits idly by and does nothing to stop the mob and everything to reward them with the words, “We love you. You’re very special.” What rational President does this to his own party members?
Capitol Hill Police Involvement
Some have argued that part of this blame is on the Capitol Hill police being unprepared. To a degree, this is true. If Capitol Hill police had adequately prepared for a mob to descend on Capitol Hill, it’s entirely possible the mob wouldn’t have even breached the perimeter. Shoulda-woulda-coulda. While the police do have some culpability in not properly and adequately preparing for a mob that day, Trump shouldn’t have even held a rally that day. Yet, he did.
Trump’s sole goal was to disrupt, stop and halt the counting of the electoral college votes. He wanted the whole thing to fall apart… not that halting the vote count would have stopped Biden from taking office as the electoral college vote verification is largely a symbolic gesture.
Still, the disruption from the mob only delayed the inevitable. The vote count proceeded later into the evening after the mob had disbursed. What Trump hoped would happen, didn’t. Yet, the event occurred, terrifying members of congress, including the Vice President.
Republican Senators
What it comes down to in the ongoing impeachment trial is that many Republican Senators are treating the impeachment as if it’s a joke, that it’s not real. It is real and it’s going to go down in the history books. Additionally, those who vote against impeaching Donald Trump are likely to lose their position, not keep it.
Why? Because the American people don’t like lying, cheating, violence condoning, delusional people representing them. Any elected Republican Senator who believes that voting against impeachment will somehow curry favor with the voters will instead find themselves out of office come next election, if not sooner than that by being forced out or recalled. If you want to stay in office, they must to vote for impeachment.
Voting for impeachment means to uphold the constitution, America, disavow violence and prevent a morally bankrupt President from trashing the presidency on the way out. Voting against impeachment means that that Senator believes in selfishness, that violence is the answer and that a President can do whatever they want whenever they want. That’s not why Senators are voted into office. If you, as a Senator, cannot even do the job you were voted into office to do, then expect to be expelled… if not immediately, then at the next election.
Simply put, voting against impeachment means you are an untrustworthy Senator. If a Senator thinks that America will reward them for being untrustworthy, they’re completely delusional. America will not reward you with another term for perpetuating a baseless lie… a lie that proves that you are untrustworthy.
Make No Mistake
Republicans also seem to be under the delusional belief that they were somehow protected during the Capitol Hill riots. I can guarantee you that ANY party member would have been attacked if found: Republican or Democrat. You can’t tame a mob. If any of those mob rioters had found a sitting Senator or House member of any party, the mob members would have acted first and asked questions later. Meaning, Republican or Democrat wouldn’t have mattered to those extremists. They would have attacked any member of congress on sight if they had been able to.
Republicans seem to be under some delusional belief that those extremists were only after the Democrats. Wake up! They were after you too. Certainly they were after Mike Pence. They were after and would have attacked ANY congressional member of any party affiliation without hesitancy. That Republicans seem to think that they were somehow protected during the mob incursion is an insane point of view which is justified in their own minds, but has no basis in reality.
If you can manage to get another Republican President elected in your lifetime, you’ll be lucky. It’s going to be a very long time before much of America will trust Republicans, particularly if the majority of Republican Senators vote against impeachment. Wake up, Republicans… do what’s right before it’s too late to salvage what’s left of your shattered party. Many Americans have been wanting to do away with the two-party system. Well, this may very well be the opportunity to make that a reality.
↩︎
Is the GameStop stock run collusion and conspiracy?
This is exactly what Wall Street and SEC regulators are now trying to determine. Let’s explore.
Reddit and GME
A subreddit named wallstreetbets has surfaced and it appears to be the location where a large group of people (on the order of 250k or more people) are congregating. The difficulty is, it seems that this subreddit is being used to coordinate efforts to manipulate the GameStop (GME) stock to affect the following:
- Lose money for the hedge funds which are shorting this stock
- Manipulate the price upward heavily to make money
The question remains, is this considered a form of market manipulation, collusion and/or conspiracy?
What is Collusion?
Investopedia states:
Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between rivals which attempts to disrupt the market’s equilibrium. The act of collusion involves people or companies which would typically compete against one another, but who conspire to work together to gain an unfair market advantage.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/collusion.asp
The subreddit has, so far, been a public forum that anyone can join. It was private for only a very brief period of time on January 27th, 2020. As a result, it doesn’t fall under the ‘secret’ category.
The Oxford Dictionary defines collusion as:
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
Oxford English Dictionary
This is minimal in terms of what it says, but one thing it does clarify is that it doesn’t necessarily need to be ‘secret’.
Wikipedia defines collusion as:
Collusion is a deceitful agreement or secret cooperation between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal right. Collusion is not always considered illegal. It can be used to attain objectives forbidden by law; for example, by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion
Based on all of these definitions above, it does appear that “gathering a group of people together” to “gain an unfair market advantage” is probably enough to be considered collusion. As Wikipedia states, not all collusion is illegal. However, defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage IS illegal.
Sticking It to the Man
While the wallstreetbets subreddit believes they are “sticking it to the billionaires”, they may, in fact, be sticking it to themselves. I see this situation as the virtual equivalent of the mob insurrection on Capitol Hill. While that situation wasn’t considered ‘collusion’, it does bear a lot of similarities to the Capitol Hill situation.
How? This GME reddit is 250k people all congregating to a achieve a common goal… to raise the price of the GME stock and, at the same time, stick it to the hedge fund investors who were heavily shorting the stock.
Stock Shorting
I’m going to take a little bit of a detour here to explain stock shorting. When a hedge fund shorts a stock, they are “hedging” that the stock’s price will go down. If the stock price does go down, the hedge fund makes money through borrowing, selling, then buying back the stock and then returning the stock to the lender. If the stock price goes up, however, the hedge fund must still buy and sell the stock at a loss (see below).
Stock shorts are actually buying and selling of borrowed stock. The hedge fund borrows a specified number of shares from a broker, then sells the stock immediately at the current price. For example, they could borrow 1 share and sell it at $100 market price. $100 goes into their brokerage account. When the price goes down to $50, they buy the stock back at that $50 price ($50 goes out of their brokerage account), then they return the stock to the lender and keep the $50 difference in their account. It’s a way for the hedge funds to make money without ever having to own that stock. Technically, you could do this with anything, such as a car, but the odds of a successfully shorting with a car are much lower.
Now that we understand how you can make money on shorts, let’s apply this to what the redditors are doing with GME and find out more about whether this is collusion, conspiracy or both. Someone in the wallstreetbets subreddit thread determined that GameStop, AMC Theaters, Bed Bath and Beyond and perhaps even other stocks were heavily shorted by hedge funds.
Hedge funds typically place a lot of stock shorts on companies that are on the verge of collapse. It makes sense. If a company is on the verge of going out of business, the odds of the stock dropping go up dramatically. Therefore, hedge funds heavily short the stock to make money. By ‘heavily’, they borrow as much stock as they can get their hands on. The more they borrow, they more they can make if the price drops.
What happens if the price goes up?
This is where shorting stock becomes a big, big problem. Should the price go up, the hedge fund is now responsible to pay for the loss. Let’s go back to the example above.
- Borrow 1 share and sell it for $100
- Market price goes up to $150
- Hedge fund must buy it for $150 and loses $50 in addition to the $100 they gained in the first sale.
Here is what the subreddit people are attempting to do by forcing these hedge funds to lose money. With stock shorts, there is no limit on the losses. As the stock price is driven ever higher, the hedge funds lose more and more money when their short position comes due and they are forced to buy it back at a loss. For example, if they borrowed and sold 1000 shares at $3 (1,000 * 3 = $3,000) and stock price goes up to $300 (1,000 * 300 = $300,000), when they are forced to buy it back because the lender wants it back, they are forced to pay $297,000 (in addition to the $3,000 they gained by selling it initially) to cover the cost of buying that stock at its current price. Because hedge funds buy these low priced “in danger” company’s stock, they bet that the stock price will go down. This proves that there is no cap on losses when shorting.
Because of the market forces with the wallstreetbets subreddit, this very large group of people have worked together (colluded) to ensure the price goes up to an extremely high price… one that forces the hedge fund to cash out and lose money (conspire) and also force the stock price higher so those who got in first can make a lot of money (market manipulation to an advantage).
Collusion, SEC and DOJ
Here’s where this situation becomes a problem in the same way as the Capitol Hill mob. Social media allows people to post anything they want and discuss whatever is on their mind. It’s very freeing, but it can also be equally damning. In this case, both the SEC regulators have a reason to go looking in much the same way as the DOJ went looking for Capitol Hill mob participants.
People participating in the wallstreetbets subreddit have left breadcrumbs to their person. Meaning, by writing into that thread, it gives the SEC regulators a way to track down who you are, where you are and whether you participated. For those not living in the United States, the DOJ might not be able to do much. However, for those who are in the United States, the DOJ can lay claim on you.
Collusion and conspiracy isn’t taken lightly. In this specific case, the wallstreetbets subreddit had the ability to push the GME stock from less than $10 to over $300 in about a week. That’s definitely market manipulation. If using this subreddit to tell everyone hold or sell or buy, that definitely manipulates the market and because all people are doing it at once can be seen as a form of collusion and market manipulation. Manipulating the market to gain an advantage is illegal. Doing it using collusion makes that collusion illegal. On top of that, attempting to force a bad outcome on someone else is considered conspiracy.
Penalties
Let’s understand now what the penalties for collusion are:
Most criminal antitrust prosecutions involve price fixing, bid rigging, or market division or allocation schemes. Each of these forms of collusion may be prosecuted criminally if they occurred, at least in part, within the past five years. Proving such a crime does not require us to show that the conspirators entered into a formal written or express agreement.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/price-fixing-bid-rigging-and-market-allocation-schemes
From the above DOJ’s web site, we can see that market division or allocation schemes may be prosecuted criminally. Further, the DOJ doesn’t have to show that the conspirators entered into an agreement. The word conspirators is the noun form of conspire. Also, because it states “Most” to open this paragraph, it means the DOJ is open to other forms, not just those listed.
Definition of conspire:
(of events or circumstances) seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someone’s detriment.
Oxford English Dictionary
In this case, the conspiracy is to bring down the hedge funds by forcing them to lose money. That definitely wreaks of conspiracy. At the same time, the conspirators gain a market advantage by driving up the price to make money.
Let’s go back to that DOJ article from above and describe what the penalties actually are:
Enacted in 1890, the Sherman Act is among our country’s most important and enduring pieces of economic legislation. The Sherman Act prohibits any agreement among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or engage in other anticompetitive activity. Criminal prosecution of Sherman Act violations is the responsibility of the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/price-fixing-bid-rigging-and-market-allocation-schemes
Violation of the Sherman Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $10 million for corporations, and a fine of up to $350,000 or 3 years imprisonment (or both) for individuals, if the offense was committed before June 22, 2004. If the offense was committed on or after June 22, 2004, the maximum Sherman Act fine is $100 million for corporations and $1 million for individuals, and the maximum Sherman Act jail sentence is 10 years. Under some circumstances, the maximum potential fine may be increased above the Sherman Act maximums to twice the gain or loss involved.
That means that anyone who is found to have participated in this scheme, which should be readily apparent by reading comments on that subreddit, may be liable for $1 million for EACH violation and up to 10 years in prison. The fine could be well more than this if the gain from the market advantage ended up more than the fine itself.
Participation?
If you participated in this, don’t think that the Department of Justice can’t find you. They most certainly can. Think about all of the people they have found from the mob on Capitol Hill. The DOJ can subpoena reddit for the IP address used, then trace it back to your ISP also with a subpoena, then trace it back to the household where that IP resided at that moment in time, then send someone to the home. It’s only a matter of tracking the specific person who posted on reddit which can be easily done by reviewing the devices in the household (via warrant confiscation). Yes, they can confiscate your devices including your phone.
If the SEC regulators determine collusion and conspiracy were involved (and it looks more and more likely), then every individual who participated may find themselves in court, fined at least $1 million, have a felony on their record and may face up to 10 years in prison.
The hedge funds may or may not get their money back. The government could distribute the collected fines to the hedge funds to help offset their losses. However, the hedge funds may also be able to bring their own lawsuits against each individual separately should the SEC find foul play in this situation. That means that in addition to the DOJ’s own penalties, the hedge funds may also have legal recourse against every individual who participated.
Social Media
When participating in such actions, social media is not your friend. It holds onto and remembers everything you say and do. Because you volunteered that information to that social network, you gave up the right to the privacy of that data by posting it. That means that you brought the wrath down upon yourself by participating.
Investing and Collusion
Investing alone with no participation in the subreddit thread may not be seen as collusion by the SEC. People have the right to buy and sell stocks at any time. So long as they’re buying and selling stocks on their own and those sales cannot be traced back to participation in a wider collusive conspiratorial effort, then it shouldn’t be considered collusion or conspiracy. Though, you might still be called or visited if you bought into GME stock and have been determined to have visited reddit or Twitter or discussed anything about this situation.
However, those people who can be definitively traced to both bumping the stock price up AND participating in the subreddit to affect others to “do the same”, particularly with regards to conspiring against the hedge funds, these people may be brought up on charges of collusion, conspiracy and market manipulation.
If you’re reading this article and you’ve participated, deleting your posts may not protect you. If your post has lived for more than 24 hours on reddit or Twitter, it’s very likely on a backup that the DOJ can request. Deleting the post from the interface may not be enough to prevent the DOJ from finding your involvement.
Just Starting
The SEC investigation into collusion, conspiracy and market manipulation is just beginning. The SEC and DOJ will take their time before they start tracking down individuals and arresting them. Just as it has taken weeks to track people down to arrest the mob on Capitol Hill (which is still ongoing), it might take weeks or months to track down everyone involved in the GME market manipulation. Don’t think you’re safe if the DOJ hasn’t visited you yet. The DOJ isn’t under any time constraint to round up and charge individuals in any specific time frame. They will do it on their time, which could be months or even years later.
↩︎
Countdown: 100 days of Mask Wearing
Let’s count down President Biden’s National 100 days of mask wearing. Incidentally, it also counts down the first 100 days of Joe Biden’s Presidency.
days
hours minutes seconds
until
President Joe Biden’s National
100 Days of Mask Wearing ends.
Are Trump’s final Pardons legal?
The United States Constitution has very specific language defining how and when the Presidential power of pardons and reprieves can and cannot be used. Let’s explore.
Constitutional Language
From Article II, Section 2, here is the language that defines the President’s powers. Note, styles have been added for clarification purposes.
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
U.S. Constitution => Article II => Section 2
At the end of this paragraph, we have an exception to and limitation of the previous power, “grant reprieves and pardons”. Some might argue that this exception covers the entire paragraph describing his powers as a whole, but this exception immediately follows the definition of the President’s aforementioned “grant reprieves and pardons” power. While the exception may cover all of his power in a logical sense after full impeachment AND conviction and having been removed from power, it doesn’t make sense to cover all of his powers while he still holds office after impeachment, but before the trial. He must still remain commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, for example.
Instead, I believe that this specific language, because it appears directly after the “grant reprieves and pardons” language is intended to narrowly apply solely to the power of granting reprieves and pardons, not to the entire paragraph.
Logically, this interpretation makes the most sense because you wouldn’t want a President who is in the process of being impeached to flurry pardon both himself and those who might have been involved, thus nullifying the entire impeachment proceeding. Meaning, the power given to Congress to impeach the President must not be allowed a loophole by the President to avoid impeachment.
Trump’s Pardons and Reprieves
While the language of the constitution is clear on what powers the President has, it has exclusions when specific powers are unavailable to the President as defined just above.
Let’s examine Trump’s flurry of pardons on the way out of office. Because of the way the constitution language is written, it seems that Trump’s final flurry of reprieves and pardons on the way out, but which occurred after his second impeachment on January 13, 2021 may not be constitutionally valid or legal. According to the constitution, the President forfeits the power of reprieves and pardons “in cases of impeachment” or, more specifically, during impeachment proceedings.
One can argue that Trump lost this power during his first impeachment. He did. However, that impeachment ended in acquittal… thus restoring all powers to him that he would have lost between the House’s impeachment, but before the Senate trial concluded in acquittal. If he had made any pardons during that impeachment period in 2019, those would also be constitutionally invalid.
Our Framers’ Logic
The framers of the constitution would have logically understood the impeachment process fully. After all, they designed it. The framers understood that impeachment is a two step process requiring both the House and the Senate to participate. They also understood that because these two houses must work together to complete the process, there could be delays between the time the House approves their impeachment resolution and the time the Senate begins and concludes the impeachment trial.
These same framers also understood that because of the time required to complete the impeachment process in full, the President could use his power of pardons and reprieves to nullify the very reason for the impeachment itself. To avoid this design flaw in the process, the framers included the clause ‘except in cases of impeachment‘ to limit the use of this Presidential power during impeachment proceedings and thus avoid the possibility the President could pardon himself or others and nullify the entire impeachment.
Legal vs Illegal Pardons
The point to all of this is that President Trump, at the time before he left office, was still under impeachment proceedings. This clause in the constitution would then suspend Trump’s power of reprieves and pardons until the impeachment had reached full conclusion: acquittal or conviction.
Because Trump’s impeachment is still ongoing as of this article (and was at the time of his exit from office), any reprieves and pardons he signed after the House passed its Article of Impeachment would be constitutionally illegal and thus, null and void.
If Trump had remained in office after conclusion of the Senate’s impeachment trial AND if the trial resulted in his acquittal, his power of reprieves and pardons would be restored. He could have then reissued those reprieves and pardons to make each of them legal and valid. However, Trump is no longer President as his term has ended. His ability to reissue those reprieves and pardons has ended. This means that all of the reprieves and pardons that Trump issued after January 13th, 2021 are constitutionally invalid and must remain invalid in perpetuity.
President Joe Biden, the now current President, could reinstate those reprieves and pardons on Trump’s behalf if he so chooses, but that would require Joe Biden to agree to reissue those specific reprieves and pardons on behalf of Donald Trump.
↩︎
Should the Senate conclude Trump’s Impeachment Trial?
Now that Donald Trump has left office, some Trump fans believe the completion of the impeachment process is now “unconstitutional” and “null and void”, since Trump is no longer President. Let’s explore if this is true.
In or Out of Office?
Let’s understand the laws of our land to understand better the constitutionality of the impeachment process. While the constitution is mostly clear on impeachment, it’s not 100% clear on when and how impeachment may occur under ALL possible circumstances and conditions. This is why interpretation must occur in these special cases. However, interpretation doesn’t mean pulling conclusions out of the air. Instead, it means looking for existing precedents of law in which to guide that interpretation to logical and legal conclusion.
Constitution Excerpts
Let’s look to the United States Constitution (link to a PDF version) to read its language regarding impeachment:
Note that any italics, bold, highlights or <sic> have been added by this author for clarification purposes.
The House of Representatives shall chuse <sic> their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
U. S. Constitutution => Article I => Section 2
The above section defines which arm of the government handles Impeachment… The House of Representatives. So let’s learn about the Senate’s role in the impeachment process.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
U.S. Constitution => Article I => Section 3
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.
The above section defines the Senate, its powers and how the Senate handles cases of Impeachment. Clearly, the Senate is defined to ‘try‘ (or perform a Trial) for all Impeachments. It also explains how the affected Party will be handled by law upon conviction. This section also defines the requirement of a two-thirds agreement in the Senate for the Senate to convict an Impeachment. Less than two thirds agreement and the trial concludes in acquittal. The two-thirds is strictly for agreement on removal of the President. A simple majority is required to agree on whether the person can hold office again. Both votes are separate. This does mean, then, that it is possible to acquit for removal, but convict for preventing the person from ever holding office again.
To recap so far, the House of Representatives is given the power of Impeachment solely. The Senate is given the power to preside over the Trial of that Impeachment solely. To clarify further, the House performs the impeachment and the Senate performs the Impeachment trial AFTER the House adopts the Articles of Impeachment and hands those approved articles to the Senate. The Senate puts forth and votes on the remedies should conviction occur.
These excerpts above describe the overview of Congress’s responsibilities and role for impeachment, but not the exacting details of how the process operates. We’ll dive into the details shortly below.
Just below, these excerpts describe Presidential responsibilities, powers and, yes, impeachment.
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
United States Constitution => Article II => Section 2
The above section and article is intended to describe the President’s extent of powers… “except in cases of impeachment“. This means that the President’s powers do have constitutional limits “, specifically in cases of impeachment.
Because this is both the United States Constitution and a legal body of law combined, it must be interpreted not only by constitutional standards, it must also be interpreted by legal standards. Unfortunately, the above isn’t the only mention of the term impeachment within the United States Constitution. Thus, we must press on to better understand how all of the sections together both combine and define what impeachment is, but also the extent to which it functions. With that in mind, I’ll come back to describe more about the constitutional language after all articles and sections have been quoted both above and below.
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
U.S. Constitution => Article II => Section 4
This section describes to whom impeachment applies and under which specific circumstances.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed
U.S. Constitution => Article III => Section 2
The above section describes to which Trials a jury applies and where those Trials should be conducted. Clearly, impeachment is excluded from trial by jury and also excludes holding it in a state venue, choosing to hold Impeachment Trials in the Senate chambers. Note that this language incidentally also defines powers of the Judicial branch of government by describing the Executive and Legislative branches. Because all three sections of government are so interlinked in each other’s processes, it would be impossible not to describe portions of the Judicial branch when discussing the powers and responsibilities of those in the Executive and Legislative branches, which is why this Judicial language is included in these sections.
This clear intent here is that the framers did not hold any branch of government above the laws of the land, but instead chose to institute a separate trial process when the President has willfully broken laws. One can argue the ultimate intent of the framer’s wishes here as “special treatment”, but the constitution is specific on these matters.
Before I continue quoting sections from the Constitution, let me stop here and discuss this “special treatment”. The framers clearly missed here. I understand that they felt that the best Trial by the President’s peers was via Congress, but “special treatment” does, in fact, tend to hold the President above the laws of the land. Where an ordinary citizen is granted no such special treatment, the President is given this “special treatment” after having broken laws of the land. Not only can’t the President be held to the laws of the land, the only power with which to uphold the laws of the land on the President is solely through the House’s Impeachment and Senate’s Impeachment Trial powers. Barring these specific actions and remedies, the President’s actions cannot be held to the general laws of the land, thus the President is essentially given prosecutorial immunity while he holds office, “except in cases of impeachment“. Impeachment is, then, the only legal action and remedies afforded the Legislative branch to remove a willfully criminal President.
Let’s keep in mind that the House’s successful Impeachment and the conclusion of the Senate’s Impeachment Trial are both separate, but part of the same process. The Senate’s Trial portion is simply an extension of the House’s Impeachment resolution. The Senate’s Impeachment Trial cannot exist without the House’s Impeachment. Likewise, the Impeachment process is incomplete without the Senate voting to convict or acquit. In other words, it is a misnomer to call successful Impeachment of a President when the Senate’s conviction has not yet occurred… only half of the process has been completed. Impeachment means both the House’s portion of Impeachment AND the Senate’s Trial to convict or acquit. Only after completion of both houses together is this considered successful Impeachment (regardless of outcome).
However, many believe that completing the successful adoption of the House’s Articles of Impeachment alone is enough to call the President Impeached. No. You can’t call the President Impeached when only half of the process has been completed. The term, Impeached should only be used to describe a President after both portions of the impeachment process (the House and Senate) have successfully fulfilled their duties and obligations to the constitution and both the House and Senate have agreed and Convicted (or Acquitted) the President, thus removing him from office and voting to rescind that person’s ability to ever hold office again or, alternatively, allowing him to continue to serve acquitted. That is what both Impeachment and Impeached should mean. Anything less degrades the Constitution and dilutes its power as a Constitutional body of law. Unfortunately, even the framers have chosen to ambiguously use the term “impeachment” within its text, such as the ever-vague “except in cases of impeachment” phrase.
Dictionaries, however, believe that it is enough to “charge” (accuse) someone of wrongdoing to use the word Impeach. I disagree with this Dictionary viewpoint. The United States was founded on “Innocent until proven Guilty”. Accusing someone of something is tantamount to “Guilty until proven Innocent”. Without successful completion of the Senate’s portion of an Impeachment Trial, the person is being stated as guilty without having been given a fair trial.
Let’s also understand that for a trial to be fair, it must also be expedient. Our constitution requires not only Trial by Jury (“except in cases of impeachment“), there is no specific definition in the Constitution of how fast the Trial must be conducted, just that it is “speedy”. However, we already know that without verbiage stating exceptions in the Constitution, everyone has the right to an expedient trial, which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. <sic>
United States Constitution => Amendment VI
As we know from far above, Impeachment is given certain legal exemptions. However, barring specific exemptions, the rest of the Sixth Amendment’s provisions still apply to the Impeachment trial. This is a basic tenant of law. Thus, this Amendment specifically includes the right to a “speedy” and “public” trial. These provisions are not explicitly excluded in any of the Articles above. As we know from Articles above with regards to Impeachment, a “Trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” IS excluded by Article III, Section 2, which empowers only the Senate to perform this Trial. All else remains in full force and effect.
As for “speedy”, as I’ve said above, there is no specific amount of time set by the framers. This is left up to interpretation. Speedy might be a month or two tops. After six months, that would be considered by most as no longer speedy. No one wouldn’t consider ‘years’ as speedy. Common sense here must prevail. Speedy should be defined as whatever it takes to conduct the trial in a fair manner so long as the process is not interrupted by unnecessary and foreseen procedural or logistical delays. It is then on the Court, or in the case of Impeachment, to perform and conduct a Senate Impeachment Trial expediently once all conditions have been satisfied to begin the trial.
Constitution Verbiage
Here we end all the constitution’s language regarding Impeachment. From here, we must consult the House’s and the Senate’s rules to learn more. Here are the House’s rules. Specifically, here’s the preamble of the House’s rules on impeachment…
Impeachment is a constitutional remedy to address serious offenses against the system of government. It is the first step in a remedial process–that of removal from public office and possible disqualification from holding further office. The purpose of impeachment is not punishment; rather, its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government.
Deschler Ch 14 App. pp 726-728; 105-2, Dec. 19, 1998, pp 28107-9.
Lewis Deschler admits that the House’s portion of Impeachment is the “first step” in the Impeachment process. Because there are multiple steps, that means that until all steps are completed, the process is and should be considered incomplete. It also states that Impeachment is not intended to be punishment, but to uphold (and protect) the constitution.
I’d additionally argue that no one is above the law. Impeachment firmly placed within the Articles upholds that viewpoint. The bar for Presidential crime is obviously much higher than those of ordinary citizens, but Impeachment is a power given by the framers to Congress to remove someone who is willfully criminal while holding the office of President.
Some might consider this a naïve point of view. To some extent it is. Assuming that a person elected President won’t and can’t willfully damage to the Constitution is naïve. To diverge a little, the framers are overly trusting. They believe that people placed into these higher levels of power won’t do damage to the very voters who voted them into office. As I said, naïve. The constitution isn’t, by any stretch, a perfect document. The framers were also well aware of this fact, thus the reason it can be amended. The point wasn’t to make the initial document perfect, but to make it passable by those in power at the time. Viewpoints, even then, made it difficult to achieve consensus. Thus, the Constitution is the very definition of a set of compromises which all of those compromises achieved the signing of the Constitution. That’s why it’s not a perfect document. That’s why there are holes. That’s why some aspects are left ambiguous and left open to interpretation.
Lewis Deschler
So, you’re probably asking, “Who exactly is Lewis Deschler?”. Wikipedia describes him best:
Lewis Deschler (May 3, 1903 – July 12, 1976) was the first, and longest-serving, Parliamentarian of the United States House of Representatives. He started his term on February 1, 1927,[1] during the 70th United States Congress following the retirement of Lehr Fess. Prior to Deschler becoming Parliamentarian, the position was referred to as the Clerk at the Speaker’s Table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Deschler
Wikipedia goes on to say:
Deschler served as the Parliamentarian from 1927 until his retirement on June 27, 1974, during the 93rd United States Congress.[2] He was an important advisor to many congressmen during his employment, including advising House Speaker Carl Albert on the tax fraud investigation of Vice President Spiro Agnew[3] and the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Deschler
While in office, Lewis Deschler authored and modified many of the House’s rules on impeachment and how the House conducts the Impeachment process… which has significantly influenced this process and how our present House today manages and conducts Impeachment proceedings. I’ll leave you to search for and find out more about both Lewis Deschler and his contributions to see how the U.S. House manages not only Impeachment proceedings, but other House proceedings.
Senate Rules
Now that we’ve reviewed the House Rules (you have haven’t you?), we need to review the Senate Impeachment Trial rules. More specifically, this section from the document, RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS:
Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-104/html/SMAN-104-pg177.htm
excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.
This is the section that discusses a speedy trial… or, at least, how quickly the Senate must act after receiving the Articles of Impeachment from the House of Representatives. It doesn’t state how fast the trial must progress, but it at least states when the Article of Impeachment must be acted on by the Senate.
Double Jeopardy
Someone asked me, “Why isn’t there double jeopardy on impeachment?” Let’s understand double jeopardy. Double jeopardy excludes a person from being tried twice for, and here’s the important point, the same or a very similar crime.
Trump’s first and second impeachments are not for the same crime nor are they similar. So, even were double jeopardy applicable to the impeachment process, double jeopardy wouldn’t apply in this case. Both impeachments are for entirely separate crimes.
Though, I’m not sure why Congress would ever vote to impeach a president twice for the same crime in two separate impeachments. It doesn’t make sense why this would ever happen. I’m not even sure that congress would ever attempt to do this simply because of double jeopardy.
Congressional Failure
With the above said about double jeopardy, part of the problem that leads to this thinking is the failure of congressional leaders to do their own jobs. For example, if the Speaker of the House fails to submit the Article(s) of Impeachment to the Senate, the process cannot conclude.
This leaves the impeachment process incomplete. Such a failure doesn’t allow the accused to prove their innocence on the charges. Not only may this violate the right to a speedy trial, it leaves the accused effectively marked as guilty. That’s not how our system is supposed to work.
If Congress is serious enough to bring Article(s) of Impeachment against the President, then they should be serious and professional enough to see the process through to conclusion. By not completing the process, those responsible should be held liable and penalized for their failure. Specifically, if the Speaker of the House fails to submit the successfully passed impeachment documents, that should jeopardize their Speaker of the House standing. Meaning, they should be deposed and see another representative appointed. If the Speaker of the House fails to do their job, then it’s important to replace that person with someone who will do the job. It is every representative’s responsibility (and oath of office) to uphold the constitution. Failure to uphold the oath of office means the representative needs to be held accountable for that failure including censure or removal from office or position.
Unfortunately, because congress tends to vote on their own matters to affect how they perform their own jobs, checks and balances tends not to apply in these types of votes. This means we usually see Congress fail to apply such penalties that would ensure people do their jobs while in office. Yet another constitutional failure by the framers to prevent conflict of interest problems like this. I digress.
Exceptions, Pardons and Interpretation
Here’s one big last thought before I end this article. Above, there is an excerpt that defines Presidential powers. Specifically:
… [The President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment
United States Constitution => Article II => Section 2
This portion is mostly self-explanatory. Again, the President is given the power to grant reprieves and pardons… except in cases of impeachment. Again, unfortunately, the framers left this statement mostly ambiguous. There are several possible interpretations of this verbiage:
The first interpretation suggests that a successful House impeachment alone rescinds the President’s power to “grant reprieves and pardons”. This means that ANY pardons or reprieves that the President attempts to grant AFTER a successful House impeachment is no longer legal. In other words, the President forfeits his power of pardons and reprieves after a successful House impeachment. I believe this interpretation is only partially correct, so let’s continue.
The second interpretation suggests that the text “except in cases of impeachment” suggests the word impeachment to mean that it requires both the full House and Senate processes to conclude in both impeachment and a conviction. The constitution is unclear on this usage and definition of the word ‘impeachment’, but this is also where logic fails.
The second interpretation then suggests the following conditions must be met:
- A house impeachment must occur
- A senate conviction must occur
- Once a conviction occurs, the sitting President will be removed from office
- A conviction might also prevent the then former President from running for office again
Once a President is convicted and removed from office, there’s no need to request surrender of the pardon power.
This third even more narrow interpretation of “except in cases of impeachment” applies only to offenses covered by the impeachment itself. That’s not specified in this clause. That’s an interpretation and that interpretation seems incorrect. Applying the second interpretation to the third, a President who is fully impeached and convicted can no longer issue pardons and reprieves anyway because they will have been removed from office. Therefore, there is no logic to this interpretation. Again, the framers would have realized this glaring logic error. So…
A fourth interpretation strongly suggests that the framers did realize the above logic error in the second and third interpretations AND they further understood that there is a delay between the time the House passes the impeachment article(s) to the Senate. The framers understood this two house setup can cause delays in the process. This delay leaves the President in power to continue office duties until the Senate Trial begins and concludes. A trial is a trial and can last weeks mulling over evidence. Thus, forfeiture of the power of pardons and reprieves is intended not narrowly for offenses related to the impeachment itself, but for all pardons and reprieves of any kind until the Senate trial concludes. This logic makes the most sense from the framers perspective to prevent the President from passing a flurry of pardons of any kind, which may conceal pardons and reprieves related to the Impeachment. This surrender of power also renders self-pardons for any reason impossible. It the trial acquits, there’s no need for self-pardon. If the trial convicts, the President is removed from power.
This clause’s verbiage then fully implies that the power to grant pardons and reprieves is entirely surrendered after a successful House impeachment. I believe that this is truly what that the framers had intended. Why? Because without this clause, an impeached President can pardon not only themselves for their impeachable offense(s), they can pardon anyone else involved in the action that caused the impeachment. The point here is to stop the President from using pardons and reprieves to avoid Senate prosecution for themselves and their accomplices, regardless of whether the pardon or reprieve appears related or not. This clause additionally prevents “out of sight, out of mind” and “flurry” pardons and reprieves after the House successfully impeaches, but before the Senate trial concludes. The House and Senate should be focused on the Impeachment process, not on reviewing every pardon and reprieve for relationships to the Impeachment. Halting all pardons and reprieves until the Senate’s trial concludes makes the most logical sense and keeps Congress’s focus on the Impeachment, not on Presidential diversions.
Clearly, if the Senate trial concludes in acquittal, then the impeachment is nullified and all powers are restored to the President. If the Senate trial concludes in conviction, then the President is removed from office thus preventing any further pardons and reprieves by that action.
Currently, I believe that the “except in cases of impeachment” verbiage is being taken too literally to cover only and narrowly such pardons and reprieves that appear directly related to the specific “case” of the impeachment itself. I don’t believe that this extremely narrow interpretation was the framer’s intention. Instead, as in the fourth interpretation, I believe the framers intended this phrase to see the President fully surrender the power pardons and reprieves until both the House and Senate conclude both portions of the impeachment and conviction process. This does two things:
- It forces congress to abide by a “speedy trial” to…
- Quickly give the President back all powers afforded the position or remove an offending President from power
One last word for this verbiage. This verbiage appears intended as a forward looking statement. Meaning, it halts future pardons and reprieves from the date the impeachment is passed by the House. It isn’t intended to touch past pardons or reprieves issued prior to the date of successful impeachment. This makes logical sense because it is assumes that the President’s actions prior to successful impeachment are sincere and trustworthy. That means all past pardons and reprieves should be left standing. Nullifying past pardons and reprieves prior to impeachment could be exceedingly difficult to “undo”. I don’t believe the framers intended for this exception to encompass past actions and/or retroactively apply to all past pardons and reprieves.
Putting it all Together
What does all of the above really mean for Donald Trump’s second impeachment? Some have theorized that because Donald Trump is no longer president that the Impeachment proceedings should be dropped and/or isn’t constitutional. That’s not how legal agreements work. They don’t just disappear because one small piece is unenforceable. Typically, if a condition presents that nullifies a portion of an agreement, the remaining portions of the agreement remain in full force and effect. To extrapolate that to the constitution, stating that because Donald Trump is no longer President means that the impeachment section is no longer valid. Let’s understand why this argument might or might not apply.
That argument would be true if the impeachment proceedings were to begin AFTER his exit from office. However, even though Donald Trump’s presidency has ended, this fact doesn’t nullify the impeachment proceedings that constitutionally began while he was still in office. Because the two constitutional remedies for impeachment include 1) removal from office and 2) prevention of holding future office, only one of these two remedies is nullified by Donald Trump’s exit from office.
What that means is because the process began while Donald Trump was still President, the process is still valid after his exit from office. To say otherwise is like saying that because you ran a red light and because that condition no longer exists, you aren’t in violation. No, you’re not presently in violation, but you WERE in violation at the time you ran the red light. Not being in violation now doesn’t absolve you from having been in violation at the time that you ran that red light. If law allowed for a “now” concept only, no one could ever be held accountable for past deeds. This is why this legal precedent, usually defined by a statute of limitations, is applicable in nearly every legal circumstance. Not all crimes have statute of limitations, however. Those that don’t usually mean you can be tried for that crime at any point in time. Thus, this legal concept is applicable to Donald Trump’s impeachment.
Additionally, law doesn’t allow for the “now” argument. This argument doesn’t apply to running a red light (unless the statute of limitations has expired) and it doesn’t apply to Donald Trump’s change in President status. He WAS President at the time when his “high crimes and misdemeanors” occurred. That’s what matters. His change in status does NOT matter. Further, because “step one” of the Impeachment began while Trump was in office as President, Congress must now do their duty and complete this process regardless of Donald Trump’s change in status. This process is now (and was then ) already underway .
Sure, Trump can no longer be removed from office as one of the two remedies, but the remedy to prevent him from ever holding office again must still be decided by the Senate. For the Senate to not to do their duty to uphold the remaining “in force” portions of the Constitution means those Senators are not upholding their constitutional oath and duties of office. Regardless of the Senate’s outcome of the Impeachment trial, it must be urged to complete this process. Without completion of this process, the constitution is weakened. The point to the constitution is to empower those who are tasked to do the will of the people to uphold the will of the people and simultaneously uphold the statutes defined by the United States Constitution.
To do otherwise, such as not completing the impeachment, only diminishes the power of and serves to dilute the function of the Constitution as the heart and soul of our democracy.
Flurry of Pardons on the Way Out
As for Donald Trump’s over 100+ pardons on his way out of office, these pardons and commutations should be considered invalid based on the fourth interpretation (above) of Article II, Section 2’s “except in cases of impeachment” clause. Since he had been impeached by the House prior to his final flurry of pardons and reprieves, all of those pardons and reprieves should be invalid because this clause sees to his surrender of that Presidential power for the duration of the Senate’s impeachment trial. Further, since Trump is no longer in office, he won’t be able to redo those 100+ pardons and reprieves, even should the Senate trial conclude in acquittal. I won’t get into what this interpretation means for his first impeachment as that only serves to heavily muddy these already extremely muddy waters.
↩︎
Can Trump actually ban TikTok?
There are two sides to this question. Let’s explore both sides.
Technological Ban
Could TikTok actually be technologically stopped from working? Yes, and to be honest, it wouldn’t take that much effort, though it will take some time. Let’s explore how this works.
Domain Name Service (DNS)
DNS is a fundamental internet service that maps Internet names, like google.com, into an IP address, like 8.8.8.8 (which is Google’s DNS server IP address, actually). When you type in a name into the address bar of your browser, DNS converts that name into a numeric IP which is how your browser then connects to and serves you (and your browser) that web content.
This same system applies to all apps including apps like TikTok. When you launch an app on your phone, the app then uses DNS to resolve its service into an IP address which then connects to, for example, TikTok’s servers to begin serving you (and the app) its content.
DNS is the Achilles heel of the internet. It is both a cornerstone and a single point of failure. If DNS fails, then apps fail to connect to their required services.
This is the first touch point where Donald Trump could target. Donald Trump can mandate that the registrar who operates the domain tiktok.com drop serving DNS for this domain… assuming it operates within the United States (hint, it doesn’t).
Further, the secondary non-authoritative DNS system (those servers operated by your ISP or phone provider) relies on caching (or temporary memory storage with expiration timers). So long as the timer hasn’t reached zero, DNS will continue to serve content for that domain based on what’s in the cache rather than asking the authority each time (much faster performance). However, most domains have, at most, a 24 hour countdown timer on cached data. At the end of that 24 hour period, the cached data must be renewed into the cache. If the registrar has disabled DNS resolution for a domain, the cache will fail to renew and the service will go offline.
What that means is that as caches around the Internet slowly expire after the domain registrar has pulled the DNS plug, TikTok will stop working.
The difficulty with this request is which registrar handles this domain. It appears that the tiktok.com domain is operated by the registrar ename.com. Visiting the ename.com registrar’s domain shows that it’s written in Chinese. Since this domain and its IP space is registered and operated outside of the United States, Trump may find it hard to get the registrar to do anything for him.
Even still, Trump could request (via executive order) U.S. based Internet Service Providers to block the tiktok.com domain from being served within U.S. bordered DNS servers. See ISP blocking below for more on this.
App Store
Donald Trump can further request both Apple and Google to remove the TikTok app from each respective app store. This action doesn’t stop the app from working for those who have downloaded it already, but it does stop new users from downloading it. It also means no more app updates for this app.
When Apple or Google release a new operating system update, they can then stop the app from working entirely. In fact, these OS creators could, in fact, wipe the app from any remaining devices with it still installed. However, they can also simply block the app from launching. However, this part can only work if Apple and Google release updates that explicitly perform this operation and that both of these companies agree to doing this in the first place.
Internet Service Provider (ISP) Blocking
The third avenue that Trump can seek requires ISPs to block network access to TikTok’s servers within the United States. This requires contacting and requesting this action of many ISPs all throughout the United States, including all phone carriers like AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint. This is a long tail request and could take weeks to see roll out. This one also has a low probability for success as ISPs are notorious for not wanting to be told what to do or how to run their networks. This particular request is not one that will work quickly or, indeed, at all in some cases… until the DOJ brings action against ISPs that refuse to comply.
In addition to blocking access at the network level, he can also request DNS blocking for the tiktok.com domain within United States DNS servers operated by ISPs. Basically, an ISP double whammy… assuming ISPs agree (or are forced to agree) to these terms.
App remains functional?
For a time after Donald Trump requests DNS and network IP blocking, the app could remain functional on devices that have it downloaded. Why? Because DNS has up to several day caching in combination with the fact that network IP blocking can be circumvented by the use of a VPN. Though, exactly how many kids are going to run out and buy a VPN service just to use TikTok is unknown.
If Donald Trump can get all four actions lined up (the first three at least) as follows:
- App removal
- IP network blocking
- DNS blocking at the registrar
- Secondary DNS blocking within U.S. ISPs
Then, the app may stop working as early as 24 hours for many and for as long as a week for outliers. It is also dependent on how long it takes for each of these steps to be completed. Some companies require long convoluted internal processes and testing to avoid inadvertent screw ups before changes are allowed to proceed.
All of these technical measures are ALL doable. They will all work IF everyone complies (and that’s a tall order).
The most damaging of these four banning steps is seeing Tiktok removed from the app store. If Trump can get the app removed from the stores, this cripples TikTok’s ability to gain new users. That means that for a time, users who have already downloaded the app can continue to use it. But, as they buy new phones, restore their phones before it was installed or if they accidentally delete the app, the app is gone forever. No more TikTok on that phone device.
Removal from the app store also means no more updates. As Apple and Google roll out OS updates, they can invalidate TikTok’s functionality. An OS update can see a small banner pop up that says something similar to “This app is no longer compatible with this device” and prevent it from launching. The only option the user has at that point is to delete the app and move onto something else. If you can’t launch the app, then it’s useless.
This step, by far, is the simplest step to banning an app. It only requires two touch points: Apple and Google. That also assumes that both Apple and Google would be willing participants in this action. They may not. If they choose to challenge Trump’s legal authority to request such actions.. that leads me into the second half of this article.
Legal Authority
I guess the biggest question on people’s mind is, “Does Donald Trump have the authority to ban an app like TikTok within the US?” The short answer is, “I’m not sure”. Trump’s executive authority powers do allow him to write and execute executive orders.
Wikipedia states of Presidential Executive Orders:
Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).
the Wikipedia article further goes on to state:
Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution.
That means that an Executive Order can be challenged via judicial review and may be overturned if unconstitutional or lacks support by statute. And, lacking support by statute may be Trump’s biggest hurdle.
However, the Patriot Act gives the government and, in general, the President broad powers with regards to national security. If he deems TikTok a threat to national security and deems it illegal surveillance, it may invoke clauses under the Patriot Act which would allow him to write an Executive Order supported by the Patriot Act.
Yes, this is all convoluted and tenuously threaded, but it may have enough binding weight to hold together under scrutiny via judicial review.
That’s not say that TikTok is in any way performing surveillance via its app. But, seeing that it was an app developed in China, it is entirely possible that it does contain illegal surveillance mechanisms, otherwise known as spyware.
TikTok as an App
TikTok may seem an innocuous app on the surface. You use it to create a funny small video clippets (ha, just coined a new term) and then upload it for all to see. What you don’t know is whether this seeming innocuous app is spying on you when you’re not using it. You must give this app permissions to your microphone, camera, location and possibly other access. The app can turn on these devices at any time it so chooses, even if when you’re unaware. If you have given any other access permissions, such as access to your Photo Gallery, Clipboard, Contacts or other points of permission, it may have blanket access to far too much private information about you that it can feed to China.
Even if you have installed TikTok once, that data may have been shared back to someone in China. You have no idea exactly what this app is doing under-the-hood. The same can be said of many apps in the app store. However, China is under no obligation to uphold data privacy laws in the United States. If your child has installed the app, it could feed all manner of private data about your child back to China.
U.S. Company?
TikTok apparently has a U.S. presence, but if that presence doesn’t have a hand in the creation, maintenance or dissemination of the app itself, the U.S. arm may not be violating any laws if the app does unsavory things outside of its stated and intended purpose.
Even though it seems TikTok does have a U.S. presence, the company itself seems to be heavily backed by Chinese companies. Since the President’s announcement regarding a potential TikTok ban, this company has quickly attempted to divest its Chinese interest from TikTok and allow it to become a wholly owned and operated U.S. business. That may be too late for this company and this app.
Honestly, sharing tiny entertaining videos of your silly antics is really not an essential part life. It’s fun to watch, but it’s overall something to be watched and forgotten. In other words, none of the content on TikTok is in any way meaningful or, indeed, useful. It is briefly funny content that might elicit a few laughs and then you are encouraged to move on to the next.
What Wish is to trashy Chinese merchandise, TikTok is to trashy occasionally funny clippets. They’re both cut from the same cloth, but cut from different ends. I’ve watched many TikTok videos and I find most of them no more entertaining than watching a TV commercial. TV commercials are, in fact, better filmed and many times better written.
Ultimately, if TikTok is banned, it won’t be missed in the long run. Oh, it will be immediately missed by the tweens and teens alike who rely on that sort of thing to get through the boredom of their day, but even this age group will quickly forget and move onto the next app.
TikTok is ultimately another social media fad riding a temporary wave that will eventually surf its way into the next app fad, and far away from TikTok. A Presidential ban may simply speed this process up exponentially and cut short TikTok as a fad.
↩︎
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment