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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For what its worth.
Dr. ESP

[Today’s post is an open letter to the Cuban-American community.]

Cuban-American support for Republican candidates has become a major factor when analyzing the success of GOP candidates, especially in my current state of residence Florida.  Pew Research reports there are approximately 1.4 million Cuban-Americans of voting age of which 65 percent live in the Sunshine State.  And they lean heavily toward the GOP.  In 2016, 54 percent of Florida Cuban-Americans voted for Donald Trump. Likewise, Ron DeSantis carried Miami-Dade County in 2022, a usually reliable blue firewall, with even greater support among Cuban-Americans.  To attract and sustain this advantage, the Republican message to this target population has largely been (paraphrasing), “We cannot elect Democrats who will make America the kind of socialist country, you know, the exact kind of country you escaped from when you came to America.”

Makes sense, with one caveat.  It is just not true.  Before the Castro revolution in 1959, Cuba was viewed as a land of opportunity with more migrants seeking residence than leaving.  The first wave of Cubans entering the U.S. following Fidel Castro’s takeover, often referred to as “Historical Exiles,” are described by Jorge Duany, professor of anthropology at Florida International University, in his research profile “Cuban Migration: A Post-revolution Exodus Ebbs and Flows.”

The majority were urban, middle-aged, well-educated, light-skinned, and white-collar workers. Most were born in the largest cities, particularly Havana. Many fled for political or religious reasons, fearing persecution by the revolutionary government. 

After this initial wave of immigrants to the U.S., Duany lists three reasons why Cuban residents continued to relocate in America.

• Political persecution and harassment associated with political beliefs or practices.
• Economic hardship due to a shortage of goods and services, low wages and limited employment.
• Family reunification, reconnected with relatives who previously left Cuba.

For a non-Cuban-American, such as myself, it is hard to understand how this history justifies an overwhelming fealty to Republican policies and especially Donald Trump.  If you came to America because of political persecution and harassment, why would you support a candidate who is running on “retribution” for his enemies?  Who has said he would arrest and jail his political opponents?  Who promises to build internment camps for immigrants?  Imagine if Donald Trump had been president in 1960 when you fled to America to escape those exact conditions.

Furthermore, many of you opposed Fidel Castro’s close ties to the Soviet Union.  Yet, you prefer a candidate who publicly praises Vladimir Putin.  And more importantly, thwarts efforts to repel Russian dominance of Ukraine, a situation not unlike what you faced in the late 1950s.

If you came for family reunification, have you forgotten it was a Democratic president Barack Obama who normalized relations with the Cuban government allowing travel to be with relatives who remained in Cuba?  In 2017, Donald Trump reimposed those sanctions and restrictions on trade and travel.

And last but not least, polls suggest you believe GOP messaging that the Democrats are an existential threat to American capitalism.  Consider the following.  Since Castro’s rise to power Republicans have held the White House for seven four-year terms and the Democrats for six terms.  The average growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during the Republican administrations has been 3.02 percent.  During Democratic administrations it is 3.98 percent.  And in those 63 years, how many U.S. industries have the Democrats nationalized?  Zero!

To be fair, any failure to make these connections between your own self-interests and allegiance to the GOP is not entirely your fault.  Democrat political leaders, especially in Florida, have not sufficiently engaged with the Cuban-American community to make the case why Democratic policies and outcomes over the past six decades are more in line with Cuban-American aspirations.  Without doing so, they should not expect, nor will there be, a change of attitude or voting behavior by Cuban-Americans.

Por lo que vale.
Dr. ESP

[Today’s post is an open letter in response to Americans who have indicated they would never vote for Joe Biden based on his support of Israel following October 7, 2023.]

I know you are angry.  So am I.  So are most Israelis and Palestinians.  It takes a total lack of humanity to witness the bodies of innocent men, women and children killed by Hamas on October 7, 2023 or from Israel’s response and not be angry.  But that anger must not keep us from some inconvenient truths.  Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition government have the blood of Israelis on their hands by failing to advance the Oslo Accords.  And Yahya Sinwar and Hamas have the blood of Palestinians on their hands for promoting the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.

This experience again proves what diplomats and generals always tell us.  “It is easy to start a war.  It is much harder to end one.” And the key to a successful outcome is often having not only a war plan, but having a plan for day one after the shooting ceases.  That hard lifting depends who is conducting the peace.  The Israelis and Palestinians have to decide if they believe the individuals–Netanyahu and Sinwar–who have proven they can be masters of war have the will to be masters of peace.

We Americans also have a role.  Our allies in the Middle East–Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and most importantly Saudi Arabia–have made it clear the United States is an essential partner in achieving that peace.  But only if we can be an honest broker.  And I understand many of you believe, due to American support for the Israeli military, U.S. policy favors Israel.  It is hard not to feel that way when, perhaps, members of your family or friends have died from American manufactured munitions.

No one can guarantee these 75 years of bloodshed will ever end.  But if we want to give peace one more chance, consider the following.  The United States will have a major role.  And the nature of that engagement depends on who sits in the Oval Office next year.  You say you will never support Joe Biden because of his support for Israeli genocide.  Yes, Joe Biden went to Israel and hugged Netanyahu immediately after October 7.  Yes, Joe Biden proposed more military aid to Israel.  But neither have the goal of Palestinian genocide.

If that were the case, what would explain Joe Biden being a consistent supporter of the Oslo Accords and the two-state solution as Obama’s vice-president, as a private citizen and now as the leader of the free world.  This is no last-minute conversion in response to Hamas’ terrorism.  In July 2023, months before the attack, Biden met with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem and reaffirmed his belief the two-state solution was the best path to peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  In January, the U.S. abstained on a U.N. resolution to increase the flow of humanitarian aid despite the fact the resolution made no mention of Hamas’ attack on October 7 as the U.S. requested.  A position that opened Biden to criticism from many of his own party.  He has continuously criticized the Netanyahu government for expansion of West Bank settlements and for not taking a more targeted approach in the fight against Hamas militants. And in the vein of Harry Truman’s being the first world leader to recognize Israel on May 14, 1948, the same day Israel declared its independence, Biden has indicated he is considering the same for a Palestinian state created in compliance with the Oslo criteria.

Now consider the alternative.  Despite protests that more Jewish settlements on the West Bank were a violation of international law, Donald Trump supported Israel’s territorial claims over the West Bank.  The Netanyahu government rewarded this change in U.S. policy by naming one of the settlements Ramat Trump (Trump Heights) and putting a statue of a sabbath menorah and eagle honoring Trump at the entrance.  To further exacerbate the situation, Trump symbolically moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, although most diplomatic functions remain in Tel Aviv.  Trump’s vision for the Palestinians is a economic protectorate as laid out during a White House press conference with Netanyahu.  The fact Palestinians were not invited to participate in the announcement tells you all you need to know about the proposal.  Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described the status of Gaza and the West Bank in the proposal as “a faux state.”

And there is no sign things would be different in a second Trump presidency.  Just this week we saw how Trump sold out U.S. interests in Europe for Vladimir Putin’s friendship.  Do Palestinians think the situation will be any different between Trump and Netanyahu?  Listen to Trump’s response to Israel’s execution of the war as reported by Brett Samuels of The Hill three days after the Hamas attack.

Former President Trump suggested in a new interview that the war between Israel and Hamas will just have to “play out” despite concerns about rising civilian casualties.

“So you have a war that’s going on, and you’re probably going to have to let this play out. You’re probably going to have to let it play out because a lot of people are dying,” Trump told Univision in an interview that aired Thursday night.

Please do not tell me you agree with these sentiments from a man who thinks people dying is a reason to let the death and destruction continue.  Peacefully protest U.S. policy toward Israel if you want.  But also keep in mind two undisputed facts.  First, even if you believe Israel is engaged in genocide with U.S. support, you make no friends promoting your own brand of genocide against Israel or the Jewish people.  Two, only one of the two candidates for president has been a life-long supporter of a Palestinian state as the only path to a lasting peace and has pushed Netanyahu to come to that same conclusion.

Shalom/Salam.
Dr. ESP