July 5, 2022 --
CLICK HERE TO VIEW LINK
CLICK HERE TO VIEW LINK
The June 19th print edition of The New York Times left no doubt that this propaganda organ intends to apply a political coup de grace to former President Donald J. Trump by pressing for his indictment and conviction -- and incarceration. The current campaign to obtain a criminal conviction of the former president is of a piece with the Russia hoax, followed by the two impeachments that reflected the Democrat majority in the House, in 2019 and 2021, rather than substantive charges. The two impeachments were, largely, partisan in nature, only indicating that the left's "Resistance" against Mr. Trump, effective January 20, 2017, was to be taken literally, not figuratively -- and, thus, amounted to rejection of the electoral process by which Mr. Trump was our legitimate 45th president.
This article comments on a propaganda piece by Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman, called (print edition.June 19)
"A Key Hurdle for Prosecutors; Proving What Trump Believed".
The online title of this example of Times anti-Trump agitprop is: "Despite Growing Evidence, a Prosecution of Trump Would Face Challenges". (Note that this propaganda organ falsely views the material gathered by the one-sided Jan. 6 inquisition as "Evidence.")
This article also comments on an opinion piece in the June 19 Times Sunday Review by Neal K. Katyal called, in the print edition "The Criminal Case Coming for Trump," and, online, "The Future Criminal Case Against Donald Trump.
By the seventh paragraph, Mr. Katyal's bias becomes evident with his use of a comment from U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter (appointed by President Clinton in 1998) in a case in which the former president was NOT a party: "'the court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.'" Whereupon Mr. Katyal writes: "These are not easy words for the Justice Department to cast aside." Au contraire, if the Biden Justice Department heeeds Judge Carter's irrelevant and politicized hyperbole, the Department of Justice will have to add the letters "In-" to Justice, for Biden and Garland will have transformed the DOJ into the DOI -- Department of Injustice.
(Mr. Katyal's 13th paragraph suggests an interesting question by pointing out: "[O]n Jan. 6, Congress and the vice president must certify the votes [for president}. Well, then, until such certification, can it be said that one of the candidates is the victor? If the winner is the person with the most Electoral College votes, until those votes are certified, can anyone be charged with trying to overthrow the election? Just a thought.)
The 10th paragraph of the Katyal anti-Trump screed eviscerated the separation of powers concenpt for purpose of puting Mr. Trump on trial.
"Public hearings serve a subtle function. They permit the minds of the American people to acculturate to the facts and evidence. By laying out the facts that explain what Mr. Trump did, the Jan. 6 hearings can, in advance, help acclimate to why the Justice Department has to take criminal action against the former president. The hearings may afford the department a deeper and public explanation of its reasoning than an indictment out of the blue would offer. Publlic sentiment of this kind could help insulate the department against a claim that it is politically motivated. These hearings may prove to be a bridge between the Justice Department and the public."
Now, please, consider, in pertinent part, the following, 11th, paragaph from Mr. Katyal, claiming that Speaker Pelosi's kangaroo House committee is "bipartisan."
"[I]t seems certain that if [Attorney General] Garland is to be the first attorney general to bring criminal charges against a former president, having the facts surfaced first by a bipartisan congressional committee would be enormously helpful and provide an evidentiary record that the public today, and historians in the future, could examine."
Mr. Katyal's call, essentially, for tarring and feathering Donald J. Trump, continues for some 11 paragraphs, but it is enough to focus on his 10th and 11th paragraphs to recognize that, notwithstanding his background arguing cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and his current position as f law professor at Georgetown University (that recently effectively forced the resignation of law professor Ilya Shapiro on cancel culture grounds), his commitment to the Constitution depends whose ox is being gored.
The 10th and 11th paragraph belie the print title of the Katyal article; it should have been called The One-Sided Case for Persecuting Donald J. Trump. Where in the Constitution is it said that a House committee should prepare criminal cases, one-sided criminal cases, for the Department of Justice to follow? That attorney Katyal calls for such a "bridge" suggests that he needs a remedial course on separation of powers. For him to view the Pelosi-selected panel as "bipartisan" would be laughable, were it not so offensive to the truth. I daresay attorney Katyal would not regard a one-sided Republican committee "bipartisan" were it to include two turncoat Democrats.
(Mr. Katyal ignores the fact that Speaker Pelosi vetoed House minority leader McCarthy's first two choices for the committee, in derogation of the committee; rules, and winnowed the membership to nine, although the rules called for 13 members, 8 Democrats and 5 Republcans. It was Speaker Pelosi who put turncoat Republicans Cheney and Kinzinger on the anti-Trump panel. To add to the affront to the rules, Cheney is regarded as committee "vice chair" -- a post not established by the rules creating the committee.)
In the eleventh paragraph of his demand that our system of justice be politicized to purge a former president, Mr. Katyal writes: "Of course, critics will complain about the composition of the committee and the like, but these complaints, relatively speaking, are likely to be weaker than they would be if the Justice Department just investigated and prosecuted the case against the former president by itself. Here, Congress has a unique voice because the attack occurred on its members, on their soil."
When Mr. Katyal speaks of acclimating the American people to the idea of putting Mr. Trump on criminal trial, clear-thinking observers will understand that he hopes that the one-sided and unconstitutional hearing by the House Select Committee to Crush the Republican Opposition in the Midterm Elections will soften the American people to the idea of putting Mr. Trump on trial -- and beyond that, will brainwash the American people to the extent that opinion polls will approve prison for the former president.
The anti-Trump agit-prop piece by Schmidt and Haberman is no less offensive to honest reporting, or to the Constitution's provision for due process of law. To have a sense of Schmidt and Haberman's mendacious tone just consider their description of his statement standing up the travesty of the Jan. 6 committee: "It contained his usual mix of outlandish claims, hyperbole and outright falsehoods." The foregoing quote arguably qualifies as projection on the part of the Times propagandists. (They also, by the way, approve of Judge Carter's egregious attack on Mr. Trump in a case in which, again, he was not a party and, therefore, in no position to defend himself.)
Another example of vicious bias from propagandists Schmidt and Haberman: "[Mr. Triump's] continued stream of falsehoods highlight s some of the complexities of pursuing any criminal case against him, despite how well-established the key facts are at this point." Behold the depths to which The New York Times has fallen -- to view material gathered by a kangaroo House committeert qualifying as "key facts." The operative key fact of this exercise is the aim to purge Donald J. Triump, by hook or by crook, from further service to the American people.
And yet, even Schmidt and Haberman, in the last paragraph of their lengthy example of anti-Trump wishful thinking and disinformation, must have felt constrained to acknowledge that sheer hatred of Donald J. Trump might not be sufficient to put an end to his public life. They referred to the observations of defense lawyer Daniel L. Zelenko, who "cautioned that the standard for using evidence against a defendant is higher in court, where judges almost always insist that prosecutors rely on firsthand testimony, witnesses can be cross-examined, and prosecutors need to prove their arguments beyond a reasonable doubt."
Imagine that. Anti-Trump hearsay, anti-Trump witnesses, anti-Trump conclusions typical of the Jan. 6 committee hearings might not win the day for the Trump-hating/fearing cabal. Mr. Katyal suggests that history will take note of a joint effort by Speaker Pelosi and the Justice Department in pursuit of the 45th president a year and a half after he left office -- peacefully. LPR agrees. And by taking note, history will regard the joint effort by a Trump-hating House and Executive Branch as a travesty that must not recut if America is to remain a beacon of democracy.