In overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark decision that effectively legalized abortion in the US, the Supreme Court based its decision in part on the fact that the US Constitution "says nothing about abortion." Hence, its decision in 1973 must have been erroneous, and no such right could or should be granted by the Court. And one week later, when the Court decided that the Environmental Protection Agency could no longer protect the environment by enforcing rules designed to curb carbon emissions and thus save the planet and the human race that calls it home, that judgment again rested firmly on constitutional text, specifically the well-known "emissions clause," which reads as follows:

"A well-oiled and profitable industrial complex, being necessary to the decimation of a free State and the eradication of its population, the right of the people to suffer noxious emissions and breathe empoisoned Air, shall not be infringed."

Clearly, the Founding Fathers were looking ahead to a time when government might exceed its authority while trying to preserve human life, thus subverting the rights of law-abiding polluters to make an honest living while donating large sums of money to the political party of their choice. The Supreme Court, as presently constituted, would have none of that. Please show your hands, it commanded the EPA, so that we may tie them firmly behind your back. And please don't worry about any harm to the environment; former president Trump the Magnificent says we'll soon be producing "clean coal," and we see no reason to doubt him.

Speaking of former president "coup—me?..."

He unleashed a barrage of falsehood-driven messages on his Truth Social platform last week, designed to smear the character and question the sanity of Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, saying he "hardly knew her" while speculating that she must have "mental problems" and was "making stuff up."

Cassidy, as you may recall, told the House select committee investigating the Trump-driven insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, that Trump was aware that many of his supporters were heavily armed before urging them to march to the Capitol, and wanted to go with them until he was persuaded not to do so by the secret service. In other words, Hutchinson nailed Trump's orange-colored hide to the wall. His entirely predictable response was to question her competence and veracity, as he does anyone who dares cross or contradict him—a response made more difficult inasmuch as most of those testifying before the committee have been lifelong Republicans and dyed-in-the-wool Trump loyalists. On the other hand, you have to give him credit—anyone else would have been tried, convicted and thrown in prison for such blatant crimes against the government, yet Trump not only remains a free man, he may even run for president again in 2024. And the American people, bless their idiotic hearts, may re-elect him. And if they shouldn't, rest assured that the disputant-in-chief will scream, at the top of his trumped-up lungs, that the election was "stolen," and voters will find themselves ensnared in Stop the Steal, Version 2.0.

July 15, 2022

Good morning, students, and welcome to today's class in political science and constitutional law. I trust that you have been doing your homework and listening to the hearings conducted by the House select committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021. And I am sure you'll agree that the committee has laid out in meticulous detail how former president Donald Trump was far more than an interested observer in the events leading up to that attack; how he was indeed the mastermind... well, that may be stretching the point... how the former president was the driving force behind the attack and was heavily involved in planning almost every one of the events leading up to it, even going so far as to urge a mob that he knew to be heavily armed to "fight like hell!" and march on the Capitol building, promising that he would "be there with them."

Given these facts, and the conclusive evidence that the former president had been told on numerous occasions by those in his administration and others that there was no widespread fraud in the election, that Joe Biden had won fairly, and that Trump had ignored that counsel and continued to spread the Big Lie, telling his supporters that the election had been stolen, and urging them to come to Washington on January 6 to do what was necessary to "stop the steal," the question I put before you is this:

What can we expect to see happen after the hearings? I will entertain a show of hands, and as this is a rather large class, I will repeat your answers so that everyone in the room may understand clearly what you have said. Now, who would like to go first?... I see a hand in the back row... Yes, you, sir. And your opinion is...?

He says that after the hearings there will be criminal referrals, the Justice Department will act on them, the former president will be indicted, charged, tried, found guilty of treason, seditious conspiracy, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, and that he and a number of his associates will be sent to prison—oh, and that Donald Trump will be barred from ever holding any public office again.

And now I see a flurry of hands! Obviously, some of you disagree and have your own views as to what may happen. Let's see... the young lady in the second row. How do you see things playing out?

She says she agrees that there will be criminal referrals to the DOJ, and that the former president will be tried. However, at the trial, his lawyers will say he was cleverly manipulated by unscrupulous operators whose goal was to keep him—and them—in power. Trump will then throw every one of them—including members of his family—under the nearest bus. Several will later be tried and convicted. As for Trump, he will be acquitted, run for president in 2024, lose by a landslide to Adam Schiff, claim the election was stolen and invite his supporters to Washington in January 2025 for "a really big barbecue with insurgence on the side."

That sounds plausible. Are there any other points of view? Yes, the gentleman near the window...

He says there will be no criminal referrals, and that the Justice Department will remain silent as long as Merrick Garland is in charge. Meanwhile, a torrent of bills will be introduced in congress to tighten election laws and guarantee that nothing like January 6 ever happens again. Every one of them will die in the Senate.

I believe we may be getting warmer. But how about you, ma'am? I see your hand was also up...

She says that Cassidy Hutchinson will star in a TV series, "The Deputy," with Marjorie Taylor Greene as a trash-talking, hard-as-nails enforcer and Jamie Raskin as a glib, wise-cracking private eye. Also, Liz Cheney will lose her bid for re-election to an orange-colored baboon from the Cheyenne zoo. Can't argue with that...

Any more hands? Oh, there's one, in row four. Your opinion, sir?...

He says that Denzel Washington will star as Rep. Bennie Thompson in the film "All the President's Fibs," a no-holds-barred drama that will run for more than sixteen hours to accommodate "all the president's fibs." Thompson will be guided in his search by a shadowy figure who tells him to "follow the scam."

And you, miss? In the front row?...

She says she can sum up the result of the hearings in one word: nothing.

Well, everyone, dire as that assessment may be, I'm afraid your classmate may have come closer to the truth than any others we've heard from so far—at least in my opinion. Oh, that's not to say there won't be a lot of ranting, raving, gnashing of teeth and pointing of fingers once the hearings have ended—but the fact is that no one in Washington has shown the guts to challenge the former president's base, bring charges and actually hold him accountable for his criminal conduct, which is as brazen as it is undeniable.

While some may argue that Trump's prosecution is inevitable, those charged with doing so will contend that, yes, there's no doubt he did commit those dreadful offenses against his country, but his "intent" remains unclear, and he can't be prosecuted until there is clear consensus about his "state of mind" when he was endorsing obviously illegal acts. For example: Did he know that what he was doing was against the law? Were his senses dulled by a steady diet of KFC and fries? Can he even spell the word "insurrection?" All these factors must be taken into account, the same way that drug dealers, serial rapists or mass murderers can't be tried or convicted before the court is satisfied that their "state of mind" while committing illicit acts warrants such drastic action. That's called "non-culpis mentis," and we see it all the time in our courts.

So I'm afraid your classmate is more than likely correct. Even though the hearings will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that former president Trump instigated the attack on the Capitol building, even while aware that those he provoked were armed, and was up to his eyeballs in the nefarious scheme to keep him in power, the federal government won't lay a hand on him. Never has, never will. That is why he can golf all day and sleep like a baby at night. There is, however, an ongoing investigation in the state of Georgia that could raise Trump's handicap and his blood pressure while causing him to reach for the Ambien... Stay tuned...

July 25, 2022

Chutzpah.

That's a Yiddish word whose meaning in English is "extreme self-confidence, audacity, gall."

In light of recent events, chutzpah now has a new meaning:

Donald Trump.

Having done everything in his power for almost two years to overturn the 2020 presidential election and kneecap American democracy, word has it that Trump is getting ready for another presidential run in 2024. This in spite of the fact that the House select committee investigating the deadly attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, has shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that the former president was not only involved in almost every aspect of planning the insurrection but did nothing to stop it for more than three hours after it had begun.

Chutzpah.

On January 6, knowing that many of his followers were heavily armed, Trump mounted a podium near the White House, commanded them to "fight like hell" and pointed them toward the Capitol building, assuring them that "I'll be there with you."

Chutzpah.

Barred by the Secret Service from carrying out his plan to accompany the mob to the Capitol, Trump retreated to the White House dining room to watch the would-be insurrection on Fox TV, brushing aside repeated attempts by others in the White House—including family members—to issue a statement directing the mob to stop the carnage and go home. Finally, at 4:17 that afternoon, he reluctantly issued a shallow "go home" video, calling the rioters "special" and adding, "we love you."

Chutzpah.

In hindsight, it is easy to see why Trump the Instigator was so eager to go to the Capitol. He truly believed the insurrection would succeed, that he would be hoisted onto the shoulders of his supporters, carried into the Capitol building and declared the legitimate president, forcing Joe Biden to abdicate and scurry home to Delaware with his tail between his legs.

Chutzpah.

And even though his efforts to overturn the election and oust Biden from the White House have failed at every turn, Trump hasn't given up the fight. Far from it. As recently as last week, the former conniver-in-chief phoned Robin Vos, chairman of the Wisconsin state assembly, with a simple request: decertify the state's 2020 presidential election results and declare Trump the rightful winner. The call came shortly after a ruling by the Wisconsin supreme court barring the use of most ballot drop boxes in the state. Which means, according to Trump, that their use in the 2020 election was "illegal" and the votes should be thrown out. And we thought Trump was merely frittering away his time golfing at Mar-a-Lago.

Chutzpah.

As for his plan to run again in 2024, Trump says he has "already made the decision" and will announce it in due time. That time may be fast approaching, as former president untouchable is said to believe his status as a candidate may enable him to sidestep the many lawsuits, civil and criminal, state and federal, that are being fleshed out with an eye toward lending Trump another title: jailbird. Having never had to answer for any misdeeds in a life whose defining hallmarks include fraud, deception, graft and dishonesty, Trump believes—with good reason—that he will never be held accountable, no matter how brazen and blatant his offenses.

Chutzpah.

Even though he holds no office and has no ideas that would make America mediocre, let alone great, Trump continues to hold the Republican party hostage, thanks in large measure to the millions of uninformed and misguided American voters who continue to believe in him and his lies. Those lackeys serve another purpose as well: a cash cow that can be milked regularly to keep Trump solvent and underwrite his campaign and any other expenses he may encounter. What is in it for them, you may ask. And the answer is, all manner of goodies, from Trump Ultra-MAGA T-shirts to the book "Our Journey Together" and newly designed Trump golf balls. You may even earn (for a suitable donation) an Official Trump Gold Card or reach the status of Great MAGA King.

Chutzpah.

There is simply no other word that describes more adequately the former president and his ceaseless efforts to spread the Big Lie and convince his followers that the 2020 presidential election was "stolen" from him, even two years after the fact. And there is simply no parallel in American history with which to compare the damage he has done—to American democracy, the rule of law, politics in general, the concept of free and fair elections, the orderly transfer of power from one administration to the next. In his obstinate refusal to abide by any rules of equity or decorum, Donald Trump is in a class by himself. And may he forever remain there.

In other news...

Herschel Walker, the Trump-endorsed Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, received a huge round of applause from evangelical Christians in Nashville last week when he revealed he is the father of three previously unacknowledged children. Apparently, that confession "trumps" the record of his opponent, Raphael Warnock, an actual minister at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church who not only hasn't experienced even a whiff of scandal but actually speaks the English language, two attributes that apparently disqualify him with fundamentalist Christians who prefer "true believers" like former fornicator-in-chief Trump who may have his faults but has shown he can nominate and confirm like-minded Christians to seats on the US Supreme Court. As Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself. And should the fruits of that love be revealed, deny, deny and deny again, until My followers bless such progeny in the name of our holy father, Donald Trump."

And finally...

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Texas (surprise!) has more annual gun deaths by far (4,164 in 2020, a rate of 14.2 deaths per thousand)—than any other state in the union. Texas governor Greg Abbott has responded to the grim statistic by signing legislation making it easier for Texans to acquire and carry firearms, a brilliant strategy designed to deter people from drawing their guns because chances are good the person they are aiming at is also armed and may be even quicker on the draw.

A second study, by the Rand Corporation, has reached an inescapable conclusion: the more guns, the more gun deaths. The top five states by gun-rate deaths per thousand: Mississippi (28.6); Louisiana (26.3); Wyoming (25.9); Missouri (23.9); Alabama (23.6); Alaska (23.5). All of those states are among the ones with the highest gun ownership rate.

Where there are fewer guns, there are (duh!) fewer gun deaths. States with the lowest rates per thousand in 2020 were Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and New York, which happen also to be the states with the lowest percentage of homes with guns.

Also, most gun deaths in this country are suicides (bet you didn't know that). In 2020, suicides accounted for 54 per cent of US gun deaths. Removing guns won't prevent suicide, but their presence sure makes it a lot easier.

That doesn't mean that homicides are any less unsettling. In fact, a recent CNN analysis found that ten of the country's most populous cities set homicide records in 2020: Philadelphia. PA; Austin, TX; Columbus, OH; Indianapolis. IN; Portland, OR; Memphis, TN; Louisville, KY; Milwaukee, WI; Albuquerque, NM; and Tucson, AZ. And only Memphis was ranked among the five cities with the highest gun homicides per 100,000 people. The others were Jackson, MS (69); Gary, IN (64); St Louis, MO (50), and New Orleans, LA (48).

The result is clear: fewer guns, fewer homicides—and most likely fewer suicides. It may also be interpreted to mean fewer assault weapons, fewer mass shootings. And to mean as well that our elected "leaders" are either (a) unaware of these numbers, or (b) don't give a shit as long as the National Rifle Association keeps sending them money. It's only a guess, but I'd say that (b) is the more plausible conclusion.

Oh... one more thing...

Alisabeth Janai Lancaster, who is running for a public school board position in Santa Rosa County, Florida, said in a forum last week that doctors who provide children with transition-related health care "should be hanging from the nearest tree." The audience is said to have applauded enthusiastically. If you want to know how low America has sunk, you need look no further than that.

July 29, 2022

Back to the Future, Part 1

The date is January 21, 2024. Donald Trump, having been acquitted by an all-white Christian nationalist jury for his role in the aborted insurrection attempt at the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021, has again run for president. Even though Trump has lost the election by more than eleven million votes to his Democratic opponent, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and has received only 59 electoral votes to her 479, the Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that the election is null and void, endorsing Trump's claim that "more than twelve million votes" were illegal, having been cast by dead people, most of them from Mexico, other Latin American countries or Chicago. (Chicago takes responsibility for only 500,000, the same as in any normal election.) In his majority opinion, justice Brett Kavanaugh writes that the court "had no choice" but to install Trump as president, as the alternative would have been for him to declare, as he did in 2020, that the election was "rigged," which meant that angry protesters holding signs would soon be invading their neighborhoods and running all over their immaculately manicured lawns.

And so the high court has granted Trump a second term in the White House. Two days later, a telephone rings in a federal building somewhere in Washington:

"Hello, civil service commission. Donald Trump speaking. How may I harm you?"

"Hold on a minute...did you say...Donald Trump? I was calling the civil service, not the White House..."

"An honest mistake (chuckles). No, I'm in the White House only on weekends these days; that is, when I'm not on the golf course. During the week...just a second, let me turn the TV down...during the week—and this is Monday—I'm the head of a number of other agencies including the post office, department of education, centers for disease control, civil service..."

"So that means you can approve or disqualify applicants for government jobs..?"

"That's right. Applicants for most government positions...at least the high-level ones, those that actually make decisions...must earn the Donald Trump seal of approval..."

"Well, I was calling about a job with the State Department; I heard they need an under-secretary of bollocks and waste management..."

"Yes, they do. Now let me see, where is that application form? Oh, here it is...Okay, the first few questions are routine: name, date of birth, residence, education...blah, blah, blah...and after that come the tougher ones, the ones that can land you the job—or not. First question: what color are you...?"

"Color? Well, I'd say white, usually, unless I've been standing too long in the sun..."

"Okay, we'll give you that one. Next question—who do you think is the lawfully elected president of the United States?"

"Why, you, sir, of course! That's an easy one..."

"Well, it's actually a two-part question. Second, who was the lawfully elected president in 2020?"

"Yes, that one is a bit trickier. Let's see—Joe Biden won the popular vote by more than seven million, and the electoral vote by 306-232, so I'd have to say...Donald Trump!"

"Good man. So far, your score is perfect. The next question is hypo...hypo...something that really hasn't happened but needs your opinion. Let's say the boss comes into your office and says the job requires that you arm yourself, go to a nearby building and enter by smashing a window...how would you respond?"

"Well, sir, he's the boss, and if he says I break into a building, I break into a building."

"Perfect! Okay, here's your next question. Do you subscribe to the Big Lie?"

"Is that a magazine?"

"No...but that's another great answer! What I mean is, do you believe my assertion that the 2020 and 2024 elections were 'rigged' and stolen from me is true, or simply a Big Lie?"

"Absolutely true, sir. I know you would never lie to me or to anyone else!"

"You can say that again."

"Absolutely true, sir. I know you would never lie..."

"Okay, I'm good with that answer; let's move on...My guess is you'll soon be on the fast track to success in my administration. But tell me first...what are your qualifications for the job?"

"Well, sir, I've been Proud since I was a Boy...if you get my drift...And when I make an Oath, I always Keep it...and I graduated summa cum laude from the Wharton school (you needn't bother to check that). I believe that's your alma mater too...Also, a number of people have told me I would have been great on The Apprentice, as kissing ass is a talent I've not only always had but have carefully nurtured so that, much like my orange-colored American Idol (not mentioning any names here), I could learn how to succeed in business without really trying..."

"Splendid! Look, we'll start you at State tomorrow, but the minute there's an opening for attorney general, we'll be sure to call on you. And if my past record is any yardstick, there should be an opening in, say, two or three weeks, or whenever the current AG starts investigating me...whichever comes first...Oh, one more thing: tell me your name, so I can let them know who's coming..."

August 10, 2022

American History 101

December 7, 1941: The Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service initiates a surprise attack on the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The base is overwhelmed by 353 Japanese aircraft, in two waves, launched from half a dozen aircraft carriers in the Pacific. Four of the eight US Navy battleships in the harbor are sunk; all are damaged. The Japanese also sink or damage three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship and one mine-layer. More than 180 US aircraft are destroyed, 203 Americans are killed, 1,178 others wounded.

September 11, 2001: Nineteen Middle Eastern terrorists hijack four US commercial airliners in mid-air, flying two of them into the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center in New York City and a third into the Pentagon in Arlington, VA. The fourth plane crashes in a field outside Shanksville, PA, when passengers unite to overpower the hijackers. Everyone on board is killed. As a result of the attacks, 2,977 Americans lose their lives—2,753 at the World Trade Center, 184 at the Pentagon and 40 in Pennsylvania (including 265 on the four planes)—and more than 6,000 others are injured.

January 6, 2021: An armed mob, incited by former president Donald Trump, attacks the US Capitol building, hoping to prevent the certification by Congress of President Joe Biden's election in 2020. Five people die either shortly before, during or after the attack. Many others are injured including 138 police officers. Four responding officers commit suicide within the next seven months.

August 8, 2022: Officers from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, the residence of former president Trump, in Palm Beach, FL. The search focuses on material Trump brought to Mar-a-Lago after he left the White House, allegedly including classified documents. Agents remove about a dozen boxes from the residence.

August 8, 2022: Mark Levin, during an interview on Fox News, says the legally sanctioned search of Trump's residence is "the worst attack on this Republic in modern history. Period."

Really?

Granted, Levin is a lawyer, not an historian, but "the worst attack on this Republic in modern history?" Really?

Worse than Pearl Harbor? Worse than the 9/11 carnage? Worse than the bloody and seditious attack on the US Capitol building? Really?

Perhaps Levin's memory of "modern history" stretches back no further than January 7, 2021. That would seem to be the only basis for an assertion that the legally authorized search of the former president's home, in which no one, as far as we know, was killed, injured or even caused any discomfort, was "the worst attack on this Republic in modern history."

To which he added, in case anyone had a doubt: "Period."

What is most disheartening, aside from the fact that Levin apparently hasn't a clue when it comes to retracing "modern American history," is the fact that many of his Fox News viewers no doubt agree with him. The dumbing down of America didn't start yesterday, but it seems to have reached its nadir in the almost six years since Donald Trump was elected president. Given how Trump's supporters—including Republican members of Congress—have rushed to his defense in the absence of any clear facts or rationale, one may reasonably argue that our collective intellect is "the worst it has ever been in modern American history. Period."

August 15, 2022

For those who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of legal jargon, wading through the provisions of the Federal Records Act, the Presidential Records Act, the Espionage Act or any other Act sanctioned by the US government is akin to canoeing through whitewater rapids blindfolded. Yes, there are definitions to explain the meaning of the Acts, and passages outlining penalties for their violation, but the language in which they are written is a lawyers' paradise—expressly ambiguous and subject to countless layers of legal interpretation.

Slow-witted as he may be, Donald Trump knows that. Even more to the point, his lawyers know that too. That is why Trump can defiantly thumb his nose at any DOJ/FBI incursion at Mar-a-Lago. He knows his lawyers will never let the feds lay a finger on him—in spite of the fact that the Presidential Records Act clearly states that "the United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records."

Trump believes the term "United States" refers to him—and if the lawyers he employs are better than Giuliani or Powell, he could be right.

Here is what the Act says: "Upon the conclusion of a President's term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms, upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of the President."

Presidential records, it says, means "documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."

As lawyers would say, that's jurisprudentially clear as day. And note that nowhere does it say "unless a former president chooses to appropriate said documentary materials and take them with him to his post-presidential home in Florida."

For the sake of argument, let's say—and this is purely hypothetical, of course—let's say that a former president or someone else were to take documentary records of the presidency, which are the property of the National Archives, and house them at a private residence, ignoring federal subpoenas to return them to the NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) and daring the FBI to enforce a DOJ-authorized warrant to seize and return them. Would that be a crime?

Here is what the Presidential Records Act says: "(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

"(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

Please note that there are no exceptions to "whoever"—up to and including former presidents. Withholding, concealing or otherwise debasing presidential records is a CRIME, for which penalties will be imposed. Nowhere does it say such records must be "classified" for a crime to have been committed. The Act applies to ANY AND ALL such documentary evidence, and to ANYONE who unlawfully "conceals" or "removes" it from its proper Archival quarters.

One former president (no need to name him) who has been accused of the unlawful possession of presidential records contends that he "declassified" them before taking them home with him, so the charge against him is moot. However, the Presidential Records Act says nothing about the nature of materials "concealed, removed, mutilated" and so on; to the contrary, the Act says that the abuse of ANY "record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing," classified or not, is a CRIME as defined by the PRA. It is the former president's argument, not the government's, that is specious.

Even so, you may say, some courts have held that statutes prohibiting the destruction of public records are "specific-intent" crimes, meaning that violators must know they are breaking the law to be convicted. That's true, but Trump and his aides were specifically and repeatedly warned about violating the Presidential Records Act, admonitions they ignored along with subpoenas from the National Archives to return the documents being housed at Mar-a-Lago, making their "specific intent" quite clear. Those records (including eleven sets of classified documents) were staying in West Palm Beach.

And insofar as any of those records may pertain to investigations by the Department of Justice and the House committee investigating the Trump-inspired attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the former president could be charged with obstruction under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which deals with "the destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations" and carries with it a sentence of twenty years in prison plus a hefty fine.

As if that weren't enough, some say that Trump could also be charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, enacted during World War I. That Act makes it illegal to "obtain information, capture photographs or copy descriptions of any information relating to national defense, with the intent for that information to be used against the United States or for the gain of any foreign nation." But even though Trump has "borrowed" government documents marked Top Secret and even higher, his "intent" to use them against the US or "for the gain of any foreign nation" would be difficult if not impossible to prove in court. Even Giuliani or Powell might win that case.

Having read the statutes in question, there is no doubt in my mind that former president Trump has committed a crime—and most likely more than one. The issue is: where do we go from here? Trump's legal problems, federal and state, are front-page news. Much is reported about his "potential" violations of the law, none of which ever seems to morph into actual charges against him. The decision to search for illicit documents at Mar-a-Lago, and the FBI's ability to actually find a long list of them (including eleven sets of classified documents), places Attorney General Merrick Garland in a difficult if not untenable position. To paraphrase Shakespeare, to charge or not to charge? That is the question. If Trump is not charged with a crime, it means the former president really is above the law, and demolishes Garland's promise to apply the law "without fear or favor." If, on the other hand, Trump is charged and indicted, his brain-dead followers have vowed to fight a "civil war" on his behalf, and so there is that to consider.

Aside from any political or social consequences, Garland's proper path seems clear. What is less clear is whether he intends to fish or cut bait. Only time can tell.

Meanwhile in Washington...

Democrats last week passed the Biden administration's multi-billion dollar Inflation Reduction Act and sent it to the president's desk for his signature. Notice we didn't say "the Senate and House" passed the bill. That's because not a single Republican senator—not even such "moderates" as Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins—voted in favor of the bill, nor did a single GOP member of the House—including two who are on the committee investigating former president Trump for trying to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election.

True, the IRA isn't perfect—"moderate" Democrats including Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema made sure of that—but it does contain a number of provisions that are sure to help ordinary Americans cope, as well as measures to address energy, the environment and climate change (for example, tax credits to help consumers make cleaner energy choices). Another small step forward (one that should have been taken years ago) is allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prices for some high-cost drugs starting in 2026 (there is no reason this shouldn't cover all prescription drugs, but that's another story), and capping some drug costs for Medicare recipients. This is only a brief overview; on balance, the IRA is more helpful to Americans than otherwise, even if it makes no more than a small dent in inflation.

Given those benefits, the question is, why wouldn't a single Republican vote in favor of its passage?

Comments