The Journalstic Rape of Katherine Herridge, The Bloodthirsty Persecution of President Trump.
We are not "approaching" a constitutional crisis. We are in a constitutional crisis.
This will be a cry of anguish from a senior citizen who loves his nation with a deep devotion, abiding loyalty and a patriotic duty to speak, loud and clear, the message I want the world to hear. In doing so, I am realistic enough to know that only a tiny, almost infinitesimal, group of my fellow citizens will hear my message and many of them will feel, as I do at times, “it’s out of our hands” or “what can one person do?” I do not have the answer to that question but I do know deep in my old bones that if the 75 million of us who are terrified at what is happening to our country just sit back and give them free rein the elites and the Marxists will continue their barbaric destruction of the great nation bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers.
In noting the following questions and emphasizing that I do not have any magic answers to any of them, one would be reasonable in thinking I am just like that classic photo of a liberal “howling at the moon” upon learning that Hillary would not, after all, be anointed Queen of All She Beholds. That is a fair point and one which I understand albeit one which with I disagree, an act which can lead to most unpleasant consequences in these days of wokeness and safe spaces and teddy bears and hurt feelings at simply seeing inantimate things like statues of our Founding Fathers. But many questions keep coming back and back again and the answers which suggest themselves seem, to this nuance-free mind at least, to be realtively simple and straightforward; here are just a few:
Who are these people who hate the country which gave them the freedom to speak freely so deeply they want to tear it all down?
Why do they harbor such white-hot hatred against so many people and institutions —President Trump, obviously at the head of any list of hatred-targets. Catherine Herridge, Justices of our highest Court, the Court itself, symbols of our past history such as memorials to Robert E. Lee and, of all our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, entire (Democrat-run) cities whose downtowns have been rendered uninhabitable, among many other examples.
Why have We The People, including, to be sure, yours truly, allowed our nation to get to the point where many of us believe November 5, 2024 will be liberty’s Last Stand?
Why have we allowed George Soros, Barack Hussein Obama, Merrick Garland, Christopher Wray, Klaus Schmidt, inter alia, to become de facto rulers of our formerly soverign nation?
Why have we allowed a corrupt, low-life, con man, bottom feeder and common thug like the head of the Biden Crime Family, to single handedly allow millions and millions of illegals to totally destroy the sovereignty of our nation and very possibly shift the Electoral College balance to an irreparable extent?
In raising these questions I say to emphasize that I am not a total hypoctrite- as we have more than our share of those in our nation today- I fully admit there may well be things I should be doing other than the aforesaid “howling at the moon” in order to make my voice heard more forcefully. In partial defense-not excuse- I note a significantly heightened sense of frustration when I follow that old admonition “Call Your Congressman” only to be told by a member of his staff that “my” Congressman does not accept or return phone calls from his constitutents.
Having “given up”, and how I hate to use those words, on even trying to speak to my Representative in the National Legislature, I have written letters to the Editor, have written many pieces here on my blog and elsewhere about the mounting dangers we face and have served as a poll worker for what is easily one of the most efficient State election systems, that of Florida. Any suggestions on what more a senior citizen can do to help save his country would be gladly received and considered.
All of that said, there are so many examples that illustrate our descent into a tyrannical police state it is a challenge to pick out just a few. But the two recent examples suggested by the title of this post shine a very intense beam of light on this question and what that light illuminates is not, to put it charitably, a pretty sight but as treacherous and dangerous a situation as this country has seen in a very long time. They are both outrages exhibiting a total disregard for the Rule of Law on which this nation was founded as well as an abysmal ignorance of the basics of our founding documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Journalistic Rape of Catherine Herridge by The Network of Walter Cronkite
I recently watched much of the Congressional hearing on freedom of the press featuring testimony of Catherine Herridge and Sharyl Atkisson. I cannot recommend too highly that everyone who wants a clearer understanding of how extremely tyrannical and autocratic our government and institutions and corporations have become watch the full hearing. It is accessible on C-SPAN but for those who do not want to spend that much time here is the clip of Ms. Herridge’s and Ms. Atkisson’s exchanges with Jim Jordan, R-Ohio:
For many of us, Ms Herridge was one of the main reasons we continued to watch Fox News, along with Tucker Carlson. Every time she came on with one of her special reports we commented on the fact that she was one of the few remaining real journalists, in the traditional sense of the word. We remember being very disappointed when she left Fox for CBS as it meant, among other things, it would be very unlikely we would continue to be the beneficiaries of her superb style of investigative reporting as we never watch the alphabets. It was our loss as we respect her journalism without limit. Our disappointment was somewhat mollified by the realization that, at last, CBS would have a genuine, working, extremely talented investigative reporter on its crew instead of just a group of paid stenographers for the Democratic Natonal Party who were mostly interested in how their hair looked that day.
She was a graduate of Columbia School of Journalism and recipient of many top honors both at Fox and later at CBS. Her credentials can be summed up in one word: impeccable. One would think a person like Ms. Herridge, at the very pinnacle of her career, would be treated with dignity and respect by the network of Walter Cronkite.
One would be wrong.
She was informed via Zoom call that her position had been “terminated”, that all of her files - including those related to her confidential sources- had been seized and, as a final insult, she had been locked out of the CBS building.
Additionally, while appearing as a witness in a Federal court trial, she was ordered by a Judge in the District Court of the District of Columbia (is it necessary at this point to say-of course!) to either reveal her confidential source for a story involved in that trial or face a fine of $800.00 per day and possible jail time. She refused to do so and that ruling is now on appeal to the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia. She described the impact all of this has had on her life and her professional career in this article:
“As you know, I was held in contempt of court for upholding the basic journalistic principle of maintaining the pledge of confidentiality to my sources,” Herridge said in her opening statement. “I have complete respect for the district court and the judicial process and I am not here to litigate the merits of that case. It will play out before the appellate court in Washington D.C.”
Herridge testified that she has been fighting in the courts for two years, and that “I am facing crippling fines of 800 dollars a day, to protect my reporting sources.”
” When you go through major life events, as I have in recent weeks, losing your job, your health insurance, having your reporting files seized by your former employer, and being held in contempt of court, it gives you clarity,” she stated.
The First Amendment, the protection of confidential sources, and a free press are my guiding principles. They are my North Star. When I was laid off in February, an incident reinforced in my mind the importance of protecting confidential sources. CBS News locked me out of the building and seized hundreds of pages of my reporting files, including confidential source information.
Herridge testified that “multiple sources” had contacted her to express concern that by working with her “to expose government corruption and misconduct they would be identified and exposed.”
I pushed back, and with the public support of my union, SAG-AFTRA, the records were returned. CBS News’ decision to seize my reporting records crossed a red line that I believe should never be crossed by any media organization.
Herridge noted that being held in contempt has “taken a toll on me and my career” and said she could not fight this battle without the support of other journalists and multiple First Amendment organizations.
“When the network of Walter Cronkite seizes your reporting files including confidential source information that is an attack on investigative journalism, Herridge told Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
I just want to be clear congressman. Wherever you work, if this happened to you, it’s an attack on free press. It’s an attack on the First Amendment. It makes it more challenging for reporters to work in the future. That disrupts the free flow of information to the public. They call journalism a profession for a reason. Because it’s about an informed electorate and it’s a cornerstone of our Democracy. I can only speak for myself. When my records were seized, I felt it was a journalistic rape.
Cruelty: perhaps it’s not forbidden by name in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights (although the word is used in the Eighth Amendment relative to punishments) but that word, and the idea behind it, keep coming back to me in so many instances of the recent past, especially the one in which the jackboots of CBS felt it necessary to humiliate a person of Ms. Herridge’s stature in her profession. Reverting to the questioni asked above, who are these people who can treat their fellow citizens -and human beings- in such a bloodless fashion? Again, I do not have the answer to this question but viewing her testimony in Congress, unless one is bloodless like the “nobility” of CBS, one could feel the deep hurt this crushing blow brought to her- for what reason? In that connection, I sure am looking forward to her reporting on whatever malfeasance/misfeasance/felonious conduct she has uncovered that had the upper echelon of CBS so fearful of its release!
“Fairness for President Trump?” “The most persecuted man in America-legally and politically.”
Both of those two statements are from recent articles about the ongoing ruthless hounding of the former President by commentators I highly respect, another historical tradition trashed by the near-maniacal hatred prevalent in Democrat cirdcles today. As there have been millions upon millions of words written about this phenomenon, and that is what it is as nothing like this has ever occurred in our history, I will set forth a very few brief observations by commentators whose opinions I highly respect and trust.
First, to set the stage for my own deeply held opinions on this barbaric pursuit, it is appropriate to start with a charming little piece of news out of the White House this morning, from which we learn that certain staffers of the current occupant of the Oval Office have taken to referring to President Trump as “Hitler pig”, making for a stark contrast in what we were warned about not much more than a few months ago-that it is absolutely forbidden to call any opponent, especially a liberal, by the “H” word. For liberals the goalposts keep getting shifted with dizzying speed.
Second, how am I so presumptuous to think I could add one single word to the river of commentary already published on this wretched, in the true sense of the word, set of persecutions which have been launched by bloodthirsty lackeys of the Biden administration , two District Attorneys whose motives are, to be most charitable, a gesture they have not accorded the former President of the United States, suspect as one of them ran on the promise to “get Trump” and the other has been proven in sworn testimony to be a pathological liar and an Attorney General who proclaims her pathological hatred for the former President every single day. I hope to answer that by sharing some insights gained through many years of trial practice, a history which makes me recoil in disgust and anger at some of the theater being conducted, after some words by prominent observers of the scene.
No one who even tries to keep up with these trials, hearings, jury selections, gag orders, etc., etc., could be blamed for registering boredom with yet another recitation of the facts in the presently ongoing case but it is important to “rehash” them as they represent, in many ways, the total destruction of basic fairness upon which our entire system of justice is built. Here is an excellent summary of the ludicrous “case” brought by the corpulent, Soros-bought-and-paid-for DA of Manhattan from the Wall Street Journal:
The facts are these: Ms. Daniels has said that in 2006 she and Mr. Trump had one, er, intimate encounter. A decade later, as the 2016 election neared, Mr. Trump’s fixer Michael Cohen paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet. A nondisclosure agreement isn’t illegal. Mr. Bragg’s complaint is about the paperwork. Mr. Cohen was reimbursed through 2017 via a monthly retainer “disguised as a payment for legal services,” the DA said. He padded his indictment by separately charging each invoice, check and ledger entry to get 34 counts.
Falsifying business records in New York can be a misdemeanor, but the statute of limitations on that has expired. Mr. Bragg therefore must charge felonies, which under New York law means showing that Mr. Trump cooked the books with “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
Even that requires special dispensation. The 2017 payments are outside the five-year felony window, but state judge Juan Merchan ruled that Mr. Bragg enjoys an extra year of leeway after emergency Covid-19 executive orders stopped the clock on legal cases.
The crucial question is Mr. Trump’s alleged second crime. To bring bookkeeping felonies, Mr. Bragg needs an underlying offense that Mr. Trump intended to commit or conceal, even if it isn’t prosecuted.
Mr. Bragg didn’t charge the second crime and didn’t clearly identify it in last year’s indictment. His court filings since have advanced four theories of what that crime might be, three of which the judge blessed.
Today’s system of justice and today only if your name is Trump; tomorrow why not anyone any DA wants to go after? It is astonishing to me - and I would welcome the views of any attorneys who might think I’m off base here - that the “crime” which is the entire basis of the case, and the only way it can get past the statute of limitations problem, has never been specified. I will once again show my age by returning to the Bill of Rights and the Sixth Amendment which provides in part:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall … be informed of the nature and cause of teh accusation….”
Fairness for Trump?
Speaking of fairness, I absolutely agree with President Trump when he calls Judge Mercan the most conflicted Judge ever and he clearly should have recused himself due to his record of donating to Democrat campaigns which is, according to reports, forbidden by the New York State Bar Association. However, even more blatant is the fact that his daughter is the CEO of a heavily Democrat leaning campaign consulting firm, which earned over 3.7 million dollars in fees from Adam Schiff, about whom it would take me an encyclopedia to express my contempt. The key here is that these fees were earned by the Judge’s daughter in roughly the same time frane in which Shifty Schiff was heading up the ridiculous impeachment charges against the President about a phone call with the President of Ukraine. In my experience, it is fair to say that most Judges I dealt with would have probably - readily!- granted a Motion to Recuse under these facts.
While I am not licensed to practice in New York, I am (a) a lawyer in good standing in the Louisiana Bar Association, (b) I know the general rules of statutory interpretation and © I can read. Here, for those who can read and understand the English language, is a discussion of the applicable rule of the Judicial Code of New York, from a Twitter post by a seasoned attorney who opines that Trump cannot get a fair trial in this court, in this city, at the hands of this Judge and this DA and, almost certainly, at the hands of this jury:
BREAKING: Lawyer David Schoen says Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan’s, the judge overseeing President Trump’s “hush money” case, disqualification is mandatory. “This judge has no interest in being fair.” He pointed out New York law 100.3 e(1)d(iii), which states that a judge should disqualify themselves if “a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship” has an “interest that could be substantially affected” by how the case proceeds.
Here’s the law:
Is it even necessary to point out that the Judge’s daughter is within the sixth degree of relationship or have we not quite reached that point yet?
We are also informed that the Judge has allowed the DA to conceal the identity of his first witnesses from the defense which, again based on my experience with many Judges, would rarely happen in any ordinary judicial proceeding - apparently another special rule for a specific American citizen whose name happens to be Trump.
Another example of the basic unfairness of this entire travesty of “justice” is shown in the Judge’s breathtaking hubris in denying President Trump the right to be allowed to be absent Thursday to attend oral arguments in the Supreme Court on his immunity defense:
Merchan also rebuffed a request from Blanche to excuse the former president next Thursday so he could attend the Supreme Court hearing on his immunity claims as part of a separate lawfare case.
“Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal, and I can certainly appreciate why your client would want to be there, but a trial in New York Supreme Court … is also a big deal,” Merchan said, according to the New York Post. “I will see him here next week.”
Merchan also refused to give an affirmative answer as to whether Trump could attend his son Barron’s high school graduation on May 17.
While other lawyers may well have had different experiences with Judges they dealt with but in my own career of dealing with many, many Judges in different jurisdictions I cannot think of one who would deny a litigant the right to be absent from his trial - note: not to delay the trial, just to be absent one day- in order to attend his child’s high school gradutation ceremony. Not a single one. Of course, this is what might be expected from a “Judge” who equates the privelege of being a litigant in his courtroom, the lowest tier of trial courts in New York , with attending arguments in the United States Supreme Court. Hubris run amok.
Fairness for Trump?
Here is the way Roger Kimball portrayed the entire sordid theater of sleaze now taking place in New York City, quoting Andrew McCarthy in National Review:
It is worth noting that this is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of fundamental fairness and the impartial application of the law. National Review’s Andrew McCarthy is a staunch critic of Donald Trump. But he is under no illusions about what Alvin Bragg is attempting to do in his prosecution of Trump. “He turns an uncharged misdemeanor into 34 felonies,” McCarthy said recently, “while when dealing with violent crime in Manhattan, he turns felonies into misdemeanors.” Similarly, The Wall Street Journal is not an enthusiastic supporter of Donald Trump. But it is an enthusiastic supporter of the rule of law, which is why it is officially appalled by what is happening in what can only be called a show trial. “Now the country is on the brink of an extraordinary moment, as Mr. Bragg uses a weak and untested legal premise to put the other party’s presidential nominee on trial during the 2024 campaign.”
The best brief summary of the what this trial really portends for America is found, in my opinion, in the statement Mark Levin posted on Twitter . It starts with his description of this desecration of the American system of justice as “one of the most horrendous events in American legal history: a Stalinist-like trial in Manhattan that should never have seen the light of day.” He then describes in painful detail the breadth and scope of the persecution of Donald Trump:
Donald Trump is, in fact, the most persecuted man in America — legally and politically. And the Democrat Party media are working 24/7 promoting this injustice with the worst kind of propaganda and lies. Why? Of course, they hate Trump and fear his electability — they don’t want anything to stop the frightening trajectory of their autocratic rule. But even more, they despise you. Trump must be destroyed because you must be dispirited and acquiesce to one-party rule and the growing police state power of a centralized DC ruling class. By terrorizing Trump they hope to terrorize you. This is typical of an autocracy.
Here’s just some of it: unconstitutional impeachments, relentless Democrat Party-media attacks, attempts to bankrupt him and destroy his businesses with a preposterous statute, the criminalization of the law by Democrat prosecutors in four cases brought in four different jurisdictions and totaling 91 cooked up charges, the use of a criminal warrant and an FBI SWAT team to search his home, the denial of 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendment rights denying him free speech, due process, equal protection, attorney-client privilege, competent representation, imposing hugely excessive fines and denying him a jury trial, judges cutting corners and rushing cases before the election, judges with obvious conflicts of interest overseeing cases and the effective suspension of judicial rules of professional conduct , the leaking of his tax returns, multiple efforts to remove him from state presidential ballots, denying him presidential immunity post-presidency, denying him executive privilege protection, the use of grand juries in overwhelmingly hostile cities, bar and criminal attacks on his lawyers, etc.
Journalistic Rape and Desecration of the Rule of Law-Portents of the Future of America?
In my view, these two examples taken together represent as clear an example of the dleiberate, systematic, intentional destruction of the greatest Nation ever conceived by the mind of man, piece by piece, brick by brick, slowly and methodically, by the liberal/Socilalist/Marxist wing of the Democrat Party, a portion which has now just about consumed the entire party. They represent, among many other things, as Levin described the current trial in New York City, “a stain on our country caused, once again, by a Democrat party that has always rejected and hated the great American experiment.”
If all of this seems “old hat” and boring old news, ask yourself one question: if they could do this to one of the most highly regarded and respected journalists in the country and to a multi-billionaire and former President of the United States, just think of what they could do to you.
I haven't finished reading your essay. But I do have an app for you; citizensportal AI