Mark Caserta: President wisely ends the Iran nuclear deal

18 May

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

5.18.18

 

Trump “nukes” Iran Deal

trump iran deal

 

 

The defining measure by which Donald Trump will be judged will not be his tweets, his relationships or even his politically incorrect style. President Trump will be remembered for the peace and prosperity he ushered in for all Americans.

Prosperity has been added for millions in tax cuts and jobs. As the president establishes a foothold in global leadership, he’s working toward achieving peace through strength. As a skilled negotiator, Donald Trump understands you must operate from a position of strength.

Weakness is a poor strategy for winning.

It was the Obama administration’s policies espousing apology and appeasement that diminished the strength of the U.S. on the world stage. Sadly, this sort of negotiating prowess gave Americans the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

Officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), I believe this deal, between the U.S., Iran, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union, was nothing more than a “paper tiger” for Barack Obama. From the beginning of his campaign, Donald Trump promised Americans he would “nuke” the deal if elected president.

True to his word, after attempts at renegotiating the deal, President Trump announced last Tuesday the U.S. will withdraw from the JCPA and reimpose economic sanctions on Iraq. In a show of Trumpian strength, the president added that any nation helping Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the U.S.

Understand, the Iran nuclear deal was never an official treaty. President Obama never secured the support of the Senate for the deal. Congress did pass the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act in 2015 that requires the president to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran remains in compliance with the deal and that sanctions relief remains in the national security interest of the United States.

Also understand, the JCPA wasn’t intended to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. It’s “sunset provisions” allowed Iran to continue pursuing nuclear proliferation after about 10 years.

But the immensely nave premise overshadowing the deal required the U.S. to “trust” Iran to adhere to the provisions of the agreement. Remember, this is a nation whose head of their army, Abdolrahim Mousavi, recently threatened to annihilate Israel in response to tensions escalating between the two countries, per an April column in The Telegraph, by Rana Sweis.

Israel, a nation cognizant of the Iran threat, wisely maintained vigilance over Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed conclusive evidence Iran had not been complying with the JCPA and was, in fact, hiding its nuclear arms capabilities from the world.

From the Diplomatic Room in the White House, President Trump aptly described his reasoning behind killing the deal on behalf of the American people.

“The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen,” Trump said. “In just a short period of time, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Thankfully, many of Obama policies that crippled America for eight long years are disappearing under Donald Trump. But the eradication of the JCPA may have been Trump’s greatest accomplishment thus far, benefitting not only Americans, but Israel and the world.

Peace through strength, simply put, is a possession of power that never has to be demonstrated. This can only be achieved through true leadership.

Our enemies and allies once again revere the power of the United States and presume an unwavering resolve from our president in his negotiations on behalf of all Americans.

This will be the legacy of President Donald J. Trump.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

 

 

 

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don’t Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

 

Mark Caserta: Remembering media on National Day of Prayer

11 May

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

5.11.2018

 

NDP

 

 

Last week, I was honored to be asked to participate in the National Day of Prayer celebration on the Cabell County Courthouse lawn and lead a prayer for our nation’s media.

Here’s an excerpt for our readers:

“Good afternoon. It’s truly an honor to be here among brothers and sisters who believe in the power of prayer.

“On this National Day of Prayer, we’re not just celebrating a day, but our ability to communicate with God the Father, the Creator of the universe, on behalf of our great country and our great people.

“There’s a progressive movement in our nation that would like to shut down this sort of celebration, under the guise of the 1st Amendment. But, the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ isn’t found anywhere in the Constitution. It does say Congress should make no law respecting one religion over another, but it also says they can’t prohibit the free exercise thereof!

“Why do some wish to shut down events like this? The Bible tells us the effectual, fervent prayer of the righteous availeth much! The left simply doesn’t want prayer influencing their agenda.

“While the National Day of Prayer is a noble day of celebration, it’s important we pray for our nation’s leaders every day.

“It’s equally important to pray for an influential media that report on events relative to leaders and events around the world, as well as right here in our own city.

“So, please bow your heads with me as we pray for our nation’s media on this National Day of Prayer.

“Gracious Heavenly Father, we come before you in the name of Jesus, the Christ, your only begotten Son, who gave his life freely, so we may have life and have it more abundantly.

“We thank you first for your Grace, Love and Mercy. We thank You for every good and perfect gift, as we know it comes from Above.

“Father, we thank you for our nation’s media. Throughout the years they’ve been integral in sharing the Gospel. We’ve been blessed with journalists who’ve honored the principles of journalism and objectively reported truth in a virtuous manner.

“But Father, as the enemy often does, Satan has attacked and prejudiced some media on his behalf. And we know, his only purpose is to steal, kill and destroy.

“Father, we refuse to allow evil to gain or maintain a foothold in our nation’s media. We recognize various attacks across the country and God’s people will not be shaken!

“So, today we take on the whole armor of God on behalf of the media.

“Ephesians 6:11-13 gives God’s people instruction in preparing for battle:

“‘Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore, put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.’

“So, Father, prepare us for battle. We take up the shield of faith to quench the enemy’s fiery darts, we take on the helmet of salvation and most importantly we prepare for battle with the sword of the Spirit – God’s Word, which endures forever.

“Father, we know your Word will not return void. Let this day be marked in history as the day we crippled the enemy’s attack on our media.

“And all God’s people say,

“AMEN.”

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

 

Doug Smith: U.S. Constitution has served “We the People” for over 200 years

4 May

doug 2

Doug Smith:  Free State Patriot historian and social editor

5.4.2018

constition 2

US Constitution

Article 1, Section 8

Congress shall have power to… (among other things)

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws about Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Article 2, Section 2

The President

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Article 3, Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Evidently, we no longer teach civics in the public schools of these United States. Equally evidently, we neither teach it nor require it as basic knowledge of judges, or members of congress, or presidents.  If you like the extra-legal decisions made in support of your desired position, you may cheer this fact. You should not.

Case in point.

Yet another judge has chimed in to make his ruling that President Trump cannot stop the DACA program because his decision to do so is arbitrary, and besides, he is Trump. Now this judge is entitled to dislike the President. After all, I did so for the previous 8 years. But he is no more able to stop the President’s decisions because of that than I was.

To be clear: DACA is not a law. (See above. Congress never passed any law upon which DACA is based, this was simply a decision by the President, carried out by the Secretary of DHS, to “fail to faithfully execute existing law”, to wit, immigration law, because he did not like it. President Trump, whose instincts in the matter are to faithfully and vigorously enforce immigration law, nevertheless tried to do the right thing. He announced that he was going to rescind the arbitrary  decision of President Obama, and begin enforcing the law once again. However, he also tossed the ball to Congress, whose ball it was, and said, if you folks want to do something about the people affected by this decision, well do your job. Write a bill, pass it and send it to me, and THEN we can have a law to execute.

That is the sound of crickets. No bill. No law. (By the way, President Obama had a totally Democrat Congress for 2 full years. He could have gotten a law enacted then. Or, he could have compromised with the GOP, and still gotten some sort of law to deal with the situation of DACA aliens. He chose not to)

So, President Trump announced that he would end the program of failing to enforce a law that Barack Obama did not like, because, well, it IS the law. And evidently, from the actions of Barack Obama and the Congress for 10 years, that is what they WANT the law to be.

Now judges may rule that laws do not pass the Constitution, and require review if SCOTUS upholds them. What judges may NOT do, under our Constitution, is infringe upon the power of the President to enforce “existing law.” (The judge may try ruling the Law to be unconstitutional, and start the judicial review process, but he may NOT, as Judge Roy Bean did, tear a page out of the law book with the words “That’s a bad law. I repealed it.”) So, a judge may no more rule “You can’t stop enforcing the laws on immigration for non-citizens brought here illegally as children” than he can rule “You can’t stop anyone who drank milk as a child from stealing milk.”

Congress may make such laws. But not the courts. When they do, it costs a lot of money and time and suffering of injustice before they are finally slapped down by SCOTUS.  For the left, it has become the game plan, because one judge can usurp Congress’ authority and keep things going their way for a long time, without the tedious necessity of actually winning elections, then letting Congress do their job.

Tedious, and a losing proposition, because Dems are typically pressing minority opinions against the will of the people by using the court ploy.

Before you applaud the strategy, consider its cost, and danger. King Henry II and Archbishop Thomas Becket were at odds over the appointment of judges, resulting in Becket s murder and Henry nearly losing his throne. A war ensued.

Arbitrary tax laws and judges resulted in King John facing the Barons at Runnymede, and the Magna Carta being signed.

The city of New London, backed by perhaps the worst decision in SCOTUS history, took a house from a lady named Kelo under eminent domain, so they could sell the property to a developer to build a headquarters for Pfizer drug company and bring them tax money. (Congress ought to pass a law overriding the Kelo decision, but that is for another story.)  However, in a case of cosmic justice, the HQ was never built, and Pfizer left the state completely due to Ct tax increases.  Today the site is an empty lot, overrun with weeds.

Historically, arbitrary judges are not without consequence. And you should fear and loathe them.  You can predict the actions of a judge who is bound by law. You can read the law and know they cannot take your home, or car, or fine you, or force you to pay higher taxes, just because they want to. You can know that if Congress raises your taxes and you don’t like it, you can toss the bums out. Not so a judge, who rules that your area MUST charge you more taxes to pay for something he decides they should pay for. (That is making law from the bench.)

You may cheer today when a judge rules against Donald Trump because you don’t like him. But if judges can rule based on their personal likes and dislikes, tomorrow, or next year you may encounter a judge who doesn’t like, well, YOU!

Do you want him to be able to rule on your life, liberty, or pocketbook based on that dislike? Or would you prefer him bound by the laws we all think we live under?

Our judiciary needs to be taken to school on the Constitution which is the source of their authority. It does not matter that they don’t like it or think it antiquated, it is our law. And they should have to abide by it, just as should POTUS, and Congress.

Abraham Lincoln noted that our Civil War was going to determine whether “government of the people, by the people, and for the people, would perish from the earth.”  Four years of war, and half a million deaths was not enough to kill it in sound and fury.

We should not abide arrogant people usurping it and causing it to perish by dry rot, either.

We, the people are a mighty force, when we remember that fact.

We, the people, established the Constitution, and this form of government.

We, the people, fought a great war to preserve this form of government.

We, the people, need to reach the point of looking at the lack of common sense and decency flowing from those directing our institutions and shaping thought and say, Enough!

Read the Constitution. Then decide that you are going to hold any leader, from a judge, to a School Board Member, to a President, to that standard. This is our law folks. It’s done well for over 2 hundred years. Let’s try it again.

 

 

Mark Caserta: What if Hillary had won the presidency?

4 May

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot

5.4.2018

 

hillary-goodbye

 

So, Progressive Democrats continue to mourn their unexpected loss in the 2016 presidential election.

I’m not certain, but I believe I witnessed a distressed liberal wandering aimlessly the other day, humming “The Way We Were.”

But seriously, isn’t it time to check the animosity at reality’s door? Suppose Hillary had won the election. What would the “state of our union” likely be at this point in her presidency?

Americans certainly wouldn’t be enjoying their tax cuts resulting from the president’s tax reform legislation. Liberal Democrats would never have given you a tax break. Taking more of your hard-earned money is the pillar of the Democrat platform!

Millions of Americans would not have returned to work as a result of President Trump reining in non-productive government regulations. You would probably be experiencing additional job-killing regulations, further decimating our workforce and driving more families into poverty.

The Obamacare individual mandate also would still be in force, mandating everyone purchase health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS. I believe a Clinton presidency would have eventually led to a single-payer healthcare system, giving the government ultimate control of your life.

We surely wouldn’t be experiencing the decrease in illegal immigration Trump has achieved through his tough stance on border security. I believe the borders would be porous to anyone able to “pull a voting lever” for a liberal Democrat who would provide them sanctuary and a pathway to citizenship.

The Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines that Trump signed orders moving forward would still be stymied in government bureaucracy. Hillary would never have disenfranchised her base of environmental purists by allowing these pipelines to be built, strengthening energy and jobs.

Oh, and the coal miners we see returning to work would not be. After all, Hillary told America, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” at a CNN Democratic Town Hall in Columbus, Ohio.

Remember the Islamic terrorist organization known as ISIS, or the “jayvee team” if you’re Barack Obama? Many recall the horrific beheadings, burnings or drownings at the hands of these barbarians. If Hillary was elected we would still have a president refusing to even utter the words “Islamic terrorist,” much less empower our military to do what it does best – win.

Speaking of the military. It was never weaker or less feared than under Obama. Trump signed a massive defense bill authorizing an additional $700 billion for the Defense Department, with the goal of making America’s military great again. Under Hillary, I believe our military would have continued its dangerous decline, further emboldening our enemies.

President Obama infamously drew a “red line” with the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria warning the dictator not to use chemical weapons on his own people, only to lack the backbone to enforce it. No doubt, Hillary would lack the same intestinal fortitude. In contrast, Trump dropped an array of Cruise missiles into Assad’s back yard.

Who do you suppose would have the most deterring impact on this ruthless oppressor?

The reality is, if liberals had successfully elected Hillary, our nation would have continued down the road to “fundamental change,” or ‘progressive demise.

It’s a no-brainer for anyone intellectually honest. Despite the deleterious, liberal policies employed for eight long years, America is winning once again.

And with or without liberal support, Trump will continue to put America first.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

 

Mark Caserta: Trump presidency part of a divine plan

27 Apr

 

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

4.27.2018

 

team trump

The importance of the relationship between the United States and Israel cannot be understated. As a major contributing factor for evangelicals casting their vote for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential election, one might say the relevance of our relationship is of “Biblical proportion.”

The relationship between our two nations was arguably on a downhill spiral during the Obama years. No previous American president has ever engendered such a precarious relationship with Israel as Barack Obama did. Our entire U.S. foreign policy was upside down, with our enemies not fearing us, and our allies not trusting us.

But the Trump presidency not only promised to right the troubled ship of U.S. foreign policy, but to restore our coveted relationship with the nation of Israel.

Late last year, President Trump announced the U.S. would formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the U.S. embassy accordingly. Decades of prior administrations had vowed to do the same. The decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital was heralded by many pro-Israel activists and decried by Palestinians and America’s Arab allies.

But true to form, Donald Trump didn’t adhere to the politically expedient or safe mode when acting on behalf of Americans. He simply did what he said he would do.

It’s refreshing to have a president who defies the unprincipled political parameters designed to protect and pacify one’s way into a lucrative political career. Trump doesn’t need money from lobbyists or activists, nor does he care which foe’s feathers he ruffles! He’s comfortable being the antithesis of a career politician and is changing the way Americans view their representation in Washington.

Give me one moment of God’s favor over years of political pandering anytime!

In the Bible, the Hebrew prophet Zechariah reminds us of “the burden of the Word of the Lord concerning Israel.”

“Thus, declares the Lord Behold, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of staggering to all the surrounding peoples. The siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah. On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will surely hurt themselves.”

Of Israel, Genesis 12:3 says, “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Many, including myself, believe we are living in the final days before the second coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ. I know this faith is mocked by some. They alone must account for their disbelief. But I’m fully persuaded that despite Donald Trump’s imperfections, he’s been placed in the office of the presidency for a purpose, possibly beyond anything we could ever anticipate.

Many are aware Donald Trump wasn’t my first choice as president. But throughout history, God’s always chosen the most “unlikely” among us to fulfill His Word. And while I’ll not be led as a sheep to slaughter, I believe our president is a work in progress.

God created each of us with the ability to choose our path in life. Our choices, while impacting our lives and possibly those around us, will not impact God’s Word and Divine Plan for Israel.

Mock as some may, I believe the presidency of Donald J. Trump is part of that plan.

And God surely watches over His Word to perform it.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

 

Mark Caserta: Millions of Americans are grateful for Trump

22 Apr

me

Apr 20, 2018

 

president trump

 

 

Donald Trump is making America great again, just not for liberals.

While millions of Americans are enjoying the “conservative reawakening” President Trump has sparked within our nation, they’re also becoming increasingly aware of the irresponsible, self-serving, liberal antics to discredit our president.

And it’s making them angry.

From even a common-sense perspective, given the improvements for Americans in jobs, taxation, the economy, illegal immigration, healthcare, national defense and so many other areas since Trump was elected president, how can liberal Democrats continue to mount their campaign of resistance?

I submit it’s an unprincipled war against Americans who elected this president to return our country back to the path of prosperity, all in the name of protecting the progress liberals enjoyed under the Obama administration.

But despite the progressive petulance, millions of Americans reaping the dividends from the Trump presidency are grateful for the improvements in their lives.

Of course, liberals don’t seem thankful that Americans are once again prospering under President Trump. They would rather have speeches and empty promises, than a president committed to “America first.”

Frankly, the antics of the left have become so incredulous, it’s become downright embarrassing for liberal Democrats.

The recent return of ex-FBI Director James Comey and his interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News was nothing short of demeaning to a revered law enforcement organization like the FBI.

Nestled safely beside Clinton ex-crony Stephanopoulos, Comey revisited unverified claims about President Trump’s alleged 2013 activities with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room, for which Comey admitted there has never been evidence to support.

Astoundingly, Comey freely admitted the so-called “dossier” generated by Democrats and Hillary Clinton and used by the Obama administration to obtain a FISA (Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant to spy on the Trump campaign contained totally unverified information.

If Comey knew the allegations in the dossier were salacious and questionable, how did he present it to the FISA judge? Unverified and unsubstantiated information would fall short of obtaining such a warrant.

Did Comey, who supposedly represented an apolitical organization, lie to the FISA court about the dossier simply for political reasons?

During the interview, Comey exposed his lack of character when he compared President Trump to a “mob boss” and felt compelled to make disparaging remarks about the size of Trump’s hands and the color of his skin.

Folks, isn’t it clear, liberal Democrats have absolutely no credulity to leverage against President Trump? Isn’t it terribly sad and telling they’re willing to continue to blame our country for their sad representation in the 2016 presidential election.

I predict the voter perception between reality and liberal fantasy will continue to widen as more Americans become aware of liberal Democrat motivations. Their quest to delegitimize the presidency of Donald J. Trump at the expense of the American people will surely backfire.

I fully suspect voters will take their epiphanies regarding liberal politicians all the way to the polls in the mid-term elections.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

 

Doug Smith: Presidential powers are absolute; Special Counsel powers subject

16 Apr

 

doug 2

Doug Smith:  Free State Patriot historian and social editor

4.15.18

scooter

Re the Pardon of Scooter Libby

I am working on an article for FSP on why we seem to get the very worst people in politics and government service. (We get, occasionally, some of the very best, but the scoundrels are always there, and in quantity.)  But current events compel me to take a brief aside and comment on the very premise: the very worst people in our society and culture may be found in organized crime and government, which are, at times, indistinguishable.

To set the stage, find a copy of the US Constitution. Now, search through it and find the part about appointing a special counsel, or prosecutor, or an independent prosecutor, who can wield the awesome sword of the justice, empowered to the Executive Branch, with no accountability. Of course, all other prosecutors exercise the power of their office as delegated from the ultimate Executive authority, the President, as delegated through the Attorney General, as provided by the Constitution. For purposes of this discussion, let us concern ourselves with the provisions for appointing that “special “counsel, a law unto himself, free of the Executive. Go ahead and look it up, we’ll wait.

Not there, is it? No, there is no provision whereby the power of the Executive can be waived, and a non-elected official imbued with that power sans the accountability which goes with it. For the Constitution does provide accountability for the Executive should he misuse his power. He can face the electorate who vote their displeasure and send him packing, or, if the cause is both serious and urgent enough, Congress is empowered to act and impeach him and remove him from office. Even there, they are accountable, and will face the voters in less than 2 years, so they are subject to the politics of the time. Thus, Congress will never impeach a popular President, because to do so would be political suicide. And in the case of an unpopular President, the viable threat of impeachment may be enough for him to resign and avoid impeachment. Thus, Nixon at 24%, and despised by Democrats, resigned. Bill Clinton at over 50%, was halfheartedly impeached, but not removed, by a Congress who looked to the electorate. And so, the system worked, and so it was designed, and so it should work. An unpopular President was removed from office as the voters reconsidered, and Congress, given sufficient high crimes and misdemeanors, could have removed him. Clinton, as morally bankrupt as he was (and is) presided over a strong economy, and was well liked (as most sociopaths are, the charm of Hannibal Lecter) and thus, Congress had the means, and the right, but not the will, to remove him. The will of the people won out. The system worked.

So why, oh why, would we ever permit ourselves to be saddled with a special prosecutor? He may be likened to a mass shooter, with unlimited choice of weapons, ammo, and apparently no accountability for who he shoots. Overly strong metaphor? Consider:

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, appointed in the so called Valerie Plame affair, managed, in his time as a special counsel, although trying to indict Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, or anybody associated with the Bush Administration for illegally leaking the identity of a CIA covert operative ( she was not, she was a back office administrator, but for sake of argument, lets stipulate that revealing the identity of a CIA employee is not a good thing to do) to indict Scooter Libby on charges of lying to FBI agents for inconstancies in his statements at various times. (As Michael Flynn would tell you, no one should EVER under ANY circumstances, talk to the FBI, a fallen angel if ever there was one, and if compelled to do so, the only 2 appropriate responses are 1 I am exerting my 5th amendment rights and refusing to speak to you, or 2. I am not sure, I cannot remember precisely.)

Now. Let us start from a very important premise. Patrick Fitzgerald knew, from the time he began the investigation, and before he talked to Scooter Libby, that Richard Armitage, of the State Department, was the one who inadvertently leaked Plames CIA identity. So, in any rational world, he would have either shut down the investigation, or indicted Armitage.

Right? I mean, what was the purpose of interviewing Libby to ask if he knew anything about the leaking of this information, when he already knew exactly who it was? The only purpose, as we see in retrospect, was to keep asking him questions until he slipped up and contradicted himself, then charge him with perjury. And the underlying goal of the entire exercise was to damage the Bush Administration. Given that Fitzpatrick knew that Libby was innocent and continued until he could create a crime to charge him with. To restate: Libby had done nothing wrong before he spoke to the FBI under Fitzgerald investigation, and Fitz knew this, but pursued him anyway. Now, one would think someone doing such a thing would be fired, disbarred, jailed, or suffer some consequences.

But no. Fitzgerald has gone on to have a fine career. Libby paid a fine, was disbarred, served jail time, then finally was restored to the bar and able to practice law again. For nothing that had anything to do with the Special Counsel’s investigation. All this for what Fitzgerald, by his actions, considered to be a non-crime, because, note this: Even though he knew that Armitage was the one who leaked, neither he nor anyone else ever charged Armitage. He resigned from the State Department, and that was that. Libby was the victim of an out of control lawyer who had unrestricted powers and made Libby his target.

The Special Prosecutors are never prosecuted or held accountable in any way and their victims rarely see justice.

Rarely, but not never.

President Trump today pardoned Scooter Libby.

Now, if you have read my articles before, you will be aware that I am not a die-hard Trump supporter. I find him a flawed human in many ways and was not pleased with the choices in 2016. I do give him credit when credit is due. I think he could benefit from the old Roman custom of having a servant walk along during a triumph whispering (If I may paraphrase,) “Glory is fleeting, please stop Tweeting. “

Pardoning Libby was a good move for several reasons.  First, what Fitzgerald did to Scooter Libby was an injustice, for which Fitz should have been censured or lost his law license.  He cannot get back the time or money lost, but this is a good step toward balancing the scales of justice.

Second, it is an elegant and subtle shot across the bow to Robert Mueller. And I love it.

It says, so Bob, you want to move from Russia and why Hillary lost to anything and everything, looking for a crime? You want to act as a government within a government?

You Senators who want to pass a bill “protecting Mueller” from being fired, (you do understand that I won’t sign it, so its moot. And that you have NO Constitutional authority as the Legislative Branch to usurp the power of the Executive? Of course, you do, you are just posturing.)

And you Dems who have been trying to impeach me since January 2017, and bleat like sheared sheep Don’t you fire our Bobby!!!

So, all of y all, check this out. The power of POTUS to pardon is absolute, not subject to review, cannot be reversed, and even (as with Bill Clinton) if it is demonstrably the result of a bribe, cannot be reversed. I just nullified what Fitz did to Scooter. I can just as easily negate what the Jim and Bob show have done, or might do, to me, or any of my campaign, or any of my cabinet, or staff. So, do your worst.  Justice is going back to the Justice Department. A lot of career pogues in FBI and Justice are about to follow Sally Yates out the door. I don’t HAVE to fire you. I can do what you have been trying to do to me: cut the legs out from under you. And there is not a thing you can do about it.

Bush may have been content to just smile and take it and not fight back.

Makes for a different boxing match when you get hit back, doesn’t it?

So, choke on this for a few days.

 

%d bloggers like this: