THE FURTHER CORRESPONDENCES OF MARC SUSSELMAN PART 17

********

4 January 2024

MS said:

Wolff is now a constitutional scholar, claiming that if the Supreme Court concludes that the Supreme Court of Colorado and the Secretary of State of Maine overstepped their authority under the Constitution, the Court must be engaging in hypocrisy and ignoring the words in Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment and their strict constructionist, originalist doctrine. The man’s hubris knows no bounds. He disregards that the term “official” in Sec. 3 is not designated as including the President, or that Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment requires that Congress enact legislation specifying the parameters under which Sec. 3 applies. So, No, an originalist interpretation would actually require the Court to override both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Secretary of State of Maine.

********

MS said:

David,

When a law student studies constitutional law, and reads Supreme Court decisions, they learn that there are certain “rules of construction” which apply to interpreting federal statutes and the Constitution, including, that all words in a legislative or constitutional provision are to be read together and harmonized; that no words are to be ignored and given a nugatory meaning, or rendered superfluous; nor are words to be added that are not there. This is what your interpretation does. Yes, the words “or hold any office, civil or military” are all inclusive, and if the language stopped there, you would be correct. However, it does not stop there. It goes on to predicate the application of this language on “who, have previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution … .” Consequently, this language qualifies and limits the scope of individuals who have held an office who are subject to Sec. 3. A President of the United States is not a necessarily a former member of Congress (and Trump certainly was not a former member of Congress); is not an “officer” of the United States, i.e., a member of a president’s cabinet; is not a member of a State legislature; etc. If the Supreme Court were to interpret this language to apply to a sitting President, it would be doing exactly what Wolff is claiming would be hypocrisy, because it would not be engaging in a textualist analysis.

Regarding Sec. 5, its plain meaning appears to only assert that Congress has the power to enact legislation to enforce the other provisions of the 14th Amendment, but does not necessarily have to exercise it. But if in the absence of Congress exercising that power, does it mean that other entities – the Supreme Court of a State, or the Secretary of State of a State - can exercise that power? But if this were the case, what is the purpose of having Sec. 5 in the Amendment at all? Clearly, under Article I of the Constitution, Congress would already have that power. Adding it to the 14th Amendment would be superfluous. It was added to make clear that only Congress has the power to enact legislation to enforce the Amendment.

Whatever those other constitutional scholars wrote, I am confident that they are mistaken, and that the Supreme Court will reverse both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Secretary of State of Maine. And in so doing, the Court will not be acting hypocritically, no matter how much Wolff bellows.

********

5 January 2024

MS said:

Correct, the President of the United States is not an “officer” of the United States.

This is a consequence of the Humpty Dumpty rule of constitutional construction:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’ “The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ “The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.”

The reason the President of the United States is not an officer of the United States is decided by Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution (referred to as the “Appointments Clause”) which states, in relevant part:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States … ; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices … .

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties … 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 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.”

Hence, a prerequisite for being an “officer” of the United States government is to have been appointed as such by the President. The President is not him/herself an “officer” because the President does not appoint him/herself as an officer - the President is elected.

That someone not appointed by the President is not an officer of the United States was decided by the Supreme Court in United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1878). In Germaine, the defendant in a criminal indictment had been appointed to act as a surgeon by the Commissioner of Pensions. He was accused of extorting fees from pensioners to which he was not entitled. He was charged with violating a federal statute, which stated: “Every officer of the United States who is guilty of extortion under color of his office shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, or by imprisonment not more than one year, according to the aggravation of his offence.” The accused surgeon contended that he could not be charged with violating the statute, because he did not qualify as an “officer” of the United States, because he had not been appointed by the President, and nor had the Commissioner of Pensions. The Supreme Court agreed, stating at 510, in relevant part:

“The Constitution for purposes of appointment very clearly divides all its officers into two classes. The primary class requires a nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. But foreseeing that when offices became numerous, and sudden removals necessary, this mode might be inconvenient, it was provided that, in regard to officers inferior to those specially mentioned, Congress might by law vest their appointment in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

Consequently, there are only two categories of “officers” of the United States government, primary and inferior, the first requiring appointment by the President; the second requiring appointment by the President, courts of law, or heads of department. Since the President is not appointed by himself, nor by a court of law or head of a department, he does not qualify as an “officer” of the United States, and consequently does not fall within the ambit of individuals who may be removed pursuant to Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. This is particularly the case given that Congress has never passed legislation pursuant to Sec. 5 implementing Sec. 3.

Thus, the decisions by the Supreme Court of Colorado, and by the Secretary of State of Maine, precluding Trump from appearing on the ballot of their states are clearly unconstitutional. Which proves that being considered an expert on Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx, or metaethics, does not translate into being a constitutional scholar.

Likewise, your misinterpretation of the application of Sec. 5. I did not pull my interpretation out of “somewhere.” My interpretation is dictated by the requirement that no provision of the Constitutions is to be deemed superfluous. Since Congress already had the power under Article I to enact legislation implementing Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment, there was no need to reiterate this in Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment, unless if gave Congress special power with respect to the 14th Amendment not afforded any other governmental entity. Your reading makes Sec. 5 superfluous.

********

MS said:

Yes. Why do you conclude that this is not possible???? I know as much about the Constitution as they do, and certainly more than you do. My argument regarding the meaning of the word "officer" under the Constitution is airtight. And I will be vindicated when the Supreme Court issues its decision (perhaps not unanimous, but certainly by a majority).

********

MS said:

David,

Ellie Honig agrees with me. The two main issues the Supreme Court will address are whether only Congress has the authority under Sec. 5 to implement Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment, and whether a President qualifies as an “officer” under Sec. 3.

Michael Luttig, William Baude, and Michael Stokes Paulsen don’t know what they are talking about.

"https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/01/05/honig-supreme-court-approach-trump-colorado-ballot-ban-appeal-tsr-sot-vpx.cnn"

********

7 January 2024

MS said:

Marc M. Susselman, J.D., M.P.H.
43834 Brandywyne Rd.,
Canton, Michigan 48187

marcsusselman@gmail.com

January 7, 2024

Via Email

Prof. Gerard Magliocca Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Bloomington, Indiana

Re: Your guest essay in the New York Times regarding Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment

Prof. Magliocca:

I read with interest your guest essay in the January 5 issue of the NYT regarding Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment and the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court barring Donald Trump from appearing on the primary ballot in that State. Although I have not published any treatises or journal articles analyzing Sec. 3, I have litigated numerous lawsuits in federal courts invoking the 14th Amendment, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the enforcement mechanism of the Amendment, and have studied the Amendment’s history and the Supreme Court decisions interpreting it. I respectfully disagree with your analysis and your position that the Supreme Court is precluded from reversing the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, and presumably of the Secretary of State of Maine, by virtue of the amnesty provision in Sec. 3 authorizing Congress, and according to you only Congress, to reverse the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court.

Your analysis disregards the language of Sec. 3 which limits the application of the section to individuals other than the President of the United States. The President does not qualify as a person who has held “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature …” because the President of the United States is not an “officer” of the United States, and the position of President does not constitute an ”office” of the United States. The definition of who qualifies as an officer of the United States is set forth in the Appointments Clause of Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, which states, in relevant part:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States … ; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices … .

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties … 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 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.”

Hence, a prerequisite for being an “officer” of the United States government is to have been appointed as such by the President. The President is not him/herself an “officer” because the President does not appoint him/herself as an officer - the President is elected.

That someone not appointed by the President is not an officer of the United States was decided by the Supreme Court in United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1878). In Germaine, the defendant in a criminal indictment had been appointed to act as a surgeon by the Commissioner of Pensions. He was accused of extorting fees from pensioners to which he was not entitled. He was charged with violating a federal statute, which stated: “Every officer of the United States who is guilty of extortion under color of his office shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, or by imprisonment not more than one year, according to the aggravation of his offence.” The accused surgeon contended that he could not be charged with violating the statute, because he did not qualify as an “officer” of the United States, because he had not been appointed by the President, and nor had the Commissioner of Pensions.

The Supreme Court agreed, stating at 510, in relevant part:

“The Constitution for purposes of appointment very clearly divides all its officers into two classes. The primary class requires a nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. But foreseeing that when offices became numerous, and sudden removals necessary, this mode might be inconvenient, it was provided that, in regard to officers inferior to those specially mentioned, Congress might by law vest their appointment in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

Consequently, there are only two categories of “officers” of the United States government, primary and inferior, the first requiring appointment by the President; the second requiring appointment by the President, courts of law, or heads of department. Since the President is not appointed by himself, nor by a court of law or head of a department, he does not qualify as an “officer” of the United States, and consequently does not fall within the ambit of individuals who may be removed pursuant to Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. This is particularly the case given that Congress has never passed legislation pursuant to Sec. 5 implementing Sec. 3.

Thus, the decisions by the Supreme Court of Colorado, and by the Secretary of State of Maine, precluding Trump from appearing on the ballot of their states are clearly unconstitutional, and nothing in the amnesty provision granting Congress authority to “remove such disability” contradicts this. Congress may not undo an action which the entity taking the action had no authority to take to begin with.

In addition, your analysis ignores the language of Sec. 5, which authorizes Congress, and only Congress, to pass legislation setting the parameters for the implementation of the 14th Amendment, as Congress did with respect to Sec. 1 by enacting the Civil Rights statute after the Civil War, encoded as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That Sec. 5 authorizes only Congress to enact legislation to implement the Amendment’s provisions follows from the fact that any other interpretation would render the language in Sec. 5 superfluous, contrary to the standard rule of constitutional construction that no language in the Constitution should be rendered superfluous. It would be superfluous because given the scope of Congress’s power under Article I, it already had the power to enact legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment, and was not necessary to be repeated in the 14th Amendment, rendering it redundant. Its redundancy can only be avoided by interpreting its presence in the 14th Amendment as entailing that Congress, and only Congress, may enact legislation specifying how Sec. 3 is to be implemented – not the Supreme Court of Colorado, or of any other State, and certainly not by an executive agent of any State. Congress has never enacted such legislation.

Nor does the language in the amnesty provision contradict this interpretation of the application of Sec. 5. The two provisions work together hand in glove. Only if the President has been found to have engaged in, or supported, an insurrection pursuant to the procedure set forth in legislation passed by Congress pursuant to Sec. 5, would the amnesty provision come into play, after that procedure had been applied to a particular President. Since no such procedure has been enacted by Congress with respect to the President, the amnesty provision does not apply.

In sum, your claim that the Supreme Court, if it remains true to its avowed textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution, is precluded from overturning the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado because only Congress has that authority is, in my opinion, erroneous, and I fully expect the Supreme Court, correctly, to reverse the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, as well as of the Secretary of State of Maine.

Yours truly,

Marc M. Susselman, J.D., M.P.H.

********

MS said:

For ######## sakes, Zimmerman, it is you who are misapplying the principles of logic.

Some elected individuals, i.e., members of Congress, members of any State legislature, or an executive or judicial officer, qualify as “officers” under Sec. 3 DOES NOT entail that all elected individuals, not named or identified, qualify as “officers” under Sec. 3. Even Prof. Magliocca, in his response to my email, acknowledged that my argument has merit, and will be addressed by the Supreme Court during oral argument.

Maybe you should not stick to philosophy, since you obviously cannot apply the difference between a partial premise and a universal premise.

********

8 January 2024

MS said:

[On March 10, 2013 at 9:03 am swallerstein is quoted of saying that he would rather be the wisest person in a building than the smartest person. He then quotes Spinoza: the following, of course, is a quote & was not originally written by swallerstein but rather by Spinoza:

"The Ethics of Spinoza: 'There is no singular thing in Nature which is more useful to man than a man who lives according to the guidance of reason.'”]

MS said:

So why has wallerstein repudiated the guidance of reason, favoring canard, anti-Zionism, and every outlandish political theory in everything he now writes on Wolff’s blog?

********

MS said:

Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes
Hail! Hail! to Michigan
the leaders and best
Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes
Hail! Hail! to Michigan,
the champions of the West!

GO BLUE!

********

11 January 2024

MS said:

I wish to note the following. Before I was exiled from Wolff’s blog, one of the principal criticisms of me was that I made numerous comments to Wolff’s posts, sometimes lengthy, and that in doing so I was monopolizing the blog – a criticism which I rejected as absurd, since no one forces anyone to read the comments on a blog or prevents a reader from deleting or skipping over comments. The motivation for the criticisms was, I concluded, not the number or length of the comments, but that I did not conform to the ultra-liberal zeitgeist of Wolff and his scions. Lately, Eric and Pillette have been submitting multiple comments for each of Wolff’s posts, often unrelated to the subject of his post, and, generally, no one (other than Anonymous today) is complaining, least of all LFC, who routinely criticized me for inappropriately dominating Wolff’s blog with my so-called garrulousness. The difference is that Eric and Pillette vociferously support the liberal, anti-Israel, pro-Marxist agenda preferred by Wolff – a so-called intellectual searching for the truth.

********

13 January 2024

MS said:

Nancy Pelosi recently said in an interview that it is “impossible (her word) for Trump to get re-elected President. I wish that were the case. Is it helpful for a politician to express as a certainty – that Trump will not be re-elected – what the politician fervently hopes and believes should be the case? The polls indicate that there are enough irrational people in our country to make Trump’s re-election a distinct possibility. Self-delusion is not a campaign strategy.

********

Michael said:

Whenever someone has an air of absolute positivism in their speech, I believe nine times out of ten it doesn't come true. One should always say "God Willing...or God's will be done..." when discussing the future.

********

MS said:

aalll engages in more of his mealy-mouthed hypocritical liberalism. If a student at Harvard publicly advocated lynching all Black students on campus, President Gay would have no difficulty stating that the student would, and should, be immediately expelled. But she hesitated and double-talked when it came to a student advocating the genocide of Jews. And her plagiarism was not used as a pretext. It had occurred numerous times, in which she had verbatim included passages from the works of other academics without attribution. The fact that she is Black is not a defense or excuse.

********

MS said:

LFC, Eric, and Anonymous are distorting Ackman’s motives for demanding the resignation of President Gay, for withdrawing his financial support from Harvard and criticizing the other Ivy League colleges. Ackman is Jewish. He has been responding with his pocket-book to the failure of Harvard, and the other Ivy League colleges, to respond adequately to the increasing expressions of anti-Semitism on their campuses. I, for one, find nothing wrong with him using his money, and the withdrawal of it, to fight anti-Semitism. No one, at least no liberal, would fault Oprah Winfrey for withdrawing financial support from colleges which failed to address adequately expressions of racism against Blacks on their campuses.

********

MS said:

Could this recur, but here in the United States?

"Link here"

Let’s make America great again.

********

14 January 2024

MS said:

Here’s the answer to anon.’s question regarding the legal legitimacy of the new allegations that Fani Willis has a conflict of interest and should be disqualified from prosecuting Trump.

"https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/01/13/fani-willis-allegations-trump-georgia-election-case-valencia-ac360-vpx.cnn"

Willis retained Nathan Wade to serve as special prosecutor. There is evidence that Willis and Wade have been involved in a romantic relationship. Wade is not a criminal attorney; his practice was devoted to domestic dispute, divorce matters. Wade has billed Fulton County an excessive amount for his attorney fees, in one instance billing for 24 hrs. of legal work, a highly unlikely expenditure of time. He has spent some of that money to wine and dine Willis. What’s the conflict? That Wade, with Willis’s support, is using the prosecution to line his pocket, which raises the possibility that he is manufacturing criminal claims and evidence in order to earn money to finance his lifestyle.

It is a very serious charge, and could derail the prosecution by delaying it. If Willis has to resign, the judge would have to appoint a new prosecutor to take charge, which could take the new prosecutor months to get up to speed. Even though, if Trump is elected and can discontinue the federal prosecutions, but not the Fulton County prosecution, if he is convicted in Fulton County before or after being elected, it will raise a constitutional crisis – can a state incarcerate a sitting President for criminal acts committed before he was elected. I do not believe so.

********

MS said:

Quis custodiet Ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers?

Fani Willis is prosecuting Donald Trump for election fraud and corruption. In the process it is alleged that Willis placed an attorney on the government payroll with whom she was having a sexual relationship, who, in turn, has been using that position to enrich himself at government expense. If true, then Willis is guilty of corruption, the very crime for which she is prosecuting Trump, and must be removed, and, indeed, prosecuted herself. Is there anyone in government whom we can trust anymore?

********

15 January 2024

MS said:

The Donald Trump Song (adapted from the Horst Wessel Lied, and sung to its tune)

Raise the flag! The ranks tightly closed

The MAGA comrades march with calm, steady step.

Comrades attacked by the Democrats and their reactionary cadres

March in spirit within our ranks.


Clear the streets for the MAGA battalions,

Clear the streets for the Orange Shirted divisions.

Millions are looking on the MAGA slogan full of hope,

The day of freedom and of a 20-foot border wall dawns.


For the last time, the call to arms is sounded!

For the fight, we all stand prepared!

Already Trump's banners fly over all streets.

The time of bondage will last but a little while now!



********

MS said:

What does it say about a person that s/he just cannot drop an argument regarding a trivial aspect of contemporary life? Pillette just cannot let go of his contention that physical beauty of female actors, not their acting ability, is the primary reason for their success. He has retreated from his claim that physical beauty is the only basis for a female actor’s success, to it being the primary basis of a female actor’s success. Now, I admit, that I was known for continuously, stubbornly expounding in my comments on Wolff’s blog about some issues, but those issues had a geopolitical and/or ethical dimension that I submit the issue of whether a female actor’s success is primarily attributable to her physical beauty lacks. So why does Pillette have a bee in his bonnet over this issue? Aside from its irrelevance, his thesis lacks evidentiary support. Bette Davis’s, Jane Darwell’s, Ethel Barrymore’s, Mercedes McCambridge’s, Kathy Bates’s, Frances McDormand’s (all Oscar winners) cinematic success had little to do, and certainly not primarily, with their pulchritude. Give it up Pillette – you are beating a dead horse.

********

17 January 2024

MS said:

Does the International Court of Justice see Israelis through Hamas’s eyes?

"https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube%2C+Cabaret%2C+the+ape+scene&sca_esv=599271502&sxsrf=ACQVn09CtDql9okA8PlFy6q05F-5a59hRg%3A1705532875069&ei=y12oZbPqA7nN0PEPzdCqkA8&ved=0ahUKEwjz-66JxeWDAxW5JjQIHU2oCvIQ4dUDCBA&oq=youtube%2C+Cabaret%2C+the+ape+scene&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiH3lvdXR1YmUsIENhYmFyZXQsIHRoZSBhcGUgc2NlbmUyBRAhGKABSJd0UIkTWKpmcAd4AZABAJgBlwGgAZ0fqgEFMjUuMTW4AQzIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIFECEYqwLCAgQQIxgnwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkQLCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA8ICBRAAGIAEwgIHECEYChigAcICBRAhGJ8F4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:9ae684d2,vid:q9XdGS5to8s,st:0"

********

MS said:

Below is a link to Israel’s opening remarks at the International Court of Justice defending itself against South Africa’s charge that it is committing genocide in Gaza. I urge you, and all of Wolff’s anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic propagandists, to listen to it.

"https://www.hartman.org.il/opening-remarks-at-the-international-court-of-justice/?mc_cid=9b776f9378&mc_eid=f0e83cfebf"

********

18 January 2024

MS said:

I have attached to this email a transcript of Israel’s opening remarks at the International Court of Justice, presented by Dr. Tal Becker, defending itself against South Africa’s libelous claim that Israel is engaging in genocide in Gaza.

An excerpt from those remarks is presented below. Wolff’s anti-Israel, anti-Semitic elitist propagandists should read them – but, of course, they won’t.

43. The nightmarish environment created by Hamas has been concealed by the Applicant, but it is the environment in which Israel is compelled to operate. Israel is committed, as it must be, to comply with the law, but it does so in the face of Hamas’s utter contempt for the law. It is committed, as it must be, to demonstrate humanity, but it does so in the face of Hamas’s utter inhumanity

44. As will be presented by Counsel, these commitments are a matter of express government policy, military directives and procedures. They are also an expression of Israel’s core values. And, as shall also be shown, they are matched by genuine measures on the ground to mitigate civilian harm under the unprecedented and excruciating conditions of warfare created by Hamas.

45. It is plainly inconceivable – under the terms set by this very Court - that a State conducting itself in this way may be said to be engaged in Genocide, not even prima facie.

46. The key component of genocide - the intention to destroy a people in whole or in part - is totally lacking. What Israel seeks by operating in Gaza is not to destroy a people, but to protect a people, its people, who are under attack on multiple fronts, and to do so in accordance with the law, even as it faces a heartless enemy determined to use that very commitment against it.

47. As will be detailed by Counsel, Israel’s lawful aims in Gaza have been clearly and repeatedly articulated by its Prime Minister, its Defense Minister, and all members of the War Cabinet. As the Prime Minister reiterated yet again just this week “Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the civilian population”.

48. Israel aims to ensure that Gaza can never again be used as a launch pad for terrorism. As the Prime Minister reaffirmed, Israel seeks neither to permanently occupy Gaza or to displace its civilian population. It wants to create a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike, where both can live in peace, thrive and prosper, and where the Palestinian people have all the power to govern themselves, but not the capacity to threaten Israel.

49. If there is a threat to that vision - if there is a humanitarian threat to the Palestinian civilians of Gaza - it stems primarily from the fact that they have lived under the control of a genocidal terrorist organization that has total disregard for their life and well-being. That organization, Hamas, and its sponsors, seek to deny Israel, Palestinians, and Arab States across the region, the ability to advance a common future of peace, co-existence, security, and prosperity. Israel is in a war of defense against Hamas - not against the Palestinian people - to ensure that they do not succeed.

50. In these circumstances, there can hardly be a charge more false or more malevolent than the allegation against Israel of genocide.

Israel File

********

MS said:

I was watching part of the hearing in the House on the impeachment proceeding against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas today, being driven by the Republicans. It is not widely known that Secretary Mayorkas is Jewish (mother of Romanian Jewish heritage; father of Greek/Polish Jewish heritage). Would it be paranoid in this age of rising anti-Semitism to ponder whether his impeachment is, perhaps even if only tangentially, related to his being Jewish – that he is being scapegoated, ala Dreyfus, for the immigration problems at the southern border?

********

18 January 2024

MS said:

As I predicted, Fani Willis is toast. That's what comes of unethical conduct by government prosecutors. Former presidents are not above the law. Nor are government prosecutors.

********

MS said:

wallerstein, in his ignorance and stupidity, again accuses Israel of committing "genocide" in Gaza. He obviously has not listened to the statement given by Israel at the International Court of Justice which I linked to yesterday. He is such a despicable person. He will soon be singing the Horst Wessel song.

********

Michael said:

It's just my opinion but I don't believe s.wallerstein is ignorant or stupid. He feels for the suffering of the civilians in Gaza. I believe that is good. It is good not to have apathy for those who suffer physical pain. The problem I have with men like s.wallerstein is a lot of them cannot feel as much empathy for the Jewish people of the Middle East as they do feel empathy for the Palestinian people of the Middle East. In the movie Schindler's List, there's cast a German sympathizer (or Jewish police officer working for the Germans) who screws over the Jews because of monetary greed. I don't want to be that character in the history books. Whether it's because of greed, hatred, envy or even the progressive-liberal movement, I don't want to betray the Jews for any reason whatsoever. It's bad enough I had several bad feelings against the Jews when I was very young. However I do know now why people feel antisemitic. For some reason or other they feel a sense of superiority over Jews or their sacred religion. For 90% of the time I believe if a man does not feel superior to the Jewish people or Judaism, he will not be an antisemite. Pride is the factor there.

********

19 January 2024

MS said:

Today, I saw the following interview with Congressswoman Barbara Lee on CNN:

"https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/01/19/barbara-lee-personal-racism-capitol-vpx.cnn"

I emailed her the following response:

Dear Congresswoman Lee,

I watched your interview on CNN relating to Nikki Haley’s comments regarding racism in the United States. I agree with you that she has been minimizing the presence of racism in contemporary American life, but I also disagree with your following comment, “Racism, institutional racism is in the DNA in this county.” As an attorney, I have represented the victims of discrimination in Michigan and federal courts. In doing so, I have utilized the statutory tools which Michigan and the federal government have made available to counter and reverse such discrimination in our society. It is not easy, and I have not always won, but the tools are there to undo the vestiges of the atrocity of slavery in our country, and its residual effects. To say, therefore, that institutional racism is part of the DNA of our country, in my opinion, goes too far, and presages that the racism which has deplorably afflicted our society is so ingrained in the very marrow of our country that it can never be thoroughly alleviated or mitigated. This constitutes a verdict of irreversibility that I cannot accept, and do not believe is accurate. My DNA, your DNA, are irreversible biological and genetic characteristics over which we have no control, and no power to modify. This is not just a quibble with your use of an inapt metaphor. It reflects a thinking which, if internalized by people in our society, both Black and Caucasian, will have negative and deleterious consequences for our fellowship. There are, and always will be, examples of individual stupidity and ignorance, such as that which you recounted regarding your being refused permission to enter a Congressional elevator, but these examples, which will always continue to exist on an individual level, do not fortify the conclusion that these displays of racism have been institutionalized. Our country is dealing with the racism in our institutions, and it is being reduced on a daily basis in our courts, and I am optimistic, while individual acts of racism will always occur, institutional racism will be erased from our society, because it is not in our DNA.

Respectfully,

Marc Susselman

Attorney at Law

********

MS said:

THE STORY OF THE WISE KING

From Serpico

"there was this king, and he ruled over his kingdom. right in the middle of the kingdom there was a well. that's where everybody drank. one night, this witch came along and she poisoned the well. and the next day, everybody drank from it except the king. and they all went crazy. they got together in the street and they said 'we got to get rid of the king, cause the king is mad'. and then that night, he went down and he drank from the well. and the next day all the people rejoiced because their king had regained his reason."

"https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/01/19/new-hampshire-voters-republican-primary-2024-tuchman-pkg-ac360-vpx.cnn"

Has a witch poisoned our wells?

********

MS said:

“One can, of course, point to the exploitation of the sympathy generated by the horrors of murderous, industrialised anti-semitism—something that no normal human being could become aware of without feeling horror and sympathy. But it is not, as I see it anti-semitic in its turn to point out that that horror and sympathy was exploited for purposes that we can now see have generated actions that now provoke new horror and sympathy. But I’d submit that the horror and sympathy for the Jewish people may be categorised alongside whoever it was told Truman he had to “scare the hell out of the American people” in order to get them on board with the Cold War project.

In other words, don’t we have to keep pressing deeper, beyond the well known ideological impositions and justifications, to begin try to understand all that really lies behind the support, the unyielding support, for those who are behaving with such unmitigated savagery? It must be something very powerful to keep honourable men and women—our Brutuses and Cassiuses—from behaving as they have done, are doing, and will likely continue to do.”

This is the kind of intellectual, elitist bullshit which is being propagated on “respectable” sites on the internet to justify condemnation of Israel.

********

MS said:

Michael,

I wish to reiterate my gratitude for your publishing my comments on Wolff's blog.

But I must respectfully disagree with you regarding wallerstein's intellect. He is both stupid and ignorant; or he is malevolent. He is ignorant because anyone who has educated himself about the meaning of ther term "genocide," and who knows anything about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the persisent refusal of the Palestinains to reach a peace settlement with the Israelis could not equate Israel's military acitons in Gaza to the commission of genocide. And this goes for the South African delegation which has filed the charge of genocide agaisnt Israel in the International Court of Jusitce. In their case, however, their conduct is attributable to malevolence, rather than ignorance.

Best regards,

Marc

********

Michael said:

I thank you for your gratitude, Marc. I also realize that this is a time when the Jewish people in the Middle East need our support more than ever before. Israel dearly needs friends like you during this time of crisis. Wicked men may try to bring ruin upon Israel but the Lord blesses those who bless the Jewish people. --Genesis 28:14. I believe this is true no matter who you are, whether a Muslim, Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist, etc. Rahab the Harlot herself was blessed for helping Israel.

********

20 January 2024

MS said:

Here it is. Wade paid for trips with Fani Willis on his credit card. The funds he used to pay the credit card bill likely included money he earned from the inflated attorney fees he charged Fulton County for his legal work on the Trump prosecution. Therefore, Willis personally benefited from her appointment of Wade as a special prosecutor, even though he was a divorce attorney and had little to no experience as a criminal attorney. The financial benefit would also implicate how Wade was conducting his prosecutorial responsibilities, i.e., was he manufacturing or exaggerating the evidence to support the prosecution of Trump in order to continue to line his pocket with inflated attorney fees.

"https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/19/politics/fani-willis-divorce-documents-fulton-county/index.html"

As I said, Willis is toast. Her removal/resignation will delay the Trump trial, probably until after the election. If he wins (God forbid, but possible), Fulton County will be unable to execute the conviction on a sitting President.

********

MS said:

Reading Eric’s comments about the Hamas October 7 massacre and IDF’s response is sickening. At the International Court of Justice, Israel submitted a first-hand account by a witness that an Israeli woman was gang-raped by the Hamas terrorists. One of her breasts was cut off, and tossed around by the terrorists. One of the terrorists shot her in the head while he was inside her.

Eric is an anti-Semitic prick.

********

MS said:

Michael,

Thank you for your comment in support of Israel. I would like to clarify that my allegiance to Israel is not based on the Tanakh. One does not have to be traditionally religious in order to recognize Israel’s right to exist. An atheist can rationally support Israel’s right, and the right of the Jewish people, to self-determination and to have a country of their own, which they have a right to defend against Hamas. Regardless whether one accepts the scripture of the Tanakh, a fundamental precept of the Jewish religion is a belief in free will and in individual responsibility for one’s actions. Those who practice this religion, and hold this fundamental belief, have been persecuted for centuries, in some very horrible ways. One does not have to be Jewish, or even religious, to recognize the right of these people to have a nation which they control and can defend, in light of the centuries of persecution they have suffered – the same right enjoyed by the British, the French, the Italians, the Russians, the Syrians, the Chileans, the Somalians, the Chinese, …..

********

MS said:

Below is the Conclusion of a petition for certiorari which I will be filing in the U.S. Supreme Court next week. If you were on the Supreme Court, would you grant the petition?

CONCLUSION

Emily Evans has been the victim of an egregious travesty of justice, caused by the combination of a state court judge, who was irritated by her mother’s efforts to protect her daughter’s rights, violating Evans’ constitutional rights by vindictively proceeding to hold a jury trial without any attorney present to protect her interests, compounded by the commission of perjury by the plaintiff’s chief witness, suborned by an officer of the court. This travesty of justice has had catastrophic financial and emotional consequences for Evans. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 60(d) provides a mechanism to redress this travesty of justice, and it was adequately pled under Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (2014), yet the District Court refused to implement it, and did so without noting or discussing the perjury, and subornation of perjury, notwithstanding that the irrebuttable documentary and testimonial evidence proving that the perjury and its subornation, committed by an office of the court, had occurred, was provided. This constituted an abuse of discretion. This travesty of justice continues to affect Evans’ life, through the actions of the receiver whom the state court judge appointed, and whose motions for fees the state court judge has continued to grant. As long as that judgment stands unrectified, it represents a stain on the administration of justice in Michigan, on its judiciary, and on the entire Michigan Bar.

At the conclusion of its decision, the Court of Appeals expressed sympathy for Ms. Evans. However, Evans does not want sympathy. She wants justice–the justice she is entitled to under the above cited case law; the justice she was denied by the trial court conducting a jury trial without her being represented by counsel and the ensuing subornation of perjury by an officer of the court; the justice a federal court has the power to provide her, and has the duty, pursuant to its obligation to administer justice, to provide her, via implementation of Rule 60(d).

Justice Cardozo, in his work The Nature Of The Judicial Process, stated: “There is no guarantee of justice except the personality of the judge.” It is imperative that petitioners’ petition be granted in order to prove Justice Cardozo wrong, to prove that cases are decided in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law, regardless the personalities of the judges involved.

********

MS said:

I am going to make an observation that I have made in the past, and for which I have never been given a satisfactory answer.

On Wolff’s blog, commenter after commenter is making moral judgments about Israel’s conduct in Gaza, several – wallerstein, Efic, aalll – accusing Israel of engaging in what they claim is an immoral genocide. Most, if not all, of the commenters on Wolff’s blog, including Wolff himself, are atheists. Therefore, they cannot justify their moral judgments on the existence of a deity, or on the Ten Commandments. They also reject my oft repeated opinion that our moral judgments are intuited, and are valid without proof. Wolff claims that he makes his moral judgments based on “what side” he decides to be on, but this is just a euphemism for intuitionism. The categorical imperative cannot get him to the moral judgment that genocide is immoral; it can’t even get him to the conclusion that murder is immoral.

Whence, then, I ask, comes their absolute moral certainty? I know, as LFC claims, I am beating a dead horse, but this horse just will not die.

********

MS said:

Eric, the anti-Semite, states:

[Eric goes on to say that Hamas wouldn't harm babies because it is inconsistent with the interpretation of Islam by Hamas fighters.]

Fathi Hammad, Interior Minister of Hamas, stated, on the record, in 2019:

“We are sharpening the knives. … If we die it will be when we are killing you [Jews], and we will cut off your heads, Allah willing. … We must attack every Jew on the planet – slaughter and kill. .. I will die as I blow up and cut – what? The throats of the Jews and their legs. We will tear them to shreds, Allah willing.”

Yes, Eric, these are very religious people, who would not dare to commit the gross crimes which Israel is accusing them of, based on eyewitness testimony.

********

MS said:

I urge you to watch the video linked below. It is an excellent analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W9badc-Y9M"

Michael, I encourage you to post it directly on Wolff’s blog. It effectively rebuts all the anti-Israeli bullshit on Wolff’s blog.

********

MS said:

wallerstein has come to Eric’s defense, accusing me of slandering Eric by calling him an anti-Semite. But Eric displays all of the signs of an anti-Semite – he minimizes the atrocities committed by Hamas, implying that the Israelis are lying; and simultaneously maximizes the alleged atrocities committed by the Israelis. He is, essentially, calling the Israelis liars, because, as we all know from history, Israelis, being Jewish, are prone to duplicity.

********

MS said:

Anonymous writes on Wolff’s blog, “One of my abiding memories is a film about the Warsaw ghetto where a very young Jewish man walks up to a Nazi soldier and shoots him. He did right! A legitimate act of resistance against oppression,” implying that this action of resistance is equivalent to Hamas’s massacre of Israelis on Oct. 7, and the terrorist acts conducted by suicide bombers in the West Bank – and not a single commenter on the blog denounces this outrageous, blasphemous, anti-Semitic comment – not LFC, not Zimmerman, not aalll, and of course not wallerstein. The comparison demonstrates not only Anonymous’s anti-Semitism, but his total ignorance.

The captives in the Warsaw ghetto were being shipped to death camps, where they were gassed and incinerated; the Jews in the ghetto had never prior to WWII engaged in armed conflict against Germany; the Jews in Europe had never refused to make peace with the Germans. There are not, and have never been, concentration camps in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza; there are no, and have never been, gas chambers in Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza, and no oven in which Palestinians are being incinerated. And yet this anti-Semitic asshole gets away with stating this blasphemy with no one on Wolff’s blog calling him out for his stupidity. This is what the left has become.

********

21 January 2024

MS said:

Anonymous now makes the bizarre argument that because some people who now identity as Jews may actually not be descendants of the original Hebrews/Jews whom historical and archeological evidence indicate did reside in Palestine – 1,400 years before there were any Muslims – and because some individuals who identify as Palestinian may have Jewish ancestors, that the claim that the Jews currently living in Israel are descendants of the original indigenous Hebrews/Jews must be false. How, however, does he get from “some” to “all” or “none”? The ability to think rationally is not strong in this one.

********

THE END.