THE FURTHER CORRESPONDENCES OF MARC SUSSELMAN PART 20
********
25 February 2024
MS said:
This morning I sent the below email to my Republican friends in Michigan.
The Republican primary for President is being held this coming Tuesday, February 27.
Those of you who identify as Republican have a choice. You can vote for former President Donald Trump, or you can vote for his main challenger, Nikki Haley. To me, the choice should be obvious. I ask you to reflect on the emails which I have sent to you in the past, to reflect on your religious convictions and what Jesus would expect you to do; to reflect on what is best for our country, not just for what you think is best for your pocket book; to reflect on Donald Trump’s behavior – his persistent insulting of others; his denigration of Sen. McCain; his encouragement of Russia to invade members of NATO; the verdicts against him for sexually assaulting E. Carroll (think of your wives, daughters, sisters and mothers); etc. The list goes on and on. On February 27 you have a choice – to do the right thing, the moral thing, and vote for Nikki Haley. Or do the opposite. I urge you all to do the right thing.
Best regards,
Marc
********
MS said:
Last week the Supreme Court issued an unusual decision – a unanimous decision, unusual generally, but particularly unusual for this conservative dominated Court.
The decision was in a criminal case, McGrath v. Georgia, and involved the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits prosecuting the same person for the same offense after an acquittal. The defendant/petitioner was charged with killing his mother. Mr. McGrath had a history of mental illness, and he defended himself claiming not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury returned a conflicting verdict: with regard to the charge that he had killed his mother with malice, the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity; with regard to the charge of felony murder, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, but mentally ill, which would allow for his incarceration in an institution for the mentally ill. The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the acquittal, claiming that the verdicts “required affirmative findings of different mental states that could not exist at the same time,” and ordered that Mr. McGrath be retried.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that ordering Mr. McGrath’s retrial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, that the Georgia Supreme Court had no constitutional right to question the thinking of the jury.
********
MS said:
After I sent my earlier email to my Republican friends, I received the following response from one of them:
I have already voted, and it was for Trump. While he is far from perfect (I wouldn't want him to abuse my wife), I am very concerned with the issues of illegal immigration/border security and violent crime in the US. I think Trump would do better than everybody on those issues.
I have signed up to be a poll worker on Tuesday (15 hours of work) and am really excited!
Carol
I responded below:
Carol,
Obviously, nothing of what I have written to you, and others in the potluck group, has had any effect on your political perspective. Trump is not just “far from perfect”; he is a despicable, fascistic, racist, misogynistic, egotistical, deplorable excuse for a human being. How you can go to church every Sunday, as I understand you do, and worship the Gospel of Jesus Christ, whose tenets, precepts and teachings are anachronistic and anathema to everything that Trump stands for, and vote for a man whose conduct, words and political actions are antagonistic to those tenets, precepts and teachings you purport to value, is inconceivable to me. It is not your “wife” who you should be concerned about; it is your two daughters.
You are obviously proud of your vote for Trump. You have nothing to be proud of.
Sincerely,
Marc
********
26 February 2024
MS said:
Watch this. It will make you want to vomit.
"https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/24/voter-trump-sanchez-south-carolina-primary-2024-vpx.cnn"
********
27 February 2024
MS said:
My recent interaction regarding Trump with members of the potluck group my wife and I belong to has sparked a good deal of reflection, some of which has made me very uneasy regarding what my moral obligation is.
First, the interaction has heightened my awareness of the human capacity for hypocrisy – the ability to hold simultaneously antithetical views regarding one’s own behavior, to believe that one is a moral Christian (or Jew, or Hindu, or Muslim, ….) at the same time as engaging in conduct which is clearly immoral. History is replete with such examples – churchgoing slaveholders in the ante-bellum South; church-going members of the Nazi party; and, contemporarily, Christian evangelists who are diehard Trump supporters. This ability to justify hypocrisy raises evolutionary questions – is the ability to be a hypocrite an evolutionary survival mechanism, a mechanism which fosters organization for self-preservation, even if the organization members use the organization to justify immoral conduct?
This reflection has also increased my discomfort level regarding what is my moral obligation with respect to the organization I belong to, the potluck group. After my last email to Carol, she sent me an email stating she no longer wished to discuss politics with me, that we should instead focus on the things we have in common and which makes us friends. Another member of the potluck group emailed me and said that she and her husband agree with me 100%, but was concerned that continuing to raise the issue regarding Trump could result in fracturing friendships and the demise of the potluck group, which we have been members of for over 30 years. This in turn made me think – do I have a moral obligation to push this issue to the brink, to threaten to quit the potluck group over the Trump issue to make clear to the Trump supporters what is at stake = my “friendship” or their immoral political support of Trump. The longer I accept Carol’s proposal to focus only on what we supposedly have in common, am I not appeasing them and enabling them to enjoy the sense of comfort of friendship, at the same time that they engage in political advocacy which I believe endangers the future of our democracy? It is as if I were an abolitionist living in the ante-bellum South, with churchgoing friends who owned slaves, would I have a moral obligation to tell them. it is either our friendship, or your slaves, you can’t have both? Would such a position cross a line between moral sermonizing and unacceptable bullying?
To personalize the issue, suppose David said to me, “Marc, there are many things about you which I like (which I believe is true), but I believe your support of Israel and what it is doing in Gaza is immoral and unacceptable, and if you don’t modify your views about this, I no longer want to communicate with you.” I know how I would react – given the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Hamas October 7 massacre, and the history of Jewish oppression and persecution, I do not believe that Israel’s conduct in Gaza is immoral, and if that means we no longer communicate with each other, so be it. Do the Trump supporters feel the same way about Trump as I feel about Israel, and is threatening to end a friendship over such an issue a form of immoral bullying, or failing to threaten to end a friendship a form of immoral appeasement?
********
MS said:
Post-script:
There are a multitude of examples of friendships falling victim to disputes over political differences. One which comes to mind regarding Israel is Gershom Scholem’s termination of his friendship with Hannah Arendt, after she published her memoir and analysis of the Eichman trial, Eichman in Jerusalem. Gershom criticized Arendt and the work for displaying a lack of solidarity with the Jewish people.
********
MS said:
Well, I did my part to try to stop Trump. I voted in the Republican primary - for Nikki Haley.
********
28 February 2024
MS said:
If President Biden loses Michigan in the general election, and if Trump is thereby elected President, will Israel and the Jews be blamed for Biden's loss? If past history is any guide, the answer is probably Yes.
********
MS said:
Today, the Supreme Court is going to hear oral argument on a challenge to a federal law banning bump stocks, which allows the owner to turn a semi-automatic weapon into a rapid firing instrument of death.
The argument begins at 10:00 A.M. You can listen to it here:
"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx"
********
MS said:
I agree with Thomas Friedman’s analysis and statements in his NYT article dated Feb. 27, 2024. He writes: “Netanyahu is ready to sacrifice Israel’s hard-won international legitimacy for his personal political needs. He will not hesitate to take Biden down with him. … I believe Israel is imperiling decades of diplomacy to get the world to recognize the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination and self-defense in their historic homeland. It is also relieving Palestinians of the burden and depriving them of the opportunity of recognizing two nation-states for two people and building the necessary institutions and compromises to make that happen. And, I repeat, it is going to put the Biden administration in an increasingly untenable position. And it is making Iran’s day.”
As I stated in the two emails which I sent to the Prime Minister’s office last week – to which I have received no response – Netanyahu has to go, either voluntarily, or by political pressure, including pressure from Jewish Americans. He is dragging Israel into the mud, and the Jewish people worldwide with him.
********
MS said:
Wolff writes in his most recent post:
“The decision by the Supreme Court to take the case only grants Trump de facto immunity if he wins the election.”
This is erroneous. If the Court agrees with Trump’s claim that he is immune from federal prosecution for any action which he took while still in office, which would include his actions on Jan. 6 – a ruling that would be absolutely bonkers - then it is game over for Jack Smith’s prosecution. Moreover, by pushing the hearing out to April, they have effectively increased the likelihood of his winning the election, because then Smith would have to wait for the Court’s decision, which could take another 2-4 weeks. If they reject the immunity claim, then the trial could not start until sometime in late May, early June. But even jury selection could take weeks. So the actual trial may not begin until July or August. Moreover, Trump’s lawyers are making maneuvers in the Florida classified documents case to have that case go first, which will prevent the Jan. 6 insurrection trial from proceeding in order to have a verdict before the election. The longer it takes to send the Jan. 6 case to a jury, the later he will be convicted, if he is convicted. Voters who are making a decision to vote or not vote for Trump based on whether or not he is convicted, may not know the outcome when they go to the polls, and may therefore still vote for Trump. The Court’s decision to put oral argument off to April – which they claim was an expedited track! – has helped Trump.
********
MS said:
“…can [not] be prosecuted under the criminal law if he is not first impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate.”
Palmeter left out the critical word.
********
29 February 2024
MS said:
"https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics/supreme-court-immunity-trump-biskupic-analysis/index.html"
This writer agrees with my assessment that the S. Ct.’s decision to hear Trump's immunity claim, and then put off oral argument until April, has helped Trump. They should have just declined to hear the case, leaving the D.C. Circuit decision, rejecting the ridiculous claim, standing. They have, stupidly, given Trump breathing space, and increased his election prospects.
********
1 March 2024
MS said:
Given the late date which the S. Ct. has scheduled for oral argument on Trump’s immunity claim, even if they conclude that he does not have immunity, we are unlikely to have a verdict in Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 prosecution prior to the election – which enhances Trump’s chances of being re-elected.
"https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/opinions/supreme-court-trump-january-6-lithwick-vladeck/index.html"
********
MS said:
I have been listening lately to several oral arguments in the Supreme Court. I am amused by how the opposing counsel address each other during their arguments. They mutually refer to the opposing counsel as “my friend.” I have never referred to an opposing counsel as “my friend”; I refer to them either as “opposing counsel” or “brother/sister counsel,” as I am thinking “opposing asshole attorney.” The fact that Supreme Court protocol requires/encourages opposing attorneys to refer to each other as “friends” underscores the hypocrisy that permeates legal advocacy.
********
MS said:
Well, I just listened to the closing arguments in the motion to disqualify Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. All the defendants have to show is that Ms. Willis’ relationship with Mr. Wade raises an appearance – not necessarily an actuality – of impropriety. I believe they did an excellent job and showed an appearance of impropriety multiple times over. I am therefore resuscitating my original claim that Ms. Willis is toast. I believe that the judge has no choice but to rule that Ms. Willis, and probably Mr. Wade, are disqualified from presiding over the Georgia RICO prosecution. He may not disqualify the entire prosecutor’s office, but that is also a possibility. In any event, it is quite clear that the trial of Trump in Georgia will not be concluded prior to the election – and it is no one’s fault but Ms. Willis’s.
********
MS said:
This afternoon I drove to a computer store to obtain a replacement cable for my wife’s laptop. On the way, I saw a truck covered with pennants stating, “Fuck Biden.” I pulled up next to the truck at a red light, lowered my window and gave the driver the finger, as he broke into laughter. I responded “Fuck Trump,” and drove away. I know, stooping to their level is not going to change any minds, but you know I do not curb my tongue. I want them to know that there are people out here who despise them and what they stand for.
At the computer store, there were three technicians, in their early to mid-twenties. I told them of my interaction with the Trump ass-hole (yes, my favorite word for describing idiots), and they appeared noncommittal and did not respond. I asked them if they were going to vote in November, and they answered affirmatively. I told them I had voted this week for the first time in my life as a Republican. They asked me who I voted for, When I told them Nikki Haley, they asked me who she is.
When I was in my teens and twenties back in the 1960s, I knew every candidate who was running for President in both parties. I watched every party convention. I hope the three young people whom I met at the computer store are not indicative of the level of political apathy among young people. My daughter tells me that it is, that they are ill-informed, and easily subject to being manipulated. I find this all very scary and disappointing.
********
3 March 2024
MS said:
It’s starting to look like the last best chance of preventing Trump from being re-elected President is District Attorney Bragg’s prosecution of Trump in a trial scheduled to begin in a New York courtroom on March 25. Trump is charged with criminally misrepresenting the purpose for which he paid hush money to Stormy Daniels, in violation of New York election financing law. If Trump is convicted, this is likely to be the only criminal conviction of Trump which will have been decided by the date of the election. It is starting to look like Jack Smith prosecution for election fraud will not have been concluded by the date of the election, and Trump’s trial in Florida for unlawfully retaining classified documents, even if he is convicted, will not be sufficient to derail his election – Republicans reject that case as a double standard, since Biden has not been indicted.
So, if Bragg obtains a conviction in N.Y., will this be enough to sway the minds of enough people not to vote for him.? Hard to say. Certainly the hardline MAGA supporters will not care. Others may not care, either, that Trump was convicted of violating a New York election financing law. Even such a conviction may not be enough to derail his campaign. Moreover, the Georgia prosecution is floundering. We may be headed to a civil war the likes of which has not been seen since the Spanish Civil War.
********
MS said:
Last night I re-watched one of my favorite movies, Stanley Kubrick’s “Barry Lyndon,” which takes place during the Seven Years War, a global conflict which was fought on three continents and involved the major powers of Europe. Does the American public, generally, or high-school or college students in particular, know anything about this war, when if was fought and what it was about? What about the Thirty Years War?
Probably not. They are woefully ignorant of our historical past – they prefer watching youtube and Tic Tock videos, and reading emails and comments on Facebook – and then going out and voting based on their ignorance.
********
MS said:
It appears that the S. Ct. is going to issue its decision regarding the decision of the Colorado S. Ct. barring Trump from appearing on the primary ballot there. It is expected that the Court will reverse that decision - and correctly so. The decision was an outrageous usurpation of Congress's power under the 14th Amendment.
********
MS said:
Listening to the news tonight, a journalist stated that Trump had won "three caucuses handedly," using a word which is a misconstruction of the word "handily." She is a college graduate, no doubt, who cannot speak proper English - but given the popularity of rap music, and texting, who cares about proper English anymore.
********
Michael said:
It seems the Allied & Axis countries are being
made more clear for another possible World War.
Let's hope that nothing but good comes from any of this.
"https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-russia-giving-ukraine-early-warning-systems-2024-3?amp"
********
4 March 2024
MS said:
David,
I hate to admit this, but you may be right. Unless the judge concludes that Willis had an actual conflict of interest, the appearance of impropriety, alone, may not be enough to disqualify her.
"https://www.cnn.com/videos/app-politics-section/2024/03/01/trump-possible-abortion-ban-video-fox-vpx.cnn"
********
MS said:
Supplementing what I wrote above regarding an actual conflict of interest, versus the appearance of impropriety, there is another, independent, basis for disqualification of a prosecutor referred to as “forensic conduct,” where a prosecutor makes public statements regarding the prosecutor’s personal belief in the guilt of the accused. In Williams v. State, 369 S.E.2d 232, 238 (Ga. 1988), the Georgia Supreme Court stated:
“There are two generally recognized grounds for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney. The first such ground is based on a conflict of interest, and the second ground has been described as "forensic misconduct." In re J.S., 140 Vt. 230, 436 A.2d 772, 774 (1981) (Billings, J., dissenting), citing Note, The Nature and Consequences of Forensic Misconduct in the Prosecution of a Criminal Case, 54 Colum. L.Rev. 946 (1954).
A conflict of interest has been held to arise where the prosecutor previously has represented the defendant with respect to the offense charged, or has consulted with the defendant in a professional capacity with regard thereto; such conflict also has been held to arise where the prosecutor has acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant's conviction. See Vermont v. Hohman, 138 Vt. 502, 420 A.2d 852 (1980). See also Fugitt v. State, supra.
In Hohman, the prosecutor was disqualified for conflict of interest, because he had pledged in his reelection campaign to obtain a conviction against the defendant. Thus, there is no clear demarcation line between conflict of interest and forensic misconduct, and a given ground for disqualification of the prosecutor might be classifiable as either.
One of the primary examples of "forensic misconduct" consists of the improper expression by the prosecuting attorney of his personal belief in the defendant's guilt. See Vermont v. Hohman, supra. In determining whether an improper statement of the prosecutor as to the defendant's guilt requires his disqualification, the courts have taken into consideration whether such remarks were part of a calculated plan evincing a design to prejudice the defendant in the minds of the jurors, or whether such remarks were inadvertent, albeit improper, utterances. Cf., Pierce v. United States, 86 F.2d 949 (6th Cir.1936), with Dunlop v. United States, 165 U.S. 486, 17 S.Ct. 375, 41 L.Ed. 799 (1897).”
In this regard, the defense counsel are arguing that Fanni Willis crossed this line when she spoke at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the church where Martin Luther King, Jr., was minister, and accused Donald Trump, after he was indicted, of being a racist, probably an accurate assessment, but improper to assert about an individual charged with a felony. It tends to poison the jury pool, especially in a state with a large African-American population.
So, even though Willis may not be disqualified based on an appearance of impropriety, in the absence of evidence of an actual conflict, the judge may conclude that she crossed the line with that speech, which was widely publicized, and must therefore be disqualified.
********
MS said:
S. E. Cupp, who is a very savvy Republican commentator, predicts that Trump will not win the general election.
"https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/03/donald-trump-nikki-haley-republican-party-2024-election-cupp-nr-vpx.cnn"
So, don’t give up hope.
*******
MS said:
In a 13 p. per curiam decision (i.e., unanimous decision by the Court), the Supreme Court today reversed the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court barring Donald Trump from appearing on its Presidential ballot. There were two concurring opinions, by Justice Barrett and Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson. The Court held that Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment is not “self-executing,” and that only Congress, pursuant to Sec. 5, may enact legislation regarding how Sec. 3 is to apply to candidates for federal office.
This is the position that I repeatedly took in my several emails on the subject, contrary to many so-called constitutional experts and pundits, most prominently retired Judge Luttig.
As Prof. Wolff has been wont to state, when you’re right, you’re right.
You can find the entire decision at the link below.
"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf"
********
5 March 2024
MS said:
"https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/05/george-conway-14th-amendment-scotus-sot-src-vpx.cnn"
George Conway claims that after the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson, Trump remains a convicted insurrectionist. This is nonsense, and I find it shocking that any competent attorney would make such a ludicrous claim. By reversing the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, which concluded that Trump had engaged in an insurrection which thereby barred him under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment from running for President in Colorado, that decision became null and void. It no longer exists as a valid ruling on anything contained in that decision, particularly its ruling that Trump was an insurrectionist. This is no more than Conway’s refusal to say, “I was wrong when I claimed that Sec. 3 is self-executing.” What he is succeeding in doing by saying that Trump is a convicted insurrectionist is sow doubt in the integrity of the Supreme Court. Since Justice Marshall wrote the decision in Marbury v. Madison, it is the Supreme Court that says what the law is, and what the Constitution states, not George Conway. I agree that Trump was an insurrectionist, but as of yesterday, he is not a convicted insurrectionist.
********
6 March 2024
MS said:
Benjamin’s Franklin’s observation is proving to be prophetic. When asked after the Constitutional Convention what form of government they had devised, he reportedly responded, “A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.”
The results in Super Tuesday’s Republican primaries nationwide demonstrate that a significant number of Republicans are ignoring Franklin’s admonition – assuming they even know it. These purported patriots, many claiming to be devout Christians, have decided to support a maniacal, fascistic, misogynistic, egotistical, autocratic, crooked thief, and are bringing this country to the brink of collapse – and possible civil war. Hopefully, the not insignificant number of Republicans who voted for Nikki Haley will show up on election day and vote for Biden. Otherwise, all may be lost.
********
MS said:
I just found out something more shocking than Trump’s wins in Tuesday’s Republican primaries.
The rock group Foreigner – performers of such great rock and roll hits as, “Hot Blooded”; “I Want to Know What Love Is”; “Cold As Ice”; and “Feels Like The First Time” – has not been inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame. Disgraceful. They have been nominated, again, this year. If there is any justice in the world, Trump will lose the election, and Foreigner will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
********
10 March 2024
MS said:
South Carolina has passed legislation allowing its citizens to own guns without a license. The lunatics are taking over the asylum.
"https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/south-carolina-becomes-29th-state-to-allow-carrying-firearms-without-a-license-5603950?utm_source=rtnewsnoe&src_src=rtnewsnoe&utm_campaign=rtbreaking-2024-03-10-1&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2024-03-10-1&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbOM5dgAZ2tLN4L4PsEVeBrVzxw0NKCTIPb%2Fdf0%2Fq1sGTn8LkTOQV"
Next, they will be arguing that the right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment requires a jury trial within 24 hrs. of an individual’s arrest and arraignment.
********
The End.