Law professors on the opposite side are actually seriously debating how to bring insurrection charges against Donald Trump so that he and several Congress members, as well as military officers, police men, and government officials who either participated in or endorsed the Capitol protest, can be permanently disbarred from future public service, using Quo Warranto.. Time to pick up that sword before they do.
On Jan 18, Potus issued an executive order protecting law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors and their families from threats to their lives and security in the course of performing their duties.
While offices and prosecutors already possess the right to carry a concealed fire arm, the order cuts out the red tape involved, allows for deputizing prosecutors as US marshals, and newly bestows the right to carry concealed weapons to judges.
In addition, investigations of crimes against the foregoing categories will be prioritized and they will be allowed to withhold private information from the public record for their safety.
With this EO, it certainly looks like the Trump administration is preparing carefully for the arrests of powerful people who might be inclined to threaten retribution against officers of the law and the courts for doing their jobs.
The following events are relevant here:
Governor Brian Kemp was probably dissuaded from coming clean on the corruption in the Georgia election and the facts about his relationship with Dominion Voting Systems by the fiery death in very suspicious circumstances of a young intern Harrison Deal. Deal was engaged to the governor’s daughter.
The agent rumored to be investigating the crime was found dead shortly thereafter, leading to speculation that he had been killed as a result of the investigation.
Justice Roberts was said to have been intimidated by the possibility of rioting by left wing groups when he side stepped the substantive issues involved and made the decision to turn down Texas’ election lawsuit on procedural grounds.
On January 14, 2021 indictments were unsealed in New York against 14 of the top bosses of MS-13, considered to be one of the most dangerous transnational crime gangs, one involved in human and drug trafficking right across Central America. MS-13 gang members act as the foot soldiers of the Mexican drug cartels, selling methamphetamine across borders. The Mexican cartels themselves are the end point of transnational drug shipments that start as far afield as China. The indictments came as a result of Trump’s whole-government approach to prosecuting transnational criminal gangs and they charge the gang leaders with terrorist -related crimes.
“Specifically, the indictment charges the defendants with conspiracy to provide and conceal material support to terrorists, conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, conspiracy to finance terrorism and narco-terrorism conspiracy in connection with the defendants’ leadership of the transnational criminal organization over the past two decades from El Salvador, the United States, Mexico and elsewhere.”
6. Thousands of Chinese researchers who concealed their ties to the Chinese government/military have left their posts and returned to China fearing arrest, after the arrest of six of them who lied on their visa applications about their ties to the People’s Liberation Army. Other high-profile cases include the arrest of Dr. Charles Lieber, chairman of Harvard’s chemistry department, who received tens of thousands in grant money from the Wuhan Institute of Technology and lied about it to the Pentagon as well as a top MIT professor who received $19 million in federal grants while concealing his contracts and other ties with PRC entities and has been charged with grant fraud by the DOJ.
The new EO has been issued to make sure that powerful people do not intimidate the officials prosecuting Trump’s war on criminal transnational networks that are operating to corrupt our elections, steal vital research, traffic drugs and human beings between the US and other countries and then launder the proceeds of these activities.
It is a clear sign that he anticipates still more arrests of powerful and dangerous bad actors.
Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation notes that when people ask for a national security court in the US, they are unwittingly following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler:
“Hitler established the People’s Court after the terrorist bombing of the German parliament building, the Reichstag. After a trial in a regularly constituted German court, many of the people charged with that terrorist act were acquitted, which, needless to say, outraged Hitler as much as it would have outraged current U.S. proponents of a national security court. After all, Hitler argued, those people who were acquitted were terrorists — otherwise they wouldn’t have been charged and prosecuted — and, therefore, they deserved to be convicted and punished, not acquitted and released.
To ensure that terrorists and other criminals were never again acquitted, Hitler established the People’s Court. Like the national security court that some Americans are now advocating for the United States, the purpose of the court was to create the appearance of justice while ensuring that terrorists and other criminals were convicted and punished.
Proceedings before the People’s Court would easily serve as a model for U.S. advocates of a national security. The trial of Hans and Sophie Scholl was over in less than an hour. Criminal defense lawyers were expected to remain silent during the proceedings, and did so. Defendants were presumed guilty and treated as such. Hearsay was permitted, as was evidence acquired by torture. There was no due process of law. Confessions could be coerced out of defendants. The judges on the tribunal would berate, humiliate, convict, and then swiftly issue sentences, including the death penalty.”
Hornberger points out that Hitler’s regime also included all those kinds of welfare programs that are admired today in America (public schooling, social security, national health care, public-private partnerships, the military industrial complex, the Interstate highway).
Hornberger doesn’t make the point explicitly, but the two things – popular acceptance of gross violations of law and morality and the rapid expansion of the welfare state – go together. Bluntly, people “sell” their consciences because of the advantages dangled before them.
In “Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State,” respected historian of the Third Reich, Goetz Aly of the Fritz Bauer Institut in Frankfurt, suggests that the Nazis had German popular support all through their “final solution” – not because of wide-spread terror or wide-spread anti-Semitism, but because they’d bribed the population with a generous welfare state and “bennies.”