Special Report

Subscriber list

Postponement and Rescheduling of Elections to Federal Office to Include the Presidency and Congress
Prepared by: Jason Meldemann , U. S, Department of Justice
January 3, 2020
In-House Classification
Xxxxxxxxxxxx (redacted)
.Postponement and Rescheduling of Elections to Federal Office
Summary
Because of the fear that President Trump and Republican Senators might be defeated in the general election of 2020, , attention has been directed at the possibility/authority to postpone, cancel or reschedule an election for federal office. The United States Constitution does not provide in express language any current authority for a federal official or institution to “postpone” an election for federal office. While the Constitution does expressly devolve upon the States the primary authority to administer within their respective jurisdictions elections for federal office, there remains within the Constitution a residual and superceding authority in the Congress over most aspects of congressional elections (Article I, Section 5, clause 1), and an express authority in Congress over at least the timing of the selections of presidential electors in the States (Article II, Section 1, clause 4). Under this authority Congress has legislated a uniform date for presidential electors to be chosen in the States, and a uniform date for congressional elections across the country, which are to be on the Tuesday immediately following the first Monday in November in the particular, applicable even-numbered election years.
In addition to the absence of an express constitutional direction, there is also no federal law which currently provides express authority to “postpone” an election, although the potential operation of federal statutes regarding vacancies and the consequences of a State’s failure to select on the prescribed election day (see 2 U.S.C. § 8, and 3 U.S.C. § 2) might allow the States to hold subsequent elections in “exigent” circumstances. It would appear that under Congress’ express constitutional authority over the timing of federal elections it could enact a federal law setting conditions, times and dates for rescheduling of elections to federal offices in the States in emergency or other exigent circumstances, and with the proper standards and guidelines could delegate the execution and application of those provisions to executive branch or State officials.
In addition to general contest, protest and challenge statutes whereby the results of elections to federal office are initially adjudicated in the States, a handful of States have provided in State law express authority to postpone or reschedule elections within their jurisdictions based on certain emergency contingencies. The States’ authority within the United States Constitution appears to be sufficient to enact legislation to deal with emergency and exigent circumstances concerning federal elections, as long as such laws do not conflict with federal law enacted under Congress’ superceding constitutional authority. Federal courts have thus generally interpreted federal law to permit the States to reschedule elections to congressional office when “exigent” circumstances have necessitated a postponement. There may, however, be different issues raised in the case of the election of presidential electors, as the federal statute regarding the “failure to make a choice” on the prescribed election day for presidential electors is different than that regarding congressional elections. This report will be updated as events warrant..
Contents
Background 1
Timing of Federal Elections 2
Current Federal Authority to Postpone 3
State Authority Over Election Procedures and Administration 5
State Authority Under United States Constitution 5
Authority Under State Law to Postpone or Reschedule 8
Conformance With Federal Law 8
Appendix: Constitutional and Federal Statutory Provisions 14
Congressional Elections 14
Presidential Elections 14
Dates of Federal Office Terms 15
Current Federal Statutory Provisions 15.
Postponement and Rescheduling of Elections to Federal Office
Because of the fear of “possible terrorist attacks which could be directed at election facilities or voters in the States just prior to or during the elections in a presidential election year”, attention has been directed at the possibility/authority to postpone, cancel or reschedule an election for federal office.
Background
There is no provision in the United States Constitution which currently authorizes in express language any federal official or institution to “postpone” an election for federal office. The Constitution expressly devolves upon the States the primary authority to administer within their respective jurisdictions elections for federal office, with a residual and superceding authority within the United States Congress over most aspects of congressional elections (other than the place of choosing Senators),1 and with express authority in Congress over at least the timing of the selections of presidential electors in the States.2 As to the time set for holding elections under this express constitutional authority, Congress has legislated, originally in 1845, a uniform date for presidential electors to be chosen in the States,3 and in 1872, a uniform date for congressional elections across the country,4 which are to be on the Tuesday immediately following the first Monday in November in the particular, applicable even-numbered election years.
In addition to the absence of specific constitutional direction, there is also no federal law which currently provides express authority to “postpone” an election, although the potential operation of federal statutes regarding vacancies and the consequences of a State’s failure to select on the prescribed election day may allow the States to hold subsequent elections in “exigent” circumstances. A handful of States have provided in State law express authority to postpone or reschedule elections within their jurisdictions based on certain emergency contingencies, and others have provided general emergency provisions which might be applicable to election situations.
As to potential disruptions on election day, particularly in regard to the presidential election, some of the confused scenarios and proposed solutions appear to stem from a common misconception of the presidential election as being in the. nature of a national referendum. The presidential election, however, is in reality a series of State (and District of Columbia) elections for presidential electors from that State (or jurisdiction) that the Congress has mandated, since 1845, to be held on the same day throughout the country. Consonant with the States’ authority over the administration and procedural aspects of elections to federal office within their jurisdictions, is the initial responsibility for resolving issues of challenges and recounts in those elections. This authority and these procedures may be relevant in the case of disruptions, insurrection or violence at the polling places on election day which could conceivably cast into question the efficacy and legitimacy of a particular election result in that jurisdiction.
It should be emphasized that while the States have the initial authority, or the “first cut” at resolving disputes and recounts in their respective jurisdictions regarding elections to federal office, the Constitution expressly provides that the final authority over the elections and returns of its own Members lies exclusively in each House of Congress.5 As to the elections for presidential electors, the Constitution expressly gives to the Congress the task of counting the electoral votes for President.6 Implicit within this explicit authority to count the electoral votes has been the practical necessity to determine which electoral votes to count. While Congress has established procedures and rules for counting the electoral votes and resolving disputed lists of electors,7 Congress has, by statute, specifically given the States a “safe harbor” time within which to formally resolve presidential electoral disputes, prior to the meeting of the Electoral College in December, which then would be considered “conclusive” upon the Congress in counting those electoral votes for President.8
Timing of Federal Elections
The United States Constitution does not require a uniform election date in the States for elections to the House or Senate, or for the selection of presidential electors.9 Rather, this has been done by Congress by the enactment of federal law. The Constitution, while declaring in the “Times, Places and Manner” clause (Article I, Section 4, clause 1) that the States have the general authority over the administration of even federal elections within their respective jurisdictions, expressly provides that the Congress may supercede any State provision regarding, among other things, the timing of congressional elections, and further provides that Congress may establish the time for the election of presidential electors in the States. (Article II, Section 1, clause 4). Under these authorities, Congress has established uniform dates for the general elections to federal office within the States, which now are mandated to be held on the first Tuesday next following the first Monday in November in the appropriate even-numbered years.
It was not until 1845 that a uniform date for electing presidential electors in the States was mandated by Congress.10 Before then, the timing for selecting presidential electors could and did vary from State to State. Congress in 1844 and 1845 was, however, concerned about the allegations of fraud and corruption in the previous election (1840) for electors for President and Vice President in several States. It was asserted that some of the particular misconduct in that election appeared to have been encouraged, in part, because the States had differing dates for the presidential election, which allowed the alleged movement of populations and voters to key States having later elections (described as “pipelaying”).11 Congress sought to eliminate such opportunities for fraud and corruption by establishing a uniform day throughout the country for selecting the electors for President and Vice President, while assuring that those States that required an absolute majority to elect could continue to hold a run-off for presidential electors if needed in an election on a subsequent date.12 The uniform date for congressional elections in the States was not established by the Congress until 1872. 13 In first enacting this legislation, the Congress appeared to be concerned primarily with two factors, that is, the potential undue and unfair influence on elections in some States that earlier results and elections in other States may routinely have; and the burden on voters who in some States would have to go to the polls twice for two different general elections to choose federal officers in presidential election years.14
Current Federal Authority to Postpone
As noted, the United States Constitution does not provide any express authority to any federal official or institution to postpone an election for federal office in a particular State, or in all of the States. Specifically, there is no current constitutional authority residing in the President of the United States, nor the executive branch of. Government, to postpone, cancel, or reschedule elections for federal office in the various States.15 There might certainly be some potential emergency powers inherent in the President of the United States, as well as those delegated by statute, but there is no precedent for such powers being applied with respect to elections held in the various States for presidential electors,16 authority over which, as to the procedures and methods, has been expressly delegated in the Constitution to the States.17 It is possible that some scenarios could be imagined, however, where attacks, disruptions and destruction are so severe and so dangerous in certain localities, particularly in crowded urban areas, that the President under a rule of necessity may look to protect the public safety by federalizing State national guard and restricting movement and activities in such areas which would obviously affect the ability to conduct an election at those sites.18 Unlike the President, Congress does have explicit constitutional authority over elections to federal office which is of an express, residual nature concerning congressional elections,19 and a broad implicit authority recognized by the Supreme Court to legislate to protect the integrity and proceedings of presidential elections,20 as well as express authority over the date of the selection of presidential electors.21 Congress could, therefore, pass legislation regarding dates, and emergency postponements and/or rescheduling times for elections to federal offices. The courts have recognized an expansive authority in the Congress to “provide a complete code” for federal elections within the States, including presidential elections, and, within the parameters of the specific dates for the length and terms of federal offices established within the Constitution, could exercise its legislative discretion with regard to emergency scheduling and rescheduling.22 As noted by the Supreme Court. earlier in our history with regard to Congress’ authority over the conduct of elections for federal office in the States:
That a government whose essential character is republican, whose executive head and legislative body are both elective … , has no power by appropriate laws to secure this election from the influence of violence … is a proposition so startling as to arrest attention and demand the gravest consideration.
If this government is anything more than a mere aggregation of delegated agents of other States and governments, each of which is superior to the general government, it must have the power to protect the elections on which its existence depends from violence and corruption.23
Furthermore, in theory, Congress could also enact a law delegating to the executive certain authority in this area regarding emergency rescheduling.24 However, as a policy matter, and under Article I, Section 4, clause 1, and Article II, Section 1, clause 2, Congress has traditionally allowed the States, within the framework of the federal constitutional and statutory mandates, to exercise the substantive control over the procedures and administrative details of elections within their own respective jurisdictions, and the States have then generally further devolved immediate administrative and supervisory control over many election procedures to local and county authorities within their jurisdictions. This policy has generally recognized the principle that because of the varying political cultures, practices and traditions across the nation, and from State-to-State, that operational authority over most of the election mechanics is more efficiently left to the States and localities.
It should be noted, and as discussed in more detail in following sections, that there are existing provisions under current federal law regarding a failure of a State to make a selection on the prescribed election day with regard to both congressional elections (2 U.S.C. § 8) and presidential elections (3 U.S.C. § 2), which have traditionally left the details of such decisions up to the States.
State Authority Over Election Procedures and Administration
State Authority Under United States Constitution.
There is under our federal system of shared sovereignty a division of jurisdiction and authority which occurs in the case of elections to federal office under the. provisions of the United States Constitution. In the first instance, the terms of federal offices and the qualifications of candidates eligible for federal offices are established and fixed by the agreement of the States within the instrument which created those offices, that is, the United States Constitution, and are thus unalterable by the Congress alone or by any State unilaterally.25 The Constitution expressly provides, however, that the individual States have the authority to administer elections for federal congressional office, while providing that Congress may generally supercede any such regulations.26 The Supreme Court has described this “Times, Places and Manner” clause of Article I, Section 4, as a “default provision; it invests the States with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections … but only so far as Congress declines to pre-empt state legislative choices.”27 The State legislatures have express authority over the “manner” in which presidential electors in their State are to be chosen.28 Within certain constitutionally prescribed parameters, the States are also responsible to establish the qualifications for voting in their States in federal elections.29 Finally, as to its own Members, the Constitution provides that each House of Congress expressly retains the authority to be the final judge of the results of their elections and constitutionally prescribed qualifications,30 and the Congress, in joint session, is assigned in the Constitution the duty to count the electoral votes for President and to declare the winner.31
Under the States’ “Times, Places and Manner” authority in the Constitution, the States may promulgate a broad range of regulatory and administrative provisions over the mechanics and procedures even for federal elections within their States regarding such things as forms of the ballots, “ballot access” by candidates (including new party or independent candidates), voting procedures, and the nominating and electoral process generally, to prevent election fraud, voter confusion, ballot overcrowding, the proliferation of frivolous candidates, and to facilitate proper election administration.32.
The States’ procedural and administrative authority over elections within their jurisdictions, including elections to federal office, includes the initial authority over election contests, protests and recounts. As noted by the Supreme Court in Roudebush v. Hartke, even though the Constitution expressly gives each House of Congress the final authority over the elections and returns of it own members (Article I, Section 5), a State may adopt contest and recount provisions as one of the “safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.”33 The Court noted there:
Indiana has found, along with many other States, that one procedure necessary to guard against irregularity and error in the tabulation of votes is the availability of a recount. … A recount is an integral part of the Indiana electoral process and is in the ambit of the broad powers delegated to the States by Art. I, § 4.
It is true that a State’s verification of the accuracy of election results pursuant to its Art. I, § 4, powers is not totally separable from the Senate’s power to judge elections and returns. But a recount can be said to “usurp” the Senate’s function only if it frustrates the Senate’s ability to make an independent final judgment. A recount does not prevent the Senate from independently evaluating the election any more than the initial count does. The Senate is free to accept or reject the apparent winner in either count, and, if it chooses, to conduct its own recount.34
As to the presidential election, the State legislatures are granted express authority over the manner in which presidential electors are to be chosen. Article II, Section 1, clause 2. Although there remains continued controversy over the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore,35 where a federal court intervened to stop a State ordered recount of the vote for presidential electors in Florida in 2000, the Court’s per curium opinion left intact and affirmed, at least in theory, a State legislature’s authority under the United States Constitution to enact protest or contest statutes and provisions regarding elections for presidential electors, although the implementation of that procedure as directed by the Florida courts was found by a majority of the Supreme Court to be violative of the equal protections and due process requirements. of the United States Constitution.36 The primacy under the United States Constitution of the States’ legislatures in establishing the mechanisms for appointment of presidential electors and in fashioning recount and protest statutes was also emphasized by the Supreme Court in the decision preceding Bush v. Gore, that is, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board,37 which had remanded back to the State courts the issue of the recount proceedings in the Florida presidential election of 2000.
Authority Under State Law to Postpone or Reschedule.
There are several State provisions which currently purport to give to certain specified State officials the authority to “postpone” or to reschedule an election within the State, prior to the holding of an election, for a number of emergency and exigent circumstances.38 Furthermore, other States may have general emergency powers which might be used, and might be broad enough, to allow the Governor or other State executive official to take action which may effect a postponement of an election. Because of the increased awareness of the threat from terrorists and terrorist organizations, State legislatures may in the future consider the adoption of additional provisions which set out the considerations and circumstances for the declaration of a postponement and/or rescheduling of an election within their jurisdiction, including elections to federal offices.
Conformance With Federal Law.
Does a State law or order instituting a rescheduling of an election to federal office within that State impermissibly affect the date of such election in contravention of the federal laws that have established election day for federal offices to be the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November?
Congressional Elections. The federally established date for elections for federal office, while it is clearly mandatory and not merely advisory, may not necessarily be an “absolute,” such that no election subsequent to that date could be or should be recognized. In fact, as noted, the federal statutory scheme in the case of congressional elections specifically provides for the contingency of a “vacancy” in the State delegation, whether that vacancy is caused by death, resignation or incapacity, or by a “failure to elect at the time prescribed by law,” by authorizing another time for the election to be prescribed by State law:
2 U.S.C. § 8. Vacancies The time for holding elections in any State, District, or Territory for a Representative or Delegate to fill a vacancy, whether. such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time prescribed by law, or by the death, resignation, or incapacity of a person elected, may be prescribed by the laws of the several States and Territories respectively.
The Supreme Court of the United States has found that the day established in 2 U.S.C. § 7 for electing Senators and Representatives in the States is a mandatory date, and that a State’s statutory scheme may not permissibly allow the “election” of such a federal official at an election held prior to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November date. Thus, the Louisiana election provisions which designated as “elected” to Congress an open primary winner who received at least a majority of the votes cast in that primary election held prior to the general election, was found to be a violation of the federal law setting the general election date.39 States that allow “early voting” in federal elections, however, have not been found by federal courts to be holding a prior election in violation of the federal statute since it was found that the election would not be “consummated” before election day, or that such ballots would not be officially counted or tallied before election day.40
Federal courts interpreting the federal statutes regarding the timing of elections to Congress have noted that the States’ scheme for elections must be in general conformance with the date prescribed by federal law, at 2 U.S.C. § 7, and may not routinely allow the election on an earlier date, but that certain “exigent” circumstances may permit the holding of an election for federal office at a subsequent time under 2 U.S.C. § 8. 41 The Federal court in the District of Columbia in Busbee v. Smith, in a case affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, found that an exigent circumstance, such as the State of Georgia’s reapportionment plan being refused preclearance by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because of “discriminatory effects,” allowed for an election to federal office in two congressional districts to be held on a subsequent date:
…[W]here exigent circumstances arising prior to or on the date established by [2 U.S.C.] section 7 preclude holding an election on that date, a state may postpone the election until the earliest practicable date. In this case, for example, Georgia will “fail[ ] to elect at the time prescribed by law” because its purposefully discriminatory conduct prevented it from securing Section 5 approval for constitutionally required changes in its voting procedures. As a result, we believe, that [2 U.S.C.] section 8 permits a reasonable postponement of the elections in the Fourth and Fifth Congressional Districts.42
This reasoning, as noted later by another federal court, would allow for the postponement of an election, and the holding of the election for federal office in the State at a later date, for a number of possible “exigent” circumstances, including. “natural disasters” such as hurricanes, tied votes, or fraud. This federal court in Georgia found that the State’s statutory requirement that a candidate to be elected receive a majority, and not merely a plurality, of votes in the general election, was such an exigent circumstance that could require the holding of a subsequent run-off election for Senator to be held on November 24, after the earlier November general election mandated by 2 U.S.C. § 7 resulted in no candidate receiving a majority of the votes:
The court in Busbee acknowledged that 2 U.S.C. § 8 allows States, under certain circumstances, to hold elections at times other than those prescribed by section 7. Id. at 524-25. In addition to the circumstances it specifically enumerates — death, resignation, personal incapacity — section 8 allows states to reschedule elections “where exigent circumstances arising prior to or on the date established by section 7 preclude holding an election on that date.” Id. at 525. The court offered natural disasters, and the parties to the instant suit offer fraud and a tie vote as examples of ‘exigent’ circumstances warranting state rescheduling.43
Elections for Presidential Electors.
The election for presidential electors presents somewhat different issues than those elections for congressional office, as the language of the federal statutes for presidential electors varies from the language governing congressional elections. The statute concerning the timing and scheduling for congressional elections provides expressly that when there is a vacancy caused by death, resignation or incapacity, or when “such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time prescribed by law,” then a subsequent election may be scheduled. This language appears to be broad enough and, as noted above, has been interpreted by federal courts to actually permit a temporary postponement and rescheduling of a congressional election. The federal statute for presidential elections, however, expressly states that “[w]henever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors,” but fails to “make a choice on the day prescribed by law,” then the electors may be selected on a subsequent day in the manner established by the legislature of the State:
3 U.S.C. § 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
Does the wording of 3 U.S.C. § 2 mean that the authority of the States to reschedule an election for presidential electors is contingent upon the State actually having “held an election for the purpose of choosing electors”? If so, then under this theory no prior postponement and rescheduling would be permitted State-wide, even a postponement for natural disasters such as an impending hurricane, or the destruction shortly prior to the elections of a number of polling places, since it would conflict with the federally scheduled time in 3 U.S.C. § 2..
Certainly, if a scheduled election is being held when terrorist or other types of attacks are conducted on voting places, destroying certain polling places in various precincts and disrupting the election generally in a State, then the power of the State to find under its general election contest and challenge procedures that the results of the election, because of such disruptions, are not viable or valid, and that, either a new election, or a continuation of the election (whereby those people who were not certified by election officials as having already voted could come to vote at a subsequent time), would appear to be in conformance with federal law, both at 2 U.S.C. § 8 (for congressional elections), as well as 3 U.S.C. § 2, in the case of the election of presidential electors. In such cases, the State had clearly “held an election,” but a choice was not necessarily made because the State has determined that the results could not fairly be ascertained.
However, if there is a disruption just prior to an election, could an election for presidential electors not be held, that is, be postponed and rescheduled in a particular State and still be in conformance with 3 U.S.C. § 2? There is no clear and definitive authority on this question, nor do there appear to be specific legal precedents bearing upon this issue. Even though the purpose in 1845 of this particular provision at 3 U.S.C. § 2, regarding the subsequent choosing of electors, was clearly to allow those States that required an absolute “majority” in a general election to be “elected” to hold a subsequent run-off election if no candidate’s electors received such a majority,44 the language itself may be open to broader interpretation.
It may be contended on the one hand, that the express constitutional authority of the State legislatures over the selection of presidential electors at Article II, Section 1, clause 2, which language allows the State legislatures to enact statutory schemes to protect the validity of their elections for presidential electors in the State, including fashioning protest or contest procedures, may be consonant with such an authority in the legislature itself to temporarily postpone or to authorize by State law the postponement and rescheduling of State-wide elections by the State executive in certain emergency circumstances. One of the major points made by the Supreme Court in both the earlier Palm Beach County case, and the latter Bush v. Gore decision, was the primacy of the state legislatures’ role in the manner of the selection of presidential electors.45 Although clearly the concepts of “time” and “manner” of election are not necessarily synonymous,46 this constitutional provision and the Supreme Court’s deference to the State legislatures may arguably give some credibility to the States’ attempts to statutorily prescribe a system whereby emergency procedures may be implemented with respect to all State-wide elections, including the general elections for federal office, which provide that such elections, while certainly scheduled for the federally prescribed date, because of such. emergency and exigent circumstances need to be rescheduled, postponed or continued at a subsequent time.
Furthermore, it may be noted that in addition to Article II, Section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution, the federal law at 3 U.S.C. § 5, which was part of the original Electoral Vote Count Act of 1887, provides the State legislatures with further statutory authority to finally and conclusively resolve within the State protests, challenges and contests of the election of presidential electors. One of the purposes of the original 1887 statute regarding counting of the electoral votes was to substantially devolve upon the States the burden for resolving conflicts over the election, selection and appointment of those states’ own electors for President and Vice President.47 As noted by the Supreme Court, this statute at 3 U.S.C. § 5:
… creates a “safe harbor” for a State insofar as congressional consideration of its electoral votes are concerned. If the state legislature has provided for final determination of contests or controversies by a law made prior to election day, that determination shall be conclusive if made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors.48
Clearly, there is an understanding that the States were intended to have the principal and initial responsibility for resolving the conflicts, arguments, controversies and difficulties involved in the processes of electing presidential electors. Thus, it is possible to argue that to harmonize the provisions for elections to federal office, that is specifically the provisions for subsequent congressional elections at 2 U.S.C. § 8 and the presidential provisions at 3 U.S.C. § 2, along with the authority devolved upon the States in 3 U.S.C. § 5, that it would be logical to read the federal statutes as permitting a postponement and an election on a subsequent date for both Congress and presidential electors under the State’s current laws when necessitated by emergency and exigent circumstances in the particular State and, as long as the matter is resolved in time, such resolution would be conclusive on Congress in counting the presidential electoral votes. Such a supposition might be bolstered somewhat by the alternative, that is, that the federal law could work to disenfranchise the voters of a particular State when that State believes it is necessary to temporarily postpone the regularly scheduled State-wide elections because of some extraordinary and disastrous event in the State.
While providing possible support for the State legislature’s authority to develop a scheme which could include postponement of elections for presidential electors in times of emergency, this argument of expanded State authority might not necessarily give any additional weight to an implied or inherent authority of the State Executive. or the State courts to do so, absent an express delegation in law from the legislature.49
Finally, as a policy matter there has been some consternation over allowing any State to postpone or otherwise reschedule an election for federal office. The grounds for any such postponement or rescheduling, as well as any express, implied or inherent authority, would have to be examined initially under State law and procedure, and no blanket statement could be made with respect to the interpretation in all of the States. Furthermore, there appears to be little legal or factual precedent to apply to such circumstances. Remembering that the presidential election is not necessarily in the nature of a national referendum, but is rather 51 simultaneous State/District elections for presidential electors, however, it may be asked as a matter of policy whether or not an event that occurred earlier in the State, or an event that occurs in a different State, would or should be enough to trigger a postponement of an election in any particular State as a matter of good public policy. It has been argued that a violent disruption of an election in Manhattan, New York City, should not necessarily affect, or at least could not predictably affect, an election in Manhattan, Kansas. Various commentators have noted that on the fateful day of September 11, 2001, despite the events unfolding in Manhattan in New York City, Pennsylvania, and in Arlington, Virginia, a primary election for federal congressional office, a contested congressional primary, on the South Shore of Massachusetts reportedly drew a larger than normal number of the voting age population.50 Problems and disruptions in one State may not necessarily or predictably affect the viability of the results in another..
Appendix: Constitutional and Federal Statutory Provisions
Congressional Elections.
Article I, Section 2, clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States ….
Article I, Section 2, clause 4. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
Amendment Seventeen. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years ….
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Article I, Section 4, clause 1. The times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Article I, Section 5, clause 1. Each house shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members ….
Presidential Elections.
Article II, Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ….51
Article II, Section 1, clause 4. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Amendment XII. The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, … and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States,. directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted ….
Dates of Federal Office Terms.
Amendment XX, Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20 th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3 rd day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Current Federal Statutory Provisions.
2 U.S.C. § 1. Time for election of Senators At the regular election held in any State next preceding the expiration of the term for which any Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress, at which election a Representative to Congress is regularly by law to be chosen, a United States Senator from said State shall be elected by the people thereof for the term commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.
2 U.S.C. § 7. Time of election The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.
2 U.S.C. § 8. Vacancies The time for holding elections in any State, District, or Territory for a Representative or Delegate to fill a vacancy, whether such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time prescribed by law, or by the death, resignation, or incapacity of a person elected, may be prescribed by the laws of the several States and Territories respectively.
3 U.S.C. § 1. Time of appointing electors The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.
3 U.S.C. § 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
3 U.S.C. § 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the. Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

1 Article I, Section 5, clause 1.
2 Article II, Section 1, clause 4.
3 5 Stat. 721, ch. 1, January 23, 1845, now 3 U.S.C. § 1.
4 17 Stat. 28, ch. 11, § 3, February 2, 1872, now 2 U.S.C. § 7.
5 Article I, Section 5, cl. 1.
6 Constitution, Amendment XII, amending Article II, Section 1, cl. 3.
7 See generally, the Electoral Count Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 373, ch. 90, February 3, 1887; now 3 U.S.C. §§ 5 et seq.
8 3 U.S.C. § 5.
9 The Constitution does require that the date for the presidential electors to give their votes for President and Vice President be on the same day (Article II, Section 1, clause 4), and Congress has set that time for the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following the November election. 3 U.S.C. § 7.
10 5 Stat. 721, Ch. 1, January 23, 1845; see now 3 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2.
11 Congressional Globe, 28 th Cong., 2d Sess., at 350, March 6, 1844 (Mr. Duncan); see Levy and Fisher, The Encyclopedia of the American Presidency, Volume 2, “Election, Presidential, 1840,” at p. 446.
12 Congressional Globe, 28 th Cong., 2d Sess., at 14, December 9, 1844 (Mr. Hale); Congressional Globe, supra at 21, December 11, 1844 (Mr. Duncan); see 5 Stat. 721, Ch. 1, January 23, 1845, now 3 U.S.C. § 2.
13 17 Stat. 28, ch. 11, § 3, February 2, 1872, now 2 U.S.C. § 7.
14 Note discussion by Supreme Court in Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 73-74 (1967), and in legislative history, Congressional Globe, 42 Cong., 2d Sess., at 141, December 14, 1871.
15 See discussion in CRS Report RL32471, Executive Branch Power to Postpone Elections, by Kenneth R. Thomas.
16 See discussion of emergency powers generally, in CRS Report 98-505, National Emergency Powers, by Harold C. Relyea.
17 Article II, Section 1, clause 2: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors ….”
18 Note discussion of historic uses of emergency powers and rule of necessity, particularly the use of authority by President Lincoln in the Civil War era, in “Emergency Powers,” by Harold C. Relyea, appearing in Separation of Powers – Documents and Commentary, Katy J. Harriger, ed., pp. 80- 97 (2003). There may also certainly be, of course, serious political implications for a President to exercise inherent or implied “emergency” powers to affect the timing, and thus possibly the turnout and outcome, of an election in which that President himself is a candidate for re-election.
19 Article 1, Section 4, clause 1; Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 799, 832-833 (1995).
20 Burroughs and Cannon v. United States, 290 U.S. 534, 544-545 (1934).
21 Article II, Section 1, clause 4.
22 Smiley v. Holm, supra at 366-367 [congressional elections]; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 657-658 (1884) [congressional elections]; Burroughs and Cannon, supra [presidential elections]; Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 13-14, see n.16 (1976) [presidential and congressional elections].
23 Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 657-658 (1884).
24 Although Congress has the express constitutional authority over these aspects of federal elections, Congress could delegate, with the appropriate standards, the authority to regulate such elections to the executive branch, which would administer and execute the particular federal laws enacted, such as it has done with respect to the conduct and regulation of the financing of federal elections to the Federal Elections Commission, an executive agency. Note generally, discussion in CRS Report RL32471, supra, of the required standards for delegation as set out in Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 379 (1989); Skinner v. Mid-American Pipeline, 490 U.S. 212 (1989); Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 443- 444 (1998).
25 Powell v. McCormack,395 U.S. 486 (1969); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001).
26 Article I, Section 4, cl. 1.
27 Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 69 (1997), citing to Storer v, Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974), and Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 24 (1972).
28 Article II, Section 1, clause 2.
29 The qualifications to vote in congressional elections in a particular State must be the same as the qualifications to vote for the most populous House in the State legislature, and meet other federal standards, such as age and absence of discrimination. Note Article I, Section 2, clause 1; Article II, Section 1, clause 2; 14 th , 15 th , 17 th , 19 th , 24 th and 26 th Amendments.
30 Article I, Section 5, cl. 1. In addition to judging the elections and returns of its own Members, each House is expressly authorized to judge the “qualifications” for office of the Members-elect in those elections, that is, the age, citizenship and inhabitancy in the State of the Members-elect seeking to be seated. Note Powell v. McCormack, supra.
31 Constitution, Amendment XII.
32 Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974). Legitimate “ballot access” procedures, as well as administrative requirements, reasonable filing deadlines, and party affiliation rules, are generally considered within the State’s purview to “regulate[ ] election procedures” to serve the State interest of “protecting the integrity and regularity of the election process….,” and are not considered impermissible additional qualifications for federal office. See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 832-835 (1995), comparing legitimate “ballot access” provisions as in Storer v. Brown, supra, with impermissible additional qualifications for federal office, such as individual State-imposed term limits. Requirements for “ballot access,” in addition to the requirement that they impose no substantive, new qualifications to federal office, must not violate equal protection provisions of the Constitution by impermissibly discriminating against new or independent candidates, nor impermissibly infringe upon First Amendment rights of voters to associate freely and express their political opinions through support of their chosen candidates. Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972); Williams v. Tucker, 382 F. Supp. 381, 387-388 (M.D.Pa. 1974).
33 405 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1972).
34 Id. At 25-26.
35 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
36 The Court found that “it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work,” in formulating specific standards for and overseeing manual recounts, which would necessitate that the proceedings would not be completed by the State statute’s deadline. Bush v. Gore, supra at 110.
37 531 U.S. 70 (2000)
38 See CRS Report RS21942, State Election Laws: Overview of Statutes Regarding Emergency Election Postponement Within The State, by L. Paige Whitaker.
39 Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997).
40 Voting Integrity Project, Inc. v. Bomer, 199 F.3rd 773 (5 th Cir. 2000); Millsaps v. Thompson, 96 F.Supp.2d 720 (E.D.Tenn. 2000).
41 Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 494 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d, 459 U.S. 1166 (1983); Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller, 813 F. Supp. 821, 830 (N.D.Ga. 1993), aff’d, 992 F.2d 1548 (11 th Cir. 1993).
42 Busbee v. Smith, supra at 525.
43 Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller, 813 F. Supp. 821, 830 (N.D.Ga. 1993), aff’d, 992 F.2d 1548 (11 th Cir. 1993).
44 Congressional Globe, 28 th Cong., 2d Sess. at 14, December 9, 1844 (Rep. Hale of New Hampshire); see amendment at Congressional Globe, supra at 21, December 11, 1844 (Mr. Duncan); note also debate at Congressional Globe, supra at 30-31, December 13, 1844.
45 Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, supra 76-77; Bush v. Gore, supra 104- 105; see specifically McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892).
46 Foster v. Love, supra at 72.
47 Pierce and Longley, The People’s President, The Electoral College in American History and the Direct Vote Alternative, at p.105 (revised edition 1981).
48 Bush v. Gore, supra at 77-78.
49 Note discussion of State legislatures’ plenary power in this area, in McPherson v. Blacker, supra, and Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board, supra at 76-78, as well as concurring opinion of minority of three Justices in Bush v. Gore, supra at 111-122.
50 Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, at 2111, September 15, 2001.
51 See also the 23 rd Amendment granting to the District of Columbia the right to select presidential electors equal to the number of Representatives and Senators to which the District would be entitled had it been a State.

The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. January 22, 2020:“Working in the White House as a junior staffer is an interesting experience.
When I was younger, I worked as a summer-time job in a clinic for people who had moderate to severe mental problems and the current work closely, at times, echos the earlier one.
I am not an intimate of the President but I have encountered him from time to time and I daily see manifestations of his growing psychological problems.
He insults people, uses foul language, is frantic to see his name mentioned on main-line television and pays absolutely no attention to any advice from his staff that runs counter to his strange ideas.
He lies like a rug to everyone, eats like a hog, makes lewd remarks to female staffers and flies into rages if anyone dares to contradict him.
It is becoming more and more evident to even the least intelligent American voter that Trump is vicious, corrupt and amoral. He has stated often that even if he loses the
election in 2020, he will not leave the White House. I have news for Donald but this is not the place to discuss it.

Trump aches from his head to his toes
His sphincters have gone where who knows
And his love life has ended
By a paunch so distended
That all he can use is his nose

Commentary for January 22: “The farce in the Senate trial will become painfully evident as the bought-and-paid-for Republicans will declare Donald Trump God’s Gift to America and Zuckerberg’s Facebook will start grinding out ficticious pro-Trump sewage to entertain its dimwitted adherents. Trump could walk into a Macdonalds, pull out a pistol and shoot two old ladies and a baby in a stroller and the Senate Republicans would comfort themselves with the idea that he had to do it because God His Father wanted it. On the other hand, Senate Republicans carefully ignore his extensive dealings with Russian drug money. This is somewhat like speaking kindly of a whore because she sends money to her mother.”

Trump’s Approval/Disapproval rating January 21 reporting
Source                           Approve Disapprove
_________________________________________
American Research Group 37%      59%

The Table of Contents
• Shock and Horror for the dim of wit
• Pandemic fears grow as new coronavirus spreads
• Never the Pentagon
• Different…but the same!
• As Trump goes on trial, so does the conscience of the Republican party
• US sanctions helped Russia to boost oil exports in 2019
• The Season of Evil
• Encyclopedia of American Loons Continue Reading »

The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. January 21, 2020:“Working in the White House as a junior staffer is an interesting experience.
When I was younger, I worked as a summer-time job in a clinic for people who had moderate to severe mental problems and the current work closely, at times, echos the earlier one.
I am not an intimate of the President but I have encountered him from time to time and I daily see manifestations of his growing psychological problems.
He insults people, uses foul language, is frantic to see his name mentioned on main-line television and pays absolutely no attention to any advice from his staff that runs counter to his strange ideas.
He lies like a rug to everyone, eats like a hog, makes lewd remarks to female staffers and flies into rages if anyone dares to contradict him.
It is becoming more and more evident to even the least intelligent American voter that Trump is vicious, corrupt and amoral. He has stated often that even if he loses the
election in 2020, he will not leave the White House. I have news for Donald but this is not the place to discuss it.

Trump aches from his head to his toes
His sphincters have gone where who knows
And his love life has ended
By a paunch so distended
That all he can use is his nose

Commentary for January 21:”What the Senate Republicans are unware of in he upcoming trial of Trump is that there is increasing evidence of his peculations that in all probability will come to the attention of the voting public. Their tatics will be to rush the drama along in the hopes they can shut off more condemning eruptions. Once the great mass of the voting pubic becomes aware of Trump’s actitities, they will put him out of office and, at the same time and in the same election, put many Republican Senators out into the wilderness. Trump has hired Facebook to flood their members with pro-Trump propaganda but I have the distinct feeling that Marc Zuckerberg will go the way of Trump. One hopes.”

Trump’s Approval/Disapproval rating January 21 reporting
Source                                Approve          Disapprove
_________________________________________
American Research Group       37%              59%

The Table of Contents
• Why haven’t you shut down the border?’: inside Trump’s White House
• An Israeli Nazi funding and arming the American far-right
• Half a billion unemployed or underemployed worldwide: UN report
• China mystery virus death toll rises
• Coronavirus
• The Season of Evil
• Encyclopedia of American Loons Continue Reading »

The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. January 20, 2020:“Working in the White House as a junior staffer is an interesting experience.
When I was younger, I worked as a summer-time job in a clinic for people who had moderate to severe mental problems and the current work closely, at times, echos the earlier one.
I am not an intimate of the President but I have encountered him from time to time and I daily see manifestations of his growing psychological problems.
He insults people, uses foul language, is frantic to see his name mentioned on main-line television and pays absolutely no attention to any advice from his staff that runs counter to his strange ideas.
He lies like a rug to everyone, eats like a hog, makes lewd remarks to female staffers and flies into rages if anyone dares to contradict him.
It is becoming more and more evident to even the least intelligent American voter that Trump is vicious, corrupt and amoral. He has stated often that even if he loses the
election in 2020, he will not leave the White House. I have news for Donald but this is not the place to discuss it.

Trump aches from his head to his toes
His sphincters have gone where who knows
And his love life has ended
By a paunch so distended
That all he can use is his nose

Commentary for January 20: “Trump is acting like a degraged dictator, issuing senseless orders to Congress, sending out reams of virtually illiterate Twitter postings, and displaying his growing rage at anyone who dares to contradict him. He is, after all, a great genius who is Saving America. From whom is not clear but given past rantings, he has blacks, Mexicans, gays, pot dealers, Armenians, Venes=zuelans, Canadians and others in mind. As the snake said as it wound itself around a tree’The end is in sight.’”

Trump’s Approval/Disapproval rating January 20 reporting
Source   Approve Disapprove
____________________________
YouGov      40%        53%

The Table of Contents
• Trump impeachment: Schumer ready to ‘force votes for witnesses’
• The US and Iran’s Perpetual Almost-war Is Unsustainable
• Targeted killings via drone becoming ‘normalised’ – report
• 8 facts about gun control in the US
• In the Face of Rising White Supremacist Violence, Police Continue to Investigate Victims and Activists
• The Season of Evil
• Encyclopedia of American Loons Continue Reading »

The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. January 19, 2020:“Working in the White House as a junior staffer is an interesting experience.
When I was younger, I worked as a summer-time job in a clinic for people who had moderate to severe mental problems and the current work closely, at times, echos the earlier one.
I am not an intimate of the President but I have encountered him from time to time and I daily see manifestations of his growing psychological problems.
He insults people, uses foul language, is frantic to see his name mentioned on main-line television and pays absolutely no attention to any advice from his staff that runs counter to his strange ideas.
He lies like a rug to everyone, eats like a hog, makes lewd remarks to female staffers and flies into rages if anyone dares to contradict him.
It is becoming more and more evident to even the least intelligent American voter that Trump is vicious, corrupt and amoral. He has stated often that even if he loses the
election in 2020, he will not leave the White House. I have news for Donald but this is not the place to discuss it.

Trump aches from his head to his toes
His sphincters have gone where who knows
And his love life has ended
By a paunch so distended
That all he can use is his nose

Commentary for January 19: “Well, I am happy to learn that because a young Swedish girl with emotional problems has spoken, our Congress might just pass a law stopping climate changes in the United States. It’s wonderful that Congress could do this and I wonder that when they do this vital service, couldn’t they also vote to keep citizens from dying and get President Trump appointed as King of America? His psychiatrist says it would make him feel so much better and might stop bed wetting entirely.”

Trump’s Approval/Disapproval rating January 19 reporting
Source     Approve     Disapprove
____________________________
YouGov       40%         53%

The Table of Contents
• In impeachment document, Democrats say Trump endangers security, Trump denies
• ‘A Very Stable Genius’ review: dysfunction and disaster at the court of King Donald
• Why Is the Trump Presidency of Extreme Psychological Interest?
• Russian State TV Backs Trump’s Wild Impeachment Attacks
• Vows of peace, fears of violence at Virginia gun rally
• Important New Source for Secret Intelligence
• The Season of Evil
• Encyclopedia of American Loons
• NASA Warns: Sunspots Drop Drastically, Earth Heads Towards Next Ice Age

In impeachment document, Democrats say Trump endangers security, Trump denies
January 18, 2020
by Patricia Zengerle and Steve Holland
Reuters

WASHINGTON/PALM BEACH, Fla. (Reuters) – Democratic U.S. lawmakers leading the impeachment case against Republican President Donald Trump said on Saturday the president must be removed from office to protect national security and preserve the country’s system of government.
In a 111-page document filed before Trump’s Senate trial begins in earnest on Tuesday, the lawmakers laid out their arguments supporting charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress against the president.
“The Senate should convict and remove President Trump to avoid serious and long term damage to our democratic values and the nation’s security,” the lawmakers said, for the first time formally calling for the Senate to convict the president and remove him from office.
“The case against the president of the United States is simple, the facts are indisputable, and the evidence is overwhelming,” they said.
The document was an appeal directly to the senators to be impartial. “History will judge each senator’s willingness to rise above partisan differences, view the facts honestly and defend the Constitution,” the managers said in a statement noting “the President is not a king.”
Trump’s legal team issued a resounding rejection of the impeachment charges, which were read out in the Senate earlier in the week during formalities setting the stage for the trial. They are expected to release a longer, separate response to the Democrats’ pretrial brief on Monday.
Rejecting the charges, Trump’s lawyers reiterated the president’s insistence, echoed by many of his fellow Republicans in Congress, that the charges are nothing more than a partisan attempt to remove him from office, a “dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president.”
“This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election — now just months away,” they argued in a six-page document released on Saturday.
It was the first time Trump formally responded to the two articles of impeachment – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – that the Democratic-led House approved late last year.
DUELING ARGUMENTS
Trump and Democratic lawmakers offered dueling arguments about the politically polarizing impeachment case involving Trump’s attempt to persuade Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden last year.
“President Trump categorically and unequivocally denies each and every allegation in both articles of impeachment,” the Trump lawyers’ document said. (For full document see here)
As well as the charge of abuse of office for pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son Hunter Biden, Trump is also accused of obstructing Congress in its investigation into his conduct by refusing to hand over documents and barring administration officials from testifying, even when subpoenaed by House investigators.
The document filed by the Democratic House impeachment managers on Saturday explained why the House passed the two articles of impeachment, and listed evidence supporting the charges.
The evidence included references to information released in the past few days from Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who was involved in Giuliani’s contacts with Ukraine’s government.
It also included a finding on Thursday by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) that Trump broke the law when he withheld military aid that Congress had designated for Ukraine. Trump is charged with withholding the $391 million in security assistance to put pressure on Kiev to announce an investigation of the Bidens, to boost his 2020 re-election prospects.
“An acquittal would also provide license to President Trump and his successors to use taxpayer dollars for personal political ends,” the Democratic lawmakers’ brief said. (For full document see here)
Trump has denied wrongdoing.
The trial in the Republican-led Senate is unlikely to lead to Trump’s ouster, as no Republican senators have voiced support for doing so and a two-thirds majority vote is required to convict.
Trump, at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, for the weekend, played a round of golf on Saturday.
The Trump lawyers, in their document, argued that the president acted at all times with full constitutional legal authority, said one of three sources close to Trump’s legal team who briefed reporters on a conference call on Saturday.
“We will take the facts head-on and we believe that the facts will prove, and have proven, that the president did absolutely nothing wrong,” the source said.
Reporting by Steve Holland and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Paul Simao, Chizu Nomiyama and Jonathan Oatis

‘A Very Stable Genius’ review: dysfunction and disaster at the court of King Donald
Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, Pulitzer-winning Washington Post reporters, have produced a vital and alarming read
January 19, 2020
by Lloyd Green
The Guardian
In January 2018, Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury made headlines as it depicted a president out of control and a White House that careened from crisis to crisis. Donald Trump threatened legal action against author and publisher. He also lauded himself and his electoral college victory: “I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius … and a very stable genius at that!”
Trump’s outburst confirmed what many already feared. In the aftermath of the firing of FBI director James Comey in May 2017, Rod Rosenstein, then deputy attorney general, reportedly weighed secretly recording the president with an eye to removing him from office under the 25th amendment.
Now Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post offer ‘A Very Stable Genius.’ As befitting Pulitzer winners for investigative reporting, their book is richly sourced and highly readable.
It sheds new light on how the 45th president tests the boundaries of the office while trying the patience and dignity of those who work for or with him. It is not just another Trump tell-all or third-party confessional. It is unsettling, not salacious.
Trump himself was quick to criticize the book, calling its authors “two third rate Washington Post reporters”. In a tweet on Saturday night, the president said the book was “all for the purpose of demeaning and belittling a President who is getting great things done for our Country, at a record clip”.
Rucker and Leonnig lift the curtain on internal battles over immigration and the attempt to replace John Kelly with Chris Christie as White House chief of staff. It also closely examines the scrum between Bill Barr, the attorney general, and Bob Mueller over Barr’s handling of the special counsel’s report on Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow.
Trump’s West Wing is tantamount to a family business and everything is personal. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump obtain security clearances because they are kin.
After publicly punting the issue to Kelly, Trump is described as applying pressure privately. “I wish we could make this go away,” he reportedly told Kelly. “This is a problem.” Said differently, protocols and national security were treated as impediments, not safeguards, when Javanka got involved.
When Trump cuts Kelly loose, Kushner and Ivanka are depicted as coveting the job. Their ambitions go unfulfilled but they continue to lurk in the background.
Told by Rudy Giuliani that Trump wants him as his chief of staff, Christie asks why he would want the job if Kushner isn’t leaving. For record, as a federal prosecutor Christie sent Charlie Kushner, Jared’s father, to prison for “one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes” on Christie’s watch.
“Why the fuck am I going to take this job?” the former New Jersey governor exclaims. “You guys are nuts. I’m not going in there.”
Still, Ivanka purportedly telephoned Christie’s wife, Pat, to assure her bygones would be bygones. It didn’t work.
‘A Very Stable Genius’ also chronicles the back and forth between Trump’s lawyers and the special counsel’s office and the interplay between Barr and Mueller. Under George HW Bush, Barr was attorney general and Mueller headed the criminal division at the justice department. The two men were friends.
Yet when Barr rolled out his summary of Mueller’s report, Leonnig and Rucker write, the special counsel “looked as if he’d been slapped”. When Mueller sent a rebuttal letter, objecting to Barr’s summary, Barr was “pissed”, thought the letter “nasty” and felt personally “betrayed”. Barr and Mueller spoke by phone, a tense conversation that ended on “an uplifting note.”
As for Trump and name-calling, nothing has changed. As a candidate, he mocked John McCain, a gold star family, a Latino judge and a disabled reporter. Life at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has not alloyed that spirit.
At a meeting in the Pentagon’s inner sanctum, the “Tank”, the draft-dodging Trump derided America’s generals as “dopes and babies”. He added: “I wouldn’t go to war with you people.” Debasement was a coin of the realm.
When Kirstjen Nielsen, secretary of homeland security and a Kelly deputy, balked at Trump’s demands on immigration, he berated her looks and height. For good measure, according to the authors, Trump would call her at 5am, just for the sake of harassment.
After James Mattis advised Trump of his intent to resign as defense secretary, Trump moved his departure up two months. At a cabinet meeting, the president bragged that he had “essentially” fired the four-star general. For the president, policy differences invariably exploded into a matter of honor.
Mattis’s resignation letter omitted any praise for the commander-in-chief. “Because you have the right to have a secretary of defense whose views are better aligned with yours,” he wrote, “I believe it is right for me to step down.”
Likewise, Trump mocked HR McMaster, Michael Flynn’s replacement as national security adviser, for his mien and wardrobe. The scholarly McMaster was always on borrowed time.
Says one of McMaster’s aides, Trump “doesn’t fire people … he tortures them until they’re willing to quit.”
Clearly, Trumpworld has its share of casualties. Paul Manafort, a campaign manager, and Michael Cohen, a lawyer, sit imprisoned. Flynn and Roger Stone, a longtime political confidante, await sentencing.
Trump’s allergy to reality remains on display. His contention he doesn’t know Lev Parnas is belied by video and email. The US now admits 11 troops attacked by Iran’s missiles were treated for concussions.
Leonnig and Rucker quote Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution, who says Trump “appears to be daring the rest of the political system to stop him – and if it doesn’t he’ll go further. The law has no force without people who are willing to enforce it.”
As the Senate marches toward an impeachment trial and the countdown to the election ticks on, truer words have seldom been spoken.

Why Is the Trump Presidency of Extreme Psychological Interest?
Psychology Today

Since the campaign that led to his 2016 election, Donald J. Trump has defiantly flipped the presidential script, making chaos and deliberate combativeness the new normal of White House operations, manifest in hostile briefings, high rates of staff turnover, and cultural exchanges that appear aimed at dividing the nation.
There is widespread debate about the degree to which Trump should be held directly or indirectly accountable for changes in civil discourse, with some citing his rhetoric and policies as a spur to hate crimes while others claim he has been unfairly demonized by the press.
Millions of people around the country and the globe have expressed bafflement at the nature of the personality at the center of it all, and many are alarmed by tactics and policies that appear not only erratic but often retrogressive and undermining of long-established democratic practices. Chief among them is a well-documented distortion of facts if not outright lies about everything from crowd size at the inauguration to discussions with foreign heads of state.
A large segment of the population seeks to quell their emotional reactivity to the chaos of the presidency and to rationally navigate the civic, legal, and ideological battles that play out daily, from Twitter to the federal courts.
The President’s Personality
Trump’s manifest grandiosity and disregard for facts, beginning with failure to accept clear evidence about the size of the crowd attending his inauguration, has put mental health professionals in the spotlight from Day One of his presidency.
Psychologists and commentators from all ideological camps early converged on a label of narcissistic personality disorder as the condition that “explains” Trump’s behavior. Among those making this assertion are more than 70,000 mental health professionals who signed a petition warning of Trump’s potential dangerousness, despite longstanding professional injunctions against “diagnosing” public figures whom experts have not personally examined.
Americans remain divided as to how authoritarian or grandiose Trump may or may not be, as well as who has the authority to make clinical pronouncements or draw historical parallels.
At some as-yet-untested point, the clinical becomes the constitutional. The behavior of President Trump has sparked both legislative action and public discussion about whether and when to invoke the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which calls for the orderly transfer of power when a president becomes temporarily or permanently incapacitated.
What Psychological Terms Characterize the Trump Presidency?
Trump’s presidency has given rise to heated discussion about a range of psychological phenomena, well beyond the debate about his own personality. The term “gaslighting” refers to the manipulative attempt to make people question their own perceptions or memory, and it has often been invoked to describe Trump’s actions and statements, especially those about “fake news.”
The question of whether or not Trump’s style could accurately be characterized as authoritarian has sparked analysis of other world leaders, past and present. Whatever one’s position on Trump and his policies, a narrow area of agreement for most Americans is that the political climate has never been more corrosive, and that it reflects, to a greater or lesser degree, Trump’s contrarian approach to leadership.

Russian State TV Backs Trump’s Wild Impeachment Attacks
State television praised Trump’s letter to House Speaker Pelosi, calling him a “highly educated” writer of “multiple bestsellers” who wrote the letter “for future generations.”
December 21, 2019
by Julia Davis
The Daily Beast
Russian state media have joined President Vladimir Putin in delivering a full-throated defense of impeached U.S. President Donald J. Trump.
Such support would have been implausible for any other U.S. leader, much less one who claims to be “tough on Russia.” But bluster aside, Trump has been reluctant to sign off on additional Russian sanctions. Pro-Kremlin experts, lawmakers and talking heads believe President Trump would do away with most of the sanctions in record time if not for the U.S. Congress.
Bolstering these assumptions is the case of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project between Russia and Germany. On Friday, Trump signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains a provision sanctioning Nord Stream 2. But the project is just weeks away from completion and analysts doubt the imposition of sanctions at this late stage can be effective, much less halt the project.
The Trump administration meanwhile is opposing the bipartisan Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act, or “DASKA,” meant to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 election and deter it from such actions in the future. The administration called the bill “unnecessary” in a 22-page letter to Congress. “The Trump administration stood up in defense of Russia against DASKA sanctions,” Russian media concluded.
The Kremlin is likewise continuing to stand up for President Trump. During President Vladimir Putin’s annual news conference in Moscow, he claimed that the impeachment was based on “absolutely made up” allegations. Echoing the GOP, the Russian president said, “The party that lost the [2016] election, the Democratic Party, is trying to achieve results by other methods, other means.” On Friday, Trump touted Vladimir Putin’s endorsement on his Twitter feed.
The chairman of the Russian State Duma (the lower house of parliament) foreign affairs committee Leonid Slutsky called impeachment “the revenge of the Democrats for the defeat in the 2016 presidential election.”
Supporting Trump, Russian state media attacked the Democrats, but saw pure comedy in the GOP making ill-conceived comparisons between Donald Trump and Jesus Christ while likening the impact of the impeachment to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
(Novaya Gazeta, which is not part of the state media, concluded that Trump is obviously guilty and many Republicans realize he’s been deserving of impeachment for quite some time. Nonetheless, the GOP defends the president in order to preserve the party, while many of the Democrats are “honest people who are ready to sacrifice themselves in the name of the ideas of the founding fathers.” Novaya Gazeta opined that re-election in 2020 “is in Trump’s pocket,” but the moral victory belongs to the Democrats.)
One of the Kremlin’s top propagandists, Vladimir Soloviev, heaped praise upon Trump and rattled off a list of bogus defenses in his coverage of the impeachment proceedings. During his show, The Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, the host favorably mentioned a “documentary film” based on the Ukrainian exploits of the U.S. president’s private lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani. The show was quickly slapped together in order to defend Trump’s pursuit of fictitious “dirt” against Joe Biden, along with the allegations that Ukraine—not Russia—interfered in the U.S. elections.
“Defending President Trump by echoing his talking points, Soloviev exclaimed: ‘There was no quid pro quo!’”
Soloviev proceeded to accuse the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden of “conspiring” with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European leaders to remove Viktor Shokin—the corrupt former Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Defending President Trump by echoing his talking points, Soloviev exclaimed: “There was no quid pro quo!”
The claim that Ukraine and not Russia interfered in U.S. elections is a Kremlin-spawned conspiracy theory that reportedly was conveyed to President Trump personally by Vladimir Putin during their secretive meeting at the G-20 summit in 2017. Trump was so impressed by the tale of the Russian president (whom he calls “my friend”), he would say: “The Russians didn’t do anything. The Ukrainians tried to do something,” according to The Washington Post. The Kremlin’s fable further blossomed, when it started to be widely accepted and frequently reiterated by the GOP.
Vladimir Soloviev praised Trump’s letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, calling the U.S. president a “highly educated” writer of “multiple bestsellers,” who wrote the letter “for future generations.” Soloviev surmised that when it comes to the upcoming presidential race of 2020, “Trump is defeating all potential candidates.”
“When an expert noted Trump boasted about grabbing women, the Russian state TV host immediately jumped in to defend him as an alleged proponent of ‘free love.’”
Soloviev theatrically complained: “Here’s what I can’t understand. Why do they hate Trump so much?” The Atlantic Council’s expert appearing on the show, Ariel Cohen, explained that Trump is a political outlier, who boasted about grabbing women by their private parts. The Russian state TV host immediately jumped in to defend President Trump as an alleged proponent of “free love.”
Throughout the segment, pro-Kremlin propagandists criticized Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg, but found no fault in Trump.
During one of his previous shows, Soloviev said he was troubled, saddened by “insulting” anti-Trump ads, featuring prominent actors and celebrities. He urged respect towards the American president, although he’s shown very little in the past.
On his earlier shows, Soloviev described President Trump as “Donald Ivanovich” and “Trumpushka,” joked about the U.S. president sending the Republicans to Moscow in order to make deals with Russian hackers, questioned which “Motherland”—the U.S. or Russia—“geriatric” Trump would serve and pondered whether Trump would end up fleeing to Russia like the former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.
“Among tthe Democrats, Russian state media have only one clear favorite: Tulsi Gabbard.”
With respect to President Trump’s Democratic opponents in the upcoming presidential race, the Russian state media have only one clear favorite: Tulsi Gabbard. Vladimir Soloviev asked: “Who would be the ideal candidate from the Democrats?” “John F. Kennedy,” replied Andrey Sidorov, deputy dean of World Politics at Moscow’s State University. “Kamala Harris,” suggested the Atlantic Council’s expert Ariel Cohen. Soloviev disagreed: “No, it should be Gabbard.”
Pro-Kremlin TV pundit and Rossiya Segodnya state news agency CEO Dmitry Kiselyov shares Soloviev’s affinity for Tulsi Gabbard, having aired a “getting to know her” profile on his weekly show, Vesti Nedeli.
Notably, Tulsi Gabbard refused to take a principled stand in the vote on two articles of impeachment against Trump, merely voting “present.” Gabbard’s failure to condemn the atrocities of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and non-fulfillment of her Congressional duties with respect to entering a meaningful impeachment vote demonstrate the absence of moral clarity, a quality that is highly prized by the Kremlin.
Russia’s state media outlet, RT, aired President Trump’s speech at his Michigan rally, wherein the American president claimed that by proceeding with the impeachment, “House Democrats have branded themselves with an eternal mark of shame.” Meanwhile, Russian state television branded the American president as the Kremlin’s “agent”—an “eternal mark of shame” indeed.

Vows of peace, fears of violence at Virginia gun rally
January 19, 2020
by Brad Brooks
Reuters
RICHMOND, Virginia (Reuters) – The top Republican in Virginia’s lower house said that any group planning to incite violence at a large gun rights rally on Monday in Richmond should stay home, while far-right leaders of militias planning to attend swore they were coming in peace.
Richmond was braced on Sunday for the rally, aimed at showing gun enthusiasts’ disdain for swift moves the newly Democrat-controlled legislature is making to pass stiffer gun laws – and many residents feared a repeat of violence seen at a white supremacist rally in nearby Charlottesville in 2017.
But several militia leaders with large followings on social media who attended that Charlottesville rally said they were coming purely to show their support for those opposed to new, more restrictive gun laws in the state.
“If you think that we’re a threat coming into your city, then you don’t know who we are, you don’t understand what we’re about,” said Joshua Shoaff, who has over 542,000 Facebook followers and goes by the pseudonym Ace Baker. “We’re not anarchists – we believe in government.”
Other leaders of well-known militias also vowed they were not seeking confrontations in Richmond. But police warned that among those they know to be attending are known neo-Nazis and other groups who may seek to hijack the gun-rights gathering.
Authorities say they are expecting several thousand people and are trying to keep the event from becoming violent.
Virginia Governor Ralph Northam this week temporarily banned all weapons from the area around the Capitol ahead of the demonstration.
Todd Gilbert, the Republican leader in Virginia’s House of Delegates, said in a statement on Saturday that violence was not welcome during Monday’s rally.
“Any group that comes to Richmond to spread white supremacist garbage, or any other form of hate, violence, or civil unrest isn’t welcome here,” he said. “While we and our Democratic colleagues may have differences, we are all Virginians and we will stand united in opposition to any threats of violence or civil unrest from any quarter.”
Monday’s rally is being organized by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a pro-gun rights group that annually comes out in force to lobby Virginia’s legislature to not pass any new gun laws.
The group is working closely with police, according to law enforcement officials, in an effort to pull off a smooth event – but they have called for tens of thousands of armed citizens to come to the event, hiking tensions.
President Donald Trump backed the rally organizers in a Twitter post on Friday in which he said the U.S. Constitution was under attack by recent gun control measures in Virginia, a state that Hilary Clinton won in 2016 and where Democrats took full control of the state legislature for the first time in a generation in November.
“Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia,” Trump wrote in the post, referring to the amendment in the Bill of Rights that gives Americans the right to keep and bear firearms. “That’s what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away.”
The Virginia Senate late on Thursday passed bills to require background checks on all firearms sales, limit handgun purchases to one a month, and restore local governments’ right to ban weapons from public buildings and other venues.
Both Virginia legislative houses are also expected to pass “red flag” laws that would allow courts and local law enforcement to remove guns from people deemed a risk to communities, among other measures.
Reporting by Brad Brooks; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan

Important New Source for Secret Intelligence

We have just learned about a notice from a firm that specializes in digging electronic information out of the woodwork. The firm lists several pages of topics, some of which are unbelievable. They are very expensive but one must assume that their data is correct. We are excerpting some of this list and have included their address for those who have the money to learn the truth as, according to the précis, it has never been available before.

• Successor to the NSA ‘Harvest” programs that catalog important overseas telephone calls made via communications satellites.
• In depth information on the DoD’s DISA systems / VIPER and others
• USIA/Warrentown files
• In depth dossiers on members of Congress. These, the list advises us, consists of medical and financial records.
• A 250 page report on the fake Anthrax scare
• Firms and individuals in foreign countries known to be friendly sources.
• Scanned copies of Governor George W. Bush’s personal correspondence and financial records, now hidden in the George H.W.Bush Presidential Library
• Lists of offshore bank accounts for senior political and military figures
• The so-called ‘Wilson Blvd.’ technical and scientific records
• A report on infiltration and surveillance of all Israeli communications with their embassy and other entities in the United States
• An analysis of a collection of documents relating to homosexual activities on the part of President Trump
• A copy of an FBI report on Edward Snowden’ employment by Russian Intelligence and a compendium of secret documents he downloaded for them from Booz-Hamilton connections
There are many more fascinating offerings but it should be noted that on the list we were sent, prices are very high indeed but approved credit cards, especially American Express, can be used.
We have not availed ourselves of this reported service but as it might prove to be interesting to our many readers, especially those with large amounts of cash, we are including the address for your general information: www.spywarelabs.inc and one must apply for an entrance code.

Good hunting!

The Season of Evil
by Gregory Douglas
Preface

This is in essence a work of fiction, but the usual disclaimers notwithstanding, many of the horrific incidents related herein are based entirely on factual occurrences.
None of the characters or the events in this telling are invented and at the same time, none are real. And certainly, none of the participants could be considered by any stretch of the imagination to be either noble, self-sacrificing, honest, pure of motive or in any way socially acceptable to anything other than a hungry crocodile, a professional politician or a tax collector.
In fact, the main characters are complex, very often unpleasant, destructive and occasionally, very entertaining.

To those who would say that the majority of humanity has nothing in common with the characters depicted herein, the response is that mirrors only depict the ugly, evil and deformed things that peer into them
There are no heroes here, only different shapes and degrees of villains and if there is a moral to this tale it might well be found in a sentence by Jonathan Swift, a brilliant and misanthropic Irish cleric who wrote in his ‘Gulliver’s Travels,”
“I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most odious race of little pernicious vermin that Nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth.”
Swift was often unkind in his observations but certainly not inaccurate.

Frienze, Italy
July 2018-August 2019

Chapter 61

They were both asleep in five minutes and when Claude woke up about eight, he discovered that Alex had put an arm across his chest and was snoring softly into his pillow.
He gently disengaged the arm and got up. There were various interesting things he could do that day and he showered and shaved and put on an expensive suit and a tweed overcoat. Ernie’s badge and handcuffs went into a coat pocket and after drinking a cup of freshly brewed coffee, he wrote out a note and left it propped up on the kitchen table.
He took the extra set of door and gate openers and went into the garage.
The eastern sky was turning a light pink as he drove down the county roads heading south towards Duluth. There was always the interesting thought that he might visit Ernie in the hospital and unplug him from any support systems he might be on. Somewhere in the trunk of his car was an excellent Polaroid camera and if he didn’t feel like dispatching Ernie, he might take a few pictures of him in his agony to amuse his new friend.
The next one up was Gwen and shortly before nine, she managed to drag Lars out of a heavy sleep.
It took him several minutes for him to realize that she was requiring his services to help her buy clothes and other items for Alex. He was very tired and not feeling well after his consumption of more Kulmbach beer than he was accustomed to but in the end, Gwen prevailed and a cold shower assisted him in making a partial recovery of his senses.
Chuck was also comatose and it took her more time to waken him and get him sufficiently awake to understand her.
“Jesus H. Christ woman, leave me in peace!”
“You deserve this. Lars and I are going out to buy some clothes for our friend and I don’t know when we’ll be back. It depends on how far we have to go. There’s a note from Claude on the table in the kitchen. He’s gone to Duluth, God knows what for, and he doesn’t know when he’ll be back so you guys are on your own today. And no more beer, Charlie, got me?”
Chuck could barely keep his reddened eyes opened.
‘Yes, all right, fine, perfect. Is Alex up yet?”
“No, he’s probably worse off than you are. Be sure to feed him on schedule and try to be nice today. You get so negative sometimes and it’s not good for him. I’m off now and remember what I said about being a little positive.”
Chuck merely rolled over and plunged back into soothing sleep.
Chuck finally managed to wake up at ten thirty. He had no headache but he was very tired and totally disinterested in getting out of bed. There was, however, the question of Alex and lunch so he got out of bed in slow stages, showered and shaved and put on a blue broadcloth shirt, gray cardigan and charcoal slacks. Feet stuck in a pair of soft and very expensive deerskin moccasins, he slowly descended the oak staircase and into the bowels of the house.
Alex was indeed dead to the world, which, Chuck thought, was probably better for him considering how the world had treated him in times past.
He shook the bed with his hand and was rewarded by stirring and mumblings from the inert mass under the covers.
“Wake up, kid, and greet the new day.”
The stirrings increased and a head appeared. Chuck was pleased to note that the swelling around the eye had gone down to the point where two pale blue eyes regarded him.
“Hey, Chuck! What’s going on?”
“Nothing, Alexander. Everyone has left us for the day and I was told to be nice to you and make some lunch. Gwen put your clean clothes on the chair over there so if you would like to shower and get dressed. I’ll be in the kitchen.”
“OK, give me a few minutes. Do I have to shower?”
“If you want to live in the house with the rest of us, yes, you have to shower. Those clothes look like they came off a plane accident victim and Gwen, that sweet and considerate young lady, has gone out to buy you some new ones. Take your time but fifteen minutes ought to be enough.”
“Where’s Claude?”
“Claude has gone to Duluth, reasons not given. Do you know anything about that?”
“Well….he said he was going to talk to my mother.”
“Oh fine. That conversation will be all over the news at five. Woman found cut into little pieces and fed to pet beagle.”
“He said he wasn’t going to kill her. I asked him if was going to and he said he was just going to talk to her. And we don’t have a dog. Ernie hates dogs and tries to run over them if they get in the street. I don’t think Claude is going to cut my mom up.”
“He might be telling you the truth but he could well visit Ernie and send him off to Polish heaven with a great bang. Look, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it as Teddy Kennedy once said. I’ll be in the kitchen fixing lunch so don’t spend too much time in the bathroom.”
Chuck had a cup of hot Colombian coffee and a roll while a refurbished Alex, no longer limping, ended up with a Denver omelet and a large glass of milk.
“Can’t I have some coffee?” he asked, eyeing the milk. In his house, milk was almost always a week past expiration date and tasted like it.
“No coffee for you, lad. I got my ass reamed out by Dame Gwen last night for letting you drink too much beer and it’s milk and orange juice for you from now on. And eat the omelet before it gets cold.”

Halfway through the brief meal there was a sudden clangor of bells and Chuck jumped up. It was the perimeter fence alarm system and he went to the front door and peeked out through a small window set in it.
At first he could see nothing and then, over to the right edge of his vision, he saw what looked like a fat man in a fur coat trying to climb up to the top of the fence. A second look corrected his initial impression.
The burglar was not a fat man in a fur coat but a large black bear that seemed to have his head and shoulders caught in the concertina of razor wire that topped the high fence. The alarm bells didn’t seem to bother him but Chuck was badly shaken to note that there were at least five other large bears also attempting to climb the fence.
He ran back through the kitchen, Alex staring after him, and tore up the stairs.
In Gwen’s room he found a .357 Magnum pistol and two boxes of ammunition in her bedside table and grabbing it up, ran back downstairs.
He took a quick look at the pistol, found it loaded and jerked the front door open.
The other bears, intent on reaching the top and totally oblivious of the roars of pain of their impaled and badly bleeding comrade, paid no attention to Chuck.
From where he stood on the terrace, the bears were a hundred feet away and most of them were nearing the top of the fence.
The one caught in the wire looked relatively helpless so he drew a bead on the nearest bear and shot it. The heavy pistol bucked in his hand and the roar of the shot stopped the other climbers.
The target, half of its head blasted off, toppled back onto the ground. He shot at another one, missed and then shot a third squarely through the throat. Great gouts of blood squirted out of it and it too dropped onto the ground. The others hastily scrambled down from the fence and lumbered off across the road and down into the tall pines.
That left two dead bears on the ground and a very much alive, one stuck in the razor wire and roaring in fury. Chuck walked over towards the fence and shot the remaining invader under the chin, blowing off the entire top of his head. The bear jerked several times and then hung limply, smashed head still enmeshed in the wire.
He stared at the furry corpses and then up at the dripping remains of his last trophy shot and wondered what possessed the bears to raid his house. Then he thought of LeBec and went over to look at him. By now he was walking in the snow and his feet were getting very cold. The moccasins were comfortable in the house but did not have the ability to stay dry in wet snow.
LeBec’s leg was now visible and it became obvious that the bears, who normally hibernated during the winter, must have smelled him and decided to break their annual Lenten fasting and make Chuck’s job of disposal easier by eating Collins’ pet assassin.
Chuck hastily dug the body out of the snow with his bare hands and dragged it down towards the front gate. When he was about halfway there, Alex came out through the open front door.
He saw the remains of the bears and smelt blood, powder and faint corruption.
He also saw Chuck dragging a skinny, contorted and very naked body partially wrapped in sheet plastic down to the gate.
“Hey, Chuck, can I help you?”
Chuck dropped LeBec. He supposed that when Gwen heard about this, there would be more scolding. And then there was the question of Alex himself. How was he going to explain dragging a naked man across the courtyard?
“We had an accident here, Alex. Yes, go back inside and push the button just below the speaker. It’s on the right side of the door. Hurry up, my feet are freezing.”
Alex shrugged and went back inside and a few seconds later, the gate slid open.
A contorted and yellowish LeBec was deposited beside one of the bears and Chuck punched the manual control that closed the gate.
There was no point, he thought, leaving LeBec in the snow bank. It was melting and LeBec was starting to thaw and he was not prepared to fight off hungry bears all day.
They were omnivores and perhaps they might eat LeBec or some of their former running mates. At any rate, he would have to go inside and deal with Alex.
This did not prove as difficult as he thought.
Alex was finishing off the last of his omelet when Chuck, pistol in one hand and ammunition boxes in the other, came back into the kitchen after turning off the ringing bells.
“Well, that’s a nice break in the day, don’t you think, kid?”
“Those are bears, aren’t they?” Alex asked as he drank down what proved to be delicious, untainted milk.
“Yes, most of them are bears.”
“Who’s the dead dude? Did the bears get him too?”
“Yes. The bears chased him over the fence and killed him.”
“But they were all outside the fence and he was inside. And why is he naked, Chuck?”
Chuck sighed.
“That’s because he died in Claude’s bed of a heart attack some time ago and we stuck him in snow bank to keep him fresh until we could bury him.”
“In Claude’s bed? Were they having some kind of sex?”
Chuck began to laugh with relief.
“No, that was before Claude came. That’s a nasty question, Alex. You’re a sick boy.”
“Well, my mom had a fat boyfriend and he died right there on top of her and I had to help get him off. That wasn’t very nice to look at Chuck. It was just an idea.”
“Do you want more milk?”
“Yes, please. This is sort of an interesting place to be. Do you think the bears will come back and eat him?”
“I’m hoping.”
“What if someone comes by in their car and sees him with his legs all stuck up in the air like that?”
“This is a private road and I don’t think anyone is coming by. Do you want another omelet?”
“No, but that sure was good. And I took a shower like you asked.”
His hair was still wet and no longer stuck up at odd angles. Alex looked as if someone had put a bowl over his head and cut off anything that hung down below its edges. This area was growing out but the demarcation line was still very visible.
“Good boy. Now how many of your school friends can you tell about all the adventures you have had?”
“Not very many. Who was that guy?”
“Alex, that is a very long story. I don’t think you are ready for it right now. Maybe when we all get to know each other a little better, I can tell you about LeBec.”
“There’s nobody home now.”
“Yes, right. And how are you feeling today, Alex?”
“Not as bad as yesterday. And that beer sure tasted good.”
“Keep that in your mind because we can’t do that again. Gwen doesn’t like it.”
“Is she the boss or are you?”
“Never argue with women, kid, because you will always lose. She likes you and that’s that. She likes to take care of you. It’s a mothering instinct that some women have, but obviously not your mother.”
“She told me about her brother. The one who died.”
Chuck was curious. He had never heard about a brother, living or dead so Alex related as much as he could remember of what Gwen had said.
“Oh, that’s a sad story, Alex. I never knew that. Look, let’s put the dirty dishes into the dishwasher and then I can practice on the piano and you can go back to bed or go outside and poke a stick at the big bear hanging from the fence. My God, what would someone think who drove by? Three dead bears, a concentration camp inmate and where, oh where is Goldilocks? Someone ate her all up and she just loved it. No, no, just forget I said that and for shits sake, don’t repeat that to Gwen.”
“Ate?”
“Never mind, Alex, just clean off your plate and we can all go and do something else and forget about the bears. OK?”
“Yes, sir. But this is sure an interesting place to be.”
“That’s a polite thing to say. This is not your normal household, Alexander, not at all. If you can put up with us, I suppose we can put up with you. Now, I’m going to practice on the piano and you can do what you want. When I’m done, we can go outside and move LeBec across the street and hope the bears come back and eat him. Or we can leave him where he is with his legs stuck up in the air. What do you think?”
“Does he smell bad?”
“Not yet but he’s getting there.”
“I’ll help you drag him across the road if you want.”
“Good lad. Now, let me practice in peace.”
“I think we should move him now, Chuck. What if someone comes by? I mean you can tell people you were hunting bears but what can you say about the dead guy? I don’t mind helping you if you want. Your shoes look kind of wet so you better change them, don’t you think?”
Chuck could see that there would be no trouble at all with Alexis and shaking his head, he went up to put on a pair of winter boots.
(Continued)
This is also an e-book, available from Amazon:

Encyclopedia of American Loons

John Stemberger

John Stemberger is president of the Florida Family Policy Council – closely aligned with the Family Research Council – and affiliated with a number of other, similar groups (like On My Honor). As you’d expect from the name of his group, Stemberger is a fundie, denialist and all-round bigot, and many of his efforts have, unsurprisingly, been directed at making life as hard as possible for gay people, but he has also initiated or contributed to a number of other fundie efforts, too, such as circumventing the law to distribute Bibles in public schools. He has also tried to contribute to discussions of race relations.
Gays in the Boy Scouts
Stemberger was very critical of proposals to end the ban of gay youths in the Boy Scouts, warning that doing so would “further public scandal to the BSA, not to mention the tragedy of countless boys who will experience sexual, physical and psychological abuse”. Also, according to Stemberger, a young gay man will only join the Scouts in order to begin “flaunting his sexuality and promoting a leftist political agenda” and “inject a sensitive and highly-charged political issue into the heart of the BSA”. Apparently these are among Stemberger’s “top ten reasons” to oppose ending the ban on gay youth in the organization. Wanna bet whether the others are any better? As Stemberger sees it, “anything that has the word ‘gay’ on it [is] inappropriate for kids,” and “that’s what we’re talking about; we talking about injecting hyper-sexuality and a leftist political agenda right into the veins of the Boy Scouts and it will utterly devastate it.” Of course, the Boy Scouts weren’t supposed to start using the word ‘gay’ – indeed, their policy change was more about ending the use ‘gay’ or similar expressions in their rules. What Stemberger is talking about is thus not what he thinks he is talking about. He also warned that the Boy Scouts would commit “suicide” if they allowed openly gay members, whom he said would be “segregated” and put “in separate tents” from the other boys. At least he tried his best to make that prediction come true.
In response to the end of the ban, a heartbroken Stemberger tried to help start an alternative, anti-gay version of the boy scouts, Trail Life USA, an initiative he compared to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Trail Life USA would ban anyone who is gay unless he is working to hide and banish his gay demons, in opposition to “society and schools and even parents”, which he blamed for affirming LGBT youth, something that, in Stemberger’s mind, is “tantamount to abuse.” Stemberger also said that gay people are “intolerant,” and indeed that this is why he will not “tolerate” them in Trail Life USA or any other youth group. No, he didn’t put two and two together. But he did express his outrage at Disney, who at the time (2014) was still not funding the BSA because the organization still barred gay people from leadership roles, calling Disney’s decision proof that gay rights advocates have a “vitriolic spirit” of “intolerance.” Disney is “completely a pro-gay agenda,” said Stemberger: “ I don’t trust Disney anymore with my kids. The Disney Channel can’t be trusted. If it has ‘Disney’ on it and says it’s for kids you better watch what it is parents because they can no longer be trusted as a family source for entertainment.” All in the spirit of fighting intolerance, of course.
And when a state judge in Florida overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2014 Stemberger vowed to continue fighting: “This is an issue worth dying for,” he said, adding that “every domestic partnership, every single civil union, every couple that cohabitates, these arrangements dilute and devalue marriage.” It makes one wonder a bit how his own marriage works and what it’s based on.
After the 2016 massacre in an Orlando gay club, Stemberger complained about being “tired of seeing special interest rainbow flags”, and wishing instead to see greater “unity”. The statement itself – and Stemberger was not the only one to make statements of that kind – kinda suggests that Stemberger is not that fond of unity (hint: unity is not quite equivalent to everybody do as I want), but to emphasize he added that “Christians should be prepared to be attacked and persecuted if they do not bow down and pledge allegiance to the gay pride flag and all it supposedly represents,” and the strategy of LGBT rights advocates is to “manipulate and bully Christians into submission to the new orthodoxy of the moral revolution,” presumably by letting themselves be gunned down in an Orlando nightclub.
Among efforts to help people avoid homosexual temptations, Stemberger has suggested ending welfare: after all, people wouldn’t be gay if they could just be kept dirt poor. “People who are hard-working and have to be self-sufficient and are not going to be propped up by the government don’t have the luxury of doing stupid, immoral things,” argued Stemberger. So, one major reason for opposing welfare measures is because they make you gay.
Creationism
Stemberger is also an advocate of teaching creationism in public schools, usually by arguing that teachers should (be allowed to) do so under the “academic freedom” label. In response to discussion of Florida’s education standards in 2008, Stemberger objected to adding the phrase “scientific theory” to evolution, ostensibly because it would be a “meaningless and impotent change,” which is a peculiar choice of words.
As Stemberger saw the debates, the “Neanderthals” – i.e. the scientists and experts – were fighting hard to prevent exposure to denialist talking points (not his formulation) in public schools: “It’s apparent that evolution has become almost like one of the prongs of the Apostles’ Creed for the secular humanists. They guard it as if they were guarding a doctrinal truth,” said Stemberger, who would not be able to distinguish science from dogma if his life dependend on it (he interestingly didn’t liken the idea of gravity to the Apostles’ Creed). “They’re not open to discussion and debate and examination of evidence,” he concluded. Stemberger is not interested in the evidence, of course. He did, however, liken creationists to Galileo, “when he was trying to establish an order of the day and come against the Flat Earth Society.” That was not remotely what Galileo was doing.
Diagnosis: Yes, relatively standard fare for us, but still: John Stemberger is an insane, delusional conspiracy theorist with a tenuous grasp of reality. But he is certainly tireless, and still has the ability to cause real harm.

NASA Warns: Sunspots Drop Drastically, Earth Heads Towards Next Ice Age

According to scientists, the sun has been without sunspots for 79 days – or 55% – of the year so far, causing the Earth’s upper atmosphere to lose heat energy, which shows the long-awaited solar minimum has arrived and it could soon shrink the thermosphere – meaning it is going to get very cold, very quickly.
In 1645, a solar minimum led to a mini ice age (scientifically known as the Maunder minimum) and left the Earth grappling with freezing weather for 70 years. During these seven decades, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees Celsius leading to shorter seasons and food shortages.
According to scientists, the sun has been without sunspots for 79 days – or 55% – of the year so far, causing the Earth’s upper atmosphere to lose heat energy, which shows the long-awaited solar minimum has arrived and it could soon shrink the thermosphere – meaning it is going to get very cold, very quickly.
Martin Mlynczak, a scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center, warns:
“A cooling trend is obvious in the atmosphere…High above the Earth’s surface, towards the edge of space, the atmosphere is losing heat energy and if current trends persist, it could mean soon to set a Space Age record for cold…the knowledge of this is quite startling to think for a start that something out of our control and visible could cause the next ice age, is not just a little frightening but scary.”
The data comes from NASA’s TIMED satellite, which measures changes in the Earth’s atmosphere. Using the SABER instrument on the TIMED satellite, which monitors infrared emissions from carbon dioxide and nitric oxide, NASA found the thermosphere is currently cooling and shrinking.
Sunspot activity tends to come and go in cycles lasting around 11 years as the number of patches peaks and drops. But there have been very few spots on the sun for most of this year. Mlynczak explains:
“SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from nitric oxide. That’s 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle.”
During the last solar minimum, the Thames froze over; if it happens again, according to NASA, the solar minimum will enhance the effects of space weather, disrupt communications and navigation, and even cause space junk to ‘hang around’.
Interestingly, when the frightening warning that the Earth could be plunged into ice age if the sun continues to remain dead went viral, Mlynczak issued the following statement to Climate Feedback:
“The cooling effects we are seeing in Earth’s thermosphere are a result of the current solar minimum conditions. The thermosphere is the layer of Earth’s atmosphere beginning 65 miles above Earth’s surface and is highly sensitive to solar activity. There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth’s surface.
“NASA and other climate researchers continue to see a warming trend in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth’s surface. There is no inconsistency between the science findings of a warming troposphere [where we live] and the Thermosphere Climate Index.”

The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. January 18, 2020:“Working in the White House as a junior staffer is an interesting experience.
When I was younger, I worked as a summer-time job in a clinic for people who had moderate to severe mental problems and the current work closely, at times, echos the earlier one.
I am not an intimate of the President but I have encountered him from time to time and I daily see manifestations of his growing psychological problems.
He insults people, uses foul language, is frantic to see his name mentioned on main-line television and pays absolutely no attention to any advice from his staff that runs counter to his strange ideas.
He lies like a rug to everyone, eats like a hog, makes lewd remarks to female staffers and flies into rages if anyone dares to contradict him.
It is becoming more and more evident to even the least intelligent American voter that Trump is vicious, corrupt and amoral. He has stated often that even if he loses the
election in 2020, he will not leave the White House. I have news for Donald but this is not the place to discuss it.

Trump aches from his head to his toes
His sphincters have gone where who knows
And his love life has ended
By a paunch so distended
That all he can use is his nose

Commentary for January 18: “There are questions and there are answers.
When men came down out of their caves and stood on their hind legs, questions began to form in their small minds.
Would they live forever?
Where would they go when they stopped breathing and began to smell bad?
And other men, more clever, told them what they wanted to hear so desperately.
Yes, they would live forever and in a wonderful place.
Yes, they would see their dead family again who would be waiting for them, smiling.
Of course in order to get to this wonderful place and see smiling dead family members they would have to become a paying member of a certain religious group.
They would have to believe just what the leaders of this religious group told them to believe or they would go to some cold, wet and nasty place when they died and have to sleep with dead rats.
And because they wanted to believe these entertaining and entirely invented stories, they did.
Those who promised paradise got rich and those who believed were content. But when they died, they slept with the worms.
Of course they weren’t aware of anything at that point.”

Trump’s Approval/Disapproval rating January 18 reporting
Source     Approve     Disapprove
____________________________
YouGov      40%            53%

The Table of Contents
• Ahead of tinder box Virginia gun rally, Trump says Constitution under attack
• Guns Instead of Butter
• Trump’s is the third impeachment in US history and no case has been stronger
• The Broken Sword of Langley
• Accidents on Purpose
• A Russian Base on the Indian Ocean
• Water Problems
• The Season of Evil
• Encyclopedia of American Loons Continue Reading »

The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. January 17, 2020:“Working in the White House as a junior staffer is an interesting experience.
When I was younger, I worked as a summer-time job in a clinic for people who had moderate to severe mental problems and the current work closely, at times, echos the earlier one.
I am not an intimate of the President but I have encountered him from time to time and I daily see manifestations of his growing psychological problems.
He insults people, uses foul language, is frantic to see his name mentioned on main-line television and pays absolutely no attention to any advice from his staff that runs counter to his strange ideas.
He lies like a rug to everyone, eats like a hog, makes lewd remarks to female staffers and flies into rages if anyone dares to contradict him.
It is becoming more and more evident to even the least intelligent American voter that Trump is vicious, corrupt and amoral. He has stated often that even if he loses the
election in 2020, he will not leave the White House. I have news for Donald but this is not the place to discuss it.

Trump aches from his head to his toes
His sphincters have gone where who knows
And his love life has ended
By a paunch so distended
That all he can use is his nose

Commentary for January 17: “It is no secret that Donald Trump appears to be a pathological liar. I don’t believe this is true. Trump has moderate to severe mental problems and he actually believes what he is saying. For example, he will have a public meeting and there are, by local police count, about 500-600 attendees. The Trump people pack them in behind and directly in front of the speaker’s platform and photograph them. Trump actually believes that “many thousand people packed the hall, cheering him for hours.” He believes that God wants him to be King of America. If some of his loonier statements he makes in the White House ever became public, he would be run out of the White House in a strait-jacket, talking to dead relatives. And then we would have Pence in the Oval Office and Jesus would have arrived in Dallas the day after.”

Trump’s Approval/Disapproval rating January 17 reporting

Source          Approve   Disapprove
____________________________
YouGov                  40%         53%

The Table of Contents
• Explainer: How close is Iran to producing a nuclear bomb?
• Pro-gun activists threaten to kill state lawmaker over bill they misunderstood
• Two arrested after attempt to sell 12 billion passwords
• The Navy Has Secret Classified Video of an Infamous UFO Incident
• US states sue Trump administration over drastic cuts to food stamp program
• Talking in Tongues’ for Fun and Profit.
• The Grand Canyon Lunacy
• Christianization of the Republican Party: In Their Own Words
• The Season of Evil
• Encyclopedia of American Loons Continue Reading »

The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. January 16, 2020:“Working in the White House as a junior staffer is an interesting experience.
When I was younger, I worked as a summer-time job in a clinic for people who had moderate to severe mental problems and the current work closely, at times, echos the earlier one.
I am not an intimate of the President but I have encountered him from time to time and I daily see manifestations of his growing psychological problems.
He insults people, uses foul language, is frantic to see his name mentioned on main-line television and pays absolutely no attention to any advice from his staff that runs counter to his strange ideas.
He lies like a rug to everyone, eats like a hog, makes lewd remarks to female staffers and flies into rages if anyone dares to contradict him.
It is becoming more and more evident to even the least intelligent American voter that Trump is vicious, corrupt and amoral. He has stated often that even if he loses the
election in 2020, he will not leave the White House. I have news for Donald but this is not the place to discuss it.

Trump aches from his head to his toes
His sphincters have gone where who knows
And his love life has ended
By a paunch so distended
That all he can use is his nose

Commentary for January 16: “Trump’s obvious instability coupled with his frantic desire to be noticed has so alarmed the Pentagon that steps are being taken to prevent Trump from starting a major war. What these steps are is not clear but there is no question that Trump has gone too far this time and is now viewed the way Nero and Caligula were in Rome…dangerous to everyone and unstable in the extreme.
If Trump departs early from the Oval Office, there will be sincere mourning in fanatic Christian circles as well as in the Kremlin but they have no power to do more than mourn.
Trump has been of enormous assistance to Putin’s plans and the Christian far right has very little power other than to jump up and down and howl.”

Trump’s Approval/Disapproval rating January 15 reporting
Source   Approve    Disapprove
____________________________
YouGov     39%           52%

The Table of Contents
• Germany confirms Trump made trade threat to Europe over Iran policy
• Croatian fisherman discovers suspicious orange cube that belongs to the US military
• Navy places order for 166,500 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) sonobuoys in $219.8 million deal
• Fate of Nuclear Sub Base in Scotland Unclear after Brexit
• Iranian Missiles
• Russia’s Suspected Internet Cable Spy Ship Appears Off Americas
• The Season of Evil
• Encyclopedia of American Loons Continue Reading »

The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. January 15, 2020:“Working in the White House as a junior staffer is an interesting experience.
When I was younger, I worked as a summer-time job in a clinic for people who had moderate to severe mental problems and the current work closely, at times, echos the earlier one.
I am not an intimate of the President but I have encountered him from time to time and I daily see manifestations of his growing psychological problems.
He insults people, uses foul language, is frantic to see his name mentioned on main-line television and pays absolutely no attention to any advice from his staff that runs counter to his strange ideas.
He lies like a rug to everyone, eats like a hog, makes lewd remarks to female staffers and flies into rages if anyone dares to contradict him.
It is becoming more and more evident to even the least intelligent American voter that Trump is vicious, corrupt and amoral. He has stated often that even if he loses the
election in 2020, he will not leave the White House. I have news for Donald but this is not the place to discuss it.
‘Trump aches from his head to his toes
His sphincters have gone where who knows
And his love life has ended
By a paunch so distended
That all he can use is his nose’
Commentary for January 15: “Officially-sanction stories that the Iranian missile strikes did very little damage are, as usual, lies designed to deflect public attention from the truth.
I have a document locked in my desk from the Office of the Chief Mangement Officer of the Pentagon, under date of January 13, 2020, Ref.13-T-1714-T10 and ink-signed by James P. Hogan, stating that the Iranian missile attack on Assad air base had, and I quote, the following results:
• Total number of casualties:285 (139 deceased, 145 injured)
• Extensive damage to 15 helicopters including one Blackhawk, 2 cargo aircrafts and 3 MQ-1 Predator drones.
• Extensive damage to Base Command Center, 3 hangars, 3 barracks and 10 military tents.
• Relative damage to Air Traffic Control Tower and base’s runway.

Stories that there was ‘little damage and no loss of life’ have been put about to tamp down possible US public anger and prevent US military actions against Iran that could easily lead to attacks by them on the oil industry. If this should happen, the price of the world’s oil, and gasoline, would rocket upwards like something dreamed up by Elon Musk.”

Trump’s Approval Ratings

Date Pollster Approve Disapprove
Jan. 11-13 YouGov 39% 52%

The Table of Contents
• Russia to get new prime minister after government resigns
• Trump impeachment: Democrats announce new evidence ahead of vote
• Trump Supporter Who Discussed Surveillance of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch Has History of Stalking, Mental Health Issues
• Interesting and Informative Background on 911 by a retired
intelligence operative
• Encyclopedia of American Loons
• The Season of Evil Continue Reading »

Regicide

The Official Assassination

of John F. Kennedy

by

Gregory Douglas

Foreword

The assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, continues to generate an enormous amount of popular controversy, more so than any other historical happening in recorded memory. The killing took place in a major American city in full view of hundreds of people and in broad daylight, yet years after the event, a dispassionate overview of the incident is impossible to achieve. The act and its consequences are as cluttered as the dense Indian jungle that so thoroughly hides the gaudy tiger from the sight of its prey. Continue Reading »