Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

Monday, October 12, 2026

The Pardon Is the Crime Scene: How America Ends Impunity for Good

On September 8, 1974, Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon "to heal the nation." He healed nothing. He wrote an instruction manual, and its lesson has been absorbed by every aspiring authoritarian since: rise high enough and the law stops at your door.

I'll say outright, NO human being, not just American citizens within the confines of our borders, should be illegally harmed or even detained. I'll ignore for the moment all those who have been and will continue to be illegally harmed and/or confined by this President, Donald Trump.

Donald Trump read that manual cover to cover. If we fail to act now, the next one will have memorized it.

The Record

This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of evidence, much of it in Trump's own voice.

He called Georgia's Secretary of State and pressed him to "find" 11,780 votes. He organized slates of fake electors in seven states. His own attorney general, Bill Barr, told him the fraud claims were baseless. His own vice president refused to overturn the count. Trump summoned a crowd to Washington, sent it to the Capitol, and for 187 minutes did nothing while it attacked the building and hunted Mike Pence. 

He took classified documents to Mar-a-Lago and obstructed their return. On tape, he admitted he wanted to "play down" a virus he knew was deadly. His own coronavirus response coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx, later said most American COVID deaths after the first 100,000 could have been mitigated or substantially reduced.

A New York jury convicted him on 34 felony counts. Federal grand juries indicted him twice. Much of the key testimony came from Republicans who served him.

The Escape

Then the system failed, one piece at a time.

The Supreme Court handed him immunity. The federal cases evaporated when he won back the White House. And on his first day back in office, he pardoned or commuted the sentences of roughly 1,500 people charged over January 6, including leaders convicted by juries of seditious conspiracy.

Read that again. Men convicted of conspiring to overthrow the United States government walked free on one man's signature. That isn't a loophole. It's a recruitment pitch. Every future would-be autocrat now knows he can raise a loyal army with a single promise: do what I ask, and I will erase your crimes.

Severity Isn't the Problem. Impunity Is.

Many Americans, furious and exhausted, want the harshest punishment imaginable. History shows what actually fails. South Korea sentenced former dictator Chun Doo-hwan to death in 1996 for his coup and the Gwangju massacre. He was pardoned in 1997. The harshest sentence on earth meant nothing because it could be undone.

Now look at the democracies that got it right. Brazil convicted Jair Bolsonaro for plotting to overturn his election and sentenced him to 27 years. Peru imprisoned Alberto Fujimori. South Korea imprisoned two more former presidents. France sent Nicolas Sarkozy to a cell. Each proved what America has never once proved: a head of state can walk into a courtroom a powerful man and walk out a prisoner.

Criminologists have said it for decades. Certainty of punishment deters. Severity adds little. The autocrat's calculation is never "twenty years or worse?" It's "will anything happen to me at all?" In America the answer has always been no. That's what has to change.

Why This Moment Is Singular

Nixon resigned in disgrace, abandoned by his own party. Trump survived two impeachments, a felony conviction, and four indictments, and came back stronger. That has never happened before in American history. MaGA isn't a policy platform. It's a loyalty structure built on the belief that its leader stands above the law, and every escape confirms that belief.

The next version will be smarter. Deadlier.

He'll be disciplined where Trump was chaotic. Consider if it had been Steve Bannon, not Trump, elected.

Whoever it is, he'll arrive with AI tools that can produce propaganda at industrial scale, target every voter individually, and flood the information space faster than any fact-checker can respond. He'll have studied which guardrails bent and which broke. If the lesson he learns is that pardons and immunity will protect him, we won't get another chance to teach a different one.

The Court That Built the Shield

In July 2024, six justices did something no Congress and no founder ever did. They invented presidential immunity from criminal law. Trump v. United States grants absolute immunity for a president's "core" constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts. It even bars prosecutors from using official acts as evidence of other crimes.

The word "immunity" appears nowhere in the Constitution. The framers debated shielding the executive and rejected it. They had just fought a war against a king who couldn't be prosecuted.

Justice Sotomayor's dissent spelled out the consequence. Under this ruling, a president who orders the military to assassinate a political rival may be immune. She closed with five words every American should know: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

The Court that issued this ruling isn't beyond the reach of the people. The Constitution gives us every tool we need.

Fix the Court, and the Reversal Follows

The Supreme Court is the only federal court with no binding code of ethics, and it shows. Justice Thomas accepted years of undisclosed luxury travel and gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow. He refused to recuse himself from January 6 cases even though his wife, Ginni Thomas, had pressed the White House chief of staff to fight the election results. Justice Alito's homes flew flags associated with the Stop the Steal movement.

Congress must pass a binding, enforceable ethics code for the justices. Where the documented conduct warrants it, the House must use its impeachment power. Impeachment exists precisely for judges who place themselves above the rules every other federal judge obeys.

Congress must also restructure the Court. The Constitution doesn't fix it at nine seats. Congress set that number by statute in 1869, and it has ranged from six to ten. Staggered 18-year term limits would give every president two appointments per term and end the lottery of lifetime seats. Expansion remains on the table. A Court reformed and accountable to ethics law is a Court that will revisit Trump v. United States, and a ruling this indefensible won't survive honest review.

The People Have the Final Word

We don't have to wait for the Court. When the Supreme Court gets the Constitution wrong, the people can correct it, and we've done it before. The Eleventh Amendment reversed Chisholm v. Georgia. The Fourteenth buried Dred Scott. The Sixteenth overturned a ruling that struck down the income tax. The Twenty-Sixth passed in about three months after the Court divided over the voting age.

Trump v. United States belongs on that list.

What Accountability Must Mean

  1. Prosecution without exceptions. When legal barriers fall, every provable crime committed by Trump and those who conspired with him must be charged and tried in open court, with the full evidentiary record placed before the public.
  2. Maximum lawful sentences, served in full. No plea deals trading prison for a quiet exit. No "healing the nation." We tried healing in 1974, and it brought us 2021.
    1. Capital Punishment - While it won't stop the next Trump, it will forewarn and help to wake up the body politic about what they are doing, who they are liking, and for a change where this has previously led.
  3. A constitutional amendment that closes every escape hatch:
    • No president is immune from criminal prosecution for violating federal law.
    • No president may pardon himself, his family, or anyone for offenses connected to an election, the transfer of power, or crimes committed at his direction.
    • The statute of limitations for federal crimes is suspended while the offender holds office.
    • Anyone convicted of insurrection, seditious conspiracy, or election subversion is permanently barred from federal office.
  4. A reformed Court: binding ethics, term limits, impeachment where conduct demands it.
  5. A permanent public record. Germany didn't reject Nazism because of a few verdicts in 1946. Most Germans at first dismissed Nuremberg as victors' justice. What changed the nation was decades of confronting the documented record in courts, classrooms, and law. America needs its own permanent record of what happened, taught and preserved, so no future generation can be told it was a hoax.

What They'll Say, and the Answer

"It's a witch hunt." The evidence came from grand juries, Republican-appointed judges, a New York jury, and Trump's own attorney general, vice president, and White House staff. A witch hunt doesn't produce sworn testimony from the accused's own people.

"Prosecuting presidents will start a cycle of revenge." The cycle has already started, and it was started from the Oval Office. In 2025 Trump's Justice Department indicted former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, officials whose offense was investigating him. Meanwhile Brazil, South Korea, Peru, and France prosecuted former leaders through courts, and their democracies are still standing. The threat to democracy isn't prosecution under law. It's a president who can't be prosecuted at all.

"Presidents need immunity to do the job." For 235 years, no president had criminal immunity, and every president but one managed to govern without trying to overturn an election. Ford's pardon of Nixon only made sense because everyone, Nixon included, understood a former president could be prosecuted.

"He won the election. The people have spoken." Nixon won 49 states in 1972. Winning an election has never erased a crime. Votes grant power. They don't grant pardons for what was done to seize it.

"A constitutional amendment is a fantasy." The Twenty-Sixth Amendment went from Congress to ratification in about three months. Amendments seem impossible right up until the public demands them. Our job is to make the demand undeniable.

"Court reform is court-packing." Congress has changed the Court's size seven times. Term limits are supported by majorities across party lines. The only thing radical here is a Court that invented a king's immunity and answers to no ethics code at all.

The Hard Choice

Extreme times demand extreme resolve, and this is a singular moment. 

The most extreme thing America could do is also the one thing it has never done: make a former president answer to the law, and make that answer permanent. 

Not a verdict someone can pardon away in a year. 

Not a sentence that evaporates with an election. 

A judgment the Constitution itself guarantees will stand.

Nixon was the warning. Trump is the proof. 

The next one will be the ending, unless we write a different one--NOW.


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.


Monday, November 24, 2025

Why Some Americans Still Don’t Understand How Government Works

And Why That’s Becoming a National Problem

I’ve had arguments with my conservative brother for decades — long before he slipped into the MaGA orbit. What stands out now is how much he sounds like the people in the new movie Sovereign: convinced the government is illegitimate, certain he’s discovered “hidden” truths, and armed with court cases he pulled from somewhere online.

The pattern is the same across the country. Millions of Americans have embraced a worldview where the Constitution is fixed in 1789, the federal government is illegitimate whenever it displeases them, and any law they don’t like is automatically “unconstitutional.”

It’s not just wrong — it’s dangerous. Sure, I agree with some of their complaints. Some they are right on, not as many as they wish to believe, some they think they are right on and it sounds and feels good, but there are good reasons or bad, it's not how it is in reality. Some of their issues are in concept good, but in reality, either make no sense, or aren't possible due to how America has evolved. 

More importantly, it reveals something deeper: they fundamentally misunderstand how the American system actually works.

Here’s why this belief system is so persistent, and why people get the Constitution, the law, and the government wrong in the same ways.

It's like the unconstitutional and illegal militia issue and the 2nd Amendment nonsense. But I digress and have discussed ad nauseum. 


1. They Don’t Know That Law Evolves — Constantly

A surprising number of people think the Constitution is a list of unchanging rules written in stone. They believe:

  • if a law isn’t in the original text, it’s invalid

  • if a court case says something they like, it’s “forever true”

  • if a regulation exists, it’s “tyranny”

But the truth is simple:

American law only works through evolution.

Every generation has added the interpretations, refinements, and court decisions that make it usable. Without 200+ years of case law, the Constitution is too vague to govern a modern nation.

Most of the cases these folks cite have been overturned or limited long ago. They just… don’t know it.


2. They Believe in a Mythic America That Never Existed

For many people on the extreme right, their version of America isn’t historical — it’s emotional. It’s a story about rugged individualism, small government, pure liberty, and the founders as flawless prophets.

The problem?
The actual founders:

  • disagreed with each other constantly

  • changed their minds

  • compromised

  • regretted things they’d written

  • expected the country to evolve

  • designed a system that must grow to survive

Jefferson himself later contradicted things MAGA loves to quote. But myth is more comfortable than reality.


3. Sovereign-Citizen Thinking Has Merged With MAGA

The “you can’t tax me,” “the government is illegitimate,” “states are sovereign,” “federal law is optional” attitude didn’t start with MAGA — it’s straight out of the sovereign-citizen movement.

The two ideologies have fused.

They follow the same script:

  • I only accept laws I like.

  • I only accept election results I agree with.

  • I only accept government authority when it benefits me.

It’s constitutional cosplay — not constitutional literacy.


4. It’s About Identity, Not Information

This part matters:

Most people who say “I’ve read the Constitution” haven’t.
What they’ve read is a Facebook-tier translation of what they want the Constitution to say.

Correcting them doesn’t work because the belief isn’t rooted in evidence — it’s rooted in identity.

Rejecting government becomes a way of saying:

  • I’m in control.

  • I’m smarter than the experts.

  • I refuse to feel powerless.

It’s emotional self-protection wearing the mask of political philosophy.


5. America Has Evolved for 200+ Years — And That’s the Point

When someone says, “That’s not how the Constitution was originally written,” they’re accidentally making the opposite argument:

Yes — it isn’t.
Because we updated it.
Because we amended it.
Because we corrected mistakes.
Because society changed and the law changed with it.

If we froze America in 1789, then:

  • slavery is legal

  • women can’t vote

  • states can ban any religion

  • corporations don’t exist

  • no national currency

  • no federal protections

  • no civil rights

  • no modern economy

Nobody actually wants that country — but many want the fantasy of it.


6. The Founders Knew This Day Would Come

Jefferson didn’t want his early 30s phase worshipped as sacred doctrine.
Madison warned that tyranny could rise from inside the American system.
Washington warned that factionalism could destroy democracy.
Hamilton warned about charismatic demagogues.
Franklin warned about citizens becoming complacent and uninformed.

They didn’t expect Americans to freeze the country in amber.
They expected future generations to be adults, adapt, and face reality.


So What Are People Getting Wrong?

Everything in this worldview boils down to one central misunderstanding:

They think government exists to validate their preferences.
When it doesn’t, they declare it illegitimate.

They mistake discomfort for tyranny.
They mistake disagreement for oppression.
They mistake democracy for persecution.
And they mistake mythology for history.


Why This Matters

We now face a movement that believes:

  • the law only applies when it benefits them

  • the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean

  • modern government is “illegitimate”

  • elections are valid only when they win

That’s not conservatism.
It’s not even politics.

It’s a step toward something the founders feared more than anything:
rule by grievance, not rule by law.


Final Thoughts

America survived 200 years because we accepted — even embraced — the evolution of law, society, and government. The danger today isn’t disagreement over policy. It’s the rise of a whole subculture living in a fantasy Constitution that never actually existed.

Understanding that is the first step in pushing back against it — not to change their minds, but to prevent their mythology from rewriting our reality.

In the end, if you are wrong about these beliefs, the cost is not theoretical, it is human. I understand that many people truly believe they are right, but belief alone does not make a worldview accurate or sustainable. 

So the real question becomes: what are you actually fighting for, and is it worth the damage it can cause? 

All the arguments, the fractured relationships, the tension in your home or community, these add up and affect everyone around you. This mindset also tends to attract people who are naturally obstinate or contrary, people who feel empowered by resisting anything placed in front of them. 

At what point does that shift from a personality trait into a sign that something deeper is going on, something that brushes up against issues of mental health? At some point this stops being about debate and becomes about quality of life, yours, your family's, your neighbors', and the strangers whose lives intersect with yours. 

And if these convictions ever escalate into real-world confrontation or life-threatening situations, what value remains in a belief system that requires harm, or demands that you risk your own life or the lives of those you love? 

And what of the people you do not know, the ones with families who will grieve them? 

That is the true weight of being wrong about something this big.

And if, or where you ARE correct? Fight your fights sensibly, but fight as I do so many other things, especially dangerous things, to live to fight another day. I've done many dangerous things in my life, in such a way as to be able to do them again, another time. I partied hard at times in life, but in a healthy way. I had friends who did not give any care to themselves toward sustainably seeking their preferred activities. I'm still here. They are not. 

So fight to win. But also fight your fight to fight another day.

Otherwise, your fight, is over. And it's all...just moot.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT


Thursday, August 28, 2025

Cars, Guns, and the Constitution: Why Training Matters

About the Minneapolis church tragedy, yet another mass shooting in a church. My heart goes out to that community, and to Americans everywhere living under the weight of this vile reality. This post was already written and scheduled before that event occurred.

As for those now trying to twist the story into a trans issue because of the shooter’s identity, all it really shows is the urgent need for better mental health care for trans individuals. To denigrate, stigmatize, or deny care to that community is not only cruel, it is criminal.

Mass shootings are overwhelmingly a male problem, rooted in guns, culture, & untreated trauma. A rare case involving a trans person doesn’t change that.

This isn't a trans issue. Don’t scapegoat a community...fix access to guns.

Former GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy on the Minneapolis shooting: "We're going to have a conversation of freedom versus protecting children. How many school shootings does it take before we're going to have a conversation about keeping firearms out of -- it's always a young white male"

But also, there needs to be better mental health care, for all Americans. Something painfully pointed out by the current president's problematic mental health status and that of many of his followers, supporters and yes-men types he has surrounded himself with which is NEVER good for ANY leader, especially one with an autocratic orientation.

This topic was already on my mind after a recent visit to a local gun store, where I noticed a case filled with suppressors.

I've been a gun owner since the 1960s. Helped teach hunter safety courses back then. I've been a armed bodyguard. I'm a military vet. I taught my kids about guns. They may own some now. 

This could get attention... 

Cars are not a right...but sanity is, logic is, and reason has to be.

I see common sense as necessary in any society. We need opposing sides, we need debate, and we need both sides of an argument pushed and tested. But to become extreme and remain there, against all reason and sanity, makes no sense by definition. And yet that is what the modern gun culture has spawned.

The fundamental goal of any society, and any government worthy of the name, is to protect its citizens and the nation as a whole. The point is not to force individuals to fend for themselves except in reasonable circumstances, but to relieve them of that constant burden.

We already accept this principle in many areas of life: public health, infrastructure, disaster response, education. Citizens should not have to shoulder every risk alone.

The idea that a “good” government is one that continually does less and less is irrational. A mature, functional government does not push responsibility back onto the people it serves. It handles the things no individual should have to face on their own.

Arming citizens and insisting they remain perpetually responsible, and fearful, for tasks that government can and should manage, such as basic public safety, is not strength. It is failure.

Worse, it edges toward autocracy: the idea that citizens must remain armed not because their government protects them, but to guard against the government itself. History shows how fragile that logic is. Authoritarian regimes may tolerate heavily armed citizens for a time, but only until power is consolidated. Once disarmament comes, resistance is impossible, and by then it is too late.

The irony is stark. Today, many who claim the need for private arsenals also support leaders and movements that openly seek authoritarian control. That contradiction exposes the flaw in the argument. Weapons in private hands are no guarantee of liberty when the very government those citizens empower is the one eroding it.

We have allowed ourselves to become twisted up, chasing single-issue purposes without considering the whole.


Cars and Guns

It seems obvious to me: if society demands training and a license to drive a car, why not apply the same standard to firearms?

Driving is not a constitutional right. It is a modern privilege, regulated because cars did not exist when the Constitution was written. As cars became part of American life, we decided they were too dangerous to leave unregulated. That is why you need driver’s ed, testing, licensing, registration, and insurance to operate one legally. We accept this because it keeps roads safer.

Now imagine the opposite. What if driving had been written into the Constitution as a right?

By the logic of today’s gun advocates, we would need no driver’s ed, no test, no license, no registration, no insurance. Anyone of any age could climb into a car, drive drunk, untrained, or reckless, and claim the Constitution protected their “right to operate a vehicle.”

That sounds absurd. And yet, that is exactly how guns are treated in America.


The Constitutional Twist

The Second Amendment begins with:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

For most of U.S. history, courts interpreted that as tying guns to militia service, not unlimited individual ownership. It was not until 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller that the Supreme Court redefined it as an individual right. Even then, Justice Scalia admitted:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Even the most conservative reading recognizes regulation as part of the deal.


Cars vs. Guns in Practice

Cars: A modern privilege. Regulated with training, testing, licensing, insurance, and renewal.
Guns: A constitutional right. Some background check paperwork, but no universal training, no licensing, no required proof of safe use.

If America treated cars the way we treat guns, the roads would be a slaughterhouse.


Arguments from the Gun Lobby

Gun advocates often claim most “anti-gun” people are simply uninformed. That is too convenient. Many citizens may not know every detail of firearm law, but the larger problem is that our system allows easy access to powerful weapons with little or no training. That is what regulation could fix.

They also like to strip away whole categories of deaths to make the numbers look smaller. Suicides “don’t count,” gang killings “don’t count,” and soon the toll appears trivial. But suicides do count, because firearms make attempts far deadlier. Poverty and gangs do not excuse homicide, and those lives count too.

Another favorite point is that criminals get their guns “illegally,” so laws will not help. Yet those black-market guns come from legal markets first, through theft, straw buyers, or loopholes. Better regulation would choke that flow. Claims that “hundreds of thousands of crimes” are prevented each year are shaky at best, based on self-reported surveys rather than actual crime data. And the idea of a gun as an “insurance policy” ignores the evidence that keeping one in the home raises the risk of suicide, homicide, and accident more than it prevents crime.

In the end, these arguments are less about facts than framing. By redefining the numbers, narrowing the definitions, and dismissing regulation, they protect an absolutist view of the Second Amendment. If we can demand licensing, training, and accountability for cars, we can demand the same for firearms, because every life in those statistics matters.


Suppressors: The Surreal Example

Walking into a gun shop and seeing suppressors on display today brought this contradiction home. At first, the idea sounds noble: protecting hearing, reducing disturbance to people or animals. But the flip side is darker. A tool that makes killing in a public space less noticeable is dangerous, and that danger outweighs the benefit.

Yes, suppressors are federally regulated under the National Firearms Act. You need a background check, a $200 tax stamp, and months of waiting. But once approved, you can take one home with no training required.

A handful of carefully licensed individuals owning fully automatic weapons, assault rifles, or suppressors might not be a major concern. But the general population? That is another story.

A device designed to muffle gunfire, marketed in pop culture as an assassin’s tool, is treated more casually than a car muffler. Used responsibly, suppressors could make sense for hunters. But paired with military-style rifles in a country with no universal gun training, it becomes reckless.

That is not just reckless. It is surreal.


The Madness of American Exceptionalism

Other developed nations treat guns the way we treat cars, with training, licensing, and renewal. The result is far fewer shootings.

America clings to the idea that freedom means no responsibility. But freedom without responsibility is not freedom. It is chaos.

If cars, which kill over 40,000 Americans a year, require licensing and regulation, why can’t we demand the same for firearms, which kill tens of thousands more?


Closing Thought

The real question is not whether Americans can own guns. The real question is whether Americans can handle them responsibly.

If we accept rules and licensing for something as ordinary as driving, then we can, and must, do the same for firearms. Anything less is negligence written into law.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT


Thursday, June 26, 2025

Stamped Out: How DeJoy and Trump Tried to Break the USPS—and What Comes Next

Trump in his first POTUS45 term, made bad decision for America to make Louis De Joy Postmaster General which I've long railed against. He's gone now. Resigned a few months ago, finally.

🚨 DOGE and White House Push Quiet USPS Overhaul 🚨

Internal documents reveal a series of behind-the-scenes meetings that could drastically reshape the U.S. Postal Service.

Since Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s resignation in March, the White House—through its Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—has ramped up efforts to push major price hikes and structural changes at USPS. Treasury officials, White House attorneys, and Trump-aligned operatives are involved, raising red flags about attempts to treat the Postal Service like a for-profit business.

But USPS was never meant to be a business. It was created as a public service, grounded in the Constitution and championed by figures like Benjamin Franklin—to ensure universal, affordable communication for all Americans. Privatization risks abandoning rural communities, raising costs, and undermining a cornerstone of our democracy.

The original foundation for the U.S. Postal Service is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

"The Congress shall have Power… To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

This clause gave Congress the authority to create and maintain a postal system as part of its role in uniting the states and promoting interstate communication and commerce. It was not framed as a profit-making venture, but as a core public function — vital infrastructure for a functioning republic.

To clarify...

The U.S. Postal Service is not a business. It is a constitutionally authorized public service, rooted in Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution:

“The Congress shall have Power to establish Post Offices and post Roads.”

That foundational mandate was later reaffirmed and expanded by the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, which clearly states:

“The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people.”

And further:

“It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities.”

Nowhere is there a requirement to turn a profit. USPS is expected to be financially self-sustaining, but its core mission is service—universal, affordable, and accessible to all. It exists not to enrich shareholders, but to connect and serve the American people.

The Founding Fathers saw a national postal service as essential for:

  • Disseminating news and ideas

  • Connecting citizens across vast distances

  • Facilitating democratic participation (e.g., through mail-in voting, which was used as early as the Civil War)

Benjamin Franklin, the first Postmaster General under the Continental Congress (1775), helped shape the service with the explicit goal of making it accessible, reliable, and public-serving, not commercially profitable.

Over time, this vision was formalized. For example, the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 created the modern USPS as an independent agency, instructing it to be self-sustaining but still carry out its universal service obligation — again reaffirming that its purpose is service, not profit.

While DeJoy implemented some structural reforms, the damage to USPS operations and public trust far outweighed any gains. His ties to private logistics firms that benefited during his tenure only deepen the ethical concerns.

Bottom line: USPS exists to serve the public—not to enrich private interests.

  • Personal wealth increased about $20M–$30M while serving as Postmaster General.
  • His annual compensation more than doubled compared to his base pay, including generous bonuses—even during times USPS performance was widely criticized.
  • When combined with ongoing investments and potential gains from logistics contractors, the financial surge suggests that his term benefited him personally in a way that merits scrutiny.

Louis DeJoy’s tenure at USPS reflects a broader pattern under Donald Trump: using government power to serve private interests and undermine public institutions. While DeJoy’s personal wealth grew by an estimated $20–30 million, the Postal Service—vital to American democracy—was hollowed out through service cuts, price hikes, and political manipulation. 

Like so many Trump-era appointees, DeJoy advanced an agenda that prioritized profit and loyalty over public good. Under Trump’s watch, even the mail became a battleground in the effort to weaken trust in government and tilt the system away from the people it was built to serve.

Pay attention—this is how democracies die: not with a sudden collapse, but through calculated provocations like DeJoy’s, where public trust is eroded, institutions are repurposed for private gain, and the machinery of government is quietly turned against the people it was meant to serve.

Pay attention—this is how democracies die: not in one blow, but one provocation at a time. DeJoy hollowed out the Postal Service. Betsy DeVos attacked public education. Scott Pruitt sabotaged environmental protections. Michael Flynn undermined national security. And now, with Trump poised as POTUS 47, the same corrupt playbook returns—only this time, the guardrails are weaker, and the intentions even clearer.

As of now, Doug Tulino is serving as Acting Postmaster General following DeJoy’s departure in March 2025.


🛠️ Who’s in Charge & What’s Being Done

1. Acting Leadership

  • Doug Tulino, a long-time USPS executive, stepped in right after DeJoy resigned. He’s focused on restoring normal operations while awaiting the permanent replacement .

2. Incoming PMG: David Steiner...more of the same?

  • David Steiner, a FedEx board member and former Waste Management CEO, is set to become the 76th Postmaster General in July 2025. He'll resign from FedEx ahead of assuming the role 

  • His appointment has drawn fire from postal unions, who worry that his corporate ties and Trump-era support signal a shift toward privatization and cost-cutting at the expense of public service 

3. Steps to Repair Damage

  • Congressional oversight: A House hearing convened shortly before Steiner’s arrival to examine DeJoy’s policies and to push for restoring service reliability and public accountability 

  • Strategic framing: The new leadership is emphasizing the USPS mission to serve all Americans. Steiner has publicly pledged to uphold USPS’s constitutional mandate and enhance financial sustainability — though details on operational reforms are still being solidified 

  • Keeping an eye on privatization: Unions and lawmakers are monitoring Steiner’s every move, urging transparency and safeguarding against outsourcing, job cuts, or a shift toward corporate 


🔎 In Summary:

  • Short-term fix: Tulino has reinstated operational continuity.

  • Long-term plan: Steiner's leadership is framed as a “business-savvy” turnaround, though critics fear it could deepen DeJoy-era harms under a new guise.

  • Oversight matters more than ever: Congressional hearings and union pressure aim to shield USPS’s public mission amid concerns over privatization and undermining trust.

As DeJoy exits, USPS enters a precarious transition. Acting Postmaster General Doug Tulino has stabilized day-to-day operations, but all eyes are now on incoming Postmaster General David Steiner—a FedEx board member with deep corporate ties and Trump-era backing. While he pledges to preserve USPS’s public mission, his background raises alarm bells for unions and watchdogs who fear more privatization under the guise of reform. 

The fight to restore trust, protect universal service, and undo the damage is far from over—and with Steiner’s tenure beginning in July, the next chapter of the Postal Service will determine whether it serves the public good or corporate profit.

As DeJoy thankfully finally exits, USPS stands at a critical crossroads—one shaped by years of damage under Donald Trump’s influence. Acting Postmaster General Doug Tulino has provided temporary stability, but incoming Postmaster General David Steiner, a FedEx board member with corporate and Trump-aligned ties, signals continued risk. 

Since taking charge in March, Acting Postmaster General Doug Tulino has unfortunately continued several concerning trends from the DeJoy era—raising alarms that the same damaging playbook is being replayed.


⚠️ What Tulino Has Done So Far:

  1. Continuation of Rate Hike Strategy
    In April, Tulino participated in high-level meetings—including with DOGE team members Fiona Machado and Luke Grossman—to discuss an exigent price increase, a tool typically reserved for emergencies unseen since 2013 theweek.com+15govexec.com+15supplychaindive.com+15. That appears to signal a willingness to continue or even escalate DeJoy-era pricing practices.

  2. Ongoing Collaboration with DOGE
    The very day he took office, Tulino met with DOGE to discuss ethics and begin rolling out their influence across USPS operations en.wikipedia.org+12govexec.com+12time.com+12. This sets the stage for continued cost-cutting and structural reforms—though often at the expense of public service reliability.


✅ What We Haven’t Seen (Yet):

  • No reversal of service slowdowns or mail-sorting cuts that characterized the DeJoy era.

  • No halt to discussions on privatization or workforce downsizing.

  • No strong union-backed measures to restore universal service reliability.


🔎 Bottom Line:

Tulino has stabilized leadership but hasn’t yet stepped away from DeJoy's model of aggressively pursuing revenue and restructuring—often in collaboration with DOGE. The conversations around price increases and structural reforms echo the previous administration's priorities, meaning that real course correction is still pending.

Trump’s two terms have chipped away at public institutions like the Postal Service—undermining their trust, warping their purpose, and steering them toward privatization and profit-driven agendas. His vision isn’t about serving Americans—it’s about control, loyalty, and dismantling government protections from within. But with growing public awareness and pushback, there’s hope. 

It is hoped that we can not only undo the damage, but finally rid America of Trump’s autocratic nonsense and restore institutions like USPS to their rightful role: serving the people, not the powerful.

One final threat in another albeit similar direction...

How to Survive the Broligarchy - The Trump-Musk crackdown is coming. Here's 20 lessons in how to survive it. - Carole Cadwalladr

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Tuesday, May 27, 2025

Libertarianism, the Founders, and the Fantasy of a Minimalist America

History doesn’t forgive those who stood by in silence — or those who willingly took the worst path forward, into the past, embracing anachronisms, already proven faulty world or life views.

It's just for fun, it's not serious, but it makes the point...

I shared a post by Rachel Hurley on Facebook last week. I thought this might be a good blog for the day after Memorial Day...


I thought it wasn't that controversial, until someone in a group I shared it in, did.

She starts with: "Someone accused me of being a Democrat this morning and told me to act like one. Spoiler Alert - I'm not a Democrat. And I’m definitely not a fucking Republican. I also do not see myself as some wishy washy independent with no political ideology."

I got many response posts, including this one guy. I know how deeply Libertarians cling to that immature — sorry, theatrical, SORRY again, I mean theoretical — form of politics and government. It’s a favorite among Republicans who haven’t thought it through — or who read Ayn Rand before they were intellectually ready, and it just… stuck. Like this guy.

Him
May also want to consider the Libertarians - or explain why you disagree with them.

My response
Libertarianism always struck me as an appealing but immature belief — great if you're healthy, wealthy, and untouched by systemic problems. But real freedom isn’t “every man for himself.” It’s a society that works for the many, not just the lucky few.

His response:
"So the purpose of government is to protect individual rights only helps a few? It helps the entire country."

Me:
Whenever it's disingenuous. In theory, yes — protecting individual rights should help everyone. But when “individual rights” are used to justify dismantling public services, ignoring inequality, or denying science, it stops serving the many and starts shielding the privileged. Rights without responsibility or context don’t build a healthy society — they just protect power.

Him
Look into this premise called "tyranny of the majority"

Me
I’m familiar with the concept — but what we have now looks more like the tyranny of the minority: a small, well-funded group blocking progress, denying science, and shaping policy to benefit the few. Utilitarianism isn’t mob rule — it’s evidence-based policymaking aimed at reducing suffering for the most, not enabling the loudest or richest. But okayyy...

Someone else jumped in
I know why I disagree with Libertarians. It is a government for small groups and not one that can or ever will work on a national basis. Communism has the same problem. Both are utopian formats

Him
Might want to tell the Founding Fathers that they were just utopians.

The other
But they weren't. They made a system that could adjust and balance.

Him
There you go. So libertarianism isn't utopian... it actually works.

Back to me
The Founding Fathers built a flexible system with checks, balances, and room for growth — not a rigid ideology like Libertarianism. Comparing the Constitution to a libertarian utopia misses the whole point: it was never meant to be dogmatic, it was meant to adapt. That’s why it works. Libertarianism, like Communism, ignores the scale, complexity, and messiness of real-world governance.

Him
SMH. What we had back then was libertarianism. It was just too early for anyone to call it that. And it worked.

Me
SMH indeed. What we had back then was not libertarianism — it was a mix of compromise, centralized authority, and evolving governance. The Constitution literally gave the federal government power to tax, raise armies, regulate commerce, and override state laws. That’s not libertarianism — that’s a pragmatic republic. If anything, the Founders rejected the Articles of Confederation (which were closer to libertarian ideals) because they didn’t work.

Him
It was libertarian, but it's certainly useful for opponents of libertarianism to deny it.

Me
If it were truly libertarian, the Founders wouldn’t have replaced the Articles of Confederation — which had a weak central government — with the Constitution, which explicitly empowered federal authority. That’s a historical fact, not denial. Calling early America libertarian ignores the deliberate move away from minimal governance when it failed to hold the nation together.
But, surreee....

Him
You seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians don't argue that we can't have a Constitution or a federal government. But, sure....

The Other Guy
Actually it doesn't work on a national level. It might work for a small town, just as communism would get bigger and people work the system

Me
Sure, long held beliefs are hard to let go of even in the face of facts and reality. I get that. However, Not confusing anything — just pointing out that what you're calling "libertarianism" was never the driving force behind the U.S. Constitution.
The Founders strengthened federal power because the minimalist approach under the Articles of Confederation failed. Libertarianism, as commonly defined, emphasizes minimal federal oversight — which directly clashes with the Constitution’s design to tax, regulate commerce, provide for defense, and enforce national law.
It’s easy to retroactively label early America as libertarian, but history tells a more complex — and far less idealized — story. Long-held beliefs are hard to let go of, even in the face of facts and reality.

Him
again, you seem to be defining libertarianism as anarchism. Early America was as close to libertarianism as you can get

Me
I get the distinction — libertarianism allows for limited government, anarchism doesn't. But early America under the Articles of Confederation was your closest example — and it failed. The Constitution was a deliberate shift away from that minimal model, adding federal power to tax, regulate trade, and enforce laws across states.
That’s not anarchism, and it’s not textbook libertarianism either — it’s a federal republic designed for balance, not ideology. If early America was "as close to libertarianism as you can get," then history shows us why we didn’t stay there.

Another person entirely interjected:
Because Libertarianism doesn't prioritize what works best for the most people. It leaves systemic problems in place which benefit the few to the detriment of the many. It hoards personal liberty with little regard to the consequences for those who have fewer liberties to hoard.
I could go on and on...

We could indeed...

He replied back to me
No, early America under the Articles of Confederation was NEVER my example.

Me
That clarifies your position, thanks. But if your example isn't the Articles and is the Constitution, then we’re talking about a document that was written specifically to expand federal authority — not limit it to the bare minimum. The Founders gave us a government that could tax, raise a military, regulate interstate commerce, and override state laws — all things libertarians typically oppose. You can call that libertarianism, but it doesn't match either the philosophy or the historical context.

Another respondent Because Libertarianism doesn't prioritize what works best for the most people. It leaves systemic problems in place which benefit the few to the detriment of the many. It hoards personal liberty with little regard to the consequences for those who have fewer liberties to hoard. I could go on and on... That guy Off on the wrong track already, so don't bother going any further... Me “Off on the wrong track already” is a convenient way to avoid engaging with valid criticism. Nathan raised a key point: Libertarianism often prioritizes theoretical freedom over practical equity, and that does leave systemic issues untouched. Dismissing it without countering the substance just proves the point — it’s easier to wave off critique than to reconcile ideology with real-world consequences. This thread seems ended.

That seems to say it all...



This takes me back to the more playful and supportive outlook of ideas like Purpleism — an absurdist philosophy (or 'religion') that treats irritants to the Human Experience as anathema.

Abuse, dictators, autocrats, kleptocrats, kakistocrats — and immature worldviews, whether in the form of libertarianism’s hyper-individualism or the libertine’s moral nihilism — all fail to grasp the obligations of living in a shared society.


Compiled with aid of ChatGPT


Monday, May 13, 2024

Walkabout Thoughts #74

Thoughts & Stream of Consciousness, rough and ready, from an award-winning filmmaker and author you’ve never heard of, while walking off long Covid, and listening to podcasts…walk day 5/12/2024 Mother's Day

Weather for the day… starting out, 59° nice sunny day starting out About 69° when I got home.

Podcast Prosecuting Donald Trump, ep. It's Not About Sex

I felt pretty horrible yesterday when I was walking. I went on the antivirals for long Covid for three days starting yesterday, a pill every 12 hours. I am already feeling better.

Quote for the day: "Any Great Stupid is still dangerous until it stops moving."

I have asked Copilot AI to summarize in a couple of paragraphs of what Al Capone would have been like as POTUS. Then compare and contrast that to the Donald Trump 45 administration. "POTUS" Al Capone vs FPOTUS Donald Trump

I’m so sick of hearing about Donald Trump. It makes me even more nauseous that we give so much attention to the narcissist (any narcissist) who so lives for the attention. For a grown man with his own version of Oppositional defiant disorder. For a national leader who claims victimhood as a form of being macho. Who lies constantly. And when he tells the truth, generally speaking, he’s just telling us what he’s going do or will make a joke of it once it's ralized what he's doing. And then? He does it anyway. He projects onto others his own crimes and current actions. I find this so vile. We see the GOP doing this of late, also. How can one not find this vile? And who would see such a person (or party) as having the material or character ever to be a national leader(s)?

The podcast now is talking about Stormy Daniels sometimes having to wanted to make money off of her story, sometimes not. And how that may appear to the jury as inconsistent or suspect. Maybe a jury of our peers should only be psychologists? I alwyas thought a "jury of your peers" was kind of nonsense anyway. What IF they did get that, peers of the defendent who really understand that person and their job and orientation? I wonder if there'd be more, or fewer guilty judgements?

We have in general very perverse belief about memory, recall, eyewitness accounts, etc. I’ve pushed forward on projects myself that I stopped and then went forward on after a while (referring to Stormy, wanting to sell her story, then not, etc.), all because of at one time, feeling strong enough to have the audacity to think it was a worthy project but at another time feeling weaker because of something that happened. I’ve been able to take a breath for a few days, collecting my wits and then moving forward again. So I don't see how that isn’t reasonable for what happened with Stormy Daniels. She's a person after all. Not to mention she had been threatened. Donald Trump is a scary little punk much fo the time with a bunch of money and more power than his money should portend. Then as POTUS we foolishly gave Donald Trump a shield against his criminal behaviors and one that is ongoing and ridiculous. I would argue anti-democratic, and has proven to be anti-American-citizen and anti-America.

Are “American citizens" actually American citizens if they are seditious and insurrectionist? Certainly treasonous would indicate no. So at what point are they not actual citizens? People are trying to claim that Palestinians are all Hamas and therefore the enemies of Israel. So are MAGA America’s enemies? Are they not?

It seems yet again binary thinking is the enemy of America. So, a porn star, now porn director cannot be surprised when that she walks out of a bathroom in a hotel room, after being invited to a dinner, that wasn’t gonna happen, and upon arriving meets Donald Trump in silk pajamas. Tells him to get dressed (because they were going to dinner, right?), certainly in her mind. He HAD said, or his Representative had told her that. So he gets dressed at her request, implying he’s playing along with the act that they’re going to have dinner. Then they never have dinner. Instead she gets cajolled into having sex.Thing is, had you asked her upon arrival, "want to have sex with Donald Trump, this old guy (remember at this time she's 27)?" I suspect she'd have said no. So how could she not have been fully cognizant and aware that what happened was going to happen? Please. Perhaps because she was a woman? Because you want to believe the best about others and for yourself? And to stereotypically presume otherwise, is just more toxic binary thinking in hindsight. About a stiuation we weren't ever in and Stormy was, and it’s just the worse form possible for us, for others? And why are we referring to her as Stormy Daniels, her stage name? She is Stephanie Gregory Clifford. As someone pointed out, Nikki Glaser maybe, we don't refer to an actor in court by his stage name in his latest film.
America’s problem, especially with Trump, seems to be a kind of flip-flopping in binary thinking in order to rationalize the best situation possible, in order to offer an ex-POTUS (and career criminal) so we can then be surprised in a kind of, “Casablanca style" retort as by Captain Renault, "I’m shocked to hear there’s gambling going on in this establishment.“ Please.

I decided to add into my previous Mother’s Day "walkabout thought" blog the Rosemary‘s baby meme, and the comments I posted elsewhere about my own oldest son. Maybe also the post I did today on Facebook about my and my siblings problematic relationship with our mother.

Did I add the Instagram post I made yesterday. No. But I just did.

I watched the entire first season of “Action “on Peacock streaming. I do hate the commercials every so often. But as I posted around social media the other day, if you’re regularly on a film set and there’s any action involved whatsoever, or you’re just a fan of action films, you really wanna watch this series. References go back to the first Matrix movie and the first "John Wick" and the guys who worked on those and then built their own company. Which where they’re now working on and they focus on in the series, like “Violent Night “and the one in theaters, “The Fall Guy“film, a version of the old 80s TV series with Lee Majors, the previous star of the $6 Million Man show, not to be confused with The Man Show.

End of mile one

Regarding long Covid lately, it’s been a rough 2024 so far. I’ll be 69 end of August and so far not enjoying the last few years at all. I expected old age to be much more entertaining and enjoyable. I’ve always had my health, so what the fuck happened? I blame Covid for this and my three infections from it. Even though I’ve gotten all the shots and boosters. Three weeks after I caught the last bout this year VA health came out and said "get your booster." Thanks guys. Great timing!

I’ve also had this weird thing going on for a couple of months on my right hand, ring finger, largest knuckle. Actually it's the proximal phalege. I don’t know, second phalange first phalange, I can never figure it out. But I woke up one morning to close my hand and that finger locked at that knuckle as I closed my hand. And it’s been catching like that. I figured it has to do with a lack of exercise. So I bought a gel exercise ball to fit my hand. Couple inches in diameter. Every day I’ve tried to do 10 squeezes with each hand and then nine, down to one. Tried to do that a few times a day. I don’t know, seems to be helping? I’ve got arthritis so it may have something to do with that. I’ve been eating 9 gin raisins every morning for a few years now. When I stop eating those, I feel the arthritis pain in my body, worse. I’ve seen some really old women in the news piecers replying to the question of "what do you credit your longevity to" and they said "Gin raisins". I don’t know, but can’t hurt.

Why does Stormy Daniel say that she’s not a "me too!" victim with Donald Trump? Because she’s a strong, intelligent woman. And yes, even those are susceptible to a guy conning them into a bad situation, or even sex. This has inevitably happened to millions of women throughout the history of humanity. Let’s turn this around. If this was Donald Trump rather than Stormy he would be screaming. "I’m a victim. I’m a victim. Me too! Me too!", to the high heaven. Don’t think that’s not true. 100%! And he would especially be claiming that if it was a lie because he’d be getting some kind of salacious deliciousness out of his fetish of lying to the public or anyone. Damn, this guy...

In Trump’s criminal court trial his defense attorney a shameless woman who said to Stormy in the witness box that she’s a strong woman when at 27 years old when all this happened and she should’ve been able to deal with it appropriately. Stormy‘s reply? “I’m a stronger woman now." Why? Because our worst experiences should inform our future selves.

I don’t usually eat sugar. Stopped that years ago, decades ago? I use agave. I’ll eat a little sugar as a treat once in a while. But I read in a study last year that it's a long Covid symptom, or certain aspects of it, that evokes a craving for sweets. I have to admit this past month or two, way too many sweets. No need to be putting on weight, even a few pounds. Dinner has been a cup of yogurt, lately, so I’ve been maintaining. But I seem to feel better and finally getting more exercise, so this feeling is diminishing. I’m really pushing myself to get in more exercise now that I’m feeling better and the weather is better. My lungs are still not fully healed from the last Covid infection though. Getting there, I suppose but it takes forever. I thought they would be better healed by now.

I know the court has to run how it runs, but claiming anything is abusive toward Trump in his court trial, this side of jumping over the witness stand and blowing his brains out, I would argue at this piont might be considered fair game. Now that’s not the case legally. Just morally and ethically, considering his utter disrespect he gave to our office of the president, to American citizens, to our US Constitution and our liberal democratic republic, so Trump pretty much deserves anything that happens to him in negative repurcussions he's earned. I do prefer to do this through the courts, but we're suffering fools here. I suspect we need some new laws for the next more enhanced version of a Donald Trump, career criminals made POTUS. Or we're fucked.

Little nugget of information… "Wicked Pictures" is one of the only adult film companies that require use of a condom onset. We know this because a FPOTUS is on criminal trial for election fraud and that's Stormy Daniel's company she has worked for. Why do you need to know anything more than that? 


Trump in his own words said a candidate in this situation shouldn’t be allowed to run. He said that in 2016.

End of mile two.

Damn. I just realized. My last podcast was on comedy and social issues and this one is on politics again. Sigh…

Here’s a thing about this Trump criminal trial. Had he not broken the law that requires this trial and information about Stormy Daniels, after the Access Hollywood recording came out, he would not have ended becoming POTUS. Director of the FBI Comey, pulling his bullshit about protecting the FBI over, protecting a national candidate in Hillary Clinton for POTUS, is another matter. I suspect we’re seeing that kind of crap with AG Garland. These people need to stop protecting their institutions and start protecting the US Constitution and the American citizen. YES, protect the FBI and the DOJ but when it's between them and citizens...CITIZENS! Between America and MAGA? Fucking AMERICA!

If God really existed, his (best) fake (worst) acolyte Donald Trump would immediately have a really bad stroke. So there that is I guess...

Donald Trump always negotiates his bills. Regardless that he OWES that money, he often gets reductions. Or he doesn’t even pay! I was once ONE week late, owed $7 on my home electric bill and the local small electric company put a lien against our house! The day I found out I paid it off. HAD they just called me I would’ve driven in and paid it off. It took some effort to get the lien off the house after that. So stop treating Donald Trump like a fragile glass object. He’s a career criminal. He ONCE was POTUS, AND? Deal with it!

Trump‘s accountant Allen Weisselberg prefers to sit in jail than testify against his former and current boss. As with Trump, who has plenty of money to pay penalties, you need to hit these people at a level they understand to feel the pain. While we would feel the pain as normal citizens, they won’t. Try giving Weisselberg 20 years in prison and see if he talks. Or  confiscate everything he owns and make it so that he can receive no further funds from Trump or anyone associated with him. Perhaps do what Trump does, and go after his family.

Yes, we don’t do that kind of thing because were the US government and we have a Constitution, and protections for our citizens (not that Trump cares if he can abuse us for his own good) and democracy, which Trump is trying to kill and that MAGA wants to kill and that the GOP is working to kill. But there has to be work arounds and we have to learn ASAP how this shit needs to be done... yesterday, not a year or 10 from now, as our jurisprudence tends to go sometimes.

Must be feeling better I’m getting rather long-winded and these blogs are getting longer. That’s a good sign. For me anyway.

Here’s an idea about Judge Cannon with the Mar y Lago documents trial for Donald Trump… Request of whomever you would request this of, that she not be replaced, so much as another judge is put into place for this, one who has a docket better capable of handling this, who is willing ready and able to act, before the election... because the American people have a right to due process and a speedy trial. Donald Trump and Judge Cannon do not have a right to delay tactics to avoid that situation. Or maybe they do.

While Judge Cannon's scheduling order is on her purview and requirements, I would say there’s an overarching requirement of the American people, who own the courts who are responsible to US, to get this trial done before further damages are done to the Constitution and the country.

I know the standards are high for replacing a judge on a trial, but we’re in new territory and the government has got to get its shit together and they've got to do it ASAP, or this country is going down. I don’t see things like MAGA who thinks they have to take guns to take over the government. It’s not how America is. That's how criminals work. And you may have noticed that MAGA are the ones who attacked Congress...

And so I’ll leave you with wishing you all the greatest success and health! 
Until next time! Sigh...

Cheers! Sláinte!