The first Republican debate Wednesday evening was a jaw dropping experience. The hopelessly disorganized Fox hosts let the combatants argue, interrupt and scream at each other off the grid, ignore the established time constraints and shamelessly pontificate their not-so-humble personal opinions as established facts. They also masterfully changed the subject when asked a question they didn’t want to answer.

Trump didn’t want to be raked over the coals and so opted to have a few words with impeccably disgraced ex-commentator Tucker Carlson, a caught red-handed liar and false witness, but still seemingly embraced by the faithful. Trump had nothing new to say other than the usual fare. 

Those candidates that made their careers on Trumps coat tails deftly avoided directly criticizing him, except for Chris Christie, who, BTW had some of the most intelligent comments of the evening, including the following:

“Whether or not you believe that the criminal 

charges are right or wrong, the conduct is 

beneath the office of president of the United States,” 

Surprisingly, candidate Nikki Haley also came out with a few relatively perceptive quips, but then landed this whopper:

“If you want something said, ask a man,’” 

quipped Ms. Haley, “If you want something done, 

ask a woman.”

She neglected to follow this up with a Madeline Albrights classic:

“If you want to see a world run by women, 

watch how they treat each other in high school.”

Other candidates ranged from the overbearing ecumenical bully (Pence), the sad, question-dodging demagogue (DeSantis) to the quiet, refuge seeking also-rans.  

Very notable, however, is the slick Trump clone Ramaswamy, who obviously spent a lot of time rehearsing the moves that made Trump what he is. Ramaswamy went out of his way to hit ‘em all, guaranteed to get cheers from the crowd: Cutting funding for Ukraine’s war effort (in full view of Taiwan and South Korea), promising to pardon Trump, accusing Christie of auditioning for an MSNBC contract, Haley of fishing for lucrative private-sector jobs and the big one, “climate change is a myth”. 

But enough of this muddle I could spend hours on. 

Let’s have a brief look at Trump’s surrender, arrest and booking in Atlanta.  Curiously, the Trump caravan from New Jersey to Atlanta included enough vehicles to stock several big GM dealerships, including enough police motorcycles to put a scare in the Hells Angels. All this for a FORMER US President that was voted out of office?  Then the famous “Mug Shot” portraying Trump in fighting mode. I’ve never seen a true police mug shot like this. Most portray the subject bolt upright with lights everywhere, obviating shadows and a lateral shot as well. Trump’s mug looks like a mafioso don. 

But it is what it is, a blink in American History. A former US President arrested for criminal activity. Not just any criminal history, Racketeering! As a purely practical matter, even though Trump enjoys a fairly wide popularity, most if not all of that is among Republicans. The same species of Republicans that joyfully applauded crafted Trump clone Ramaswamy, who’s not qualified for anything. These accolades are not necessarily shared by most of those that will be voting in 2024.

Trump is old history and it’s highly unlikely any candidate with four criminal trials hanging over his head will be elected president. He’s 77 years old. He’ll spend the rest of his life in and out of court, paying lawyers millions and shouting loudly to no one in particular that he’s a victim of political witch hunting. He’ll sink in that mire. 

That leaves possibly one of the eight we saw perform Wednesday evening. Some of those eight are simply clown acts, loud and strident but really going nowhere. Others now fighting previously good reviews now sagging on the basis of poor performance in front of an audience. Others simply standing and watching.  

To my mind, only two of the eight stood out much. Chris Christie has come out several times with reasonable comments about the presidency and he isn’t afraid to call Trump out. Although she’s said some pretty stupid things to Fox commentators in the past, Nikki Haley managed to assign blame for much of what’s happening in American politics to Republicans as well as Democrats and she has the most reasonable thoughts on the abortion issue. She’s not there yet, but she’s closer than the rest. 

We’ll see how the polls react now. 

DWC

Predictably, House Republicans have started to make “impeachment” noise but there at least a couple differences between Trump versus Biden as it pertains to the substantiation of any convincing charges. McCarthy is only “directing” the House to open an inquiry. In fact, assorted committees of the House have been “inquiring” the same issues for many months and have come up with nothing. Sins of the son do not impact sins of the father. The “evidence” for Trumps malefacting is rock solid and there is a mountain of it. 

Not that it matters because the Cult of Trump doesn’t care the least. Trump figured out long ago that lies and empty conspiracies work just fine for his collection of social media true believers. So the meticulously collected and timed criminal charges will just blow out into space for a third of the 2024 voters. We can only hope that these charges mean plenty to emerging new voters, but the push to impeach Biden may invoke the Principle of Unintended Consequences for McCarthy.

It must be remembered that McCarthy sold his soul many, many times over to many, many congressional members, all of whom will eventually arrive for payback. There is only a 5 seat Republican House majority and there are 18 House Republicans who represent districts won by Biden in 2020. Protecting those seats are essential to Republican control of the House. There are some Republicans in the house who publicly opine they want to see hard evidence of Biden wrongdoing before they get on board for impeachment. So far there is none remotely convincing. Hardline Republicans already calling for McCarthy’s head won’t be satisfied with an inquiry that goes nowhere. They’ll want to see charges. There’s a good chance that spells doom for some of their colleagues in 2024 when none is forthcoming.

Since the Cult of Trump is of an unknown size and polls are famously unreliable, it remains only hopeful that a sizeable enough number of voters will have no interest in electing a president hog-tied by a mountain of criminal and even civil charges. It isn’t just a matter of Trump’s incompetence anymore. It’s also the addition of his lack of character which for any other candidate would be the kiss of political death. But is there another avenue leading to Trump’s political demise?

Maybe invoking the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? Voters in Colorado filed a lawsuit testing the theory that Trump is ineligible to run for office because of the following language in the 14th (truncated by me for brevity):

“No person shall be a ***** elector of President *****, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, ******** who, having previously taken an oath, ********as an officer of the United States, ********to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

This wording was to prevent secessionists of the Civil War from walking back into power in the states where they’d just been defeated. Several respected senior jurists have opined that this section of the 14th effectively renders Trump ineligible to run for the President of the United States. Technically, this wording was specifically designed to cull out any candidate who betrays their oaths to the Constitution, by, among other specifications, “waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.” Sounds cut & dried.

But David Frum in this month’s Atlantic, says not so fast. The wording was specifically pointed toward Civil War issues which cloud current issues. Interpretation of the events of January 6 mean different things to different people and the ensuing arguments about it could go on to eternal litigation about what those words mean. Likewise, it would be unclear how Trump could be removed from all the State ballots. There is no single national ballot. 

Frum says:  “If Section 3 can be reactivated in this way ****, Republicans will hunt for Democrats to disqualify, and not only for president, but for any race where Democrats present someone who said or did something that can be represented as ‘aid and comfort’ to enemies of the United States.”

Reluctantly, I’m afraid I’ll have to agree with David From. The spirit of the 14th is clear but invoking it in 2024 would open a legal Pandora’s Box that would guarantee rage and chaos for decades. The only sure way to stop Trump is with a resounding and undeniable defeat at the ballot box.  We can only hope (and vote).

DWC

There are a lot of things about the Floyd killing that lie under the surface of the loud jubilation of those in the immediate area. Gene Robinson and Lester Holt gingerly danced around them in brief editorials on tonight’s NBC News. More will probably follow soon.

The guilty verdict (“overkill?”- Three different offences) for Derek Chauvin was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not one of those jurors had any interest in voting for any verdict that would burn Minneapolis to the ground. Van Jones on CNN clearly predicted that outcome of anything less than the three verdicts were brought forth. That said, there was plenty of damning evidence and Chauvin was clearly guilty. But the evidence damning Chauvin was much more damning than much of the evidence involving white folk killing black folk ever since reconstruction. That matters. 

There’s a lot more black folk in big cities (really no longer “minorities”) and they all carry “smart phones” capable of high-resolution movie capability. Any assault of any black person is mist assuredly going to be extensively caught on movies as effective as Cinemascope directed by Spielberg. In the case of Chauvin, from multiple vantages and containing street side editorials from onlookers. The Floyd murder was an easy trial; there was no effective defense for high-resolution film. The majority of atrocities involving assault on black men are not caught nearly as vividly, making it harder to effectively adjudicate. 

The loud jubilation involving one black guy and one cop may not necessarily be shared by another population with a deeply built-in hatred of black folk and be assured there are a lot of them out there whose opinions are not shared by the outcry tonight. So Floyd is the short game, a quick and limited short subject. Yes there are a lot of photos of Floyd in cities all over the world accompanied by appropriate slogans. But this is all put up by populations with an interest in the short game- “justice” for Floyd’s family and friends, and be assured justice was done. Chauvin will spend the rest of his life in prison.

But it bears remembering that the long game has been played since before reconstruction in the 1800s. The long game is the fact that there is another population here that does not recognize black folk in the same “humanity” terms that they do each other. This is why Chauvin kept his foot on the neck for nearly five minutes after Floyd lost his pulse, ignoring pleas from onlookers. Floyd was less than human and therefore fair game to treat that way. Very much similar to the way Vietnamese were depicted as less than human in 1967, rendering them more unceremonious to torture and kill. 

Cops have been torturing and killing black males and the occasional female for a very, very long time. Read Bryan Stevenson’s history on black lynching (written by Jeff Toobin):

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/22/bryan-stevenson-and-the-legacy-of-lynching

They were still killing them after Floyd’s death and they will probably continue to kill them at every opportunity, then express wonder at what the big deal was when caught up in the short game. So keep your eye on the Washington Post and the Grey Lady. Editorials coming there will be much stronger than Gene Robinson’s gentle assessment on the NBC News tonight. Gene danced around it but didn’t call it like he probably sees it. National TV Networks exist at the mercy of their advertisers biases. The newsprint is much more brutal as they demonstrated vividly in their dealings with Trump.

Yes, “justice” was done for Floyd et al but there is no convincing evidence that the longer game has been altered much. We’ll see in time.

David Crippen, MD, FCCM

Professor Emeritus (ret)

Departments of Critical Care, Emergency Medicine and Neurologic Surgery

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

Folks, the day is coming if it isn’t already here when we’re all going to have to start thinking about how we’ll deal with two impending cultural disasters capable of ripping the fabric of our society asunder.  Civilian weapon control (the second Amendment) and women’s reproduction rights under Roe v. Wade.

I can give you an opinion on these subjects because I’m old enough to have seen all of it in real action. I’ve been involved close up in firefights in which “assault rifles” resulted in the death of young men.  So you can take my opinions for what you think they might be worth, or not. We’ll start with the impending battle for gun control.

Those citizens who cling to the second Amendment as a guarantee they can possess and operate any kind of military weapon ad lib are spoiling for a fight and it’s been coming for a long time. Opponents of gun control believe the meat & potatoes of the Amendment to be taken literally: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”.  Gun control advocates interpret the Amendment more figuratively.  The Amendment’s primary justification is to prevent the United States from needing a standing army. Preventing the United States from starting a professional army attacking the standing government in a coup, in fact, was the single most important goal of the Second Amendment. 

The authors of the Bill of Rights were not concerned with an “individual” or “personal” right to bear arms. The founders had no more conception of an AR-15 rapid-fire military weapon than they did a Boeing 747. However, the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. This set the stage for a political defense of the 2^nd rather than a practical one.

But there is a very practical reason why possession and operation of firearms should be controlled, especially rapid-fire military weapons specifically constructed to kill humans, individually and in groups. It’s reasonable for individuals to give up some “rights” constructed in antiquity in order to promote a much greater good. Much like forgoing the right of some free speech to avoid the catastrophe of yelling fire in a crowded theater. The founders with sluggish muskets propped against their door had no conception of the possible damage to the citizenry from modern rapid-fire weapons turned on them. Defense of the 2^nd Amendment has now become a politically “conservative” ideal which means defenders are “all in” against any form of regulation no matter how commonsensical, a stand-alone paragon no matter what risk/benefit might exist.

The year 2020 was the deadliest gun violence year in two decades, nearly 20,000 souls massacred by various iterations of firearms, two thirds of who were suicides. There were 611 mass shootings in 2020. Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher. The standard refrain of gun control opponents is “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, but statistics modify this cliché greatly. According to figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in only 0.9% of crimes from 2007 to 2011. This data show that people use guns for self-defense very rarely and argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the extremely rare case where you might need to defend yourself. 

A Washington Post article stated that the percentage of people who told The NRA they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens. Even if someone wanted to use a gun in self-defense, they probably wouldn’t be very successful. Many people who carry a gun aren’t properly trained to use it, especially in panic situations. The argument that as many gun deaths occur in States having the strictest gun regulation laws smoothly fails to mention that weapons are imported into these areas in car trunks from States with much more lax gun laws. Gun regulation laws are only effective when spread out uniformly over the entire country.

Gun related massacres would seem to prompt effective action from reasonable people to stop them. Conservative Republicans and the NRA have shown themselves not to be entirely reasonable. On October 27, 2018, Robert D. Bowers, armed with an AR-15-style assault rifle and multiple handguns, killed 11 worshippers in the Tree of Life Congregation in the Pittsburgh neighborhood of Squirrel Hill. He also wounded four police officers, one seriously and two other individuals. Following this atrocious act of hatred, the citizens of Pittsburgh came together to demand political action, prompting the City Council to propose three gun control ordinances in December 2018. One prohibits the use of specified “assault weapons” within the city area, the second prohibits large capacity magazines (holding more than ten rounds) and most importantly, a “Red Flag law. On October 29, 2019, Judge Joseph M. James of Allegheny County, buoyed by the NRA and conservative Republicans struck down all three ordinances for violating state constitution. Members of the City Council hope to take this case to the Supreme Court to expand Pittsburgh’s and other municipalities’ ability to pass gun regulation specific to their needs. 

One can only hope that the SCOTUS will invoke the rule of common sense, ruling if not to completely protect the citizenry from firearm massacre, at least make it harder for killers to ply their deadly vocation. The “red Flag” law (Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) is a reasonable start to protect innocents from gun violence.  The ERPO is a legal tool to remove firearms from people who are deemed to be at high risk of committing violence. Law enforcement or family members may petition a court to temporarily suspend an individual’s right to possess or purchase a firearm after submission of evidence that the person is a danger to themselves or others. In extreme cases in which an individual presents a clear and immediate danger, courts may grant ex parte orders to confiscate weapons, administered immediately without notice to the recipient. Ex parte orders are designed as an emergency measure to stop the threat of imminent violence. They require legally acceptable evidence and signing off by a judge, not much if any different than many other emergency measures affecting the citizenry. But the “conservative” political advocates consider “any” regulation to be a violation of the 2^nd. Sorry if 20 children are wiped out at Sandy Hook by a rapid fire Bushmaster. Acceptable collateral damage. 

Critics of ERPOs question due process: Do ERPOs provide police and petitioners a means to conduct illegal searches or intimidate enemies? Again, this brings up the much larger issue of risk/benefit. The potential for all kinds of abuse greatly exceeds the exceptionally minuscule benefit and regulation does not mean wrenching firearms out of the hands of authentic sportsmen. The potential for such weapons to spread catastrophe quickly and efficiently so greatly exceeds the common bolt-action hunting rifle that they simply should not be allowed except under critical regulation for those with some convincing reason to have one. There is no practical use of rapid-fire military weapons with large capacity magazines (easily converted to automatic fire) other than for trophies on ones wall, and those are easily converted to non-functionality. 

So effective regulation of firearms in civilian hands seems to be a reasonable thing for society to adopt. It’s not a legal issue; it’s simply a public health issue and should be treated as such. Whether we will see any of this come to fruit depends greatly on how much saturation of “conservative” politicians there will be in the halls of congress for the 2022 mid-term and 2024 Presidential elections. The National Rifle Association, long time opponent of any form of effective gun regulation, may not be a player as they are currently embroiled in massive fraud lawsuits. We’ll see in time.

Coming soon:  Will the SCOTUS, packed with “conservatives” be all-in to repeal Roe v. Wade. 

I’d hazard a guess that few if any in this group watched the entire day of US Capital police and Washington, DC police officers testifying (Monday, 08/27) as to their recollections of the US Capital assault by Trump true believers on 6 January. You all work for a living and it’s unlikely you had the time and energy to sit around and watch TV all day. Well, I did sit around and watch it and I have some observations.

First of all, CNN played the video of Trump’s speech exhorting his “Base” to advance on the US Capital to protest the fact that the election was “stolen” from him in 2020. 

“If you don’t fight like hell you’re not 

going to have a country anymore”

He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent and he certainly did nothing to discourage it. The rowdy crowd quickly proceeded to the Capital building immediately after his speech. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen, and BTW he did not accompany them to the Capital building. He hopped in a car and rode back to his office where he watched the carnage on TV, refusing multiple requests to defuse the riot.

After the riot cooled off, multiple congress personalities opined that Trump should have done something to quell this disaster, including Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. On January 12, 2021, McConnell supported impeaching Trump for his role in inciting the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, apparently believing doing so make it would easier for Republicans to purge the party of Trump and rebuild the party. Shortly thereafter, on May 28, 2021, McConnell voted against creating an independent commission to investigate the January 6 Capitol attack. Shortly after the riot, Kevin McCarthy visited Trump at his Mar-a-lago resort to kiss the ring and shortly thereafter released a statement that read in part, “Today, President Trump is committed to helping elect Republicans in the House and Senate in 2022.  

BTW, the two Republicans seated in the National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney both publically named Donald Trump as a responsible progenitor for the riot. Otherwise, The GOP response has been to minimize or scoff at the occurrence. Unfortunately, the current Republican Party understands that, for whatever reason, the only person able to energize their Base is Trump, and they are now beholden to him and his whims because of his conspiracy theories embraced by a poorly informed “Base”. Instead, they are using his “Big Lie” as the reason to pass draconian laws they can use to hang on to power by instituting roadblocks for voters that don’t vote for them.

That said, the objective evidence that this was, indeed, a genuinely violent and frightening partisan mob is indisputable. There was a hastily constructed gallows erected outside the Capital building accompanied by chants to “Hang Pence” (for doing his constitutional duty instead of illegally installing Trump back into the Presidency). Once inside the building, the mob chanted “Find Pelosi” with an obvious intent to do her harm. Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence were both hustled to safety by the same platoon of officers that were beaten up by rioters. 

Police officers trying to protect the Capital were beaten unmercifully (on camera), some dragged down flights of concrete stairs by their feet with their heads banging on each stair. Others lying on the ground kicked and stomped with heavy boots, pounded with flagpoles, bats, hockey sticks, timbers, pipes and other objects. Toxic substances were sprayed in their faces. One of the uniformed officers was repeatedly crushed between two doors screaming out in severe pain.

How could this happen?  The answer directly revolves around Trumps true believer “Base” and their propensity to embrace “The Big Lie”, propagated by Trump, actually before the 2020 election, that if he lost, it would be because the election would have been rigged against him. Insurance if it actually happened. That if it were not for the illegal manipulation of votes in several battleground states, he would have won big. Of course, when all the data is examined, this is nonsense as attested by hard looks at all the votes in all 50 states (no evidence of any vote fraud) and two looks by the SCOTUS (no evidence to support any kind of fraud). In order for this conspiracy theory to be true, all 50 states and the SCOTUS would have had to actively collude and there would have to be a paper trail (impossible). 

Seems like that evidence is strong enough to put an end to the drama, but two important facts about Trumps cadre of true believers must be remembered. 

1.  The true believers are groomed to believe anything Trump says with no need of any convincing evidence to support any of it. Trump’s word transcends any other form of media. All other forms of media criticizing Trump are lies crafted by malignant left wing to unfairly discredit him.

2.  90% of the evidence implicating Trump’s intentional lies and misinformation come from CNN and MSNBC, sites that no true believer would ever watch. So the reviews of all the books portraying Trump as incompetent by virtually anyone that’s ever come in contact with him and interviews of all those people are never absorbed by any self-disrespecting true believer. The only truth is Trump’s truth (and, of course, Fox News).

Now, this inevitably brings up the “way back when” etiology of “The Big Lie”. In order to do so, I must reluctantly accede to Godwin’s Law- “The longer an internet argument goes on, the higher the probability becomes that something or someone will be compared to Adolf Hitler”. But, there is simply no other coherent way to understand “The Big Lie” than to take it all the way back to the beginning, so hold your nose, here goes.

Donald Trump and his team have accurately followed the playbook of Joseph Goebbels, the chief propagandist for the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazi party), and later the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for Germany from 1933–1945. This is the man that expertly directed the Nazi propaganda machine, turning perfunctory fibs into grand displays of might and power, prompting the population to believe in what was then known as “The Big Lie”. 

Disinformation is a necessity for Trump as it was for Goebbels. The best description of the original “Big Lie” is comes from an OSS psychological profile of Goebbels at the peak of his prowess. Hitler’s primary rules were: 

“Never admit a fault or wrong, maintain a list of 

Enemies, (anyone who criticizes you), blame each 

For everything that goes wrong. Never accept blame. 

Never concede that there may be any good in your

Enemy. Always maximize a lie and if you repeat

It frequently enough people will sooner or later 

Believe it”.

These are the main tools of authoritarians and dictators; equally as potent for the Nazis as in our generation of malignant narcissists who would be king. Trump will loudly pontificate some outlandish quip hoping that his enemies will waste time challenging the lie. Opponents will insist on truth but in so doing will continue to repeat the big lie over and over until it becomes a part of the dialog. Once Trump can repetitively convince the populace that any opponents must be anathema to their interests, he can control the narrative, pointing out which news outlets may be speaking the truth (Friends of Trump), and which ones are enemies of the people (Enemies of Trump). 

Once his targeted audience (his Base) accepts his opinions as true without qualification, then he can move on to the concept that only he can personally fix the problems of the populace. Does any of this sound familiar?

.  

The universe is upside down. Everything is opposite of anything it should be even in an otherwise rational world. I’m choosing to dissect two of the most egregious examples occurring this week. I can’t bring myself to review the Republicans behavior re: the January 6 riot. It is what it is. There are others. Please bear with me. This is important.

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial, presented on CCM in all its glory, now with the jury. The facts of the case are brutally clear. Rittenhouse is an underage (17 y/o at the time) teenager who shot and killed two people and injured a third during a night of Black Lives Matter protests and civil unrest in Kenosha, Wis. He was underage to own an assault rifle and had a friend purchase one for him, a felony. He lived out of state. He went out of his way to Wisconsin allegedly to protect property there and offer EMT level medical aid if violence occurred during the “protest”, which was predicted. He was not an EMT and had no medical training. He wandered into the protest fray humping an AR-15 assault rifle; repeat- “assault rifle” and I can speak authoritatively on that subject having done the same in a different theater.

Rittenhouse had no demonstrable rationale for strapping this weapon (with a 30+ round clip) to the front of his body, very visible to all. He claimed he did so for his “own safety”, as if he planned to use it in a defensive manner if the was threatened by the mostly black crowd. Defensive as in shooting one that threatened him. But the underlying, but unstated foundational tenet of gun advocacy: That guns, particularly rapid-fire assault weapons are effective and necessary weapons of self-defense. Without them, lawlessness and tyranny would prevail. And in the words of the NRA, “in the hands of the “good guys”, guns promote public safety. The classic gun rights fantasy, self-defense as circular reasoning.

Rittenhouse says he carried a rifle in order to guarantee his safety during a violent protest but he was forced to shoot people when he says his life was threatened. According to his own defense, the gun posed a grave threat to Rittenhouse himself but the gun metamorphosed situations that might have ended in orthopedic trauma to death. His gun simply invited conflict. When protesters spotted Rittenhouse’s plainly visible weapon of war they immediately moved to foment conflict with him. The killing began when Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Joseph Rosenbaum, an unarmed protester, prompting Rosenbaum to advance on him presumably in an effort to stop a potential shooting. Rittenhouse claimed that Rosenbaum wanted to take the rifle and if he got it, and if he had been successful, “he would have killed me with it and maybe killed more people”. Rittenhouse fired four shots in less than one second, killing Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse then ran away, attempting to flee the scene following which he shot and killed another protester who was running after him and another protester who assaulted him after Rittenhouse had tripped and fell to the ground.

After all this turmoil and mortality, what was the value of assault weapons that night? They failed to deter attacks against those brandishing them. Rittenhouse brandishing such a weapon was the reason Rosenbaum pursued him, resulting in his death. Had it not been for the presence of weapons of war, a more moderate confrontation would have occurred, avoiding mortality associated with such weapons. Rittenhouse fired four rounds in less than one second at a person he thought was a mortal danger to him. Why not one round that might have immortalized his assailant rather than killing him instantly? Rittenhouse thought that the assault weapon very ostentatiously strapped to his chest would have embodied the pivotal NRA benchmark, helping the good guys ward off the bad guys. But if Rittenhouse was the good guy, what good did his weapon do him? What good did it do the community he was there to protect? Two people killed, and Rittenhouse life changed for the worse no matter what the jury finds.

• Update 2:00 pm today, Friday- Not guilty on all charges. It’s not for me to work all of you with my personal biases on this case but I will give you some things likely to happen as a result of this verdict.

a. In a criminal, capital murder case, the bar for conviction is set extremely high (beyond a reasonable doubt). The defendant does not need to prove his innocence; the prosecution must prove guilt by leaping over the high bar. The jury took four days to obviously find reasonable doubt and that’s the end here. However, that doesn’t mean this is over. The aggrieved families now have the option of suing Rittenhouse in civil court for wrongful death, a burden much lower than in a criminal case (preponderance of the evidence) as O.J. Simpson found out. So Rittenhouse will likely find himself in court for many more months with a much higher probability of facing money damages. His previous life as it was is pretty much over for a long time.

b. And by the way, at some point in the recent past, Rittenhouse’s mother went on TV asking for money gifts to pay attorney and court fees she estimates to US$110,000 so far. They haven’t arrived at civil trials yet and civil attorneys don’t work cheap. They’ll all present bills that’ll make his eyes water.

c. In the future, we will see many more assault weapons arriving at “protests” and “demonstrations” because the issue of “self defense” is now seemingly more legitimized. If per chance anyone is shot, the diagnosis of “self defense” will be automatic and similar court actions as this one will be as well automatic. Somewhere Wayne LaPierre is smiling.

d. Television coverage of trials will become extremely popular, especially when covered in real time by venues like CNN. There is quite a bit of chatter now that the previous prejudice against defendants testifying on their own behalf is now morphed to a better chance of sympathetic juries if/when the defendant breaks down and sprouts bitter crocodile tears on cue (and on camera).

2. The impeccably contemptible clown act involving the HOR censure of (R. Az) Paul Gosar. The House voted to censure Paul Gosar of Arizona and strip him of his two committee assignments after he posted a video to his social media accounts depicting his murder of Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and President Biden. First of all, let’s not minimize the potential for evil of “social media”. Anyone, anywhere can depict pretty much any kind of detrimental, injurious, hurtful, inimical, destructive prose or pictorial they choose and get away with it. Lord knows, Donald Trump played social media like a Stradivarius to win the Presidential nomination in 2016, without which no one would have noticed him. Secondly, chastising a member of a publicly responsible legislative body ain’t what it used to be or should be. Subsequently, Ocasio-Cortez criticized Republicans for failing to denounce Gosar’s actions and asked her fellow lawmakers, “Does anyone in this chamber find this behavior acceptable?” Well…..apparently only Democrats as all but two Republicans fully supported Gosar, who never apologized, only “self-censored” himself by removing the offending cartoon from his social media account.

In fact, violent and malevolent actions are becoming more prevalent in politics, with Republicans leading the charge, and their colleagues failing to rein in any of it. Minority HOR Leader, Kevin McCarthy was quick to divert criticism of Gosar by quoting other similar atrocities by Democrats in the past, and more importantly to assert that if (when) Republicans took control of the HOR in 2022, any consequences of Gosars censure would be quickly reversed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi remarked: “These actions demand a response. We cannot have a member joking about murdering each other or threatening the president of the United States. This is both an endangerment of our elected officials and an insult to the institution of the House of Representatives.” In response, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy remarked: “Gosars censure is ‘Pelosi burning down the House on the way out the door’ and claimed Democrats are abusing their power by removing Gosar from his committees. Not only have Republicans failed to discipline colleagues for such actions, their ilk espousing such malevolent actions have profited very ostentatiously.

The antics of (R.Ga) Marjorie Taylor Greene leap out. A supporter of Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election, Greene has repeatedly and falsely claimed that Trump won the election in a landslide victory that was “stolen” from him (no evidence to support his claim). She called for Georgia’s election results to be decertified and was among a group of Republican legislators who unsuccessfully challenged votes for Biden during the Electoral College vote count, even though federal agencies and courts overseeing the election found no evidence of electoral fraud. Greene has published numerous baseless conspiracy theories and has tried to legitimize the thoroughly discredited Qanon conspiracy. She routinely expresses racist, anti-Semitic, and Islam phobic views. Naturally, Greene is a vociferous supporter of Donald J. Trump. The House of Representatives voted to remove Greene from all committee roles in 2021 in response to her incendiary statements and endorsements of political violence. Eleven Republicans joined the unanimous Democrats in the vote, but she prospers today, continuing to amass large quantities of cash support from her voter region and minimal if any new rein from her colleagues in the HOR.