The Retrial of Benjamin Forsythe

Benjamin Forsythe wants a new trial.

In 2017 he was accused, and later convicted, of shoplifting. The prosecution claims he had hidden some dog toys … yes, DOG TOYS … in his girlfriend’s purse. Then they left the store without paying.

Well, they did have SOME evidence against him, to be sure. They never actually found the toys in his girlfriend’s purse. BUT. They had a video of him going to the car and bringing his girlfriend’s purse into the store. They had some empty dog toy shelves. Stuff like that.

To be clear, they didn’t catch him in the act. It was only a day later when some store employers noticed some empty packaging in the dog toy department that they investigated. Sure enough, the Sherlock-type sleuths discovered that his girlfriend had absconded with $ 186 worth of dog toys!

Some of you who do not own pets may wonder how anyone could stuff $186 worth of dog toys into a purse unnoticed. I mean, that sounds like a lot of Fido fun. Loads of doggy diversions. Now, those of you WITH pets might have a different view. I mean, where can you get a purse load of dog toys for ONLY $186? Must have been in the discount bin. Give me the address of that store. But I digress.

So, despite his pleas of innocence (his girlfriend took complete responsibility, the sweet thing) he was convicted and sentenced. To 2 to 23 months in jail. For pilfering dog toys. Well, I said he was convicted of shoplifting, but not exactly. Since he, himself, never stole any dog toys he was actually convicted of  “conspiracy to commit retail theft”. YIKES. That’s sounds a lot worse than shoplifting. A conspiracy.

So poor Benjamin was convicted. But that was then. This is now.

After watching hours and hours of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump from his prison cell, Benjamin had second thoughts. The first thought was this. Being  forced to watch hours and hours of the impeachment trial may be grounds for release on a  “cruel and unusual punishment” claim.

Second, he wanted a new trial with Lamar Alexander as foreman of the jury.

You see, Lamar Alexander has stated, in writing,  publicly that  “yes”, the House managers did present a convincing case. In fact, according to Lamar, he is convinced that president Trump DID solicit (extort)  the Ukrainian government to try to force them to present an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. He had seen enough, but it was not enough to convict.

So Senator Alexander does not need any more proof. Trump is a criminal. The facts are clear. Undisputed.  But, since Trump is a criminal Lamar has decided NOT to vote to remove him from office. Or to seek any more evidence which might even further prove the case already proven by the House managers. Because, after all, if we convicted criminals what would be next? Slippery slope.

Lamar’s statement: “…There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers. 

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate….”

When Benjamin saw this he leaped for joy. That is exactly the point he was trying to make. Just because he was found to have committed a crime does not mean he should be found GUILTY of committing a crime. Just because he was involved in a conspiracy, and that was proven by the prosecution, does not justify a GUILTY verdict. It was not really a crime, it was just “inappropriate” for him to conspire to shoplift. And, if we are to uphold what Senator Alexander calls “the principle of equal justice under the law” shouldn’t Benjamin go free?

Benjamin wants Senator Alexander on his jury. And Dershowitz as his lawyer. Mr Forsythe is hoping to call Donald Trump, Jr as his character witness. If he can afford the fee.

There is a new sheriff in town. His name is Lamar. His concept of the law:   Some crimes are just not punishable. It all depends on who commits them.

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/03/shoplifter-jailed-for-stealing-dog-toys-denied-break-by-pa-court.html

READ Lamar Alexander’s Statement: Trump Did It, He Said He Did It on TV, but Removing Him Would Be ‘Frivolous’

What Were You Thinking?

In his testimony about the Mueller Report, Attorney General William Barr explained his reasons for thinking it is not possible to charge Mr Trump with a crime. The key reason being that the prosecutor would not be able to demonstrate “intent”. According to Mr Barr the only way to charge an individual with a crime is if you can prove an “intent” to commit a crime. Even if the person’s own words suggest intent, unless he is explicit that he wants to commit a crime, there can be no trial. Therefore, no indictment is even possible.

This news reached the prisons and defense lawyers around the nation and they responded with glee. Parties were held. Fireworks were set off on Riker’s Island. The fix was in.  No intent, no crime.

So, let’s imagine for a moment that Attorney General Barr, once he is ousted from his current role, becomes a trial judge. Defense attorneys are lining up to have their cases heard before the learned justice.

Case # 1. Johnny Dillinger

Prosecutor: Your honor, the state will show that Mr Dillinger planned and implemented a number of bank robberies. He used the “Lamm technique” of casing a bank, planning a getaway route and then robbing said bank. He was successful and was found with the money. Other members of his gang have admitted to helping him rob banks. The evidence is overwhelming.

Counsel for the Defense: Your honor, the defense admits that Mr Dillinger did plan and execute said robberies. However, it is up to the state to prove “intent”. There is no proof that Mr Dillinger even knew that taking money from a bank was a crime. I mean, he’s not a lawyer familiar with the intricacies of the law. Furthermore, the “intent” of his actions was not to commit a crime, only to obtain money. Money all of us need to live. He saw the bank and thought that the money in the bank would assist him in providing for his family. If robbing banks was not against the law, no crime would have been committed. My client never, in his wildest imagination , “intended” to commit a crime. He only wanted money. Just like everyone else. I move for immediate dismissal of all charges for lack of evidence of “intent”.

Judge Barr: Well argued . The court agrees that while Mr Dillinger may have committed these “crimes”, there is no way to determine whether he “intended” to commit crimes or just wanted money for his family. Case dismissed.

Case #2: Ted Bundy

Prosecutor: Your honor, the state will prove that Mr Ted Bundy committed at least 30 homicides between 1974 and 1978. Included are charges of multiple rapes, kidnapping and necrophilia. He is a serial killer who is the most brutal sociopath and should never again be released to society. . We have the forensic evidence . We will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Counsel for the Defense: Your honor, the defense admits that Mr Bundy did, in fact, take some of the actions noted by the state. We ask you to consider, however, the “intent” of Mr Bundy. Did he kidnap? Yes. Did he rape? Yes. Did he murder? Yes. But what is the real question? In our mind the ONLY question is this: Did Mr Bundy “intend” to break the law?

When Mr Bundy was kidnapping and raping and murdering was he “intending” to break the law? Or was he just intending to rape ? And kidnap? And murder? If rape and murder were not against the law would Mr Bundy even be subjected to this trial? Nowhere in the state’s case does it prove that Mr Bundy “intended ” to break any laws. Just the opposite. He wanted to follow the law, but his sociopathic desires would not allow him to. In his mind, he “intended ” to do whatever was legal. So, your honor, we are requesting an immediate dismissal of the charges based on the fact that no criminal “intent” was proved by the state.

Judge Barr: Excellent legal analysis. While it is clear that Mr Bundy murdered and raped over 30 individuals, the state did not provide any evidence that Mr Bundy intended to break the law. With this lack of intent I am disturbed that the prosecution has even brought the case against this honorable man. Complete exoneration. Case dismissed .

Case #3: LeRoy Jones

Prosecutor: You honor, Mr Jones was found with 2 bottles of baby formula in his possession , not paid for in the grocery store. This is a misdemeanor and we suggest 2 weeks in jail and a $100 fine.

Counsel for the Defense: We concur with the prosecution and plead guilty.

Judge Barr: Outrageous conduct. Stealing is a major crime. Not only did he take baby formula, he obviously intended to break the law. The days of coddling criminals are over. I sentence the criminal to 1 year in prison and a $1000 fine.  Let that be a lesson to all who would “intend” to break the law.

 

 

Pardoning Oswald

Today Mr Trump pardoned “Scooter” Libby for his crimes against the US government. Just as he pardoned Joe Arpaio for his crimes against the US government. Seems like Mr Trump has a soft spot in his heart for certain kinds of criminals.

What did the “scooter” do? Well. Background.

In the build up to the Iraq invasion the Bush-Cheney White House put out the narrative that Saddam had an active nuclear program. So active, in fact, that he had acquired “yellowcake” uranium from Africa. Hence, the need to attack ASAP to prevent him from building the “bomb” !!

Concerned about this revelation (and knowing nothing about it) the CIA sent Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate. For 8 days. He found that the claim was false. Not only that, he wrote an op-ed to that effect. Congress had been given twisted information in the run up to the war. They voted for a war based on lies.

Not long after that a conservative pundit, Novak, published the name of Valerie Plame announcing to the world that she was a CIA operative. He got this information from 2 Bush administration sources, one of whom was the “Scooter”, a Cheney staffer. Why would the White House leak the name of a CIA operative? And why would a journalist publish her name? To what purpose? How does this help anyone?

It turns out that Plame was the wife of Joe Wilson. So, her career with the CIA was over. More important, her informants  in Europe, where she had been working under cover, were now at risk. Anyone associated with her might now be at risk. Who was feeding her information? We will never know how many lives were effected. And how many potential informants now would hesitate to deal with the CIA in fear of eventually being found out.

So, that was “Scooter’s” crime. The outing of a CIA agent for no other purpose than payback for her husband telling the truth. GW Bush REFUSED to pardon him, although he commuted his sentence.

So, why pardon “Scooter” now?

Some possible reasons. To send a message. Anyone who lies to the FBI in support of Trump has been given a clear signal…I will pardon you. Don’t worry. Keep the faith. Hold the line. Stick with the boss. Take the heat for the godfather.

Another possible reason? Distraction. Comey’s book came out today. And his interviews. And Trump is shitting himself. He has to distract. Give Hannity something to talk about? Distract from the Cohen raid. Distract form the Mueller probe.

Or, maybe Donald simply has a soft spot for criminals. White criminals. White collar criminals. Criminals he can relate to. Which leads me to conclude we will see even more pardons as the days progress and Mueller gets closer and closer to Donalds’ financial shenanigans.

I predict the following pardons from the Nuremberg trials. So many were falsely accused !!!:

April: Oswald Kaduk. Guilty of crimes against humanity. Auschwitz Trial; Karl Seufert. Guilty of crimes against humanity. Auschwitz Trial; Emil Bednarek.  Guilty of crimes against humanity. Auschwitz Trial

May: Bruno Schlange. Guilty of crimes against humanity. Auschwitz Trial; Lutz Graf Schwein von Grosigk. Guilty. Ministeries Trial.; Max Otto Ihn, Guilty, Krupp Trial.

June: Ernst Biberstein. Guilty. Einsatzgruppen Trial; Carl Krok. Guilty. IG Farben Trial; Carl Genzken. Guilty. Doctors Trial.

July: Jared Kushner. Paul Manafort.  Ivanka Trump. Mike Flynn, Donald Trump, Jr…..and Donald Trump…

And Congress will do nothing.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/have-your-yellowcake/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Axis_personnel_indicted_for_war_crimes

Witness Tampering

I don’t follow Hollywood so I really have never heard of this Weinstein character. I wouldn’t recognize him. I wouldn’t want to. Evidently he spent years harassing, attacking, abusing, maybe raping women who were his subordinates. Evidently a lot of people knew about it and colluded in covering up what he was doing. Payoffs were made. Hush money to victims.

We saw the same thing with Bill O’Reilly and Fox News. Over $13,000,000 paid in hush money. Same with Roger Ailes, also at Fox. Donald Trump even bragged about assaulting women. Who knows how much hush money he has paid over the years. Then there is Cosby. And Bill Clinton.

Who knows how many other men in positions of power have abused women and work for companies that paid hush money. These victims sign “confidentiality agreements”, get paid a lot of money (by the stockholders of these companies) and then are required to keep silent about the abuse. All legal. For some reason.

Which confuses me. Didn’t these men commit crimes? Is it legal for wealthy individuals to exempt themselves from criminal prosecution by paying off witnesses? That seems to be the case.

Imagine this.

A man robs a bank and walks off with $1 million. It turns out that someone in the bank recognized him. So, the bank robber goes to guy who recognized him and says: Here is  $100,000. Sign this “confidentiality agreement” that says you will not turn me in. And if you do turn me in my gang and I will make your life miserable.”

Would that be legal?

Can you make a legal agreement NOT to report a crime in exchange for cash? Especially when not reporting a crime may mean even more people will be victimized and paid off in the future?

I don’t know the law, but it seems to me no different than witness tampering. A criminal paying a witness to keep quiet. The guy with the thicker bankroll walks away. To commit more crimes. And make more payoffs.

Maybe there ought to be a law against all “confidentiality agreements” which involve any illegal activity. Don’t you think?

The Leopard’s Spots

“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?…”  Jeremiah 13:23

Donald Trump received the votes of 46% of the American people.

Despite his crudeness, vulgarity, arrogance, xenophobic comments and outright lying. So, Donald Trump was approved by millions and millions of mainstream Republicans. The voter that does the lockstep, into the voter booth, pull the lever Republican. There are, undoubtedly, equal numbers of Democratic voters who do the same for any Democratic candidate.

But I have to  think that not all Trump voters are racists and haters . (Even though my essay of November 11 says otherwise.    https://josephurban.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/to-trump-voters/)

I have to think that many Republicans thought that the Donald Trump Show was just a show. A way to attract attention and get votes. A way to win using any tactic available. Like winning a real estate deal. Or cleverly avoiding paying taxes. Or deflating footballs.

And perhaps these folks thought that once Trump was sworn in as POTUS he would take on a different demeanor. He would naturally come to understand the importance of being president. Of acting presidential. Of bringing people together.

He would ignore the petty insults. Stop tweeting his every thought. Ask professionals to assist in the decision making. In short, once he was elected he would become an adult. Not go off the deep end. Not see every word of opposition as an attack to be repelled and all opponents to be smashed.

In short, perhaps they thought the office would impact the man.

But the leopard, we have seen over the first 3 weeks, does not change his spots. Trump is who he always has been and will continue to be. Abrasive. Ignorant. Crude. Combatative. Thin-skinned. A child.

An adolescent mind in a septuagenarian body. A CEO who is used to everyone kowtowing and telling him how wonderful he is. And if no one else does, Mr Trump will tell you himself. He is every bit as incompetent as we thought.

He writes executive orders without going through the process of determining their legality. He gives no thought to the ramifications of his actions.

If a judge disagrees with him he attacks the judge. Just as he attacked an American judge of Hispanic descent as a “Mexican” because he did not rule in Donald’s  favor. Another court says that, perhaps, the Immigration EO is not Constitutional.  He attacks a judge as a “so-called judge”, impugning the judiciary. Attacking the third, equal branch of the government.

He calls a US senator a liar for quoting  Judge Gorsuch and his concerns about Trump’s attacks on the judicial branch.  Despite the fact that the spokesman for Judge  Gorsuch verified  that the senator was correct. And another GOP senator, Sasser, reiterated the Judge’s concerns, further undermining the veracity of Trump.

Trump demeans the military service of Blumenthal and , just yesterday, of John McCain. Again. Mocking them out, one for serving in the military and not going to Vietnam, the other for being a pilot in a war that the US lost. Losers both. Of course, Trump himself COULD have gone to Vietnam but was given 5 deferments.

Trump makes a public statement that crime is at a 47 year high. Not even close. Does not matter. He simply repeats lies because he wants to. The data (from the FBI) shows that the violent crime rate since the time of Reagan has dropped 40% . To paraphrase Donald, that is a “very big deal, big number, lots of numbers”. Does not matter, Mr Trump says crime is at a 47 year high.

Trump makes a speech about the vilest incarceration and extermination of human beings in the 20th century. The Holocaust. He mentions gays and Gypsies and other who were caught up in the “Make Germany Great Again” hysteria of the Third Reich. But he fails to mention Jews. Is he a Holocaust “denier”, anti-Semitic or just stupid?

Of course, at this point, we have become immune. The man lies so regularly and so pointlessly that we can just assume that 1/3 of what he says is false. I expect that Mr Trump thinks that 65% of the time telling the truth is considered a  passing grade.

He uses the powers of the presidency to help his kids and wife hawk their clothes and jewelry. Openly threatening any company or group that “insults” his flock. He is right at home in this role. Huckster,  Bully. Conman.

What is fast becoming clear is what those of us in the majority have been saying all along. The man is unqualified to be president. He is not INTERESTED in doing the hard work of the presidency.

A president must have a grasp on reality. He must be a quick study or at least attempt to study. He must have more than a National Enquirer  (a rag that Trump has quoted as a source ) understanding of the world. He must be open to new ideas and open to science. It is HARD WORK. That is why presidents go grey.

Trump is not going to change. He wanted to WIN an election. He never has shown any inclination to serve the people. Never any curiosity, however minuscule, about the real world. He is a conman who is not going to change now. He doesn’t want to put in the effort. He shies away from anything close to hard work or intellectual activity.

Perhaps that is why Steve Bannon seems to be the one really in charge.

Darren Wilson and the FBI

(Darren Wilson was the police officer who confronted and killed a black man in Ferguson, Missouri. He was subsequently NOT indicted by a grand jury. he has since retired from the police force.)

I was involved in an internet argument with someone who I will call “Billy Bob” the other day. Billy Bob is a died-in-the-wool supporter of Darren Wilson and his rights to kill unarmed people if he feels threatened. Billy Bob’s main argument is that Wilson was a cop. Being a cop gave him the right to kill.

I disagree. Be that as it may, Billy Bob went one step further. He thinks that Darren Wilson, (now that he has resigned) , is going to end up in the FBI. Really. He does. So,  I imagine the job interview as follows…

FBI: So, Mr Wilson, I see you have 8 years experience as a police officer. Why did you leave the force?

Wilson: I did it for the good of the community.

FBI: I see. Can you expand on that?

Wilson: Yepper. I shot and killed a bad man and people in the community got mad at me. They even tried to indict me but I beat the rap.

FBI: Well. I assume you killed this man for a reason.

Wilson: Yepper. I felt my life was in danger.

FBI: So, he drew his gun first and then you shot back in self-defense?

Wilson: Nope. He didn’t have a gun.

FBI: So, he had a knife and was coming at you and was going to stab you ?

Wilson: Nope. He didn’t have a knife.

FBI: Well,  he was carrying some weapon, obviously. What did he attack you with?

Wilson: He didn’t have a weapon. But he hit me. Hard.

FBI: I see. Couldn’t you have used some self-defense techniques? Some of your training?

Wilson: Nope. I was in a car when he hit me.

FBI: You were in a car? Couldn’t you just drive a few hundred feet away and wait for backup?

Wilson: Never thought of that. But he hit me. Hard.

FBI: So, why did you shoot him?

Wilson: I feared for my life. He was big. REAL big. Made me feel like a 5 year old little boy. So I shot him. I don’t like feeling like a little boy.

FBI: So, you shot him in the leg or arm to incapacitate him ? To slow him down?

Wilson. Nope. In the head. In the body.

FBI: You shot him more than once?

Wilson: I shot AT him about 10 or 12 times. I hit him 6 times. That did the trick.

FBI: So , he was right next to you and you missed 4 or 6 shots?

Wilson: Yepper. That is why I kept shooting. DUH.

FBI: Well, Mr Wilson. The FBI prides itself on being a highly-trained, well-regulated peacekeeping force. We demand top level skills, intelligence, split-second decision-making and respect for individual rights. We do have to use force, but we train our agents to use only necessary force. I really don’t think we will be interested in interviewing you for a position.

Wilson: Did I mention that the guy was black. And very big. And scary. And that he looked like a demon ?

FBI: So. You see demons? You know what a demon looks like?

Wilson: I seen pictures of them. In demon books. And I tell you, this guy LOOKED like a demon. No joke.

FBI: I see. Thank you for coming in Mr . Wilson. And best of luck in the future.

So, Billy Bob, I don’t think the FBI will be calling on Darren Wilson to join the force anytime soon. Thank god.

Will I Be Shot in Florida

I am worried. I am going to Florida next month, just for a couple of days. But I am worried. Here is why.

Last year a young black kid, armed with Skittles, was murdered on a public street. Walking home. He possessed no weapons. Except for Skittles. An older guy, who happened to be white, shot him. Dead.  His defense. He (the killer) had questioned the kid’s right to be on the street and followed him. The kid (according to the killer), then challenged him and a fight ensued. He felt his life was in danger. And in Florida that evidently gives you the legal right to kill someone.

Another case. (I think it was Florida). A guy is texting his babysitter in a movie theater. Annoying. But the movie had not yet started.  A guy behind him (again, an older white guy) complained. An argument broke out. Popcorn was hurled. The older guy pulled out his gun and killed the texter/pop corn thrower.  His defense. He thought his life was in danger.

A third case, going to the jury as I write. A man (an older white guy again) pulls up to a car with its music blaring. He tells the black kids to turn it down.They mouth off to him. He pulls a gun out of the glove compartment. He fires three times into the car. As the car pulls away he fires 7 more times. A kid is dead. The killer’s defense? He thought his life was endangered. He felt he had the right.

Three killings. Three victims armed with Skittles,  popcorn and a music cd. All dead. Because an older white guy felt his life was endangered.

I am not black. I am an older white guy. And I fear for my life. Will I be shot by some black kid if I visit Florida? Will he be justified in killing me? My reasoning.

As a young black man I would now suspect every old white guy. Every old white guy MIGHT be carrying a gun and might put my life in danger. As an older white guy I wonder.  Do I dare take out my cell phone around a black kid?Will he think it is a gun? Do I smile at the checkout clerk and reach for my wallet ? Will he think I am carrying “heat” and decide his life is in danger? Do I dare play Bob Dylan on my car radio? Will some black kid take that as an indication that I am threatening his life and decide to act first?

Luckily I have taught many teenage black kids in my former life as a social studies teacher. I know that most of them have the common sense and decency not to shoot someone for no reason other than a paranoid fear of the perceived “other”. Still,  I wonder if I should go to Florida. I would hate to be killed based on a stereotype. The stereotype of crazy, paranoid old white men.