Woke capitalists like Goldman have the best of two worlds, as noise-making radicals who live in mind-boggling affluence. Let’s lay off Soros! He may be the nicest of this group.
Those who belong to the woke Left are held together by overlapping interests and shared passions. Not all wokesters support the same causes and certainly not with equal intensity. Thus, warriors against climate change like Karl Schwab and Bill Gates don’t often speak up for the sexual transitioning of children or call for allowing biological males claiming to be women to compete in female sports events. One can likewise read the racialist diatribes of Corey Bush, Ibram X. Kendi, or Al Sharpton without likely running into attacks on fossil fuels or gas stoves. The point is not that these allies never agree on anything. It is that their alliance is looser than some might imagine.
It also seems their collaboration is based mostly on what they loathe rather than what they like. Above all, these collaborators share a chief villain, whom all woke leftists can be counted on to hate, namely, a white male Christian, perhaps living in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s postal district and spewing politically incorrect speech, when he’s not reading the Bible or driving his gas-guzzling car.
It also seems necessary for all wokesters to have a large, intrusive state and ubiquitous surveillance agencies for keeping opposition in line. Equally useful, from their perspective, is a centralized educational system that requires compulsory attendance, except perhaps for designated victim groups, who may do as they like. We also supposedly need properly indoctrinated public educators to deal with all the “neo-Nazis,” or, as the Biden Administration classifies such types, “white nationalist terrorists.” While all elements of the woke Left seek to marginalize their shared enemies, some may also be eager to inflict violence on them. And they can do so while the media turn their collective back on the Left’s “peaceful protests.”
Miranda Devine provides us with a particularly revealing case study of a growing subspecies within this woke genus, the socially radical corporate capitalist. Devine focuses on Daniel Goldman, the usually nattily dressed and unfailingly politically correct representative of New York’s 10th Congressional District. According to his critic at the New York Post, Goldman is a “loathsome” example of “‘elite privilege,’ a blue-eyed son of Sidwell Friends, Stanford and Yale” with “entitlement oozing from every pore.”
It is hard for me not to retch as I read Devine’s description of “this heir to the Levi Strauss fortune,” who has become a smarmy defender of the Russiagate hoax, FBI abuses of power, and the New York City criminal class. When Julio Rosas, a senior writer for Townhall, testified before Congress about Black Lives Matter violence that he had witnessed personally and about which he wrote a book, Goldman pounced on him. Goldman scolded Rosas for stating Antifa was an “organization” and not just an idea, and he accused Rosas of inventing his accounts to discredit the FBI.
Goldman was also featured on TV, lacing into the mother of a black U.S. Army veteran who had been murdered in New York City. This happened after Goldman’s pal, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, had released a repeat offender who later committed the murder. According to Goldman, the congressional investigation of Bragg’s practice of putting dangerous, violent criminals back on the street without bail was preventing a respected D.A. from doing something much more important, namely prosecuting Trump for a “felony,” or whatever Bragg claims Trump did to Stormy Daniels, evidence for which doesn’t seem to exist. Like Bragg, Goldman has been an outspoken opponent of imposing bail on those who have been arrested for violent acts.
The “crimes” under the RICO statute are essentially fictitious, created to enable federal authorities to avoid the state courts in which accused “mobsters” traditionally had been prosecuted. Because reputed “mob” figures were being acquitted in state courts—often in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt—the government created a new set of “derivative crimes,” a class of offenses that by definition are derived from other criminal acts.
One unique aspect of Trump’s case is that state prosecutors are deriving their charges from federal criminal statutes instead of the other way around, but the particulars of this case are especially troubling, given the politics involved and the fact that Trump was never charged with breaking federal campaign law, much less convicted of it. In order for Bragg to gain a conviction, jurors will have to conclude that Trump broke federal law, something that they are not legally entitled to do, given that lawbreaking never was demonstrated in federal court. To put it another way, New York jurors are being asked to declare Trump guilty of a crime for which he never was charged.
When Rudy Giuliani was pursuing his infamous Wall Street prosecutions in the 1980s, his aides admitted that they were indicting people on “novel legal theories” that had not been used before. A Giuliani lieutenant bragged to a group of law students that prosecutors in his office:
were guilty of criminalizing technical offenses…Many of the prosecution theories we used were novel. Many of the statutes that we charged under…hadn’t been charged as crimes before…We’re looking to find the next areas of conduct that meets any sort of statutory definition of what criminal conduct is.
At that time, federal prosecutors were going after people like investment banker Michael Milken, but even they would have stopped at indicting a former president. That day is gone, however, and today we have Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg following what John Cassidy of The New Yorker calls a “novel effort” to combine both state and federal laws to create what clearly is a bill of attainder to convict Donald Trump of a crime. Even if the courts rule against Trump and permit the charges to stand—and it is certain that Trump and Bragg will litigate the charges all the way to the Supreme Court themselves—that does not change the fact that Bragg has cobbled a number of statutes together to create something the U.S. Constitution forbids: a bill of attainder.
Although the indictment is still sealed at this writing, the gist of the charges is as follows: (A) Donald Trump, who was running for president, authorized payment of $130,000 to a woman known as Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet about an affair between them, with Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen making the payments; (B) he listed the payments as a campaign finance expense and Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign fraud; (C) the Trump Company reimbursed Cohen for the payments and claimed them as a legal expense.
Bragg is alleging that Trump approved these payments while breaking federal campaign law, which makes them a felony (under New York law, simply falsifying business records is a misdemeanor). Writes attorney and New York Times columnist David French:
So how can Trump be prosecuted? If Bragg can prove that, contrary to New York State law, Trump falsified records when the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof,” he can prove that Trump committed a felony, and a felony not only carries stiffer penalties; it has a five-year statute of limitations.
He continues:
But what is the other crime that can convert a charge of records falsification to a felony? Most likely prosecutors will rely on an allegation of violating federal campaign finance law, specifically the claim that the hush money payments to Daniels were illegal campaign contributions. But this is also not a simple case to make: The prosecution may claim that state campaign finance laws apply to Trump, and his payments thus violated New York law, but remember we’re talking about a presidential election. A federal statute expressly states that the relevant campaign finance laws “supersede and pre-empt any provision of state law with respect to election to federal office.” This law represents a formidable barrier to prosecuting Trump under state campaign finance laws, and there is no obvious path around it.
This is a problem because during the infamous “Russiagate” investigations, special prosecutors looked at this situation and concluded that the facts were too sketchy to charge Trump with breaking federal campaign laws. However, Bragg will be calling for a state jury to conclude that Trump actually did break federal law—something a state jury should not be doing. Because Trump was never charged with breaking campaign laws, there is now no legal way to claim he broke them.
Bragg’s entire case hinges upon this point, which is why French—who clearly despises Trump and would rejoice if he were convicted of something—advised against bringing state criminal charges in the first place. He writes:
It’s no wonder that even Bragg’s aggressive former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz was concerned that the Daniels case was, as The New York Times reported, “too risky under New York law.” A Reuters article described the legal theories supporting a prosecution for the Daniels payments as “untested.” A January New York Times story also accurately called the theories “largely untested.”
While one can condemn Trump for the reckless behavior that brought about this situation in the first place, I would argue that Bragg’s behavior is much more reckless, given that he is cobbling state and federal statutes together to target a political figure roundly hated by the Democrats. Bragg is using criminal law for political purposes, and while such actions have a sorry history going back to the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration’s hounding of critics of the New Deal, including former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, they have no place under the rule of law.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board (unlike The New York Times editorial board, which prattled on about Trump “not being above the law”) recognized the greater danger of unleashing what it called a “Pandora’s box” that has “political ramifications that are unpredictable and probably destructive.” This indictment, unfortunately, is politically popular with Democrats (and some never-Trump Republicans), and the usual brakes that accompany political processes have been discarded in the hopes that the Great Orange Whale will see the inside of a prison cell.
While Trump and his supporters will rightly argue that Bragg is manipulating the law in a special way to go after one person, this case highlights greater abuses of the law attributable to what Candice E. Jackson and I labeled almost twenty years ago as “derivative crimes.” Under a “derivative crime” regime, which makes up the bulk of federal criminal statutes, a “crime” such as “racketeering” is not defined as a specific act, but rather is derived from other actions that may either be actual crimes or acts that someone might call criminal but do not break any laws.
For example, Jackson and I described the RICO statutes in our 2004 Independent Review paper:
The “crimes” under the RICO statute are essentially fictitious, created to enable federal authorities to avoid the state courts in which accused “mobsters” traditionally had been prosecuted. Because reputed “mob” figures were being acquitted in state courts—often in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt—the government created a new set of “derivative crimes,” a class of offenses that by definition are derived from other criminal acts.
One does not “racketeer” anyone. Instead, the government permits federal prosecutors to present evidence of lawbreaking elsewhere, but the defendants are not charged with those crimes (such as extortion, murder, and robbery). Instead, they are charged with racketeering, which is derived from those other alleged actions. With derivative crimes, federal prosecutors were able to win cases against alleged organized crime figures such as John Gotti, who was convicted in federal court of…racketeering.
While the U.S. Constitution forbids passage of bills of attainder, clever prosecutors find other ways of implementing them by piecing together various statutes to form criminal charges that are specifically aimed at one person.
A new CNN poll found that more than half of all Americans approve of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s decision to indict former President Donald Trump — despite the fact that no one surveyed knew the contents of the still-sealed indictment when they answered questions about it.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper broke down some of the results of the poll, which was taken between March 31 and April 1. It showed that an overwhelming majority of Democrats (94%) were in favor of the indictment. A majority of independents (62%) also supported the move, followed by just 21% of Republicans. Overall, nearly two-thirds (60%) of those surveyed said that they supported the decision to indict Trump.
But as critics quickly began to point out, neither those asking the question nor those answering it had any idea what specific crimes the former president was actually being charged with.
Reports have indicated that Trump is expected to face nearly three dozen charges related to business fraud — but the official indictment was still under seal at the time the survey was conducted, days before Trump’s arraignment was scheduled to take place in Manhattan.
The Daily Caller’s Brianna Lyman tweeted, “CNN conducted a poll: 60% of Americans approve of Trump’s indictment. We don’t know what he’s charged with & yet 60% of Americans BLINDLY say they support this. Tells you all you need to know about these people: they don’t believe in justice, but in political persecution.”
Oh yes, I almost forgot: I once broke a pair of rackets after losing a close tennis match in a French tournament, and a man I didn’t know approached me and offered some pills to calm down. I told him to get lost. He later befriended me and I even hit some balls with him. His name was Mortimer Sackler, and his company Purdue killed 500,000 Americans with his pill Oxycontin.
Like a strange melody that keeps repeating in my ear are four letters, PTSD, an acronym for a psychiatric disorder that seems to afflict most criminals in America. I suppose some shrink invented it, then ambulance-chasing lawyers picked it up; finally the criminals themselves have discovered it. It is the quickest get-out-of-jail scheme since article 1 section 9 of the Constitution, Habeas Corpus.
We are in the midst of soft-on-crime time, where DA’s like Alvin Bragg of New York City, Kim Foxx of Chicago, Los Angeles’ George Gascon, and, most infamous of all, San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin have all declared let’s be nice to the bad guys, let’s be less punitive, and other such nonsense. In the meantime, crime has gone through the roof in American cities, with criminals brazenly breaking the law and looting stores, and murders having doubled in mostly black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The media, needless to say, blame the rise in crime on a white-supremacy aftermath, a bit like blaming the Jews for the rise of Hitler.
“If anyone qualifies for PTSD treatment it would be today’s police officers.”
In New York City a black career criminal lures two police officers to his apartment pretending his mother needs help and proceeds to murder them both in cold blood with an automatic pistol, while his witness mother claims that her son is suffering from mental illness and should not go to jail. Another career criminal executes a cashier in a bodega after the 19-year-old girl working a midnight shift handed over the hundred dollars. His family immediately claimed he had mental problems and should not be incarcerated but treated. Still a third career criminal kills a Chinese woman while she was walking to work for no apparent reason (except perhaps being Chinese) and declares that he has mental issues. That’s just three cold-blooded murders in one week in the Big Apple by…er…unstable men. During the funeral for the two slain policemen, photos appeared named “sea of blue” as thousands of cops turned up to honor their slain colleagues. That old hag, actress Susan Sarandon, denounced the pics, saying they reminded her of fascist parades.
PTSD used to be called shell shock, and that trauma was at times real. Soldiers suffered from it while engaged in ferocious combat—trench warfare in World War I, especially—and it hit its peak among the military during the Vietnam conflict. George Patton famously slapped two soldiers claiming to suffer trauma during World War II, and lost his command as a result. My grandfather as a cavalry officer stayed in the front for two years during the Balkan wars, and my uncle six months on the front line without a day off against the Italians in 1940, but for some strange reason the only thing that bothered both of them was the inability to change their underclothes.
Never mind. The world today is increasingly defined by an entire ideology of mental illness that bears absolutely no relation to the psychic reality of human beings—“they must be mad because no one’s that bad” type of thinking. Except criminals are bad, very seldom mad, and the whole psychopathological preoccupation has to do with the root of all envy: money. A cynic would dub it a doctor’s invention of a disease that doesn’t exist, but, not being of a cynical persuasion, I will not go that far. The three-card-monte con is made up by Big Pharma, the psychiatric profession, and insurance companies. One serves the other and so on. The evil doctor who created this Frankenstein monster was of course that arch pseudo Sigmund Freud, now lying in one of Dante’s deadly circles of Hell for having brought such misery to the world.
So there you have it. Mental health is being used as an excuse for the criminal behavior of our ethnic minorities, by Hollywood types, and all sorts of freaks, drug addicts, and lowlifes, while the shrinks, the insurance companies, and Big Pharma rake it in. Oh yes, I almost forgot: I once broke a pair of rackets after losing a close tennis match in a French tournament, and a man I didn’t know approached me and offered some pills to calm down. I told him to get lost. He later befriended me and I even hit some balls with him. His name was Mortimer Sackler, and his company Purdue killed 500,000 Americans with his pill Oxycontin. Uncle Sam is asleep at the wheel while mental health hustlers are running riot.
Like a strange melody that keeps repeating in my ear are four letters, PTSD, an acronym for a psychiatric disorder that seems to afflict most criminals in America. I suppose some shrink invented it, then ambulance-chasing lawyers picked it up; finally the criminals themselves have discovered it. It is the quickest get-out-of-jail scheme since article 1 section 9 of the Constitution, Habeas Corpus.
We are in the midst of soft-on-crime time, where DA’s like Alvin Bragg of New York City, Kim Foxx of Chicago, Los Angeles’ George Gascon, and, most infamous of all, San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin have all declared let’s be nice to the bad guys, let’s be less punitive, and other such nonsense. In the meantime, crime has gone through the roof in American cities, with criminals brazenly breaking the law and looting stores, and murders having doubled in mostly black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The media, needless to say, blame the rise in crime on a white-supremacy aftermath, a bit like blaming the Jews for the rise of Hitler.
In New York City a black career criminal lures two police officers to his apartment pretending his mother needs help and proceeds to murder them both in cold blood with an automatic pistol, while his witness mother claims that her son is suffering from mental illness and should not go to jail. Another career criminal executes a cashier in a bodega after the 19-year-old girl working a midnight shift handed over the hundred dollars. His family immediately claimed he had mental problems and should not be incarcerated but treated. Still a third career criminal kills a Chinese woman while she was walking to work for no apparent reason (except perhaps being Chinese) and declares that he has mental issues. That’s just three cold-blooded murders in one week in the Big Apple by…er…unstable men. During the funeral for the two slain policemen, photos appeared named “sea of blue” as thousands of cops turned up to honor their slain colleagues. That old hag, actress Susan Sarandon, denounced the pics, saying they reminded her of fascist parades.
PTSD used to be called shell shock, and that trauma was at times real. Soldiers suffered from it while engaged in ferocious combat—trench warfare in World War I, especially—and it hit its peak among the military during the Vietnam conflict. George Patton famously slapped two soldiers claiming to suffer trauma during World War II, and lost his command as a result. My grandfather as a cavalry officer stayed in the front for two years during the Balkan wars, and my uncle six months on the front line without a day off against the Italians in 1940, but for some strange reason the only thing that bothered both of them was the inability to change their underclothes.
MCViewPoint 