A MAGA Acolyte’s Utterly Transparent Gift to Trump – The No More Political Prosecutions Act

“District Attorney = Democrat Prosecutor = donated to Biden in 2020
= Prosecutor = paid by the DNC, former Biden DOJ official
= Jury = pulled from one of the most liberal areas = Judge, donated to Biden in 2020 = Trial and Conviction = total sham”

Twitter/X May 31, 2024, MAGA & causation expert Rep. Russell Fry, R SC-District 6,
immediately after Trump’s 34 NY felony convictions

Fry, Instagram May 8, 2024

As you can see above, first term backbench GOP/MAGA congressman Russell Fry had his dander up on May 31st, one day after Trump was convicted of 34 felonies. He torched the usual MAGA suspects: the District Attorney, the prosecutor, the jury, and, as a result, the 34 convictions.

And. as we’ll see after the next section, in April of 2023 Fry began to take on the federal criminal procedure that disallowed Trump from removing his election fraud case from New York to a federal District Court. His bill, H.R. 2553, has been percolating since then and, significantly, was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in January 2024 onto the House Calendar. It’s shyly named, “No More Political Prosecutions Act of 2023”. It’s important and potentially game changing.

But first, and briefly . . .

For a Backbencher He’s Got Front Bench Chutzpah

Fry is a typical MAGA extremist, beloved of Donald Trump. He describes himself on Twitter/X as: “Husband. Dad. Sock game on point. 8th grade ping pong champ. Fmr Chief Whip in SC House. #AmericaFirst. Trump Endorsed.” And there’s more than just sock game on point to please him.

His voting record for his first 19 months in Congress is rated as highly as the most MAGA Republicans in the House. He’s earned a 94% from the maniacal Heritage Foundation (the average House Republican garners an 745% rating). The Freedom Index has him at 90%, and for comparison, madman Jim Jeffords is at 80% and the equally mad Speaker of the House is at 73%). So, you know who we’re dealing with here . . . If you need any more info, there’s this: He received the Award for Conservative Excellence from the infamous The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He liked that: “It is an honor to receive the Award for Conservative Excellence and be rated among the top 10% of the most conservative members of Congress. I will never stop fighting for conservative wins in Washington!” In short, he’s a MAGA doozy, thinking erroneously that he’s a “conservative,” when he’s a MAGA bomb thrower. And he seems to be a MAGA up and comer, especially given his bill’s success, No More Political Prosecutions Act of 2023, now on the House Union Calendar.

The No More Political Prosecutions Act of 2023

On April 11, 2023, Fry introduced H.R. 2553 and referred to which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by the MAGA star and irritant Jim Jordan. Fry’s website described the bill,

“Congressman Russell Fry (SC-07) has introduced the No More Political Prosecutions Act, legislation that would give Presidents and Vice Presidents, both former and current, the option to move their own civil or criminal cases from a state court to a federal court. Presidents and Vice Presidents are among the most visible politicians in the United States government — making them a target for rogue prosecutors looking to build up their profile and make a name for themselves on the political stage. Because of that threat, it’s important for Presidents and Vice Presidents to have the option to move their case to a federal court — where judges are confirmed by the U.S. Senate, serve in their role for life, and don’t need to win an election to keep their position. 

I’m proud to introduce the No More Political Prosecutions Act. Politically motivated prosecutors should not be able to wield unwarranted power and target our nation’s top leaders for their own personal gain. This legislation will prevent the political prosecutions of Presidents and Vice Presidents and thwart corrupt prosecutors’ agendas.’” [Emphasis in original]

28 U.S. Code § 1442 – Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted

(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.
(2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such officer, where such action or prosecution affects the validity of any law of the United States.
(3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for or relating to any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties.
(4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for or relating to any act in the discharge of his official duty under an order of such House;
(5) The President or Vice President, or a former President or Vice President. [Emphasis added]

(b) Application.—The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to civil actions or criminal prosecutions pending on the date of enactment of this Act or commenced on or after such date. [Emphasis added]”

The Donald Trump Legislation Machine

Fortunately, this legislative proposal, which is among many MAGA/GOP ideas specifically designed to protect Donald Trump from accountability, languishes on the House Calendar; let’s hope it stays that way. It’s another super-partisan example of the extent to which MAGA politicos go to subvert the very idea of creating laws of general applicability. The No More Political Prosecutions Act was introduced in January 2024, two months before Trump’s New York state criminal trial began, a trial that Trump, in 2023, tried to remove from state court to federal court where his team believed he’d fare better than in New York’s state court. This attempted movement is not illegal or even underhanded, it is an attempt at what is labeled forum shopping and is subject to complex removal rules.

Trump averred that the federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction because he was charged “for conduct committed while he was President of the United States that was within the ‘color of his office,'” and that the charges involved both federal and state election law violations about which the state election law was preempted by federal law, and thus ought to be removed to federal court. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who heard Trump’s removal request, denied it. POLITICO reported:

“In his written decision Wednesday [July 19, 2023], however, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein found that ‘[t]he evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President — a cover-up of an embarrassing event. He added: “Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President’s official duties.’” [Emphasis added]

As you see again, Trumpists have a very “liberal” view of official presidential acts. Don’t they see the irony in that? Of course they do. They just don’t give a damn.

In any event, Trump stayed in the New York judicial system and was crowned on the last day of May with 34 criminal convictions.

One can see, then, that Congressloon Russell Fry’s No More Political Prosecutions Act, introduced in January 2024, was then an obvious pander to Trump and for no other purpose. The bill’s language (see above) is phrased in general terms; it would be a bridge too far for even a MAGA superstar like Fry to explicitly limit the proposed legislation to Donald Trump exclusively. But for many MAGA acolytes, Trump presents a single purpose for them, to protect and defend. I have little doubt that Fry’s interest in the complexities of federal-state removal law ever burdened even a moment of thought prior to Trump’s New York indictment. He is, after all, just a water boy.


Billionaires Not helping Trump Pay His $500 Million Bond? Why Not & Who Might

More gruel, sir, Just a tad more?

Well, I for one, never underestimate Donald Trump’s sense of a public moment. He’s baffled us consistently by his madcap lawyers’ often deft, delaying of his criminal trials. He knows how to capture the national spotlight; witness his courthouse steps news conferences. He’s a savant of the moment. So, I’ll not bet against him ponying up the $500+ million surety bond on Monday next.

From where, we ask. Many CNBC types ponder why billionaires don’t simply step up to the plate for their favorite stooge whose 2017 tax bill advanced their interests. Is there no gratitude in Scrooge McDuck world? Well, no there isn’t. Billionaires are tight-fisted, generally, and in Trump’s case, they don’t want too close a relationship given the scrutiny they’d suffer if they – singularly or as a group – helped him. The billionaire class is exceptional in its shyness. And their poor relatives, the cento-millionaires would be unable to raise or guarantee a surety bond of that amount without mortgaging their fortunes to a guy who, put kindly, is a scofflaw. The cento-millionaire peanut gallery, too, is notoriously shy about press coverage and, well, unlike cento-billionaires, they actually need to be repaid.

However, one unnoticed aspect of being a galactically wealthy entity is liquidity, i.e. , how much money is in cash and available, unencumbered. Most super wealthy people manage their fortunes in ways that keep most every penny in a state of being they call “at work,” a euphemism for fully invested. In practical terms they have little cash on hand. This means that to raise cash for a Trump bailout, a soft hearted guy like Elon Musk or one of the Waltons would have to liquidate (sell off) investments to raise cash. Selling $500+ millions of, let’s say, stock or bonds to rescue Trump would be noticed, and they, as we know, are a shy bunch. In addition, sales of large stock holdings would likely affect the sale prices of these holdings negatively, for example, a rescue package of $500+ millions for the Donald might inevitably lead to the donor losing money as the stock dropped in value as it was super-actively traded. Rich folks hate losing money, even small amounts, almost as much as they hate publicity and press scrutiny.

Nevertheless, Trump is predictable. He’s very likely got something up his sleeve that was, perhaps, signed, sealed, and (about to be) delivered weeks ago looking forward to a “surprise” revelation at the eleventh hour, for instance, this coming Monday. Where from, who from? Let’s not forget so-called “sovereign funds,” cento-billions of dollars held by countries, not individuals. For the right favors that a Trump as president could and surely would provide, he’d have the ear of financiers for the Saudi, or Dubai, or other sovereign funds. And a second Trump administration plans to destroy all governmental snoopers, like the FBI, the SEC, the DOJ, who might object on foreign relations grounds.

I hope I’m wrong, but I’m betting on Trump whose criminal mind knows no limits, and the enablers who will cover it up.

Mob Boss Trump Gags on Gag Order and Let’s Hope It’s Permanent

Trump Drowns in the Rubicon

Trump’s latest descent into the mire whose depths he continually pushes toward infinity appeared yesterday on his vomit-inducing Truth Social with an attack on yet another innocent person. Trump posted a picture of Engoron’s law clerk with New York’s senior Senator Chuck Schumer, writing, “Why is Judge Engoron’s Principal Law Clerk, Allison R. Greenfield, palling around with Chuck Schumer?” Moreover, he referred to her as Schumer’s “girlfriend”: “Schumer’s girlfriend, Alison R. Greenfield, is running this case against me. How disgraceful!” Trump barged ahead, writing that, (therefore, of course), “This case should be dismissed immediately!!” Of course he treated his post as a motion to dismiss, “immediately!!”

Wherein Trump Learns “Immediately!!” is not a thing

There was immediate action and his faux motion to dismiss was itself summarily dismissed. Judge Engoron wasted no time. Trump’s post was quickly deleted pursuant to a court order wherein Engoron made clear that “personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, not appropriate.” Then the coup de grace, a gag order protecting his staff members and other court personnel. Trump did what a “never surrender” guy does, he quickly fled New York state to Florida, likely fearing his presence at his trial might at some future date (like tomorrow) result in a quick contempt order, and . . . arrest.

“Will No One Rid Me of This Turbulent Judge?”

Let us unanimously pray that no one does (unlike in the 12th Century Thomas Becket affair). This is the judge that seems best to have the measure of the nature of Donald Trump. Only quick and meaningful repercussions for his psychopathology will strike home. In this case, send him scurrying from New York to his Mar-A-Lago cocoon/pacifier.

In fact, Engoron’s response might have been more cutting by pointing directly to one of Trump’s hallmarks, his blatant and indefensible hypocrisy. The judge might’ve added the Instagram posting below, to put a superbly fine point on the mind of the maniacal former disgraceful president: Trump on innumerable occasions palling around with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, a far cry from Chuck Schumer . . . Perhaps next time Trump beards the lion, Judge Engoron . . . Eff around and find out.

Donny and Eric Trump Sue Dad in Family Court

Yesterday, in New York City, Donald Trump and codefendants Donald Jr, and Eric, were found to have carried out decades of civil fraud in their business dealings. The judge found “that Donald J. Trump persistently committed fraud by inflating the value of his assets, and stripped the former president of control over some of his signature New York properties.”

This did not go over well within the Trump family. Today, filing in a New York City family court, the Trump brothers brought suit against their father for parental neglect for his failure to have “informed us he was running illegal enterprises.” In addition, they demand reimbursement of their Trump University tuition which did not prepare them for business in the “real world” and caused them to take on “exorbitant levels of student debt which they still are paying off through part-time jobs in a grocery store.”

“He hid all his dirty doings from us,” Don Jr. and Eric asserted, in unison, “but Ivanka – his precious Ivanka – was shielded from his machinations!” (They are suing her as well for that.) “We went to work faithfully each and every day, signing anything, saying anything he ordered us to. Apparently we were lied to. By our own father!” They plan to borrow attorney fees from Trump campaign funds, which they’ve been assured, “is perfectly legal.”

Rudolph “Big Rudy” Giuliani Invokes Trademark Law to Stop Georgia from Using It Against Him, but Has “Plan B”

Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis deployed the RICO law in her indictment of Trump and 18 others for 2020 election fraud. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a powerful tool in cases where persons commit a variety of crimes under the leadership of an individual, something akin to a Crime Corporation. Best known for mob convictions, it can reach across layers of underlings right to the top of the organization. See here for important details about Georgia’s RICO law. In the mid 1980s, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Giuliani used RICO to convict the heads of mob families. At his height he took down the bosses of three of the “five [Mafia] families.” He was a trailblazer.

On Wednesday, the trail looped back on itself and ended at Rudy’s front door when he was himself indicted under Georgia’s RICO statute, and a supercharged RICO Act at that. With his group of 19 alleged Crimes-R-Us corporation, “Big Rudy” now faces 18 counts, including  including violation of oath by a public officer, making false statements, conspiracy to impersonate a public officer and forgery.

Last night a furious Big Rudy told Eric Bolling, Newsmax’s resident crackpot, “This is a ridiculous application of the racketeering statute,” Giuliani bragged, “There’s probably no one that knows it better than I do. Probably some know it as well, but I was the first one to use it in white-collar [crimes].” Indeed he does know RICO; he earned the association of RICO with his name.

Shortly after the Newsmax interview, Rudy Giuliani contacted our nightshift reporter, Nick Schultz. He had some news. He’d “fired a shot across the bow” of Georgia’s Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis when he claimed trademark infringement.

“I alone pioneered the use of RICO and I’m known around the world as RICO Rudy! So my name has become synonymous with RICO.”

Our reporter pointed out that “even bad publicity is good publicity, so your RICO indictment only puts a shine on your trademark.”

Big Rudy: “Like hell it does! They’re using my trademark to put me in jail! Are you that dumb.”

Schultz: “Hey, I’m asking the questions here!”

Big Rudy: “No, no, Big Rudy’s asking the questions whenever he wants! I have my methods . . .”

Schultz: “OK OK No need for mob tactics. ‘Yes, I am that dumb.'”

Big Rudy: “OK. So, here’s your big news: Tomorrow I’m demanding that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issue an injunction forcing the Georgia courts to not infringe my RICO trademark. Also, Georgia must immediately desist from carrying forward this idiotic election law case against me under my own RICO statute, which I own. And arrest Fani Willis for being the mob boss she is!”

Schultz: “That’s a big ask, governor.”

Big Rudy: “I decide what’s a big ask. And I was a mayor, a mayor, of New York City, you brainless fish tail!”

Schultz: “But what’s your plan B? Lawyers always have a plan B.”

Big Rudy: “If on the small chance the court dismisses my case . . .”

Schultz: “For lack of a brain . . .”

Big Rudy: “Look kid, I will end you if you insult America’s Mayor again. But I’ll give you my plan B. If my case is dismissed I’ll offer my RICO expertise to the prosecution. I’d need to be paid, of course, and dropped from the indictment. But I know RICO like the back of my dentures. They’d be foolish to refuse. They wanna win, don’t they? I’ll bring each of those defendant bums down! Especially the orange colored guy at the top!”

Big Rudy promptly hung up his phone. However, we here at They Will Say ANYTHING! are here to prove that they will, say, well . . . anything. And Big Rudy did.

Wisconsin’s Democratic Governor Tony Evers Applies Constitutional Alchemy to Veto State GOP School Funding Budget

“Everything that happens once can never happen again. But everything that happens twice will surely happen a third time.” – Paul Coehlo, author, The Alchemist

Using the veto wand…
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Alchemy-03-1024x654.jpg

Things do happen, especially when Wisconsin’s Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is clothed with an enormous power, the “partial veto.” His ability to magically alter the recently passed GOP state school funding budget extends those powers into another realm that is feared by Wisconsin legislators: governmental alchemy. Evers, the Alchemist-in-Chief, was AP reported, affronted by the GOP’s tax cutting mania and here’s what he did: he extended the pubic school budget’s $325 per student from 2023 to 2025 to 2023-2425 to prevent the GOP from cutting it in the future. The deep future – doing some quick cocktail napkin arithmetic that’s 402 years. And – bonus! – it’s permitted by Wisconsin’s constitution, the only state that allows a partial line item veto for appropriations bills. Only a court or a legislative act – overriding Evers’ partial veto is a non starter – can alter this. Period. Very Wisconsin. The AP put it well: “Evers’ partial veto extends a school funding increase farther in the future — 402 years — than the United States has been a country — 247 years.”

The Wisconsin governor has the power to partially veto appropriation bills, a power that is unique across all states. Most state constitutions grant the governor “item veto” power over appropriation bills, allowing the governor to strike or reduce appropriations. But the partial veto power allows the governor to strike words, numbers, and punctuation in both appropriation and non-appropriation text, thus giving the governor a role in the lawmaking process in a far more substantial way than simply having veto power over an entire bill. Armed with the partial veto, the governor can alter text and numbers to create laws that not only may have been unintended by the legislature, but also that the legislature deliberately rejected.

The Wisconsin Governor’s Partial Veto, Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau
The Gov in his alchemy attire

Yet, Gov. Evers may not veto appropriations provisions just by thinking about them, as a former president has claimed about classified documents. There’s no telepathic power clause in Wisconsin’s constitution although Evers may consider promoting it. This power confers upon the governor something akin to those of an alchemist; in a sense, he can turn water into lemonade, without interference, any time he likes with only limited exceptions.

These exceptions arose because past governors tried their own ways to alter appropriations, and other, bills. Some of them downright pesky, so much so that courts and politicos took notice and forbade them, a court called them “unusual, even quirky.” Quirky indeed. Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2017 issued a thousand-year veto to run from 2018 to 3018. Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson, became masterful. “Thompson didn’t just veto numbers. He vetoed words, parts of sentences, whole paragraphs and individual letters in a long string of words to create brand-new anagrams spelling out policies legislators never discussed.” Republicans hope to change that when Democrats are governors; Democrats hope to do same to Republican governors.

So this time around, Governor Evers deployed his magic to halt GOP attacks on public education; they favor charter schools and other things that weaken public schools. The governor, armed with a magic pen, executed what is known as a pro gamer move – “a maneuver or form of movement, smooth, yet quick, nimble and skillful.” Agree with the existence of a partial veto or not, Governor Evers, magically or otherwise, buttressed Wisconsin’s public school system for . . . 402 years, more or less. A good start if it survives the next governor.

Donald Trump may soon learn that defaming someone is a crime in thirteen states

Michael V. Matheron, May 13, 2023

Donald Trump the serial defamer (TSD) of E. Jean Carroll, who recently won a $5,000,000 civil defamation judgment against him, may not know this but he is criminally liable for defamation in thirteen states. Given his irresistible impulses to defy everything from common decency to criminal law it is likely that he will continue to defame her (and others). What, if anything, can be done?

In fact, during this Wednesday’s infamous CNN town hall he repeatedly defamed E. Jean Carroll, in New Hampshire, a state with a criminal defamation statute , and in front of an estimated three million witnesses, both town hall attendees and household tv audiences. And all this one day after he lost his New York civil case. In doing so, he perhaps violated the state’s penal law (NH Rev Stat § 644:11 (2022)):

644:11 Criminal Defamation. –
I. A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he purposely communicates to any person, orally or in writing, any information which he knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.
II. As used in this section “public” includes any professional or social group of which the victim of the defamation is a member.

Source. 1971, 518:1. 1992, 269:17, eff. July 1, 1992.”

Ms. Carroll, now considering filing a new civil defamation suit based upon TSD’s libelous remarks during the CNN town hall, ought to consider pressing a New Hampshire criminal charge against him, one that – given the words of the statute – points to a TSD violation. Note though, due to first amendment considerations, and TSD’s slippery nature, criminal defamation charges would be difficult to prove. Also, in New Hampshire a conviction does not merit jail time (although most states do) but they “may include monitoring by the department of corrections if deemed necessary and appropriate,” i.e., visualize TSD sporting an electronic surveillance cuff.

Despite these caveats a TSD charge is serious – and newsworthy – and a conviction would incur a criminal record; of course, that is something that MAGA types and some pundits would describe as a boost to his electability. Nevertheless, despite the odd popularity of criminal convictions by MAGA acolytes, up to thirteen states may be in the position going forward into the 2024 campaign to compile a record of defamation charges, and perhaps, convictions.

We can only hope something shuts him up, eh?

Many States Await

NOTE: Below is a table of the 13 states that have criminal defamation laws, prepared by Minc Law, which asserts, “In most states, a victim must show that the defamer knew their statements were false by proving it ‘beyond a reasonable doubt. ‘Civil libel cases, on the other hand, require a lower standard of proof than criminal cases.” But we can dream. . .

Idaho

Idaho Code 18-4802

“Every person who willfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.”
Louisiana

La. Rev. Stat. 14:47

“Defamation is the malicious publication or expression…to anyone other than the party defamed, of anything which tends: to expose any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse…”
Michigan

Mich. Comp. Law 750.370

It is a misdemeanor to falsely accuse another of a crime or “particular conduct,” such as a lack of chastity.
Minnesota

Minn. Stat. 609.765




Montana

Statute 45-8-212





New Hampshire

NH Rev. Stat. Ann. 644:11
“Whoever with knowledge of its defamatory character…communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of criminal defamation and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.”

“Whoever, with knowledge of its defamatory character, orally, in writing, or by any other means, including by electronic communication, as defined in 45-8-213, communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed commits the offense of criminal defamation and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 6 months in the county jail or a fine of not more than $500, or both.

“A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he purposely communicates to any person, orally, or in writing, any information which he knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.
New Mexico

NM Stat. Ann. 30-11-1

“Libel consists of making…or circulating without good motives and justifiable ends, any false and malicious statement affecting the reputation, business or occupation of another, or which exposes another to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace.”
North Carolina

NC Gen. Stat 14-47



North Dakota

N.D. Cent. Code 12.2-15-01(2)
“If any person shall state…to the manager, editor, publisher or reporter of any newspaper or periodical for publication therein any false and libelous statement concerning any person or corporation, and thereby secure the publication of the same, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”


“A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he willfully publishes defamatory matter or knowingly procures such publication or in any way knowingly aids or assists in the same being done.”
Oklahoma

21 Okla. Stat. 773

“Any person who makes a libel, willfully publishes one or willfully or knowingly aids in the making of a libel may be punished by up to one year in jail and/or a fine of $1,000 (and shall be liable in civil court to the injured party).
Utah

Utah Code Ann. 76-9-404

“A personal is guilty of criminal defamation if he knowingly communicates to any person orally or in writing any information which he knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.”
Virginia

VA Code Ann. 18.2-209

“Any person who knowingly and willfully states…any false and untrue statement…concerning any person or corporation…shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.”
Wisconsin

Wis. Stat. Ann. 942.01

“Whoever with intent to defame communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”