Impeachment II: Procedure and the Constitution

   In the United States, no man is above the law, and this is secured at the top by the constitutional provisions for the impeachment of the president. The procedure is drawn from 3 or 4 places in the Constitution. The president can be impeached and removed for “Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors”(II.4). The House of Representatives holds the “sole power of impeachment (I.2),” and by a majority vote, introduces articles of impeachment. These have in the recent past been drawn up by the judicial committee, but the committee system is not from the constitution, but tradition. Impeachment here refers to the accusation, which is then sent to the higher body, the Senate, for trial (I.3). The Chief Justice of the Supreme court presides over the trial, replacing the Vice President, who usually presides over the Senate (I.3). Two thirds, or here 67 Senators voting for conviction are required for removal. This may seem a high bar, but in the perjury charge against President Clinton, impeachment failed by a narrow margin, and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson failed by only one vote. President Nixon resigned, as Mr. Trump might, facing nearly certain conviction. Nixon was impeached for using the office of the presidency to obstruct the investigation into the plumbers break in at the Democratic Party headquarters. The second article was that he had abused his use of the FBI, CIA and IRS, violating the constitutional rights of citizens, and by establishing the plumbers as a secret investigative agency in the White House. He was also charged, in the third article, with defying the committee of Congress by refusing to produced the subpoenaed tapes, where, famously, he claimed executive privilege to withhold the tapes, but the Supreme Court decided that executive privilege did not cover hiding ones own guilt, but only national security or other crucial interests that are a legitimate part of the executive office.

   We would recommend the following articles be considered from among the vast store, and we focus on the comprehensive issues and the truth about what is occurring, rather than the smaller matters, which may indeed be a part of the impeachment, but taken by themselves may not succeed.

I Election fraud has been committed by rewarding the spread of false news and intimidating the press surrounding the U.S. elections of November 9, 2016, a high crime. A foreign government may also have been invited to interfere and may have been rewarded for interfering in the U.S. election. The internet was used in a comprehensive manner to interfere with the voters themselves, especially in the swing states. The Electoral College was then prevented from considering, as is their job according to the Constitution as explained in Federalist 68. 26 reasons for charging Mr. Trump with election fraud are presented in a previous blog.

II. The press has been intimidated with threats as just occurred this past weekend, when Mr. Spicer told the press there would be “consequences,” and the press was called the most dishonest group of persons ever (neglecting tyrants). This is a violation of the free speech clause of our constitution and of the oath of office taken just days before, a high crime.

III. Bribery is committed already, as the emoluments clause forbids receiving payments or loans from foreign governments.

IV. Constitutional procedures have been interfered with, as the attempt to bring the election fraud before the Supreme court in order to postpone the inauguration.

   Treason is narrowly defined (III,iii), and requires confession in open court or the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act- a bit more than a wink and a nod. But if Russian interference in the election was invited or encouraged, this may be treason.

   Detailed reasoning has been presented on the issue of election fraud in previous blogs on this website. The newness of the internet and Russian control of the internet has allowed this to occur, as these are simply not the results of a legitimate election or election process.

   To repeat, the delivery of our presidency through illegitimate election to one incapable of the office is a blessing to our enemies that may well have been intended. The immediate result for our nation will be the expansion of the war against ISIS to parties with whom we are not at at war, and the intended destruction of many of our sons and daughters. Domestic tyranny is also likely to result, as this president has praised the methods of the tyrant Duterte in the Philippines and the tyrant Putin in Russia, under the excuse of an unprecedented war on crime. Civil unrest is a certainty, and civil war a definite possibility. The security of our nation therefore, and not only considerations of Justice, requires the immediate impeachment of Donald Trump.

   One impeached may be subject to indictment, but is by impeachment itself subject only to removal from office ((II.4). In this case, that may be blessing for Mr. Trump, to be removed from an office for which he is unprepared, by peaceful and constitutional procedure. The illusion that by this we violate an election or fail to “give him a chance,” as would be required in an election that was without fraud and foreign interference, simply are not true in the present instance, a national crisis.

Constitution Man

…Son, what I do for work is not your business. I am a U.S. citizen dedicated to upholding all oaths of office to obey our constitution- but there is a virtual superhero, in the realm of the Invisible Republic, where lake Woebegone and text wrecks are more real than video games and English teachers like Ann Kurzon are heroines and  conversations can last thousands of years. Our Time warp portal can be entered sometimes through NPR, and sometimes through the spaces between the bookshelves and the isles in the public library, the last bastion of privacy, until the Pseudo-FBI took them over in a previous episode. And you thought the Texas Ranger from 1958 was cool! But bullets bounce off us because we do not quite exist even in the virtual reality of computers and the internet, but in a world that has been around longer, and will be here after. Constitution man will enter this world on occasion to uphold not parchment but the genuine constitution no one has ever seen, but yet it is, on the high end of “between being and not being,” just a little less eternal than the numbers, and a little further less than the deeds of the saints that are the garment of Bride. Constitution man comes from there, these phases of what Popper called World Three, and enters into our world to secure  particular constitutions in times of crisis, when normal authorities have been usurped by treachery, honest men and women deceived, and particular constitutional governments imperiled.


   Impeachment is of course next, though there may no longer be impeachment in the United States. A president may be impeached for crimes committed before his inauguration, and we had published a citizen’s arrest for election fraud. But after taking the oath, the shyster could not get through the weekend without violating the oath he had just taken to uphold the constitution. That is how it is when one has not read the constitution. Specifically, Trump has acted to intimidate the press, in having his Mr. Spicer tell all the journalists there would be “Consequences.” I am sure he does not mean only that they will make spirited counter-statements. One Wall street Journalist has stopped writing. Everything one says will only be used against you.

   The intimidation of the press is a very serious matter, and illegal for the executive to do. If Trump has had his Russian friends intimidate this blogger, it is probably also treason. As I was writing a comment on a letter to the president written by one working on the porch of the Supreme Court, a new page came on with naked women all over, like the Russian prostitute trolls, and then the scary picture came on with a few words including assassin and assassinate.” Two persons I had communicated with then appeared in hindsight in a different light, one with scary eyes and hair I had thought was a joke, and another  who indicated knowledge of my location. Charming. Impeachment is useless if we do not correct the communications, media and the violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

   The primaries, the elections, the Electoral College, the attempted indictment were all decisively interfered with by Russian control of the media and internet. Impeachment will now be impossible due to these, and the FBI and CIA are no longer free, working for a free government and not a tyrant. That leaves the States and the State police, who are under the governors, and I suggest that these grow some patriotism and forbid the violation of fundamental law and the U. S. constitution each within their respective states.

   By the way, no one has yet looked to see or try to trace my death threat, nor to raise a question regarding the procedure with which it interfered.

   But we have called on the Democratic party to begin impeachment in the House of Representatives. The “Republicans” do not need Trump or the Russians to run the table with their agenda now, and his popularity numbers were down to 32% at inauguration. So far, there is only that sissy movement to sue him for emoluments, though this may be enough and sufficient. What we have to be willing to face and counter is the Russian internet and Trumpster media interference, to arrest these people and regain control of our nation’s communications, even by stuffing that Bill of Rights down their throats.

   Whenever government fails to secure “these ends” or the fundamental rights, it is our right and duty to rebel. Impeachment is nothing compared to that, but is included in that right and duty.

Court Arguments: The Russian Election of 2016 should be Declared Null and Void: Evidence and Arguments

  The Courts are asked to declare the Elections of 2016 Null and Void for the immediate good and safety of our nation.

   Whole states can bring the case directly to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Other motions might also be filed, but these will arrive at the Supreme Court anyway, and part of the suit is that the inauguration cannot take place.One would think that cases involving foreign interference in federal elections would also qualify for original jurisdiction, since cases regarding foreign ambassadors do, and if the Russian ambassadors were asked to leave because of evidence that they interfered with the elections, the Court might hear the case directly without having to persuade a whole state to bring the case or waiting for the case to go through appeals. The right judges, too, might accomplish the appeals process in a single day, due to the emergency.

   We need to get some smart lawyers thinking out the procedure, for example, asking for time to prepare a case, during which time the election result is suspended, if the present evidence and reasoning are insufficient to conclude within four days.

Evidence might include

1) video of Mr. Trump saying that if Hillary wins, it will be fraud: Someone promised him the election.

2) Video of him saying that the means cannot be detected, especially the first time he said this. Later he said he knows a lot about computers, and it could have been anyone, how do we know it was Russia.

3) The National Enquirer and its ties to Trump. Days before the election, they accused Hillary of ties to Russia.

4) Business ties to Russia have been documented, as by the Huffington post.

5) The fake news has been spread through the internet, as in story that The Pope supports Trump.

6) Mr. Trump can be directly questioned about rewarding Breitbart for fake news. False advertising is a crime in business. Perhaps an indictment and questioning under oath can be entered as a corollary of the arguments to the supreme court.

7) The possibility of blackmail from the Miss Universe pageant.

8) Questioning about the selection of Mr. Tillerson for Secretary of State. He owned the building where the contest was held.

9) The possibility of affecting the electorate through spy-marketing: Facebook can testify.

10) The fact that Kaspersky is centered in Moscow, and handles computer security for 400,000,000 accounts, and is staffed by “former” KGB.

11) The fact that information can be collected and interference with voters targeted on this basis through computer analyses.

12) The possibility that this company worked with the FBI to prevent ISIS attacks.

13) The fact that this company pays NPR, and so controls the U.S. media to some extent.

14) The intimidation of the press such as Meghan Kelly. Examples can be called for, and press agencies questioned about intimidation, such as “If you are nice to me , I’ll be nice to you.”

16) The intimidation and disinformation of the Electoral College- ask members to testify or submit testimony through e-mails.

17) The repeated insistence that there was no “mechanical” interference. Paper copies of the ballots kept by each voter would have clarified recounts, such as in Detroit, though this was not done.

18) The refusal of Republicans to allow a recount of the votes, as in Michigan.

19) CIA information that is admissible, or their testimony that there is information they cannot share.

20) The partisan effect of the e-mail question raised by the FBI director, and the re-raising of this question days before the election without additional information.

21) Ask Mit Romney why he said Trump is a fraud.

22) Ask Mike Rogers about when he left the Trump administration because he was asked to lie about the responsibility of Secretary Clinton for the attack on the U. S. embassy in Benghazi.

23) Ask General Hayden why he said the Russian involvement in the election of 2016 was “The greatest covert operation in history.”

24) A pattern and characteristic of not caring if methods are immoral so long as legal, nor illegal if undetectable, can be established.

25)Redistricting has been used as a tool by the Republican party to enhance the effect of Republican votes and decrease the effect of the votes for the opposing party.

26) Voters were intimidated at the polls to discourage them from voting, especially in Democratic districts targeting likely democratic voters.

Only election fraud need be demonstrated, as treason is not the question required to declare the election void. All this might be done in a single day.

   It need not be shown that the effect of these frauds was decisive. A winner caught cheating is deprived regardless. As in sports, decisive effect may be obvious though difficult to prove, for example that steroids allowed Sosa to hit 70 Home runs cannot be proven, though it is obvious, and would hold up in such a case if the question is decided one way or the other on the basis of a preponderance of evidence, as in a lawsuit. The evidence of the polls suggest the effect was decisive. The Court can either disallow all Republican candidates, some, or declare Hillary president. We recommend keeping current officeholders seated and having a replacement presidential election with an examination of congressional elections.

   Evidence and argument can also be used in an impeachment in the House of Representatives, though this is not safe nor recommended unless the appeal of the states to the supreme court fails.

   The present statement can be edited and added to in order to make the language more precise and legal, by many other very smart and terrific people, and it will be just great, and sure to win.

   We call for Electors, Journalists and business partners, victims of Trump University, etc, to bring forth evidence and testimony.


The counterarguments generally are not real arguments. They are:

1 Ad Hominem, implying that such a person should not be listened to or cannot say anything true.

2) The argument given might be true, and still the point made of no effect, because the argument is irrelevant.

3) That fraud is impossible.

4) That fraud cannot be known.

But in no case is the argument refuted by the Trump brand counterarguments.

   There are many more arguments scattered throughout previous blogs, especially following November 11, when it occurred to me that the disparity between the popular and swing state votes was simply impossible, and Mrs. Clinton was then leading by less than one million votes. It is by far the largest disparity in history.

Eastpointe Police Beat a Drunk Driver

   Bye, bye officers. We the people will have your badge now. Stop resisting!

   These cops are so bad that this man is in a state of nature, where self defense is justified, except that they are wearing the badge. Take off your badge now and step in the ring with him, and if he loses, you can have me, and if I lose, I’ll give you my teacher, who teaches police how to use their hands as well as their minds and hearts. Stop resisting.

Merry Christmas. We ask for your penance and reparation.

Man files lawsuit for alleged Eastpointe police beating caught on video

That beating, caused the man to lose vision in one eye – and it was caught on video.

– A lawsuit was filed against Eastpointe police, alleging a brutal beating against a black man while he was restrained in a chair.

That beating caused the man to lose vision in one eye – and it was caught on video.

“If you keep acting like a child, you’re going to get strapped in that chair and you’re going to stay there,” an officer can be heard saying on the video. The date is August 10, 2015. Frankie Taylor has been picked up for drunk driving in Eastpointe – and that officer wasn’t kidding.

On the video, you can see officers pick Taylor up and take him to the chair and try to restrain him, threatening to tase him. That’s when another officer comes in, puts on gloves and strikes Taylor – repeatedly – knocking him unconscious.

“Stop resisting, stop resisting, stop resisting,” said an officer inbetween every strike. Multiple officers are huddled around Taylor and that officer, with their backs to the camera.

“The guy hit me so many times, it made me cry once I seen the tape [sic],” Taylor says. “I was knocked out.”

Another concern for Taylor was how he was treated or, in this case, not treated after being struck in the head. Taylor says he wasn’t taken to a doctor. Instead, he was transferred to the Macomb County Jail the next day. He eventually ended up at Detroit Receiving Hospital for surgery on his eye – an eye that had already had a lens replaced once.

“He has permanent loss of eyesight in one eye. His vision is severely compromised,” says attorney James Rasor. “He has these horrible nightmares.”

“I don’t feel like that I was a threat to the officers to the point that they had to hit me until I was unconscious,” Taylor says.

Attorney James Rasor alleges not only did Eastpointe police use excessive force on Taylor, they discriminated against him because he’s black, refusing to let him make a phone call – even though he says white inmates were allowed to do so.

“You want to protect people from this type of brutality by police forces,” says Rasor. “White folks were allowed to use the phone by police officers; even one who had urinated in his pants was allowed to use the phone. Frankie Taylor wasn’t, and the only difference is that Frankie Taylor happens to be African-American.”

“I wouldn’t expect this from officers,” says Taylor.

Rasor has filed suit in federal court. Eastpointe police say they can’t comment on pending litigation.

Why the Press Is Seriously Called the Fourth Branch of Government

   We sometimes jokingly call the press the “fourth branch of government,” in addition to the first three, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, in that order. But this saying is quite serious in one sense: the press has the ears, and has often proven to be the eyes of the people.

   The purpose of the U.S. constitution is to prevent tyranny while still having a large nation. To this end, power is divided in America between the three branches, where interests are set to check and balance one another, preventing excesses that tend toward tyranny. The three branches, though, are only one of four ways in which power is divided and balanced in the American regime. The states participate in the national or “federal” government while retaining some sovereignty; in truth, the states retain all powers not explicitly delegated to the national government in the articles of the Constitution. The meaning of this, if dormant, is evident in the historical curiosity that Madison at first wondered if an explicit Bill of Rights was even necessary, since the national government had been given no power to violate any of the amendments spelling out, for example, the freedom of the press, etc. and Habeus corpus had been spelled out in parts of the un-amended text which are in fact like a proto- Bill of Rights in Article I. Jefferson set Madison straight, though, in a letter from France, and Madison set about crafting the amendments. The Bill of Rights spells out the principles of the second sentence of the Declaration within the Constitution, which otherwise lacks a reference to equality and rights in the statement of purposes in its preamble (“We the people, in order…,” written by Mr. Morris of New York). An example is that the two religion clauses of the First Amendment spell out the pursuit of happiness, which is a natural, before it is a civil, right.

   The two party system, which developed extra-constitutionally, is another way in which power is divided, and here especially we see how interests are set to counter interests. Office holders are disinclined to investigate and criticize themselves, but there is always the opposition party there to gain advantage from exposing crime and corruption, especially in the opposing party. This is especially convenient in the executive branch, where the chain of command prevents the agencies from any self critical reflection, summoning reason and penance only when put to the stretcher. Pride, for example, prevents the FBI from raising any questions about itself, until the opposition party goes to the press, who informs the people. The whole Watergate scandal may have remained a mystery, had the New York Times, with its “liberal media” point of view, not gone to the people with the story that the Democrats were being hacked, shrinks offices bugged, etc. But we are getting around to that fourth branch.

 We have then 1) The three branches of government, 2) The Division between the national and state governments, 3) The two party system, and 4) The division between the government and the people. The people, through their votes, are to be the ultimate check on government, when things are going well. Guys like me, who are nothing more than a single citizen, but indentured to absolutely no one, can shout like the street prophet named “Jesus” in the history of Josephus at the fall of the temple, just before 70 A.D. Until the advent of the internet, the free press was the eyes and ears of the people, without which they could not possibly function as a check upon their government.

   In America, the difference between the Constitution and statutory law is a fifth way in which the powers of government are divided and set to check and balance one another (if we have not strained complexity yet). America introduced these checks on law into world history, with the first written constitutions. These five ways overlap and intersect, giving us the marvelously complex “layered cake,” as Cummings and Wise, I think, call it. The word Constitution, of course, has a broader meaning, as discussed best by George Anastaplo in his commentary on the Constitution.


Trumps Answers Imply: If It Were So, We Could Not Know

 The answer of Trump to the charges of Russian interference in the election all imply that if it were so, we could not know, are disallowed from considering and thinking it, and should do nothing about it? He answers just as he would if it were so and he knew it. Do not forget that Bright Bart provided domestic assistance. Trump and the Russians keep parading out the error regarding Saddam’s WMD. No one is asking the Donald, “Do you mean that if it were true, the CIA could not know?” And, “Do you mean that it is fine with you if it did happen, and you are a tyrant who will destroy American interests to the great delight of Putin in an endless grasp for power?” This is in fact what he means, and it is obviously false that the CIA could not know it. It is also false that the electors should not consider these things when they resoundingly and heroically reject the Trumpster and fulfill the function which the founding fathers intended their college to serve.

   Dolts who have never studied are not very good at the Constitution, so as to know when the election is really over, nor are they very good at logic. They do not know to with begin a line of investigation from an hypothesis, then watch all the things that do appear magically line up. The cosmos which led to our picture of the Copernican universe presented mankind with the question of what accounts for these appearances. For thousands of years the truth was right in front of us, but it in fact is very difficult to demonstrate that the earth is going around the sun and not the sun around the earth: How could one tell?

   Induction and deduction are difficult, because induction cannot prove an hypothesis. All the white swans in the world do not prove that all swans are white. That “conspiracy theories” are often false surely does not prove that there are no conspiracies. But that is why humans do not have certain knowledge or what Socrates calls “divine wisdom,” a certain chain of reasoning based on a certain first principle, such as that sought by Descartes.

   We are hoping for at least 40 electors who know a scam, a scammer and a tyrant when they see one, and are capable of setting aside partisan differences for the good of their nation when great matters just might be at stake. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats need Donald Trump, and the risk, given the evidence that does appear, is just too great for our nation. Besides, Hillary won the popular vote, so that the choice of the electors has added legitimacy. And the hands of the Democrats were deliberately tied by getting them to respond when the Donald said that if he did not win, the election would have been rigged. So much of a salesman’s accusations must be turned back upon themselves to find the truth from what appears.

   Again, we are not Democrats, but the Centrist Libertarian Constitutionalist party, the smallest political party in America!

Stop and Frisk: The Wrong Answer

   On many questions, the Donald unthinkingly gives answers that demonstrate or are consistent with his being a tyrant. His answer to crime, to impose “law and order,” in response to the erroneous shooting of so many citizens by police, is just what tyrants say. He is not going to call it the “iron fist,” because in addition to being a potential tyrant, he is a salesman.

   The policy of stop and frisk is not unconstitutional because of equality, but because of liberty. The police are not given the authority to interfere with citizens for no reason, nor for any reason, and it would not be ok if unconstitutional rule is applied evenly to “blacks” and “whites.” If whites were being shot equally, it would not then be constitutional to shoot the citizens, because equality, in the Fourteenth Amendment, is not the only thing the constitution has to say. Yea, if all were poor we would have less income inequality, but that is not quite what we meant to say about the disappearance of the middle class. People are often being shot when police had no reason to interfere with them to begin. The Eaton county case and the Tulsa case are extreme and obvious examples, and especially the L. A. shooting of John Berry. In Tulsa, Mr. Scott sat in his car waiting for his child and the school bus harming absolutely no one. No one seems to notice the violation of liberty,  and the cases are not even being argued this way, on the basis of the Fifth Amendment, because we no longer understand liberty. Especially after Boston, it seems, we gave the government the power to conduct blanket searches, and now the Americans do not want to object to these “preemptive” measures. But the errors involved in these shootings are precisely why the police ate not allowed to interfere with the liberty of the citizens for no reason. A deaf or confused person might then be obligated, on pain of immediate execution, to understand shouted orders and respond correctly. Rather than “stop and frisk,” and other unconstitutional violations of liberty that get people killed, why do we not exercise our foresight when the Constitution is being trashed, and consider where these things lead? Tyrannical measures can be made to sound “great,” and can solve many smaller problems in the shot run. Trump would give the police a blank check to bash heads, and the response would be riots, civil unrest, or worse. Trump supporters: dress you kids in bownshirts and prepare for war. But that is the point of the CLC.

We aim for a movement of liberty to equal that of the past half-century for equality.

Second Amendment and U. S. Gun Promiscuity

The Second Amendment has yet to be “selectively incorporated,” and this is where reasonable gun measures might be enacted. The Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states, though Madison, its author, wished it would. Gradually, each Amendment has been “Selectively Incorporated,” to assure, for example, that no state government forbid free speech or religion. The Amendments are funneled through the Fourteenth Amendment, the post Civil war requirement that states not violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of liberty. The right to counsel, to have a lawyer, has, for example been required of the states following the Gideon v. Wainwright decision. Prior to this, the right to be represented by a lawyer applied to federal but not to state trials. The exceptions are the second and Eighth Amendments, which have not yet been selectively incorporated, according to our Cummings and Wise political science text. And this is where progress might be made on gun control. We have suggested state licensing similar to the driver’s licence, where those not meeting minimal conditions of safe driving can be excluded from the highways for the benefit of the other drivers they might injure. The answer was that we do not have a Constitutionally recognized right to drive, but we do have a guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. We will have to figure out what this means and how it might be partially incorporated with adaptations to the states. But the states are not bound by the Second Amendment directly, and this is where progress might be made. States can forbid gun shows, for example, and other forms of irresponsible sales, and we think the states can require licences like the permit required to carry a gun concealed. And if the states do the regulating, the conflict between the NRA and the federal government can be side stepped, and we will have to consider the meaning of the purpose of the second Amendment, pertaining to the need for a well regulated militia in a free state. And local differences can then be considered, with different laws in Florida, Detroit, New York and Montana each suited to the local circumstances. Once again, the federal system where some state sovereignty is retained on certain issues proves the resilliance of the U. S. Constitution.

Eric Lichtblau Discusses Surveillance on NPR’s Fresh Air

   It is very nice to know that the FBI is now unlimited in setting undercover agents on absolutely anyone, due to that nice secret FISA “court.” The Justice department and the agencies think that they do not even need a warrant, say, to commit rape for the purposes of surveillance, as I believe occurred in my own case. Everyone agrees that such things are being done, though if one asks that a particular instance be looked into, nothing will be done, and our representatives are simply intimidated. The agencies are free to stage any scene, long or short term. We consider this to be a violation of liberty which indeed requires a warrant. Again, I believe my former fiance was a person set on me due to proximity to the CIA in my education, and no one cares or will do anything about it. Billions of dollars are spent turning one third of America into spies upon another third, and this is just fine with the majority. Nothing is spent repairing damages, and these criminals, who violate our fundamental law, are never held accountable: They just keep ascending, say, to positions where they might use their practice at psychological torture. To us they say: “If you let us rape and blacklist that one person, we will keep you safe from nuclear attack and terrorism, but if you do not allow us to suspend the Bill of Rights we are sworn to uphold, why, there are just no guarantees.

   Again, I want Congress to ask, and those involved to be required to tell the truth regarding everything, now, that was ever done to me in my education and following, because it destroyed my career and chance to have a family, and was for thirty years a kind of blacklisting and psychological torture. It is likely that I did not please a professor who was also an undercover agent, or that my father was slandered by Michigan and Washtenaw County police, or that I angered the cops when I protested about weed and a woman was set on the protest, or had a Russian friend in college, or did not please the Catholic orthodoxy at my schools, or wore my hair too long, or expressed libertarian cynicism, or perhaps expressed that fourth assertion of the second sentence of the Declaration, which says it is our right and duty to overthrow our government when it ceases to secure these rights. And we will ask all these cops, too, do you believe that assertion, or not? Do you uphold that Declaration, and would rebel against tyranny if it were established over our land in subversion of our Constitution? Perhaps they can get themselves on the list, even for swearing to uphold the Constitution.

   Eric Lichtblau did not discuss the use of women or the imitation of love in spying, as this is just too sensitive yet to discuss, and of course, we do not want to reveal their Machiavellian methods to the enemy. We are a half step from genuine domestic torture, because hey, you know, one just can never be too sure.