Tuesday, October 25, 2022

Dept. Of Justice Stands Up To Trump & He Backs Down Jan 3rd 2021



On January 3, 2021 DOJ Acting and Deputy AGs prevented Trump’s misuse of Department of Justice for overturning Biden’s 2020 election using debunked conspiracy theories. 

The insurrection at the Capitol happened just a few days later on January 6th 2021.


Voters should have known better than to elect Trump in a fair election in 2016. After all, he had the reputation of  arrogance, self-centered narcissism, and appeared to be more of a user than a server. He had no experience as political office holder and no military service. His loyalties did not extend very far beyond himself.  

U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, however, has a long record as an ethical businessman, family man, and politician. And on March 3, 2016 during Trump’s primary run, Romney methodically called him out as a “con man”, a “fake” and a “phony.”  Romney, a republican, said Trump should not be the GOP nominee.  Find Romney’s speech here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iefXdC794  

I listened to that speech. Everything Romney said sounded credible at the time and has never been proved wrong or biased. Trump's unsuitability for President has always been on public display.

During the televised Republican primary debates, I found it hard to stomach Trump’s disrespectful behavior towards his fellow debaters. It was difficult to understand why he was gaining popularity throughout the debates. It was hard to believe he was winning the state primaries. He won the Republican nomination.  


Romney warned of damage to our country. And, two years after Trump was voted out of office, he is still actively disrupting our democracy.

As covered up with civil and criminal problems as the twice impeached Trump currently is, some political commentators warned that Trump could still run for president. And as of 2024 his leads all republicans campaigning for president.


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been effectively protecting our civil rights and liberties for over 100 years. The ACLU is independent of government. It has been a successful watchdog of the Federal and State governments; the ACLU works to insure government  does not trample on our civil rights of us citizens. At one time or another they have sued the majority of the States and presidents. For example, in George W. Bush’s first term, they filed 13 legal actions against him.

The ACLU anticipated Trump’s likely legal assaults on civil rights well before his inauguration. Trump became the first and only president for which the ACLU prepared in advance in case he might win(Cose, 2020). The ACLU reports it has so far filed 400 (yes, that’s 400) legal actions against the Trump administration. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-has-filed-400-legal-actions-against-trump-administration




What does subvert, subverting or subversion mean? They refer to a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or part of government by people working from within.

All of the specific information from the January 6th Committee under this heading comes from two sources immediately below unless otherwise indicated:

“Pure Insanity: Trump Pushed DOJ to Chase Absurd Conspiracy Theories to Overturn 2020 Election,”  by democracynow.org. https://www.democracynow.org/2022/6/24/italygate_conspiracy_theory_italian_contractor_elections

“Top DOJ Staff Threatened Mass Resignations as Trump Weighed Naming Jeff Clark AG to Overturn Election.” By democracynow.org. https://www.democracynow.org/2022/6/24/house_select_committee_capitol_attack_fifth

(1)   Toward the end of Trump’s first term as president, at the end of 2019, he learned he might lose the upcoming election. He reacted by publicly sowing doubts about federal election integrity, predicting widespread election fraud, and either saying or strongly implying that if he lost it would be due to an illegitimate election.

(2)    Trump loyalists Mark Meadows (Trump’s Whitehouse Chief of Staff), Representative Scott Perry, and lower level Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Jeffrey Clark (all republican) collaborated on getting Clark in front of Trump to coordinate actions within the DOJ to overturn Biden’s election win.

That politics should be strictly kept separate from the DOJ  is a long standing, seriously enforced boundary in American government.  The January 6th Committee sworn testimony revealed that Trump and Representative Scott Perry wanted for the low level DOJ attorney Jeffrey Clark to use a combination of conspiracy theories to invalidate Biden’s win.

To accomplish this, Trump’s like-minded election deniers were feeding Trump many conspiracy theories  which they believed could be used in overturning the election if the DOJ got behind the effort.  

Here are a few examples of those conspiracy theories which Jeffrey Clark brought to the Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and the Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue.

·         That there was an independent Antrim County hand count of ballots by the Allied Security Operations Group which claimed to find a 68% error rate. But in fact, the actual rate was error rate for ballots counted by machine was only one ballot in 15,000 (an acceptable, very low error rate of .0063%).  See much more information on this at:  https://www.democracynow.org/2022/624italygate_conspiracy_theory_italian_contractor_elections

·     Then that there was an “Italygate” hack. The DOJ Acting AAG and Deputy AGs (Rosen and Donoghue) informed the January 6th Committee of a very complex, bizarre conspiracy theory that was somehow based in Italy. The various parts of this conspiracy reportedly included: an employee in the U.S. Embassy, a defense contractor who hacked a satellite, support from the CIA and M16, and switching votes from Trump to Biden.  This information and much more can be found in:  https://www.democracynow.org/2022/6/24/italygate_conspiracy_theory_italian_contractor_elections

         See several false claims of election fraud and why they were debunked, including the one at State Farm Arena in Georgia, can be found at:  https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9900544617

(3)   How the DOJ Acting AG Rosen and Deputy AG Donoghue confronted Trump:

It became clear to DOJ Acting and Deputy AGs (Rosen and Donoghue) that Trump (along with Representative Scott Perry, and Jeffery Clark) were repeatedly presenting conspiracy theories, trying to engage the DOJ in supporting one or more such conspiracy theories-- and to then engage the DOJ in subverting the 2020 election to help Trump’s staying in power.

Then, on December 31st of 2021, the following dramatic series of events occurred—as starkly revealed in the sworn testimony produced from the January 6th Committee:

·         Representative Scott Perry sent a 20 minute video about the ItalyGate hack  to Mr. Mark Meadows, the Whitehouse Chief of Staff.

·         The next day Mr. Meadows sent the ItalyGate Hack to DOJ AAG Rosen, who in turn forwarded it to Deputy AD Donoghue. The FBI investigated the video and the ItalyGate Hack narrative and found it was preposterous; it was regarded as one more debunked conspiracy theory. I appears that the DOJ and FBI sufficiently investigated these conspiracy theories to sufficiently debunk them.

·         Mr. Meadows persisted in attempting to get Acting AAG Rosen to meet with the ItalyGate hack video creator, Mr. Johnson. But Acting AG Rosen refused because ItalyGate was preposterous and had been debunked.  Mr. Meadows again persisted and asked, “Well, why won’t you meet with him?” And Rosen said, “Because if—if he has real evidence, which this video doesn’t show, he can walk into an FBI field office anywhere in the United States. There’s 55 of them.” Then Mr. Meadows said, “OK.”

Subsequently, on January 3rd of 2022, further dramatic events occurred-- as revealed by the January 6th Committee. There was a very lengthy meeting which eventually included President Trump, AAG Rosen, Deputy AG Donoghue, Mr. Jefferey Clark and a few others:

There is documentation from Whitehouse logs that the lower level DOJ attorney Mr. Jeffery Clark was being referred to as the Acting Attorney General (but he had not been actually appointed as such). 
In the meeting, the conspiracy theories were brought up, discussed , and there was explanation as to why they  were debunked.

         AAG Rosen testified to the January 6th Committee that President Trump turned to him and said, “Well, one thing we know is you, Rosen, you aren’t going to do anything. You don’t even agree with the claims of election fraud. And this other guy [presumably Jeffrey Clark] at least might do something.”  AND THEN, ROSEN SAID, “Well, Mr. President, you’re right that I’m not going to allow the Justice Department to do anything to try to overturn the election. That’s true. But the reason for that is because that’s what’s consistent with the facts and the law, and that’s what’s required under the Constitution. So that’s the right answer and a good thing for the country, and therefore, I submit, it’s the right thing for you, Mr. President.”

 And then, President Trump asked what would he have to lose by removing Rosen and replacing him with Jeff Clark.

        Rosen said President Trump would have a lot to lose, as would the Justice Department, and the whole country. There was some discussion of whether Jeff Clark was qualified to run the Justice Department, and Rosen said Clark was not qualified and provided reasons for this opinion.


    Then, when President Trump asked what would happen if he put Jeffrey Clark in the Attorney General’s position, Deputy AG Donoghue said, “Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I’m not working one minute for this guy, who I had just declared was completely incompetent.”

         Donoghue went on to add that all the assistant attorney generals in the department would resign:  “Your entire department leadership will walk out within hours.”   Here is another, easy to read story of what happened and it has a good picture of the oval office where it all took place:   https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107217243/former-doj-officials-detail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting


First of all:  There was no significant voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. State and Federal courts dismissed more than 50 lawsuits from Trump or his allies asserting election fraud. Read the whole article, “Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign” here at:  https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1

Secondly, the January 6 Committee’s investigation produced extremely relevant sworn testimony from Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue; that testimony described Jeffrey Clark and  Representative Scott Perry delivering and/or attempting to deliver to Trump conspiracies theories as causes of election fraud; the election fraud would be [how is not clear] the basis for overturning the 2020 election that Trump lost. Furthermore, Trump was exploring replacing Rosen with Jeffrey Clark, who would be in control of the Department of Justice and likely to cooperate with Trump’s designs to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election. 

These two links provide the sworn testimony which documents these events:



On January 13, 2021 Trump was impeached for a second time.  His charge was incitement of insurrection. Regardless of his wrong doings, his term as president ended a week later.  


Any references not found above are on the page  BIBLIOGRAPHY/ WORKS CITED  in the VotersGettingControl.blogspot.com/ blog.

    - END –




Sunday, October 2, 2022

Seven Steps That Ended Roe v. Wade Abortions Rights 1973 - 2022


 “Dobbs” in this blog, will refer to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case.


What was to become Dobbs, emerged from Trump's mind during the 2016 Republican Party Presidential Debates and Forums. Yes, he wanted to win the nomination; and he noticed that when he made comments against abortion his ratings went up. 


For conservative Republicans, an implied or explicit anti-abortion campaign strategy often works well—regardless of what the politician really believes. (Of course, Democrats have their own version of this when they support reproductive rights.)


Narrative Display In Veterans Memorial Flag Park







Beginning my research, I noticed something odd. The Mississippi abortion law was designed, intended to be, unconstitutional. It prohibited abortion after 14 weeks. But Roe prohibited abortion after 24 weeks. According to the New York Times, the law was enacted in 2018 “[By] the Republican-dominated Mississippi Legislature but never went into effect because of an immediate legal challenge that led to a federal appellate court blocking its enforcement” as found in:  https://www.nytimes.com/article/mississippi-abortion-law.html   



The Mississippi AG said she was seeking to overturn the Supreme Court precedent. So the Mississippi anti-abortion law sounds like it was a setup. I recall at the time hearing several political analyst opinions to the effect that this new law, because of the way it was written, could result in overturning Roe v. Wade. 



When I decided to write about Dobbs and the end of Roe v. Wade, I was unprepared for the variety of strong negative feelings arising within me. I thought I could be emotionally detached; but I had to repeatedly, consciously, redirect my mind to focus just on the constitutional story and the controversial strands of logic. 



My goal in writing is certainly not emotional drama. My goal is to educate readers on how our government works—whether well or poorly—on even horrendously difficult and disturbing issues. Therefore, it's best to try to minimize negative emotions. Instead, focus as if you are trying to follow a series of steps which lead to a result. Carefully visualize those steps in your mind, and then you can say, “Oh, so those are the steps taken on the path to the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS’s) overturning Roe v. Wade.



Whether you are pro or con about reproductive rights, it’s best not to get emotional about SCOTUS. Look at SCOTUS as governmental machinery in which nine justices push a button yea or nay to reach a majority decision


Chief Justice John Roberts is a very experienced, moderate and considerate judge. I have watched him over many years and believe he is a great chief Justice.


During his Senate confirmation hearings, he said something very important: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.” Can be found at:    


In reading SCOTUS opinions, it’s easy to pick sides on a topic and get hostile toward the justices one disagrees with. That is not helpful. What IS HELPFUL is storing in your heart a determination to motivate yourself and others to vote for THE President who will put in THE liberal or conservative kind of judge you would like there. The one and only way you can influence the Supreme Court is by voting for the presidential candidate who promises the kind of SCOTUS judge you want.  






You already are familiar with the word “concept,” but I use it in a formal sense. A “concept”  it is a complex idea, having multiple parts which work together for some designed purpose. It’s not just one single idea, or thing, or feeling.  An example of a governmental concept is balance of power among the three branches of government. 



There is an important concept of originalism: “In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted" (as found in Wikipedia). 



In the Dobbs decision-making, several of the conservative judges based their logic on an originalistic approach to understanding what the Constitution’s words and sentences mean. Contrasting to originalism is the perspective that the Constitution is a “living” document which changes both from amendments and the gradually evolving legislated laws forming the U.S. Government. 



Conservative Supreme Court justices have tended to use originalism as a justification for denying various rights to the people.



Here are three online, understandable articles which will help you understand how Dobbs came about. They are well written, thoughtful, and I don’t think they are partisan. In these articles there are well-explained concepts worth studying. The more you understand the concepts, the more meaningful and powerful will be your voting.


CATO: https://www.cato.org/blog/hard-problem-abortion-rights

New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/article/mississippi-abortion-law.html


Political scientist Morgan Marietta, University of Massachusetts, Lowell: https://theconversation.com/a-revolutionary-ruling-and-not-just-for-abortion-a-supreme-court-scholar-explains-the-impact-of-dobbs-185823


From the Harvard Crimson by Isabella B. Cho and Brandon L. Kingdollar, Crimson Staff Writers: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/6/25/dobbs-experts-reax/



Keep in mind three concepts:

  • First, as I’ve stated in past blogs, the basis, the foundation for understanding the actions of 95% of people is: Everyone is trying to get more of what they want and less of what they don’t want. All the time. Their behavior is always a means of getting to some goal or end point in the future. And, when we look at a person’s behavior over time, we can figure out their goals. People who talk a lot will always betray their motives--if we listen.
  • Second, people’s usual thoughts, feelings, values, and behaviors vary a lot. This leads to vast differences of opinions, conflicts, and changing allegiances to personalities of politicians
  • Third, people are “driven” or motivated by powerful and deep feelings about: sex, marriage, children, privacy, birth control, abortion, reproductive freedom, and freedom from State and Federal government intrusions. Laws at the State and Federal Levels regulate what people can do or must not do.


Politics is very important, serious, messy, awful to cope with. It is worth learning about. The Greek’s had the first democracy. The famous leader Pericles said,


Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. ” 






(1) Roe v. Wade came in 1973 and allowed abortion. It was a divisive SCOTUS ruling from the beginning. Some groups of people celebrate it and some despise it. Some of you may have heard of the partial birth abortion method; but that procedure was banned in 2003; and, in 2007 the constitutionality of that ban was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.




(2) In the early 1970’s various religious groups took official stands against Roe v. Wade and abortion. Many churches respected the separation of church and State (defined in the very first Constitutional Amendment in 1791). 


But, in the mid-1970s, a small group of evangelical Christians devised an agenda to increase their political power in support of conservative politics. Although no one was forcing these evangelicals to support liberal or diversity values, they eventually tried to take on the role of being victims of diversity AND LGBTQ rights.  They grew their influence over decades. By the time of the Trump Administration:

  • “For guidance, [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions turned to leading experts at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the powerhouse Christian right legal advocacy organization that had battled for years to ban same-sex marriage and abortion, elevate expanded religious rights for conservative Christians, and erase the separation of church and state. The ADF was omnipresent in every one of these fights in court, and in the court of public opinion.” This is from the book Unholy: How White Christian Nationalists Powered The Trump Presidency, And the Devastating Legacy They Left Behind (Posner, 2021).


(3)  Republican Mitch McConnell, was the most powerful man in the Senate at the end of the Obama Administration in 2016; and he  contrived to prevent Obama from filling a vacancy in the Supreme Court. That allowed the incoming Trump to appoint another very conservative justice. Ultimately Trump would appoint three justices. And they did not disappoint Trump and the Republican Party. Trump's three ultra conservative republican Justices, were the reason Roe v. Wade was overturned.



(4)  The highly experienced Representative John Boehner said that, “The biggest impact any president can have . . . is who’s on the [Supreme] court” (Califano, Jr., 2018).



Former president Trump, during his one term, put three new justices on the Supreme Court. They are republican, conservative, and their names are: Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. These are lifetime appointments. Their personal and professional values and biases will influence the Supreme Court for years to come. 



(5) Historically, constitutional scholars say that the will of the people has influenced the decisions of the Supreme Court. It is one of many inputs influencing how the judges vote. The Pew Research Center is a highly respected source on public opinion.  Public opinion on abortion fluctuates up and down from year to year. But, from 1995 forward to the present, the American public has supported having abortion legal in all or most cases. More specifically:



(6) On June 24, 2022 the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion OVERTURNED Roe v. Wade.  The SCOTUS  opinion finds that the regulation of abortion is a matter for the individual States; that it is for State legislatures to make abortion law; and that the Supreme Court by its opinion “[R]eturns that authority to the people and their elected representatives” (as found on page eight of the Dobbs Syllabus).



(7) The well-regarded Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe reacted very negatively to the Dobbs opinion. He made several points:

The Supreme Court reversed Roe because of the three additional conservative judges put there by Trump. 

States will likely unleash conflicting laws with provisions as in Texas which put citizens in the position to punish those who would seek out abortions.

The flavor of Tribe's article seems to say that the SCOTUS ruling was wrong, harsh, unfeeling, and will be disruptive.




I still find a lot to like about our Supreme Court and believe overall it has performed well for our country. By earnestly studying the Court, a citizen can see that its methods make sense. It’s usually efficient and wise. 



But occasionally the Court must fix some of its mistakes. In this blog we have proceeded through the steps that led to the Court's repealing Roe and Casey.



I don’t believe an issue as big as reproductive rights can be simply right or wrong. But I strongly believe average Americans have been poorly served by our government and the big money influencers. 


Now and in the future we will most likely have to live with the States controlling abortion regulations. But the inevitable major differences in state-level abortion laws will lead to conflicts—conflicts which can only be resolved by the Supreme Court stepping in. Historically, when railroads, commerce, or people seeking abortions are crossing state lines and confront conflicting state laws, these are problems SCOTUS was designed to handle.   


I hope all citizens work out their well-informed opinions on abortion, discuss them with others, and VOTE IN ALL AVAILABLE ELECTIONS. 



 For references, see the relevant page on the powertomyvotes.com website.



- END - 



  1350 Words   INTRODUCTION Here’s what happened in America   on January 6 th , 2021: “After refusing to concede the 2020 U.S. preside...