Sunday, November 23, 2025

Trump Trial Pro forma

James George

Government 

23 November 2025



Trump Trial Pro forma 

Follow the rule of law 

I lie awake at night, thinking about what is to come, and reconciling myself to the end of the Trump regime. How will it go?


President Trump, you are charged with failing to uphold your oath of office and your allegiance to the US Constitution. How do you plead?


[The plaintiff's attorneys advise a plea of not guilty, and he grumbles and swears to himself.]


Laws and regulations, as well as our Constitution, are written in a manner that the average citizen can understand. I am turning my allegations over to Constitutional lawyers to prosecute the case.


Here is a list of indictable charges accompanied by references to specific evidence:




List of Directives from Trump that are illegal

Numerous directives from the Trump administration have been challenged in court, with many being temporarily or permanently blocked by federal judges as unlawful or unconstitutional. These rulings often center on issues of executive authority, statutory interpretation, and constitutional rights. 

Key examples of directives found by courts to be illegal or unconstitutional include:

  • Blocking Federal Funding for "Sanctuary" Cities: Federal courts consistently blocked the administration's efforts to withhold federal funds from "sanctuary" cities and counties that limited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts, ruling the action unconstitutional.
  • Ending Birthright Citizenship via Executive Order: Multiple federal judges have blocked the administration from enforcing an executive order that sought to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, citing that the 14th Amendment and over a century of Supreme Court precedent guarantee birthright citizenship and that such a change would require a constitutional amendment.
  • Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans: Courts issued preliminary injunctions against a broad, sweeping freeze on federal grants and loans for various programs (including for medical research and education), finding the policy unconstitutional and potentially catastrophic for affected organizations.
  • Ban on Transgender People Serving in the Military and Other Transgender-Related Directives: Federal judges blocked directives that aimed to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military or ended federal funding for medical providers who offered gender-affirming care, finding they violated equal protection rights.
  • Targeting of Specific Law Firms: A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against executive orders that targeted specific law firms (like Perkins Coie, Paul, Weiss, and WilmerHale) with sanctions and removal of security clearances, noting the action "casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportion across the entire legal profession".
  • Efforts to Dismantle Federal Agencies: A U.S. District Court judge permanently blocked an executive order aimed at dismantling the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), a federal agency, finding the action unlawful.
  • Tariffs Imposed Under Emergency Powers: A U.S. Court of Appeals found the President had exceeded his authority when imposing certain tariffs using a national emergency statute, ruling the action "invalid as contrary to law" because tariffs are a core Congressional power.
  • Anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Executive Orders: Federal courts issued preliminary injunctions against executive orders that sought to terminate equity-related grants and contracts and required certifications that grantees did not operate programs promoting DEI, ruling they likely violated the First and Fifth Amendments. 


List of actions defying court orders

During his presidency and in his post-presidency actions (which are also facing legal challenges), Donald Trump has been accused of, and in some cases found by judges to have, defied or ignored court orders and legal rulings. 

Key instances include:

  • Deportation using the Alien Enemies Act: In April 2025 (post-presidency), the Trump administration was accused of removing over 100 alleged gang members to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act despite a federal judge ordering that they be returned to the U.S..
  • Foreign Aid Freeze: A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration violated a court order to temporarily unfreeze foreign aid. The judge declined to hold officials in civil contempt but confirmed the administration had transgressed the order.
  • Targeting Law Firms with Executive Orders: In March 2025 (post-presidency), Donald Trump issued executive orders aimed at penalizing specific law firms (Perkins Coie, Paul, Weiss, WilmerHale) for various reasons, including their diversity initiatives or association with investigators like Robert Mueller. One firm, Perkins Coie, secured a temporary restraining order blocking most provisions of the executive order, but the initial order itself represented an attempt to use executive power in a way that prompted immediate legal challenge and judicial intervention.
  • Immigration Policies: Various lawsuits challenged the Trump administration's immigration policies, with judges issuing injunctions and rulings against actions such as withholding federal funds from "sanctuary cities" and altering asylum rules. The administration was often accused of continuing practices or implementing policies that had been at least partially blocked by court orders.
  • Border Wall Funding: Legal battles over the use of military funds for border wall construction after declaring a national emergency involved court orders that were challenged by the administration.
  • Birthright Citizenship: Federal judges issued preliminary injunctions to block a Trump executive order restricting birthright citizenship. 

In some cases, critics argued that the administration's pattern involved ignoring initial court rulings or continuing actions until higher courts intervened, leading to accusations of a general disregard for judicial authority. 



List of actions undermining legal precedent and norms

Legal experts and scholars have identified numerous actions by Donald Trump that they describe as challenging established legal precedents and democratic norms, primarily centered on an expansive view of executive power and a disregard for the rule of law. 

Key examples of these actions include:

  • Politicizing the Department of Justice (DOJ): This includes pressuring the DOJ to investigate political rivals and overturn the 2020 election results, departing from the post-Watergate norm of an independent DOJ.
  • Challenging election results and democratic processes: This encompasses efforts to pressure election officials to change vote counts, contesting the legitimacy of the 2020 election, and his involvement surrounding the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.
  • Attacks on the judiciary and the legal profession: Trump has frequently criticized judges who issued rulings against him, calling them "radical left lunatics" and "deranged". His administration also issued executive orders that targeted specific law firms (e.g., Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss) due to their associations with individuals involved in investigations against him or their pro bono work, an action a judge noted "casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportion across the entire legal profession".
  • Defiance of court orders and congressional oversight: The Trump administration, in several instances, was accused of failing to comply with court rulings and defying subpoenas from Congress, creating conflict with the principle of the separation of powers.
  • Abuse of appointment power: Legal experts noted a norm-breaking reliance on "acting" officials who had not been confirmed by the Senate to lead federal agencies, circumventing the constitutional appointments process.
  • Misuse of presidential pardons: The granting of pardons to political allies and individuals involved in the January 6 insurrection has been described as a use of presidential power to reward loyalty and undermine investigations into wrongdoing.
  • Efforts to circumvent Congress's power of the purse: The administration attempted to impound (freeze) congressionally approved funds for programs it opposed, which was met with legal challenges and temporarily blocked by courts.
  • Undermining the independent civil service: Actions included attempts to replace non-partisan, expert civil servants with political loyalists and summarily firing inspectors general (watchdog officials) without providing the statutorily required detailed rationale to Congress.
  • Targeting of civil society and the media: The administration launched government attacks on perceived enemies, including non-profit organizations, news organizations, and activists, which critics argue was an attempt to suppress dissent and free speech.
  • Challenging constitutional principles like birthright citizenship: Trump issued an executive order declaring he would end the long-standing understanding that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents, an order subsequently blocked by a federal judge as "blatantly unconstitutional". 

These actions, among others, have led legal scholars to raise concerns about the erosion of the rule of law and a move towards an "imperial presidency". 



List of actions undermining the role of Congress

Donald Trump's actions have been widely documented and litigated as attempts to expand executive power and undermine the constitutional role of Congress in areas such as the power of the purse, oversight, and legislative authority. 

Key actions include:


Undermining the Power of the Purse 

  • Withholding Congressionally Approved Funds: The Trump administration repeatedly attempted to freeze or block billions of dollars in funds that Congress had already appropriated, most notably nearly $5 billion in foreign aid. This led to legal challenges, with federal courts ruling that the President cannot unilaterally withhold appropriated funds.
  • Attempted "Pocket Rescission": The administration attempted to use a rare maneuver called a "pocket rescission" to permanently cancel approved funding without congressional action by proposing cuts near the end of the fiscal year. A federal judge declared this tactic illegal, affirming that only Congress can cancel approved funds.
  • Reprogramming Funds for the Border Wall: Trump declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border to bypass Congress and redirect billions of dollars from the defense budget to fund the construction of a border wall, an objective that Congress had not fully funded through the normal legislative process. 


Resisting Congressional Oversight

  • Stonewalling Subpoenas and Investigations: The Trump administration adopted a policy of broad noncompliance with congressional oversight requests, refusing to provide documents and witnesses in over 100 investigations. The White House directed current and former officials not to testify or provide information, leading to numerous legal battles over the limits of executive privilege.
  • Blocking Access to Information: The administration blocked high-ranking officials and private entities with government contracts from providing information to congressional committees, often citing broad claims of executive privilege or using non-disclosure agreements.
  • Ignoring Statutory Reporting Requirements: The administration, in some cases, ignored or defied laws requiring it to report specific information to Congress, such as an unclassified report on the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. 


Bypassing Legislative Authority

  • Issuing Executive Orders on Major Policy: Trump issued a high volume of executive orders to implement significant policy changes that could not pass through Congress, such as aspects of COVID-19 relief, attempts to end birthright citizenship, and regulatory rollbacks.
  • Using Emergency Powers for Tariffs: The administration used emergency powers, typically reserved for national security crises, to impose global tariffs without specific congressional authorization, a move that faced legal challenges.
  • Politicizing Independent Agencies: Actions were taken to assert greater White House control over independent agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Justice, which are intended to operate with a degree of independence from the executive branch. 






Image: CNN





Friday, November 21, 2025

My Oath to the Constitution

 James George

US Government

21 November 2025



My Oath to the Constitution


When I swore my oath as a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Army, it was to uphold the Constitution. It began as an “Oath of Enlistment.”

“The Oath of Enlistment is a promise service members make to the U.S. government, vowing to support and defend the Constitution, bear true faith and allegiance to it, and obey the orders of the President and their appointed officers. This solemn and formal ceremony is a fundamental part of joining the military, signifying a commitment to upholding the nation's values. It can be reaffirmed during promotions or reenlistments and is administered by a commissioned officer or other designated personnel. “ Google AI Overview


My enlistment began in 1968 when there were protests against the war in Vietnam. I opposed the war, though I knew that Congress had voted to support and fund it. Lyndon Johnson was our President, and I believed he wanted to end the war as soon as possible, when and if he could find the way.


I served under President Nixon, and he ended the war “with peace and honour.” There were times during that period when I questioned the legality of my orders. For instance, after the Kent State University tragedy, I was wholly aware of my responsibility as an officer not to arm my platoon with bullets and I used rubber bullets and bean bags as non-lethal alternatives. 


Even then, I was careful not to step over the boundary of local police authority when dealing with engaging rioting students at the Ohio State University, where I also attended as a student. 


I was a training officer who instructed in riot duty operations, which included anti-discrimination policy. After that six-year experience, I was forever aware of the oath to the Constitution and to following lawful orders.


It was not inconceivable for Presidents to issue unlawful orders. 


“Yes, presidents have issued unlawful orders, and some executive orders have been challenged in court and struck down as exceeding presidential authority or violating the Constitution. Historical examples include Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War and FDR's order to intern Japanese Americans, both of which were later deemed to be beyond presidential power or unconstitutional. Recent examples involve President Trump's orders regarding immigration, troop deployments, and the freezing of federal funds, which have also faced legal challenges and been declared unlawful by some observers and courts. “ Google AI Overview 



https://www.quantico.marines.mil/



Saturday, November 15, 2025

Rattled by MSNBC Rebranding

During my career, I have had experience in product branding and corporate naming. Working in advertising and what I called "new business engineering," I consulted on the process, facilitated client sessions to brainstorm possibilities, and made recommendations.

Now, I watched my favorite television channel, MSNBC, become MS Now and wondered why. I used Google AI to get some answers.

Results:

"The MS Now rebranding happened because MSNBC, its parent company Versant, and other cable news networks were spun off from NBCUniversal. The name change was also a result of NBCUniversal retaining ownership of the "NBC" name and the peacock logo, forcing the new company to establish an independent brand. This split allowed MS Now to chart its own path, build its own news-gathering operation, and operate as an independent entity.
Corporate spin-off: The rebrand occurred as part of a larger corporate split where Comcast spun off its cable networks, including MSNBC, into a new company called Versant.

Brand independence: NBCUniversal kept the rights to its name and iconic peacock logo, which necessitated a new name for the independent company.

New identity: The name change also served as an opportunity for the network to establish a distinct identity, build a new news-gathering operation from scratch, and create its own path forward without the financial and editorial support of its former parent company.

Core mission remains: Despite the change in name and branding, the network stated its core mission of providing liberal opinion and news analysis will not change, notes The Independent and the Los Angeles Times." Google AI Overview

Why am I rattled? First of all, I enjoyed the notion that Microsoft and Bill Gates might have had something to do with my favorite channel. I know Gates is a Republican, although I have followed him from my days as publisher of Infosystems Magazine, a former property of The American Broadcasting Companies, when I was there as VP at the Hitchcock Publishing Division. I last reported on Gates when he visited the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington when I was the National Politics Examiner for Clarity Media.

The big boy former Bell companies got their hands in the mix, i.e., Comcast, and then spun off as Versant. Next came the corrupted version of the former National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and the former Universal Studios. The Peacock got run over along the way, probably on the 405 expressway in Los Angeles. I don't know.

Anyway, they could have called it "Joe's and Mika's Liberal Friends," except they are getting too old for that. The new folks are bright, fresh, and ethnically diversified, appealing to the younger audience, one might hope. It makes an old feller like me feel good that there is hope on the horizon. 

Still, what rattles me is knowing that making such a change is deeper than superficial branding, and it takes a lot of money to make it work.

I was fact-checked by Maureen! 

"AI says, “MS NOW stands for "My Source for News, Opinion, and the World," according to its parent company, Versant. “ Maureen Radcliffe George.



Image: MS NOW






Friday, November 7, 2025

How to Hold Errant DOJ Officials Accountable

How to Hold Errant DOJ Officials Accountable:
Prosecuting DOJ Crimes

Has President Donald J. Trump committed crimes? Yes, many, varied, and with regularity. The subject of this paper is holding the Department of Justice officials accountable for criminal actions that individuals committed at the direction of a corrupt President who rendered illegal directives.

 

Evidence of President Trump being a Criminal

 

“March 2023 indictment in New York. He faced 34 criminal charges of falsifying business records in the first degree related to payments made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. The trial began on April 15, 2024; Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts on May 30, 2024.” [i]

“While Donald Trump did not admit personal wrongdoing as part of a 2016 legal settlement, the lawsuits and subsequent settlement for $25 million to over 6,000 former students effectively addressed claims that Trump University was a fraud and a "scam"

Key details regarding the legal cases and outcomes include:

·       Accusations of Fraud: Multiple lawsuits (two class-action suits in California and one brought by the New York Attorney General) accused Trump University of being a "bait-and-switch" operation that used high-pressure sales tactics to bilk students out of thousands of dollars, from $1,500 to $35,000, for real estate seminars that failed to deliver on their promises.

·       False Advertising Claims: The lawsuits alleged false advertising, including the claims that:

o   Donald Trump "hand-picked" the instructors, a claim contradicted by sworn testimony.

o   The program was an "ivy league quality" university, when in reality it was not an accredited institution and did not grant degrees.

o   Students would learn Trump's personal real estate secrets, which did not happen.

·       New York AG's Findings: New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who called the operation a "fraud from beginning to end," said the settlement was a "stunning reversal" by Trump and a "major victory" for the victims.

·       Unlicensed Operation: A New York judge ruled that Trump was personally liable for operating an unlicensed, for-profit school in violation of state education law.

·       Settlement Rationale: Trump had previously vowed never to settle the cases, but after the 2016 election, his lawyers settled to avoid the "bizarre spectacle" of a sitting president facing a civil fraud trial and to allow Trump to focus on his presidential duties.”[ii]

 

What is the DOJ doing at Trump’s direction?

 

“As of November 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is operating under the directives of President Donald Trump's second administration and Attorney General Pam Bondi. The current DOJ is actively implementing the administration's policies, which represent a significant shift from the previous administration's priorities. 

Key directives and actions being pursued by the current DOJ include:

·       Combating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Programs: Following President Trump's Executive Order 14173, the DOJ's Civil Division is prioritizing investigations and enforcement actions against what it terms "illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities". This has also led to the termination of environmental justice settlement agreements viewed through a "DEI lens".

·       Immigration Enforcement: The DOJ has been directed to significantly step up immigration enforcement, prioritize identifying illegal immigrants, and prosecute immigration violations.

·       Shifting Enforcement Priorities: The department is realigning its enforcement priorities, for example, by hitting "pause" on most Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement activity and focusing more on "Total Elimination of Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations".

·       Review of Past Prosecutions: Attorney General Bondi has launched a review to scrutinize those within the Justice Department who were involved in past prosecutions of Mr. Trump, including the classified documents and election interference cases, which have since been dropped.

·       Addressing Potential Conflicts: The administration faces significant ethical concerns regarding President Trump's claims for monetary compensation from the DOJ for past investigations into him, with legal experts suggesting a neutral third party would be needed to assess the claims to avoid a violation of the emoluments clause.”[iii]


 Evidence of President Trump being a Criminal


 

Table 1 Summary from Wikipedia

Having been elected to a second term, the President’s Justice Department dismissed charges of mishandling national security documents and attempting to overturn the 2020 US Presidential election. Those dismissals should themselves require investigation when objectivity is restored to the DOJ in the future.

Did Trump’s companies commit crimes? The answer is Yes.

“Yes, two corporate entities of the Trump Organization were convicted of crimes in December 2022. 

Specifically, The Trump Corporation and The Trump Payroll Corporation were found guilty of all 17 criminal charges they faced in a New York state court, including:

  • Scheme to defraud in the first degree
  • Conspiracy in the fourth degree
  • Criminal tax fraud in the third and fourth degrees
  • Falsifying business records in the first degree 

These convictions were related to a 15-year-long tax fraud scheme where top executives, including former CFO Allen Weisselberg, received off-the-books compensation and perks (such as rent, car leases, and private school tuition) without reporting them as income to evade taxes. The companies benefited from paying less in payroll taxes. 

The companies were fined the maximum allowable penalty of approximately $1.6 million. Allen Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty to 15 felonies and testified during the trial as part of a plea deal, was sentenced to five months in jail. 

Donald Trump was not personally charged in this specific criminal case, though he was later convicted in a separate 2024 criminal trial for falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment scheme. The Trump Organization has appealed the 2022 corporate conviction.”[iv] 

 

How many times have Trump’s directives been found illegal by the courts?

 

“It is difficult to provide a single, precise number for the times Donald Trump's directives have been found illegal by the courts because the count is extensive and constantly evolving due to ongoing litigation, appeals, and the complexities of legal challenges. 

Here is a general overview:

  • Numerous Legal Challenges: The Trump administration faced hundreds of lawsuits challenging a wide range of its policies, including those related to immigration, the environment, healthcare, and federal workforce regulations.
  • Over 100 Injunctions: As of November 2025, courts had issued more than 100 preliminary injunctions or temporary restrictions on various Trump administration directives, suggesting that in over a hundred cases, judges found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the actions were unlawful.
  • Specific Examples:
    • Multiple courts blocked Trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship, finding it violated the 14th Amendment.
    • A federal judge concluded that mass probationary firings within the federal government were illegal, though a remedy was complicated by a later Supreme Court ruling.
    • Courts have repeatedly found various actions related to immigration enforcement and asylum procedures to be unlawful, often for failing to follow proper administrative procedures or exceeding presidential authority.
  • Complexity: The legal challenges vary widely in their scope and finality. Some lower court rulings were temporary (preliminary injunctions), while others were final rulings that were subsequently appealed, reversed, or affirmed by higher courts. Many cases were also rendered moot by the end of his term or new executive actions by his successor. 

Therefore, while a definitive, universally agreed-upon number is unavailable due to the dynamic nature of litigation, the number of directives found to be illegal or likely illegal by various federal courts is well over one hundred.”[v]

 

As citizens reading this treatise, you cannot say you are not aware. The question is, how will the parties be held accountable?
###

 


[i] Wikipedia, Indictments against Trump, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictments_against_Donald_Trump#:~:text=March%202023%20indictment%20in%20New%20York,-Main%20article%3A%20Prosecution&text=He%20faced%2034%20criminal%20charges,counts%20on%20May%2030%2C%202024.

[ii] AI Overview

[iii] ibid

[iv] AI Overview

[v] ibid