Stalin, and New York's Attorney General Letitia James, are Proved Wrong

                                                            Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.
                                                                                    Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s Secret Police Chief

One favorite technique of mass-murdering communist dictators is using their country’s “justice” system to destroy their political opponents. 

This technique is needed when one knows that even when the vote is rigged one might not be able to beat that opponent at the ballot box.  One cannot let the peasants get the dangerous idea that the opponent is popular with the people.

Beria’s rationale could arguably be that that since everyone, no matter how upstanding, has done something illegal at some point in their life, one can eliminate anybody one wants while claiming the mantle of the selfless justice warrior by investigating relentlessly until one discovers that one crime.  That is just one interpretation, another is that words and acts can be twisted to fit the desired mold.

Either way, the rationale requires that one abandon the most basic principles of a fair justice system, the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty

For, if one’s opponent is Mr. T, this technique requires that one presumes that T is guilty, because one assumes that everyone is guilty, and harasses him with endless investigations until one turns up the crime that must be there somewhere.

 Perhaps one accuses T of colluding with some enemy state R to steal an election and launches a public defamatory investigation of him.  Even if one does not find the collusion and it turns out that it was his opponent, Mrs. C, who had colluded with R to cheat in the election, one has, at least, dirtied him up and generated a lot of hate against him in the public. 

If that fails, perhaps one accuses him of trying to get some quid pro quo from country U in order to win an election, specifically to investigate some known drug user H who is clearly involved in foreign deals dangerous to the country. 

When that doesn’t work perhaps one accuses T of knowing that enemy country R put bounties on the head of his military but did nothing about it. 

If he was a businessman perhaps one accuses him of business or tax crimes.  When even this, which one had assumed was a sure thing because all top businessmen push the envelope, fails to find any crimes, one might even resort to word-games to fabricate crimes.  This calumny is all much easier if one is blessed with an mentally-and-morally-vacant “news” media that is willing bulge their eyes and hyperventilate on cue as they read the script of each new hoax as it is rolled out.

In 2018, while running for New York Attorney General, Letitia James stated, while giggling (very professional): "[W]e’re definitely going to sue [Trump].  We’re going to be a real pain in the ass. He’s going to know my name personally." Unfortunately, being a pain in the ass or getting Trump to “know [her] name personally” is not the job of the AG.

In September 2018, also before the election, Letitia, who has apparently forgotten that it is not the job of the AG to prosecute one’s political opponents, stated,  “I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president [Trump who is] ripping families apart, threatening women’s most basic rights … when our fundamental rights are at stake. From the Muslim ban, to efforts to deport immigrants, to denying transgender students the ability to choose whatever bathroom they want, rolling back regulations to protect our planet, colluding with foreign powers, putting profits over people, dividing us in ways we haven’t seen in generations." 

However, James does not cite any violations of legal statutes here but only recites a list of Democrat party political bumper stickers, which also is not the job of an AG

Further, many of James’s bumper stickers are false or misleading.  First, the Supreme Court found Trump’s alleged Muslim ban “neutral towards religion.” 

Second, it is the president's job to see that illegal immigrants are deported, not Letitia’s job to criminalize his doing his job. 

Further, James did not, apparently, get the Democrat party memo that being an “election denier” (calling the elected president illegitimate) is forbidden insurrectionist behavior now, although, of course, given that “D” behind her name, a lawless exception will be made for her.

In July 2018, she repeated her insurrectionist election denial: "As the next [AG], I see the law as a sword and a shield to protect the vulnerable, because no one is above the law, including this illegitimate president. … I look forward to … suing him." 

In fact, Trump is the one who needs protecting from James’ “sword” (unfortunate violent language from the pretend non-violence party) because, not yet being AG, Letitia doesn’t have any evidence against Trump but must rely on what she sees on the Don Lemon Comedy Hour.  James seems unaware that people like Stalin, not civilized people, target “the man” before they have the evidence.

In each of these statements, James violates the rules of professional conduct for New York District Attorneys.  

First, she forgot that she is supposed to try the case in court, “not in the media.”  

Second, Rule 3.6[a] states: “Any statement announcing that a particular person has been charged with a crime must be accompanied by a statement that … the defendant is presumed innocent … until proven guilty.”  Quite surprisingly, on all the aforementioned occasions, James forgot to state that Trump is presumed innocent but has instead presumed that he is guilty, e.g., of “colluding with a foreign government,” a hoax fabricated by her friend Hillary Clinton.

James is running again for AG and, behind in the polls because of her dreadful performance, and having failed to prosecute Trump for any crimes as she had promised, she just announced, alluding to the title of Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal, that she will sue Trump for “deceiving banks and the people of … New York.  Claiming you have money you don’t have does not amount to the art of the deal.  It’s the art of the steal.

Nice jingle Letitia!

James is, however, wrong again.  She did not cite any criminal statute when she implied, employing poetic language, that stating one has money one doesn’t have is stealing because there is none.  Misrepresenting one’s wealth is not a crime, ergo the civil rather than criminal action.

The irony in James’ latest farce is that she is doing precisely what she accuses Trump of. 

In 2018 she promised to prosecute Trump for crimes but did not deliver.  Now she implies, using metaphorical language, that he committed a crime but only brings a civil action.  James has consistently implied she has a wealth of evidence for criminal prosecutions she never had and wasted taxpayer money on her self-serving political vendetta.

The real moral of the endless series of failed attempts to find crimes in Trump’s history is that try as they might, it all dissipates when one looks closely.  Trump’s enemies have, inadvertently, shown that Beria was wrong.  Trump is pretty clean.

The only investigation they haven’t done on Trump is a proctology exam and that may be coming next.  One gets the impression Letitia wants to administer it herself but there is a plethora of perspiring hyperventilating Democrats who will be fighting to get the first crack.

Image: Matthew Cohen, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY 2.0

If you experience technical problems, please write to