Affirm FISA; strike press restrictions in re Presidential crimes

The President's crimes warrant public review and publication in the open media. The only affect on Presidential power is an impeachment or the Constitution. Public discussion of Presidential crimes is privileged and protected under the 1st Amendment.

Any claim that FISA is unconstitutional is frivolous, untimely, and communicates the White House does not comprehend the distinction between ministerial duties and Presidential powers. The RNC is unfit to govern; the White House legal counsel and DoJ Attorney General are unfit to practice law.



The FISA statute should be affirmed; all bans on publication of Presidential violations of the law are unconstitutional.

All costs to RNC and White House for litigation expenses.

* * *

Leaders who pass legislation which clearly violates the Constitution and prevents the enjoyment of a protected right are unfit to govern.

Whether they remain in office or not is not the issue. The voters who elect these leaders must realize that they are electing to office members of a party that does not respect the rule of law.

Rather, it is clear that the RNC does not wish to know of evidence related to the abuse of power.

However, the restriction on communication is one that cannot legally be enforced.

Moreover, when the RNC loses control of the White House, the problem the RNC will have is in communicating information related to DNC abuses.

Any RNC leader who passes a law prohibiting future discussion of DNC abuses does not do their party members any favor.

The issue isn’t whether the unlawful conduct is or isn’t reported. The issue is why anyone in the RNC would trust their leadership to restrict them from discussing the equal chance that the DNC may similarly violate the law.

* * *

It is protected speech to make a fair comment about public figures. The existing case law explicitly prohibits falsehoods or accusations of crimes.

When it comes to public figures, the public figure has the burden to prove the publication was false, and done with reckless disregard for the truth. Despite this requirement, the Congress wants to go one step further and ban all publication of Presidential violations of the law.

The problem with the President is that he fails to make any case that he has complied with the law. Moreover, when asked about the conduct, he asserted that he could do what he is doing: violate the law.

* * *

Some have argued that the president’s conduct cannot be regulated by FISA in that FISA is unconstitutional.

However, there is a major flaw with this assertion. Bluntly, those who assert the unconstitutional nature of FISA fail to understand the distinction between ministerial duties and powers.

FISA clearly imposes ministerial duties on the President. Had this been a problem or unlawful requirement, the time to have brought this to the Congress and the Courts would have been long ago.

We view the assertion “FISA is unconstitutional” as frivolous and untimely. Had this been a real belief and actual impairment on the Presidential powers, then that would have reasonably have been brought forward in 2001.

Despite the ability to use the Patriot Act and post 9-11 momentum to promulgate this statute, the President failed to get the FISA adjusted to permit what he was already doing: Violating the law.

* * *

The public is best served when we have information that a reasonable person knows is evidence of an abuse of power. Presidents are not merely public figures. They are Constitutional creatures which enjoy powers and responsibilities.

One duty is to have competent counsel and comply with the law.

No President can credibly argue before any court that his conduct is permitted because the statute prohibiting that conduct is unconstitutional.

Rather, the opposite is true: Ministerial duties and requirements are to be followed, not explained away.

It is our view that the President has violated the FISA; has offered no credible defense; and Congress is unconstitutionally banning publication of additional information the public should know.

The way forward is information. The way backward, is to suppress the truth. The public and press are free to discuss any information, evidence, accusation, and assertion that the President has violated the law and has committed crimes.

Congress is the only body that can take any action on impeachment. That the public or media do or do not discuss issues of Presidential crimes is meaningless. Given there are no sanctions or penalties on the President – other than what the Constitution provides through impeachment – the communication of any information related to Presidential violations of the law is privileged, cannot be suppressed, and no president can credibly claim their reputation, standing, or rights have been violated.

Rather, the people and the press have the superior right to communicate any and all information related to Presidential conduct, however devoid of reality that may be. Congress has the delegated and exclusive power to review whether the charges are true or untrue; whether someone outside Congress wants to discuss Presidential crimes is interesting, but has no bearing on whether Congress has the sole power to impeach – or not impeach – as they choose to act.

The Constitution is clear. Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. The bills, statutes, acts of Congress and motions to outlaw discussion or publication of Presidential crimes are unconstitutional. Members of Congress know the act was unlawful and should be lawfully denied the right to absolute immunity and should be subject to 42 USC 1983 claims.

Congress and the President included exceptions that do not constrain but affirm Presidential power; there are no exceptions to whether the FISA does or does not apply as a ministerial duty.

FISA is a lawful ministerial duty, and has no meaningful relationship to executive power. The Constitution does not recognize any implied power. Only powers which are expressly delegated can be protected. There is no Constitutional power to ignore ministerial duties in FISA.

The motion to strike the FISA statute as unconstitutional should be denied; costs to the RNC and White House.