Not always getting their man

This week’s terror drama leaves me with many questions. I shared them with a London Free Press writer who was similarly puzzled.

1. Why did the RCMP issue a bizarre, Kafkaesque press release about terror that did not contain the who, the where, the what or the why? Doesn’t that serve only to, you know, scare people?

2. Why did the RCMP clearly try and give everyone the impression they had foiled a terrorist attack – when, in fact, it had been the FBI that did so?

3. Why didn’t the RCMP have the aspiring jihadist under 24/7 surveillance, given that everyone knew he was dangerous?

4. Why was he not picked up when he had broken his bail conditions – conditions that were so strict they had been covered by the media, coast to coast, and attracted the attention of civil libertarians?

5. If they don’t know what’s going on in their own backyard – if they are misleading us about who foiled the attack, and are communicating with us in a way that can only serve to actually terrify people – why the Hell are we keeping them around?

I vote for letting the FBI run the show. If nothing else, we’ll be safer.


Daisy, where differences are celebrated

At Daisy Group, we have:

  • A Liberal who did winning social media for Justin Trudeau;
  • A New Democrat who came to us via the Deputy Leader of the provincial NDP;
  • A Progressive Conservative writing high-level speeches for his team; and
  • Scrupulously non-partisan folks, too, whose politics I know nothing about.

All of the above isn’t a big deal, but it’s something I’m kind of proud of.  We don’t just let staff work on political campaigns – we encourage them to do so.

Makes for interesting times when elections roll around, but it makes for a better firm, too.

 


The indictment of Donald Trump

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Criminal Action No. 8:10-cr-00090-JWK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.

INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury for the District of New York charges that:

COUNT ONE
18 U.S.C. § 879 : US Code – Section 879: Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons

At all times relevant to this Indictment, unless otherwise stated:

1. DONALD J. TRUMP is a resident of New York, New York, and is the nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States.

2.  HILLARY CLINTON is a resident of New York, New York, and is the nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States.

3.  On or about August 9, 2016, in the City of Wilmington, North Carolina, DONALD J. TRUMP stated: “If [Hillary Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

4.  The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

5.  The relevant section of the Code of Laws of the United States is 18 U.S.C. § 879 : US Code – Section 879: Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons.  That section states:

“(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon – (1) a former President or a member of the immediate family of a former President; (2) a member of the immediate family of the President, the President-elect, the Vice President, or the Vice President-elect; (3) a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate; or (4) a person protected by the Secret Service under section 3056(a)(6); shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both [emphasis added].”

6.  The facts are that DONALD J. TRUMP knowingly and willfully threatened to kill or inflict bodily harm upon HILLARY CLINTON, who is a major candidate for the office of President of the United States, and who is protected by the Secret Service.

7.  DONALD J. TRUMP knowingly and willfully sought to incite the murder of, or the infliction of bodily harm against, HILLARY CLINTON by stating that persons who oppose her policies are justified in taking up arms against her, pursuant to the Second Amendment.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 879.

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (AND THE FREE WORLD)

J. Warren Kinsella, J.D.

Senior Litigation Counsel
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice

 


Marin et al. vs. Kinsella: we won!

Breaking! The Kinsella side was victorious! Read all about it in the National Post!

Andre Marin tried to get me disbarred/disciplined; I responded.

Marin lost. No appeal, no review, even. See the brief but welcome letter below. (The complainant line has been deleted because I want to keep the focus on the guy who was the real complainant – and we all know from the media that the one who was after me was the thin-skinned former Ontario “Ombudsman,”Andre Marin.)

Background here and here and here.

What’s it mean?  It means, I think, that:

  • lawyers who offer personal views online are doing just that – offering personal views
  • doing so isn’t giving legal advice, or somehow acting in a legal capacity – it’s simply being a citizen, with all of a citizen’s associated constitutional rights
  • the Law Society of Upper Canada has (properly) signalled that it won’t allow itself to be conscripted into policing petty, political or personal complaints

Thank you, very very much, to the many people who offered support.  I am very grateful.

Now, I can get back to saying what I think.  And Andre Marin can get back to not being Ombudsman anymore, and tilting at windmills.

Kinsella (1)


We keep you abreast of the latest in politics

So, when Donald Trump is a bust and makes an udder boob of himself – when he teats his audience to yet more cleavages, when he can and does go gazonga and switches off the mental headlights – you can always count on this web site to say “thanks for the mammaries, Donald.”


In this week’s Hill Times: Daisy redux

Since the late 1960s, we progressives have been trying to get back what we once had.

That’s not to say that we have been incapable of winning in the interim, of course. Jean Chretien, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau have shown that we can, when the circumstances are right, beat back conservatives. But if we are honest with ourselves, we should acknowledge that recessions and a fractured Right certainly didn’t hurt our chances.

For quite some time, in North America and Europe, the Right has been winning, and the Left has been doing the opposite. But back in the early 1960s, we had the better ideas. We knew what we had to say, and how to say it, too. That’s because we had the likes of Tony Schwartz.

Never heard of him? Many haven’t. He was an exceedingly modest man, and because he was agoraphobic, he rarely even left the brownstone where he lived and worked in Manhattan. He didn’t seek publicity; he shunned it. Despite that, I caught up with him a few years before his death in 2008.

For a lot of us who work on progressive campaigns, Tony Schwartz was a giant. Before many of us were even born – and long before far-Right snake oil purveyors and mendacious con men took control of the airwaves and the legislatures, driving discord and division, à la Trump – Tony Schwartz literally transformed modern politics, and in just 60 seconds, too.

He did in just one minute what it takes other progressives lifetimes to learn. He created a symbol, one that endures nearly 50 years later. He connected with the hearts of minds of average people, using language that spoke to their values, and their identities and their lives. For progressives, he changed everything.

He did so on September 7, 1964, when he conceived and produced a single Democratic Party TV spot which, among other things, won Lyndon Baines Johnson the presidency – a spot which radically revised the way in which advocacy and campaigns were thereafter done.

“Daisy,” as it is now universally known, is filmed in grainy black and white. It starts off with a little girl, about four or five, standing in a field. She has long, blondish hair, and she’s looking at a flower – a daisy – as the commercial begins. Almost singing, she is counting as she plucks petals. “One, two, three, four, five,” she says, quietly.

Abruptly, the girl stops and looks up, surprised. The mood changes. A man’s voice is suddenly heard, echoing and harsh and loud, and he’s counting, too. As he does so, the camera moves in on the little girl. “Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four,” he barks, and all that can be seen are the child’s eyes, which are now clearly afraid. “Three, two, one…” The shot moves into her iris, and suddenly there is an explosion: the screen is filled with a gritty image of an atomic bomb being detonated. The girl is gone. As the mushroom cloud reaches upward, filling the sky, another voice is heard: the voice of Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the United States, and the Democratic Party’s candidate.

“These are the stakes,” he says in his Texan twang, and without emotion. “To make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the dark.” There’s a pause. “We must either love each other, or we must die.” The screen goes black, and a few words appear in white: “VOTE FOR PRESIDENT JOHNSON ON NOVEMBER 3.” Then there’s another male voice: “Vote for President Johnson on November 3. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.”

“Daisy” ran only once as a paid TV ad, during Gregory Peck’s ‘David and Bathsheba’ on Monday Night at the Movies. An estimated 50 million Americans saw it. Even now, so many years later, it is incredibly powerful and dramatic. And, when the results were announced early on November 4, 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson won by a landslide. Barry Goldwater, meanwhile, barely won his home state, by less than one per cent. Out of fifty states, the Republican nominee took only six. “Daisy,” most felt, had helped to demolish the conservatives’ campaign.

Why does Daisy matter, 52 years later? Why the history lesson?

Because Daisy’s hour has come around again. Because the stakes are too high, again. Just a few days ago, it was revealed that Donald Trump – like Barry Goldwater before him – said this: “Somebody hits us, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?…If we have them, why can’t we use them?”

Progressives – Democrats, Liberals, New Democrats, Progressive Conservatives – now know that the 2016 presidential campaign is the one for all the marbles. They must win.

It’s time to re-run a Daisy-style campaign. And it’s time to utterly destroy Donald Trump – like Tony Schwartz destroyed Barry Goldwater, more than a half-century ago.

The stakes are too high to do otherwise.