Stephen Maseda | Unsupported Assertions on Court

Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor

I usually ignore Ms. Lois Eisenberg’s letters, but this latest (June 6) is just too good to pass up. 

As usual, it is filled with unsupported assertions that amount to a conspiracy theory based on the belief that the Supreme Court can issue a decision on the issue of presidential immunity after giving it as much thought as Ms. Eisenberg gives to her letters. 

I wonder if she realizes that the court has not yet issued a ruling! I wonder if she realizes that the ruling will not have any effect on the New York persecution, oops prosecution, of President Donald Trump? 

I wonder if she realizes that it may well immunize President Barack Obama, (now that the Democrats have opened the floodgates), to prosecution for the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year-old-son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who even the Obama Administration acknowledged was an innocent bystander.

Both were American citizens, and thus protected by the Bill of Rights and several federal statutes.

While the Obama Administration went to great lengths to justify the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki as an enemy combatant, he was killed in Yemen, a neutral country, and was never charged with any crime, much less a capital crime. 

In short, no grand jury, petit jury or court had ever passed on the question of whether he was guilty of any crime. The administration never asserted any basis to support the killing of his 16-year-old son, other than he was traveling with his father. 

It would require much less legal contortion to charge Obama with murder, especially in the killing of the son, than Alvin Bragg and the Democrats have gone through to prosecute Trump for an accounting entry.

Just to be clear, I am not taking a position on the actions of the Obama Administration, just that such actions were taken while Obama was president, while he was commander in chief, and so the court’s decision could well immunize Obama from prosecution for the killing of al Awlaki and his son. 

I assume Ms. Eisenberg would approve of that result. 

Finally, I wonder if Ms. Eisenberg is aware of the issue raised by amici that Jack Smith has not been appropriately appointed as special counsel, and as such has no authority to bring, much less prosecute, either of the two federal cases. 

That issue is before the district court in the documents case, and however decided will get to the Supreme Court as it involves a constitutional issue and the constitutionality of the Department of Justice regulations for the appointment of special counsel, several of which are currently running around. 

So, however it is decided, it will delay both Smith proceedings.

Also, is she aware that the Georgia appellate court has stayed further proceedings in the Georgia case until at least next March? Oh horrors, even the Georgia appellate court is in on the scheme. 

Those pesky courts acting like the defendants have some rights in these criminal proceedings. Her head must be exploding. Is that purple smoke I see?

Stephen Maseda

Santa Clarita

Related To This Story

Latest NEWS