President Trump complained about politicizing DOJ and the FBI, but he is doing it even more

The Eric Adams affair is troubling.  President Trump and Emil Bove are clearly politicizing government agencies after having complained that they were politicized in the prior administration.  7 Federal employees and 4 NYC employees have quit in protest to cancelling the charges against Eric Adams.  It is an extremely strong statement that so many people would quit and the lead Federal person, Danielle Sassoon is a conservative.  This is very problematic!

The Trump administration also seems to be vindictively pursuing US citizens who it considered to be enemies, with no evidence that those people have done anything wrong.

On the other hand, as is often the case, the left-wing media and Democrats are mischaracterizing two letters that were sent by U.S. Attorney Edward Martin.  As explained below, I'm concerned about Martin.  However, I insist upon honesty about what happened which I explain below:

Senator Schumer spoke out against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh at a March 4, 2020 abortion rights, by saying: " I want to tell you Gorsuch.  I want to tell you Kavanaugh.  You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price."  I remember being upset that he would say that.  However, the next day, Schumer said "I should not have used the words I used yesterday….My point was that there would be political consequences…I am from Brooklyn.  We speak in strong language.  I shouldn't have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat."

His apology would have been better if he hadn’t included the “I am from Brooklyn.  We speak in strong language.” wording and “political consequences” doesn’t seem consistent with directly addressing Supreme Court judges and saying “you will pay the price”.  Nonetheless, he apologized and that should be the end of it.

Rep. Robert Garcia said: ““What the American public wants is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight.”  He has not apologized for what is clearly inappropriate wording.  Instead, he said “no reasonable person would view my comments as a threat, and that elected members of Congress have a right to denounce the Trump administration…. I will not be silenced.”  I think reasonable people would wonder about the meaning of his statement and we, of course, fear that unreasonable people, stimulated by the lies and misleading comments coming from both sides, will become violent.

Ironically, the liberal press refers to the letters from Martin as intimidation but fails to mention that the statements by Schumer and Garcia were intimidation.

Below you can find 9 sources I read about this situation.  Thousands of people have criticized Musk, but Martin sent his letter only to those who used improper inflammatory language.  If people want to criticize Martin for that, that’s fine, but it is improper to misrepresent it as an effort to silence critics of Musk.

I have serious concerns about U. S. Attorney Edward Martin. 

1. He has advocated for the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol
• Ed Martin, advocate for Jan. 6 defendants, named D.C.'s interim U.S. attorney, overseeing Capitol riot cases
• Ed Martin Jr., a crusader for Jan. 6 defendants, now oversees their absolution - POLITICO
2. #1 becomes more significant in that he is accused of not pursuing threats made against federal prosecutors, FBI agents and judges by January 6 defendants to whom Trump granted clemency.
3. Denise Cheung quit, after being pressured by Bove and Martin to issue grand jury subpoenas in investigating EPA-related contracts.  Given her objections, I feel strongly that the administration should have backed down.  It seems, from her explanation, that they did back down, instead demanding that she freeze funding pending the investigation.  Apparently, she cooperated with the FBI in sending a letter to the bank, but Martin felt it wasn’t explicit enough relative to criminal investigation.  It seems to me that an investigation is appropriate and freezing the assets pending investigation is appropriate and that Ms. Cheung did not object to those steps.  Matin and Bove seem out-of-line.  What may have happened here is that the Biden administration did not find grantees for the money, so rather than leaving it ungranted, in which case the Trump administration might be able to choose not to spend it, they granted it to Citibank to hold pending grants.
• Senior DOJ prosecutor quit after being told to investigate Biden climate spending, sources say | CNN Politics 

Here are some other links about the letters from Edward Martin regarding the threatening wording:

The letter sent to Robert Garcia

 Responsible reports:

Washington prosecutor probes threats against DOGE, takes aim at Schumer | Reuters

US attorney launches probes into whether Schumer, Garcia made threats to justices, Musk (MSN)

Acting U.S. attorney for D.C. opens inquiries into Democrats, alleging possible threats to DOGE, Supreme Court justices - CBS News

Poor headlines:

DOJ Sends Letter to Democratic Lawmaker Over Elon Musk Criticism - Newsweek

House Democrat says DC’s top federal prosecutor is trying to silence critics of Elon Musk - POLITICO

Irresponsible reports:

Federal prosecutor threatens California congressman for criticizing Elon Musk (MSN)

DOJ Sends Letter to Democratic Lawmaker Over Elon Musk Criticism (MSN)

House Democrat says DC’s top federal prosecutor is trying to silence critics of Elon Musk  (MSN)

Note that I’ve labeled 3 MSN reports as irresponsible, but I also found one that is responsible reporting.

Messages to Politicians

When reviewing my communications, remember that my goal is to have an impact.  That can influence how I phrase things.  It is important to support politicians who show courage as well as criticize those who don't.

Senators' URL protocol is www.Senator'sFamilyname.senate.com.   From there, it is generally easy to send a message.

House URL protocol is https://FamilyName.house.gov/contact/

If you have supported them in the past, it is critical to include that in any critical message; otherwise, they'll brush your message off.  I have deleted such comments in my messages below. 

Sometimes they won't accept email out of their district.  In that case you can call them.  In one case, I had to lie by saying I was in their district.  Otherwise, I couldn't leave a (thankful) message.  I apologized and admitted I am not a constituent in the message I left.

2025-03-04: To Senators Moran and Marshall

Worse than Afghanistan or Munich: You are COMPLICIT

Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia could not defend themselves without foreign troops.  Afghanistan was a civil war, whereas Russia invaded Ukraine.  Munich bought time for Britain to asrm and organize to counter Hitler whereas Trump is siding with the aggressor.  Biden weakly under-supported Ukraine, setting Trump up for a victory.  He could have threatened Putin and negotiated a more favorable treaty.  Your cowardice in not opposing Trump when appropriate is a stain you’ll not only have to live with the rest of your life, it will also end up being your legacy.

2025-02-27: In response to a survey from Sharice Davids, I commented: "Very interesting.  You offer 16 priorities for Congress but do not include balancing the budget (my #1 budget priority; you do offer reducing government waste); allowing inner-city students to get a decent education (my #2 with my favorite approach being public charter schools), immigration or national security.

Miss Davids highlighted the following options in her cover message:

• Cutting the Medicaid health care program.
• Repealing tax cuts that lower people’s health premiums.
• Gutting emergency nutrition assistance for families.

The full list was:

1.        Creating jobs and growing our economy.

2.        Addressing rising costs in our economy.

3.        Protecting Medicare and Social Security.

4.        Improving health care and lowering the cost of prescription drugs and premiums.

5.        Protecting reproductive rights.

6.        Supporting public safety and addressing crime.

7.        Protecting our democracy and the voting rights of all eligible voters.

8.        Ending partisan bickering in Congress.

9.        Preventing gun violence.

10.   Securing our borders and immigration.

11.   Supporting our kids in K-12 and higher education.

12.   Protecting our environment and tackling climate change.

13.   Investing in transportation and infrastructure.

14.   Helping local small businesses in Kansas.

15.   Eliminating government corruption and ensuring stronger ethics rules.                                           Cutting wasteful government spending.

20 2025-02-26: 

Senator Moran responded to my 2/21 message (below).  My message to him today explains how he responded to my 2/21 message:

I sent you an email expressing disappointment because you have not had the courage to rebut President Trump's recent lies about Ukraine.  Your fellow Republican senators Rounds, Kennedy, Cramer, Tillis and Thune showed such courage.  In response, you sent me an undated copy of a July 27, 2023 article you wrote with Mike Pompeo.  I was already aware of that article appropriately supportive of Ukraine.  Your response underscores that you were willing to tell the truth about Ukraine when it was politically expedient to do so but are unwilling to do so today.   It also seems unusual to send out an article with no indication of the date that it was written.  Were you hoping that I'd think it was current?  I've voted for you consistently and I've respected you.  I don't think your current cowardice and misleading response reflect your character.   I hope that you can dig deep and find the courage to represent our nation's principles.  Please don't abandon your responsibilities when we most need you to fulfill them.

2025-02-21:

I applauded the following Republican Senators: Mike Rounds (SD), Thom Tillis (NC), John Kennedy (LA), John Thune (SD), Kevin Cramer (ND) and Republican Representatives Don Bacon (NE) and Brian FitzPatrick (PA) or speaking the truth about Ukraine.  I wrote "Thanks for defending United States integrity as regards Ukraine.  FYI, I'm a 'No Labels' guy; we greatly appreciate independence and integrity."

I wrote to my senators (Marshall and Moran): Why don’t you have the integrity of Senators Mike Rounds (SD), Thom Tillis (NC), John Kennedy (LA), John Thune (SD), Kevin Cramer (ND) and Representative Don Bacon (NE) to speak the truth about Ukraine and defend the honor of the United States?

2025-02-17:  Danielle Sassoon is the US Attorney who resigned rather than end her case against Mayor Eric Adams.  I could not find a LinkedIn account for her, so I went to her Facebook page today and “liked” several entries. 

I also sent the following message to my two Republican Senators (Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall):

               Is President Trump intent on making President Biden look strong???

If President Trump ends the Russia vs. Ukraine war on terms favorable to Russia, he will damage his legacy and make President Biden look strong.

2025-02-12: To Congresswoman Sharice Davids

Oops!  I lost it, but, in response to her survey, I told her that:

1) I'd love to see Congress resolve the debt (as she seemed to be suggesting) but Congress has refused to do so.  We have few patriotic politicians as our politicians value their political career more than our nation's (or the world's) needs.

2) It is terrible that we force children to attend terrible inner-city schools.  We know that public charter schools are much better, but the teachers' unions fight them tooth-and-nail because the teachers' unions (like politicians) treat their power as a higher priority than the kids' education.

3) Although I've been an environmentalist for at least six decades, I consider nuclear war to be our most existential threat.  Our nation's strategy in that regard has been terrible, inadvertently encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons.

2025-01-25:

To Senator Jerry Moran

President Trump has pushed for some good ideas, but they MUST be done properly as separation of powers is critical to our country's success.  I noted with interest that you confirmed  Pete Hegseth's nomination.  I wasn't sure you would endorse him.  When he does well (as I hope he will), I'll point out to people that you put your political reputation on the line for him.

To Senator Roger Marshall:

President Trump has pushed for some good ideas, but they MUST be done properly as separation of powers is critical to our country's success.  

I noted with interest that you confirmed  Pete Hegseth's nomination.  When he does well (as I hope he will), I'll point out to people that you put your political reputation on the line for him.; he wouldn't have made it without your vote.  Of course, credit/blame goes both ways.

Claude Thau vs. Prager on Medical Aid in Dying

 My email to Prager University:

PragerU prides itself on its values, which include individual rights, clear presentation and truth.  As someone who respects PragerU, I find that its video (Why Is Assisted Suicide on the Rise? | PragerU) embarrassingly fails PragerU’s standards. 

I’ll stick to MAID in the USA to have consistent laws to discuss, thereby making arguments clearer. 

Prager stands for limited government interference in your life.  If the government said “You grew up in Pennsylvania, so you can’t move to Florida”, Prager would be (rightfully) upset.  But if I have less than six months to live, am in great pain, and want to release my soul to move to heaven a few weeks early and to die in peace with my support system around me, Prager thinks the government should step in and forbid that right to me.

PragerU describes MAID as “government-assisted death” but MAID laws specifically exclude the government from the decision.  PragerU opposes MAID laws, wanting the government to step in to forbid MAID.

PragerU asks people if they would “push” someone off a bridge to help them commit suicide and asks if they wouldn’t do it, is it right for the government to push them.  In addition to its continual misstatement regarding government involvement, Prager adds the hugely misleading concept of someone being “pushed” to engage MAID.  PragerU “conveniently” failed to mention that:

1. Two independent physicians must have independently concluded that the person has less than six months to live and must attest that no one is exerting undue interest.
2. There is a 15-day waiting period.
3. Two witnesses and the person exercising MAID must attest that no one is exerting undue interest.
4. A physicians must discuss all alternatives with the person.  Indeed, studies have shown that the MAID process results in more usage of hospice, palliative care and pain management, very different from the person on the bridge..

If the government is pushing people to opt for MAID, you’d expect the usage of MAID to be higher among those who are poor, have less advanced education, racial and ethnic minorities, etc.  However, usage of MAID is lower for those populations.

In fairness, PragerU’s question mentions that the lady on the bridge has terminal cancer, but envisioning people jumping from bridges brings to mind someone forfeiting many years of life (with MAID, they are estimated to give up 3.3 weeks of life (two physicians have independently determined that the person is expected to die within six months and people take a long time to make the MAID decision, often not doing it.) 

Indeed, the availability of MAID can reduce suicides.  My mother committed suicide while healthy because she feared that she would lose her health and lose control of her life.  I could provide more detail about how and why that fear was so strong in a person of mental and physical health.  If she had lived in a state with MAID laws, she absolutely would not have committed suicide per her conversation with me.  She likely lost many good years of life (she was 76) because her government wouldn’t give her the right to later end her life a little early on her own volition.

When contemplating people who jump off a bridge, people think of someone who doesn’t like his/her life.  Au contraire, people who opt for MAID love their life, but they are already in the death process.  Their life has been taken from them.  In a sense, MAID is preserving the body as it was, before it disintegrates.  Unlike people jumping from a bridge, there is no chance of turning their life around.

The person on the bridge is alone.  With MAID, people die with their loved one and support system around them.  This is a huge difference which PragerU chose not to disclose.

The person on a bridge is in a strange environment and about to plunge in a cold river which will result in their body being disfigured and taken their body God-knows-where.  The person exercising MAID dies in comfort, body intact, at home with loved ones fully cognizant and prepared to take next steps.  PragerU also chose to bury this distinction.

Family members deal with MAID much more easily because they are privy to their loved ones intent and can be present if they wish.  It is significant that we do not receive complaints from family about the MAID process.

Some people say we should not interfere with God’s will (Prager U did not make that argument), but in end-of-life, some people want to force us to interfere with God’s will by taking extreme means to stay alive.

PragerU says “it starts with just cancer patients, then its people with chronic fatigue, then its people with mental illness”.  In fact, chronic fatigue and mental illness are specifically excluded.  Separate laws would have to be proposed and debated to extend the eligible situations.

PragerU, in a tactic that is characteristic of debaters who can’t win a clear argument, shifts from country-to- country in its arguments.  Referring to Netherlands, the speaker says that every year the number exercising MAID goes up, while the small print table actually shows that the statement is false.  Prager avoids discussion of why the trendline rises.

PragerU cites a case in Canada in which a vet couldn’t get wheelchair ramp for 5 years and a government employee noted that she had the option of MAID.  Hmmm…  why does PragerU have to go to Canada to find such a story.  Clearly, PragerU could not find a scandalous story in the USA because if it could, it would have used the USA story.   Hmmm… why does PragerU not report that the Canadian prime minister called the situation "absolutely unacceptable" and that the veterans service agent had been suspended and the matter referred to the police (per https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-gauthier-assisted-death-macaulay-1.6671721).

PragerU asks what MAID tells us about our society’s view of the value of human life.  I would say that it recognizes the value of human will and that we each have our right to view and protect our life as we see fit.  If we are not allowed to end our life under the circumstances of MAID, should we be permitted to take risks to help others if those risks could terminate our lives?   PragerU talks about slippery slopes, but vigorously promotes a slippery slope of government interference in our rights.

Contact your Congressional representatives

 We communicated as follows recently to our Senators, both of whom are Republican:

Support Ukraine

We hope that Presidents Trump and Biden agreed that Biden would increase pressure on Russia so Trump could come in and tell Putin "You'll get even more pressure, if you don't negotiate favorably."  Trump's tough stand against Hamas is working and he should do the same against Russia in Ukraine.  His strong stance in Ukraine will undermine Russian advances in Africa and deter Iran and China.  He does not want to start his second term  showing international weakness like Biden did in Afghanistan.

Earlier we wrote:

We have your back if you choose to oppose some of President Trump's nominations.  Our primary concern is Tulsi Gabbard.  We don't object to her being in the government, but she is not a good candidate for Director of National Intelligence.

For our Democratic Congresswoman we wrote:

Support Ukraine

We hope that Presidents Biden and Trump agreed that President Biden would increase pressure on Russia so Trump could come in and tell Putin "You'll get even more pressure, if you don't negotiate favorably."  Trump's tough stand against Hamas is working and he should do the same against Russia in Ukraine.  His strong stance in Ukraine will undermine Russian advances in Africa and deter Iran and China.  He does not want to start his second term  showing international weakness.

Declined Claims and Insurance Fraud

I was disappointed by Dana & Parks’ (local KMBZ radio show) one-sided diatribe against health insurers.  They asked to hear from various people, but pointedly left out those who might defend/explain insurance industry practices.  (It is hard to get comments to them, I had to cut this into 5 separate comments).

Clearly it is appropriate to highlight wrongfully-denied claims.  But we have a lot of insurance fraud; our costs reduce if insurers deny fraudulent claims.  The Anthem BCBS plan to limit anesthesiologist payments was the result of overbilling, which Dana & Parks failed to report.  As noted in #2, you should criticize insurers for paying improper claims as well as declining proper claims.  This would be a more unique contribution, as it is an example of the “tragedy of the commons” (I can explain that principle if you are unfamiliar with it).  Here are examples I have experienced:

1. My insurance covered 80% of dental cost.  When I wasn’t billed for my 20%, I contacted the dentist’s office to pay my share.  They told me it wasn’t necessary.  They had raised their prices 25%.  When my insurer paid 80% of their inflated bill, it covered the dentist’s full intended charge.  Thus, the insurer inappropriately paid my share.  I imagine the dentist had good repeat clientele due to their practice although I never went back again.
2. I drove a person home from a car accident.  He assured me he was fine.  I watched him sprightly walk to his house (his entrance was very recessed from the curb).  I later learned he sued for severe neck damage and was told the insurer knew it was a bogus claim, but he was represented by a known shyster lawyer, and it was cheaper for the insurer to pay the claim than to incur legal costs fighting it.  Insurers’ failure to deny such claim fosters fraud should be exposed..
3. My heart doctor was explaining that my heart test was fine, when we were suddenly interrupted so he could speak with his partner.  Suddenly, I needed a heart monitor installed.  I was dubious; in several years since, my heart monitor has detected no abnormalities.  Doctors prescribe unnecessary treatment to protect against our flawed malpractice lawsuits.
4. I locked my key inside my company car.  An attendant at the garage offered to get into my car.  I agreed to save my wife from having to bring my spare key.  When he jimmied into my car, he broke the lock on the passenger door.  I asked our insurance agency where I might get this problem fixed inexpensively.  They told me to send in the bill.  When I responded that I was going to pay for the repair because I had caused the damage, the person repeatedly urged me to “just send the bill to us”.  It concerned me that he was causing premiums to rise.  I did not send the bill.

How Matching Grant Offers Have Gone Awry

I was an early advocate of matching grants.  However, most matching grant programs now are unethical, deceptively telling prospective donors that their donation will have much more impact than is the case.

Non-profits continually send out appeals such as: “Generous donors will match our [Giving Tuesday] donations [5-to-1], up to a total of [$500,000]!  So, each $1 you give now will go [five] times as far!”

However, in most cases, that $500,000 has been fully committed.  The non-profit will get that $500,000 even if no one responds to the solicitation.  If you donate $1, the non-profit gets only $1 more, not $5 more.

Not only have non-profits falsely re-characterized donations as a “matching grant” so they can mislead donors into donating more money, some non-profits have brazenly solicited funds to be pooled into a false matching grant fund.

In an open-ended true matching grant program, if there is 1-to-1 match, the non-profit gets $2 for every $1 you donate.  If there is a 5-to-1 match, the non-profit gets $5 for each $1 you donate.  The higher the multiple, the better for the non-profit.

If a true matching grant program is going to be fully-subscribed, it is better for the non-profit if the match is a lower multiple.  That is, if the full $500,000 is going to be used:

·       With a 1-to-1 match, it will take $500,000 of donations to secure the $500,000 match, so the non-profit will end up with $1,000,000.

·       With a 5-to-1 match, it will take only $100,000 of donations to secure the $500,000 match, so the non-profit will end up with only $600,000.

The 5-to-1 true match is better only if there is no cap or the cap is not reached.

With a false matching program, a higher multiple attracts more donations but the deal for the non-profit is worse.

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “1-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $1,000,000. 

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “2-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $750,000.  That is, $250,000 were “matched” 2-to-1, resulting in a $500,000 “match”.

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “10-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $550,000, as $50,000 soaks up the full $500,000 “match”.

The incentive is to create as high a ratio as people are likely to believe, which exposes that the messaging is intentionally misleading.  It would be honest to say that they've received a "challenge grant" hoping that people will complement that donation.  Donors who think their donation is being leveraged by a false match are being deceived.  

If a for-profit organization used such misleading messaging, these non-profit executives would think it is horrible, even if the for-profit company is seeking a cure for cancer!

Why would non-profit executives resort to such unethical approaches?  Probably because their mindset is that they are just trying to help people.  Therefore, anything is justified if it helps them raise more funds so they can do more good.  “Ends justify the means” is a slippery slope.  

You might want to question non-profits which offer such "matching gift" programs.  You might even want to reduce your annual contribution or defer it to encourage them to be honest.

Pennsylvania Flap About Mail-in Envelope Dates Exposes Our Wasteful, Litigious society

The flap over the improperly or undated votes in PA demonstrates our wasteful, litigious society.  The PA election code requires the outside envelope to be signed and dated.  I note that the code section does not indicate whether any date would be invalid.  So, I don’t know the authority behind requiring that the date be within the voting period.  Nonetheless, the rule doesn’t seem unreasonable, but it has been said (presumed or proven?) to skew against Democrats because Democrats have historically voted more by mail.  Particularly because PA pre-prints the year to minimize errors, the percentage of misdated votes is small and unlikely to change an election result.  Some people argue that dating is not necessary to evaluate whether the ballot was submitted in a timely fashion. 

Either position seems acceptable.  Why keep litigating it and other minor issues?

• In 2023, the PA Supreme Court ruled that such votes should not be counted. 
• Then, in November 2023, a Federal judge Court said the PA rule was a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 
• So, Bucks County reversed its handling of Nov 2023 misdated mail-in ballots. 
• In August, 2024, a Commonwealth Court in PA, ruled 4-1 that the rule violates the PA State Constitution. 
• In September, the PA Supreme Court ruled 4-3  that the Commonwealth Court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint had not named all 67 counties.  The 3 dissenters wanted the PA Supreme Court to issue a decision on the issue rather than reject the case on a technicality. 
• The same 5 Commonwealth Court judges then ruled 3-2 that a lower court was right to require Philadelphia to count 69 such votes in a September special election, but documented that its decision did not apply to the Presidential election.  The jurisdictional issue was not a problem with that filing. The judge who switched his position from August to September did so, not on the basis of law, but rather because the decision could sow confusion in the Presidential election. 
• On November 1, that PA Supreme Court re-iterated that improperly or undated votes would not count and expressed dissatisfaction with trying to change election rules on the eve of a major election.
• Nonetheless, three counties intentionally and publicly ignored the PA Supreme Court ruling by counting such votes. 
• On November 18^th, the PA Supreme Court again ruled 4-3 that such votes should not be counted, but apparently left open the possibility of further litigation.
• Meanwhile, there have been other contests regarding votes that were invalid for other reasons.  For example, the PA Supreme Court ruled that if people failed to put their mail-in ballot in the second secrecy envelope, they should be allowed to vote provisionally in person.  On November 1, the US Supreme Court agreed.