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.