Since well before Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, there’s been talk of how outgoing president Donald Trump might be criminally prosecuted at the state or federal level for any of dozens of alleged crimes once he leaves office.

Prosecutors in New York seem intent on bringing The Donald down one way or another, but at the federal level Trump-haters can probably expect little joy. Presidents don’t like the idea of prosecuting their predecessors, lest they themselves start, and get caught on, a  never-ending “he’s out, let’s get him!” merry-go-round.

But there’s another way.

Remember OJ Simpson? The former football star was acquitted of the 1994 murders of his former wife and her friend Ron Goldman. But Goldman’s family filed a wrongful death suit, won a civil judgment for $33.5 million, and have spent the last quarter century confiscating Simpson’s assets and income to satisfy that judgment.

The Goldmans won their case on a “preponderance of evidence” standard rather than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In Trump’s case, there is no reasonable doubt: He’s on the hook for billions.

Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution mandates that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

In February 2019, Trump illegally and unconstitutionally attempted to misappropriate $6.6 billion for construction of his “border wall.” About a third of the money turned out to have already been spent for its lawful purpose, but he got away with at least $4 billion in stolen funds.

Since then, the matter has circulated in the courts, with lower federal courts taking due notice of the theft, but the US Supreme Court dismissing the suits for standing (according to SCOTUS, Congress has no recourse when presidents seize its lawful powers for themselves).

But the case is open-and-shut. He did it right there in the open, without even trying to hide it. There’s no doubt whatsoever that it was unconstitutional. And since it was not a legitimate presidential power there can’t be any “sovereign immunity” claim. The absence of such a claim also dispels any future argument from Trump’s defenders that the case is moot once he’s left office.

Donald Trump owes the US Department of the Treasury $4 billion. It should sue, get a civil judgment in its favor, and move swiftly to collect.

Trump almost certainly doesn’t have $4 billion in cash lying around, and his actual net worth may be negative. After confiscating and auctioning his assets — hotels, apartment buildings, golf courses,  pretty much everything except a single residence, a family vehicle, and personal effects such as clothing — Treasury may have to split the proceeds with his other creditors.

But he also has known and prospective future income, including but not limited to his presidential pension, speaking fees, book advances and royalties, etc.

The US poverty level for a family of three (Donald, Melania, and Barron) is $21,300 per year, so let him keep that much at least. After all, we’re not monsters. The rest goes toward repaying the money he stole.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

If a private citizen wants to open a bank account, board an airplane, buy tobacco or alcohol, or engage in many other perfectly ordinary activities, government requires that citizen to present photo identification which includes personal information, including his or her home address and date of birth.

But according to many government employees, their own personal information should be protected by law from the prying eyes of that ordinary citizen.

Congress is currently considering legislation that would empower federal judges to censor social media posts containing such information about themselves. US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) opposes the bill — not because it clearly violates the First Amendment, but because he wants it expanded to provide for concealment of his own personal information and that of his fellow members of Congress too.

“I really think that this is important that we protect addresses for our judges, but it’s also important that we do this for our elected officials,” says Paul. “The Capitol Hill police are not stationed at our homes where our families live while we serve in Washington.”

You know where else the Capitol Hill Police aren’t stationed, Senator Paul? My house. If the TSA agent or financial regulator or store clerk your laws require me to show my ID to turns out to be some kind of psycho stalker,  I’m on my own.

There’s one big difference between me and Senator Paul,  and between me and US District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed and husband wounded by such a stalker in an attack on their family home, fueling the latest round of calls for “protection” of government employees’ personal information.

That difference is that I don’t  claim to represent or serve (or expect a paycheck from) the people I’m required by law (that is, by Senator Paul and friends) to share my personal information with.

Article I of the US Constitution requires Senator Paul to be an “inhabitant” of Kentucky as of each election in which he seeks to retain his seat. If Kentucky’s voters aren’t allowed to know where he lives, how can they know whether he’s eligible to continue serving as their Senator?

Nobody forced Rand Paul to seek political office. Nobody’s forcing him to continue living on the taxpayer dime. So long as he does, those taxpayers are entitled to know as much about him as he demands to know about them.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

As I write this on December 17, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting to review a COVID-19 vaccine developed by biotech company Moderna. Likely outcome: The panel will recommend approval of the vaccine to FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen M. Hahn.

My question: What took so long, and why?

As David Wallace-Wells reports at New York magazine, Moderna completed design of its vaccine on January 13 — only two days after the virus’s genetic sequence was released to the public by Professor Yong-Zhen Zhang of Shanghai’s Fudan University and before any US cases of the virus had been confirmed.

By May, Phase I clinical trials had established the vaccine’s apparent safety.

Seven months later, we’re finally about to get the vaccine (as well as one by Pfizer, approved earlier in December and based on the same “messenger RNA” approach).

Yes, the FDA’s brief is to approve drugs based on two standards: Safety and efficacy.

And yes, more time spent testing for both safety and efficacy produces more trustworthy results.

But federal, state, and local government officials have been telling us, since at least as far back as March, that the COVID-19 pandemic is an emergency, and most people seem to agree with the claim.

In an emergency, we do things we normally wouldn’t do, the immediate circumstance being so dire that we’re willing to accept risks we usually wouldn’t accept. Getting through, and out of, the emergency is the most important thing. Business as usual goes out the window.

That’s what government always tells us when it wants to do something on an “emergency” basis. In the case of COVID-19, governments seized broad powers to shut down whole sectors of the economy and place untold millions of Americans under de facto house arrest though those Americans were accused of no crime.

Business closures. Capacity limits. Mask mandates. Travel bans. You name it, there was nothing governments weren’t willing to do to address the emergency.

Except give up any of their own power.

At every step, the US medical response to COVID-19 has been constrained by “you must first ask if it please the Crown” considerations. Not just with respect to vaccine development, but even to the long-accepted practice of “off-label” prescribing of existing drugs —  for example,  hydroxychloroquine, FDA-approved  since 1955.

COVID-19 has killed more than 300,000 Americans , more than 2/3 of them since the end of May, by which time the Moderna vaccine was deemed safe.

How many of those deaths might have been avoided if FDA had allowed Moderna to begin selling, and health providers to begin administering, the vaccine six months ago?

And when, if ever, will foot-dragging regulators be held responsible for those avoidable deaths?

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY