SHOW AUDIO: Link is usually posted within about 72 hours of show broadcast. We take callers during this show.

TOPIC:  SUPPORT KPFT! Trump Inauguration coming, New Theory on Titanic Sinking, Eight men are as rich as half the world, Lazy Passwords, New DB Cooper Theory, US Troops Arrive in Poland, European leaders shocked as Trump slams NATO and EU, FDR’s Four Freedoms, GOP Congress Claims Mandate & lays plans to propel sweeping conservative agenda, Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, Support Progressive Causes, more

GUEST: OPEN FORUM

Welcome to Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig (@ThinkwingRadio), a listener call-in show  airing live every Monday night from 9-10 PM (CT) on KPFT-FM 90.1 (Houston). My engineer is Bob Gartner.

Listen live on the radio or on the internet from anywhere in the world! When the show is live, we take calls at 713-526-5738. (Long distance charges may apply.)

For the purposes of this show, I operate on two mottoes:

• You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts;
  

  Houston Mayor Annise Parker [L] with Mike, just before the show. (Dec. 7, 2015)

• An educated electorate is a prerequisite for a democracy.

SIGNOFF QUOTE[s]:

“… when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth…” ~ Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes in “The Sign of Four,” by written in 1890 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,  Chap. 6, p. 111 (From Wikipedia)

LINKS:

I don’t like to engage in hyperbole, but I believe we are approaching a real existential, Constitutional crisis.

Up until now, I’ve been arguing that the only to remotely realistic choices we have is Pres. Trump or Pres. Pence. I know longer believe that is even Constitutionally acceptable.

John Ibanez’s post (which I have pasted below) persuaded me. His last two paragraphs locked it up. Essentially, this whole administration is tainted. They have all “bitten of the poisoned apple”, as they sometimes say in law. Therefore this administration must be pulled up by the roots of the Republic is to survive as we have known it.The solution may lie in a minor precedent called “Marks v. Stinson” ([MARKS v. STINSON | 19 F.3d 873 (1994) | Leagle.com]). The ruling states, in part: “Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery.”
According to the New York Times: “Judge Newcomer ordered that Mr. Stinson, a 49-year-old former assistant deputy mayor of Philadelphia, be removed from his State Senate office and that Mr. Marks, a 36-year-old lawyer and former aide to United States Senator Arlen Specter, be certified the winner within 72 hours.”I am now convinced that as farfetched as this may sound, it is in fact the only real solution to our nation’s current dilemma.

The election must be overturned.

• ‘Military’ convoy with Trump flag rolls through, by Andrew Wolfson , @adwolfson [Courier-Journal, part of USA Today Network] Published 5:45 p.m. ET Jan. 30, 2017 | Updated 1 hour ago
• John Ibanez, Yesterday at 2:31pm 1/29/2017

Some people are calling for impeachment. I believe impeachment would take too long. They first have to introduce articles of impeachment, then have hearings, then vote. If he is impeached by the House of Representatives, they then have to bring it before the Senate. The Senate would have their own hearings and then vote on whether to remove him from office. If he is removed from office, Vice President Mike Pence becomes President.

Impeachment would remove Trump, but then we get a President who believes GLBT people should be sent to some form of concentration camps to be reprogrammed.

I think Impeachment would take too long, and would not solve the problem.

The intelligence community already has the evidence that a foreign government interfered in the election so that Trump & Pence would win. That foreign power was Russia. So long as Trump is in office, he will be beholden to Vladimir Putin. If Pence were to become President, he also would be beholden to Putin. The interference of a foreign power on behalf of one of the candidates invalidates the election, and the elected candidates are rendered unqualified to serve.

The oath of office is given to the candidates who abided by the rules, and did not compromise their integrity. Inspite of all the Republican protestations, the oath of office should be given to Hillary Rodham Clinton and Tim Kaine.

“Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery.”

• According to the New York Times: “Judge Newcomer ordered that Mr. Stinson, a 49-year-old former assistant deputy mayor of Philadelphia, be removed from his State Senate office and that Mr. Marks, a 36-year-old lawyer and former aide to United States Senator Arlen Specter, be certified the winner within 72 hours.”

This is the article that discusses the case and how it may relate to Clinton v. Trump. Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton is the ONLY person who has legal standing to bring this case to court. Therefore, SHE must act, for the good of the country, however slim the chances.

1. Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton, By Alex Mohajer, Political Writer and Commentator (Huffington Post) 12/10/2016 06:28 am ET | Updated 6 days ago (12/13/2016)
2. at least one federal court decision suggests there may be some federal case law on the question of whether it is possible to invalidate the outcome of an election after the fact when there is fraud, and replace a candidate benefitted by fraud with his opponent. The case, Marks v. Stinson, is the first and only known case in which a federal judge reversed an election outcome.
3. [In] a case originally brought before a federal district judge in Pennsylvania in 1993, which was subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1994. The Third Circuit partially upheld the federal judge’s decision to intervene and invalidate a 1993 state senate election due to fraud. Interestingly, the federal district judge ordered the winner be removed from office and the subsequent vacancy be filled by his opponent.
4. In February 1994, after Stinson had already taken office, the federal judge ordered he “be removed from his State Senate office and that [his opponent, Bruce Marks] be certified the winner within 72 hours.”
5. Two of the elected officials who testified in the Pennsylvania case said under oath that they were aware of the fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce laws, and hurried to certify Stinson the winner in order to bury the story. To some, the narrative draws parallels to the Washington Post’s revelation that Republican Mitch McConnell was aware of the CIA’s conclusion that Russians had intervened and opted to do nothing.
6. The case deliberates interesting rationale that could theoretically be applied in part if, after Donald Trump assumes office, it is shown that Russian hacking (or any fraud, for that matter) robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency. The case offers clues that imply courts may intervene.
7. There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analogous. But the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster. It is not clear how the case would impact a presidential election.
• Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton, By Alex Mohajer, Political Writer and Commentator (Huffington Post) 12/10/2016 06:28 am ET | Updated 6 days ago
  1. [MARKS v. STINSON | 19 F.3d 873 (1994) | Leagle.com]
  2. BREAKING: Russian Interference In The Election Just Handed Hillary The White House (DETAILS), December 10, 2016 New Century Times
     1. His opponent in the race, Republican Bruce Marks was then made the winner. The judge who made the ruling, Judge Clarence Newcomer, said:

“Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery.”

According to the New York Times: “Judge Newcomer ordered that Mr. Stinson, a 49-year-old former assistant deputy mayor of Philadelphia, be removed from his State Senate office and that Mr. Marks, a 36-year-old lawyer and former aide to United States Senator Arlen Specter, be certified the winner within 72 hours.”

• Emoluments Clause of the Constitution (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia):
  1. The Ineligibility Clause, one of the two clauses often called the Emoluments Clause,^[1][2] and sometimes also referred to as the Incompatibility Clause^[3] or the Sinecure Clause,^[4] is found in Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. It places limitations upon the employment of members of Congress and prohibits employees of the Executive Branch from serving in Congress during their terms in office. The name “Ineligibility Clause” is only used by a minority of writers, as compared to the name “Emoluments Clause”.^[1][2][5]
  2. The clause states: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”
• Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution deals with succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities. It supersedes the ambiguous wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution, which does not expressly state whether the Vice President becomes the President or Acting President if the President dies, resigns, is removed from office or is otherwise unable to discharge the powers of the presidency.^[1] The Twenty-fifth Amendment was adopted on February 10, 1967.^[2]

1. Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
2. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
3. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
5. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.^[3]
• Group will sue Trump over business’ foreign profits, By Cyra Master 2 hrs ago (The Hill) 1/22/2017 via MSN
  1. The Title of Nobility Clause [Also known as the Emoluments Clause] is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so–called “corrupting foreign influences”. This shield is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section^[2] ~ Title of Nobility Clause – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause
  2. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) announced Sunday night it is bringing a suit “to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution (the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause ) by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments.”
  3. At issue is Trump’s refusal to divest from his business or place his assets into a blind trust, which would separate him entirely from his business empire. He has said his adult sons will run his business while he is in office, that they will not conduct any foreign deals and will subject any domestic deals to an ethics review.
• Acting AG: Dept. of Justice won’t defend Trump immigration order, USA TODAY 1/30/2017: “I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” said Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration.
• Trial Balloon for a Coup? Analyzing the news of the past 24 hours, by Yonatan Zunger
• White House vows to fight media ‘tooth and nail’ over Trump coverage, By Doina Chiacu and Jason Lange [Reuters] 1/22/2017
  1. The White House vowed on Sunday to fight the news media “tooth and nail” over what it sees as unfair attacks, with [Kellyanne Conway] saying the Trump administration had presented “alternative facts” to counter low inauguration crowd estimates.
• Tanks Roll Through ‘Chunnel’ as Europe Frets About Trump, Russia, NBC News by Alexander Smith and Carlo Angerer and Keir Simmons 5 hrs ago
  1. … in the dead of night this week, Britain’s military sent five tanks down the 30-mile “Chunnel” to test whether it would be an effective route for forces if deployed to places such as Eastern Europe amid tensions between Russia and NATO.
  2. the potential need to fast-track forces to the Russian front served as a reminder of how seriously Washington’s allies in Europe perceive the threat on their doorstep.
  3. These allies have traditionally felt that Washington has their back, something thrown into doubt by Trump cozying up to Moscow and branding NATO “obsolete” earlier this week.
  4. Trump’s comments this week came after he suggested during his campaign that he might not honor NATO’s central tenet that an attack against one member state would be seen as an attack against all.
  5. “It’s certainly freaked people out,” according to Alexander Lanoszka, an expert in American foreign policy at City, University of London. He said Trump’s comments have brought European concerns about an emboldened Russia “into sharp focus.”
• Trident: Defence Secretary refuses to give test missile details (BBC)
  1. Labour MP, Mary Creagh, said a White House official had confirmed to the US broadcaster CNN that the missile did “auto-self-destruct” off the coast of Florida. She asked why people in the UK were “the last to know”.
  2. What about the people in Florida!!
• How Wisdom Teeth Are Fueling the Opioid Epidemic, By Melissa Pandika 1/22/2017, [Ozy.com] via MSN
  1. … In 2015, opioids killed a record 33,000 people, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those deaths involved a prescription opioid. Now, a new study drills down to one source of these drugs: wisdom-tooth extractions.
  2. More than half of the opioid painkillers prescribed to patients after wisdom tooth removal surgery in a recent Drug and Alcohol Dependence study went unused.
  3. 100 million opioid pills, prescribed for wisdom-tooth extractions, go unused.
  4. Which means they’re available for misuse and abuse by patients, their loved ones or others. But the study also found that offering information about a pharmacy-based drug-disposal program, plus a financial incentive, made patients more likely to properly dispose of their unused medication, or at least plan to do so.
• The worst passwords of 2016 are as lazy as ever: Please, stop using “123456.”, By Charlie Osborne for Zero Day (ZDNet) | January 13, 2017 — 14:00 GMT (06:00 PST)

 SOURCES WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO OTHER DISCUSSION:

======================================================

• Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton, By Alex Mohajer, Political Writer and Commentator (Huffington Post) 12/10/2016 06:28 am ET | Updated 6 days ago (12/13/2016)
  • …at least one federal court decision suggests there may be some federal case law on the question of whether it is possible to invalidate the outcome of an election after the fact when there is fraud, and replace a candidate benefitted by fraud with his opponent. The case, Marks v. Stinson, is the first and only known case in which a federal judge reversed an election outcome.
  • [In] a case originally brought before a federal district judge in Pennsylvania in 1993, which was subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1994. The Third Circuit partially upheld the federal judge’s decision to intervene and invalidate a 1993 state senate election due to fraud. Interestingly, the federal district judge ordered the winner be removed from office and the subsequent vacancy be filled by his opponent.
  • In February 1994, after Stinson had already taken office, the federal judge ordered he “be removed from his State Senate office and that [his opponent, Bruce Marks] be certified the winner within 72 hours.”
  • Two of the elected officials who testified in the Pennsylvania case said under oath that they were aware of the fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce laws, and hurried to certify Stinson the winner in order to bury the story. To some, the narrative draws parallels to the Washington Post’s revelation that Republican Mitch McConnell was aware of the CIA’s conclusion that Russians had intervened and opted to do nothing.
  • The case deliberates interesting rationale that could theoretically be applied in part if, after Donald Trump assumes office, it is shown that Russian hacking (or any fraud, for that matter) robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency. The case offers clues that imply courts may intervene.
  • There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analogous. But the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster. It is not clear how the case would impact a presidential election.
  • | Updated 6 days ago [MARKS v. STINSON | 19 F.3d 873 (1994) | Leagle.com]
  • BREAKING: Russian Interference In The Election Just Handed Hillary The White House (DETAILS), December 10, 2016 New Century Times
    • His opponent in the race, Republican Bruce Marks was then made the winner. The judge who made the ruling, Judge Clarence Newcomer, said:

      “Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery.”

      According to the New York Times: “Judge Newcomer ordered that Mr. Stinson, a 49-year-old former assistant deputy mayor of Philadelphia, be removed from his State Senate office and that Mr. Marks, a 36-year-old lawyer and former aide to United States Senator Arlen Specter, be certified the winner within 72 hours.”

1. Four Freedoms, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people “everywhere in the world” ought to enjoy:

• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of worship
• Freedom from want
• Freedom from fear
• Roosevelt delivered his speech 11 months before the United States declared war on Japan, December 8, 1941. The State of the Union speech before Congress was largely about the national security of the United States and the threat to other democracies from world war that was being waged across the continents in the eastern hemisphere. In the speech, he made a break with the tradition of United States non-interventionism that had long been held in the United States. He outlined the U.S. role in helping allies already engaged in warfare.

• Claiming mandate, GOP Congress lays plans to propel sweeping conservative agenda, By David Weigel [Washington Post] January 1, 2017 at 7:46 PM
• Republican Congress puts priority on targeting regulations, by Herb Jackson, USA TODAY 11:23 a.m. EST January 2, 2017
  • The House is expected to take up two bills — the Midnight Rules Act and the REINS Act (which stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) — that passed on largely party-line votes in the 114th, 113th and 112th congressional sessions, but died in the Senate. The REINS Act would require that before any new major regulation could take effect, the House and Senate would have to pass a resolution of approval. The Midnight Rules Act would let Congress invalidate rules in bulk that passed in the final year of a presidential term.
  • And under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval to block a rule if it acts within 60 days of notification from an agency.
  • [The bill’s sponsor is Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia.] The new legislation would further expand congressional power by preventing an administration from implementing rules without another vote. Under the REINS act, a proposed regulation would be deemed rejected if Congress was in session for 70 days and took no action. The bill allows for a major rule to take effect for a single 90-day period if the president determined it was necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.

• Differences between Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians and neo-Conservatives
  • Left–right politics, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    • History of the terms: The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms “left” and “right” to refer to the opposing sides.^[9]
  • Greens and Libertarians: The yin and yang of our political future, by Dan Sullivan (originally appearing in Green Revolution, Volume 49, No. 2, summer, 1992)
    • … Libertarians tend to be logical and analytical. They are confident that their principles will create an ideal society, even though they have no consensus of what that society would be like. Greens, on the other hand, tend to be more intuitive and imaginative. They have clear images of what kind of society they want, but are fuzzy about the principles on which that society would be based.
    • Ironically, Libertarians tend to be more utopian and uncompromising about their political positions, and are often unable to focus on politically winnable proposals to make the system more consistent with their overall goals. Greens on the other hand, embrace immediate proposals with ease, but are often unable to show how those proposals fit in to their ultimate goals.
    • The most difficult differences to reconcile, however, stem from baggage that members of each party have brought with them from their former political affiliations. Most Libertarians are overly hostile to government and cling to the fiction that virtually all private fortunes are legitimately earned. Most Greens are overly hostile to free enterprise and cling to the fiction that harmony and balance can be achieved through increased government intervention.
    • Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.^[5][6][7]
    • Researchers have also said that the Right includes capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.^[8]

__________________________________________________________________