Bondi and Halligan (and every public servant in the executive branch below the president, in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 3331) swore (and publicly acknowledged that they knew) that their first, foremost and constant duty was to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution (not any person, party or ideology that violates or attacks or undermines our Constitution).
As Article VI emphasizes, "the supreme Law of the Land" is, first, our "Constitution, and" then the federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties" and all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support" our "Constitution." Article II emphasizes that the first, foremost and constant duty of the president is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" the president's "Ability."
As Trump, Bondi and Halligan know, the First Amendment is perfectly clear that no federal public servant was given any power to make or enforce any purported law "abridging the freedom of speech." They know they cannot use criminal prosecutions for the purpose of retaliating against or intimidating Trump's critics. That kind of conduct (retaliating against critics, including for the purpose of intimidating other actual or potential critics) once was called the crime of "seditious libel." Trump, Bondi and Halligan are trying to prosecute that crime under a different name.
Some pundits recently have proved (including with clips of Trump speaking about the freedom of speech) Trump, personally, actually knows that his conduct violates our Constitution. Trump's court filings in New York regarding the freedom of speech even more compellingly proved that Trump, personally, actually knows that his conduct violates our Constitution. Trump's knowledge makes Trump's conduct criminal.
The simple truth and the dispositive principle is that Trump and Halligan knowingly violated their oaths of office and our Constitution. No words of any statute can authorize anyone to violate any person's rights secured by our Constitution. Two federal criminal statutes say exactly that.
Lots of conduct purportedly under "color" of "law" or "custom" is criminal. It is a federal offense for any purported public servant to act “under” mere “color of any” legal authority or purported “custom” to “willfully” deprive "any person" of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution” or federal “laws” (18 U.S.C. § 242) or to “conspire” with anyone to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in "the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to” him “by the Constitution” or federal “laws” or because such person “exercised” such “right or privilege” (18 U.S.C. § 241).
Bondi and Halligan (and every public servant in the executive branch below the president, in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 3331) swore (and publicly acknowledged that they knew) that their first, foremost and constant duty was to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution (not any person, party or ideology that violates or attacks or undermines our Constitution).
As Article VI emphasizes, "the supreme Law of the Land" is, first, our "Constitution, and" then the federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties" and all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support" our "Constitution." Article II emphasizes that the first, foremost and constant duty of the president is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" the president's "Ability."
As Trump, Bondi and Halligan know, the First Amendment is perfectly clear that no federal public servant was given any power to make or enforce any purported law "abridging the freedom of speech." They know they cannot use criminal prosecutions for the purpose of retaliating against or intimidating Trump's critics. That kind of conduct (retaliating against critics, including for the purpose of intimidating other actual or potential critics) once was called the crime of "seditious libel." Trump, Bondi and Halligan are trying to prosecute that crime under a different name.
Some pundits recently have proved (including with clips of Trump speaking about the freedom of speech) Trump, personally, actually knows that his conduct violates our Constitution. Trump's court filings in New York regarding the freedom of speech even more compellingly proved that Trump, personally, actually knows that his conduct violates our Constitution. Trump's knowledge makes Trump's conduct criminal.
The simple truth and the dispositive principle is that Trump and Halligan knowingly violated their oaths of office and our Constitution. No words of any statute can authorize anyone to violate any person's rights secured by our Constitution. Two federal criminal statutes say exactly that.
Lots of conduct purportedly under "color" of "law" or "custom" is criminal. It is a federal offense for any purported public servant to act “under” mere “color of any” legal authority or purported “custom” to “willfully” deprive "any person" of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution” or federal “laws” (18 U.S.C. § 242) or to “conspire” with anyone to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in "the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to” him “by the Constitution” or federal “laws” or because such person “exercised” such “right or privilege” (18 U.S.C. § 241).