AUGUST 2 - The rule of law exists - living, breathing, delivered - sometimes twisted and abused - but it is there for everyone. In this document the rule of law is unadulterated and apart from politics.

An article in the Guardian contained the message that everyone should read the indictment. David Remick with the New Yorker writes “The indictment is a powerful summation of much that we have learned before, but who, in fact, will read it? What minds will it alter? What difference will it make?”

Dennis Aftergut in Slate described the indictment as “… sure-footed, streamlined, and prudently aggressive. It takes on charges that must be brought and whose evidence overlaps in a careful design to ensure an efficient trial that can be completed before the November election.

In another election Jonathan Trumbull Jr., the governor of Connecticut in 1799, urged George Washington to run for a third term. Washington responded that he could not do that because” the line between Parties had become so clearly drawn that politicians would “regard neither truth nor decency; attacking every character, without respect to persons – Public or Private – who happen to differ from themselves in Politics.” (George Washington letter).

What about the matter of truth and decency? Reading The Indictment firsthand now might make a difference.

Otherwise, who's to know? Hopefully, at the least, in lieu of an unread critical document and beyond the emotional manipulation of soundbites, the public will suspend hard core oppositional beliefs and will be more informed and enlightened through all means if the trial proceeds in the name of truth and decency.

If not and Washington’s reference to truth and decency along with the rule of law proves to be non-existent then what is next?

AUGUST 5 - If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….

A former U.S. president has broken laws. But where is the systemic meaning of this apparent unlawfulness - ultimately to be determined by a jury (and the public at large)?

From the American Bar Association (ABA) about the rule of law, ... If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter.

From the desk of Ralph Nader and Bruce Fein, the writers' ask why, in this otherwise well-formed indictment, is “insurrection” under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment absent?

Perhaps there are motivations or pressures, political or otherwise, beyond the ken of the public. Or, perhaps Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is too vague and untested. But none of that should matter. As the January 6 committee communicated about the cumulative facts supporting the charge of incitement to insurrection there is a high probability that it is what it is. Go back to the drawing board. Don't hide it. Let the people decide.