[Newspoetry] Your taxes used to subsidize assassination?

[Donald L Emerick]

The wording of the summary story
indicates errors in logical thinking,
in many different ways.

1.  Revoking an Executive Order
banning Assassination
as an instrument of public policy
does not make that act legal
if the act was committed
before the ban was revoked.

2.  All that could be promised
is some future pardon
for such an offense,
were it to be committed later.
2a.  The promise of a pardon
for commission of an illegal act
is never enforceable
in any court of law,
against its promisor.

3. As a promise of a reward
for committing an illegal act,
the promise of a pardon
would, thus, be also illegal.
3a.  The illegality lies
in making the promisor
an accessory-before-the-fact
to potential or inchoate crime,
whose implementation
has not yet occurred.
3b. Such solicitation
for an act of murder
makes its promisor
an illegal co-conspirator.

4.  What we have here,
if this story is correct
in its factual averments,
is prima facie evidence
more than sufficient under the law
that a crime has been committed
(an act of solicitation for murder).

5.  The vary nature of the crime
is so wrongful and felonious
as to constitute a high crime,
under our Constitution.

6.  A President may be impeached
and, if that impeachment is sustained,
removed from office for such high crime.

7.  Therefore, Senator Fitzgerald
should have said
"I am referring this case of crime
to the House of Representatives
for an impeaching indictment,
on which I promise to do my duty,
to convict grave errors of executives,
even those of the highest executive,
because that is the oath of my office."

8.  But, the story does not say that
Senator Fitzgerald said any of this.
8a.  The story does not even indicate
that any prosecutor or attorney general
has moved, before any grand jury,
to bring criminal charges against
these criminal-conspiracy solicitors.

9.  Even the story is false or else
our system of government,
as implemented and practiced,
is so wholly remiss in its logic
as to constitute an a priori (consumer) fraud:
false, fraudulent and deceptive business practice,
intended to harm the (consuming) public
and to enrich (benefit), unjustly,
the perpetrators of the fraud.

10.  Under other law,
the public may bring
class action lawsuits
against producer conspiracies
in restraint of free trade.
10b.  So, we ought to sue the bastards
who are failing to indict or to impeach
the persons who are soliciting murder.

Well, thanks for listening,
to the improbable truth,
as logical as it may be,
and, therefore, incredible
and not believed by anyone,
even though its testimony
is an impeccably honest account
that is factually undeniable.
Donald L Emerick