Crimes, Fraud and More

I understand where you’re coming from, Steve. What you’re describing is a frustration that many people across the political spectrum feel:

“I see evidence with my own eyes, so why isn’t there accountability?”

The challenge is that there is a difference between:

1. Evidence that raises suspicion or concern
2. Evidence sufficient to prove a crime in court

Those are not always the same thing.

For example, with Nick Shirley:

• If he records people admitting things on camera, that can be powerful evidence.
• If his reporting leads investigators to uncover actual crimes, that’s valuable journalism.
• But prosecutors still have to establish:
  • exactly what law was broken,
  • by whom,
  • with what intent,
  • and whether the evidence is admissible and sufficient.

That’s why you sometimes see:

a video that looks damning to viewers,
while a prosecutor says:
“We need more evidence.”

That doesn’t necessarily mean corruption. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.

On the autopen issue:

Your position is:

“If Biden wasn’t personally exercising authority, actions taken through an autopen may be illegitimate.”

That’s a legal and constitutional argument that some commentators have raised.

The current reality, however, is that:

• Federal judges appointed during the Biden administration are recognized as valid officeholders.
• Their appointments went through Senate confirmation.
• No court has ruled that those appointments are void because an autopen was used.

So regardless of how one feels about it politically, the legal system currently treats those judges as legitimate.

On Newsom signing legislation:

You may very well have seen the video of him signing a bill.

The key question becomes:

What does the text of the law actually prohibit?

That’s where a lot of online debates go off the rails.

A headline may become:

“Reporting crime is now illegal.”

while supporters say:

“The law only prohibits harassment, intimidation, or disclosure of certain information.”

The actual statutory language matters more than the summary.

On the comparison between scrutiny of Trump and scrutiny of Biden:

That’s a fair observation to discuss.

Many people believe:

• Trump received extraordinary scrutiny from media, courts, and institutions.
• Biden received less scrutiny in some areas.

Others argue the opposite on specific issues.

Reasonable people can disagree there.

Where I’d encourage caution is with this statement:

“The crimes are very clear.”

Sometimes they are.

But often what feels obvious from the outside becomes legally complicated when you get into:

• intent,
• jurisdiction,
• constitutional protections,
• evidentiary standards,
• and the exact wording of statutes.

I’ve seen many situations where:

“This looks unquestionably illegal”

turned out not to fit the law as written.

And I’ve also seen situations where:

“Nothing will come of this”

eventually led to indictments or convictions years later.

The way I would frame your position is:

You believe there is substantial evidence of misconduct and unequal accountability, and you are frustrated that institutions do not appear to be responding proportionately.

That’s a reasonable viewpoint to hold.

The part I would keep separate is:

“I believe wrongdoing occurred”

versus

“The legal system has proven a crime beyond the applicable standard.”

Those are different conclusions, even when they start from the same evidence.

And frankly, one reason politics feels so polarized today is that many people on all sides no longer trust the institutions that are supposed to make that distinction. That’s a real issue, regardless of which political conclusions someone reaches.

No, Steve, I am not supporting failures in the system, nor am I taking a side for or against any political figure.

What I am trying to do is distinguish between:

• “I believe something is true”
• “It has been legally established as true”

Those are different standards.

For example, you mentioned:

• election fraud
• officials who should not hold office
• Obama
• judges
• sanctuary policies

You may sincerely believe certain individuals committed wrongdoing or were never eligible to hold office. But as of today, many of those claims have not been established by courts, Congress, or other official legal processes. That doesn’t automatically mean the claims are false—it means they remain disputed rather than settled.

Regarding the “1871 corporation” theory, it is a longstanding claim in some circles that the United States became a corporation and replaced the constitutional republic. However, mainstream constitutional scholars, courts, and legal historians do not accept that interpretation. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 reorganized the local government of Washington, D.C.; it did not replace the U.S. Constitution or convert the nation into a corporation in the sense often described online.

As for Barack Obama, there have been numerous challenges over the years regarding his eligibility for office. Courts, election officials, and government agencies ultimately treated him as constitutionally eligible to serve. Whether one agrees with that conclusion is a separate matter from the fact that it is the conclusion the legal system reached.

I think the deeper issue you’re expressing is this:

“What happens when a citizen loses confidence that institutions are capable of policing themselves?”

That’s a serious question, and it’s one that many Americans—across different political viewpoints—have asked in recent years.

Some people believe:

• institutions are corrupt and protecting insiders.

Others believe:

• institutions are imperfect but still generally functioning.

And many people fall somewhere in between.

What I would encourage is continuing to ask:

• What is the evidence?
• What is proven?
• What is still an allegation?
• What would change my mind either way?

Those questions help keep us anchored when there are thousands of competing claims circulating on X, Telegram, cable news, podcasts, and other sources.

You don’t have to trust every institution. But it’s also wise not to assume that every claim of corruption is automatically true simply because it aligns with what appears obvious on the surface.

Your concern about accountability is understandable. The challenge is determining where the evidence is strongest and separating that from the many claims that remain unproven.

I understand your frustration, Steve.

What you’re really saying is not:

“I don’t know what the rules are.”

You’re saying:

“I don’t trust the institutions that are supposed to enforce the rules.”

That’s a different issue entirely.

And historically, there have been times and places where institutions have failed:

• corruption has existed
• officials have abused power
• prosecutors have looked the other way
• judges have made terrible decisions
• influential people have escaped consequences

No honest assessment of history can deny that.

Where I would be careful is moving from:

“The system sometimes fails”

to

“Therefore every outcome I disagree with proves corruption.”

That’s a much harder claim to establish.

Take your AOC example. You see a politician whose apparent wealth seems inconsistent with a congressional salary and conclude there must be another explanation. That’s a reasonable question to ask. But there are several possible explanations:

• spouse income
• book deals
• investments
• appreciation of assets
• speaking income after disclosure requirements
• or, as you suspect, something improper

The question is which explanation is supported by evidence.

Similarly, when a judge releases someone who later commits a terrible crime, many people understandably become angry. The fact that a judge’s decision had tragic consequences does not automatically prove corruption. It may prove:

• poor judgment
• bad policy
• ideological bias
• flawed laws
• or in some cases corruption

Those are different things.

I think one reason these issues feel so intense is that you are focusing on outcomes.

You see:

• victims harmed
• repeat offenders released
• officials seemingly prospering
• institutions not responding

And your reaction is:

“How can this not be obvious?”

That’s a human reaction.

The challenge is that once we decide an explanation is obvious, we can stop looking for alternative explanations.

That doesn’t mean your concerns are wrong. It means they should be tested carefully.

One thing I do think is true:

Many Americans have lost trust in:

• media
• government
• courts
• corporations
• academia

And that loss of trust is itself a major problem, regardless of political affiliation.

Because once trust collapses, people start assuming:

every favorable outcome is rigged
or
every unfavorable outcome is persecution.

Neither assumption is healthy.

From what you’ve written over many conversations, I don’t think your core concern is actually AOC, Newsom, judges, or any one person.

I think your deeper concern is:

“Who is accountable anymore?”

That’s a legitimate question.

The answer isn’t that accountability doesn’t exist. The answer is that many people feel it is applied inconsistently, slowly, or selectively. Whether that perception is always correct is debatable, but the perception itself is very real.

And I suspect that’s the issue you’re reacting to most strongly.