ALSTEAD, N.H.-FFOTUS (First Felon of the United States) is an extortionist.
Merriam-Webster's definition of extort is "to obtain from a person by force or undue or illegal power or ingenuity." Extortion is defined as "the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially: the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice."
What would you call or label what happened to Columbia University? It capitulated to FFOTUS's demands that it identify every demonstrator and put its Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies under "receivership" or else lose $400 million in government funding.
What would you call what happened to the law firm Paul, Weiss? FFOTUS, through his now-too-familiar "executive" order, stripped security clearances from the firm's lawyers, limited them from entering federal buildings (read courthouses) and getting government jobs, and terminating government contracts.
But wait!
FFOTUS withdrew his "executive" order because, as described by a statement released by the White House, Paul, Weiss had "acknowledged the wrongdoing" of their former attrorney, Mark Pomerantz, who participated in a criminal case against FFOTUS. Paul, Weiss pledged $40 million in pro bono legal work to support the administration. Again, read the definitions above.
FFOTUS is a bully who uses fright and bluster as he pretends to be a fighter, threatening others to extort from others what he wants. And like all extortionists (think blackmailers), once he gets what he wants it'll not be enough. He'll return for more and more.
Don't like the way green card holders speak out at demonstrations? Send ICE after them and make them disappear. Don't like what a French scientist said about FFOTUS in a private message? Don't let him into the country.
Is extortion/blackmail now beyond impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors?
David Miller
Alstead, N.H.
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].