The ruthless interaction of Trump and his followers both nationally and internationally establishes a potential for a RICO statute action on the working premise that the operation constitutes a criminal enterprise.

::::::::

Rudolph Giuliani has never forgiven Hillary Clinton for outflanking him on numerous fronts and prompting his withdrawal from a U.S. Senate seat in New York that he believed should be his.

Giuliani's ferocious anger and heavy layer of hubris were comparable to efforts of the Republican right when Bill Clinton's strategy ploys resulted in his wresting the White House from a party that profoundly believed that the presidency was its personal property due to a perceived built-in permanent advantage in the Electoral College. That ferocity reached its intensity with a concerted effort by Republicans in the House and Senate to remove Clinton from the Oval Office for lying about an extramarital sex act with a White House intern on an affidavit in a civil action.

Giuliani during the period just prior to the election became initially carried away with glee and was ultimately compelled to play defense in a series of television interviews in which he sought to boost Donald Trump for the presidency. He felt on comfortable ground in the first interview on the familiar terrain of Fox and Friends. He could not contain his glee in stating that in two days the presidential race in which Hillary Clinton held current momentum would be altered. His expression and tone embodied naughty glee, of a cat that had devoured a canary.

Any veneer of cockiness on Giuliani's part vanished in his ensuing series of interviews. Those occurred on CNN, a network that Trump put on his list of media outlets seeking to rig the election against him. His interviewer was veteran U.S. and international television journalist Wolf Blitzer. Giuliani knew that Blitzer interviews would not be cheerleading sessions in which he could take bows and inflate his ego.

The interviews were disasters for Guiliani. Given his cocky assurances of a presidential race changer in two days, experienced journalist Blitzer sharply probed to learn how Giuliani had become aware of the day when FBI Director James Comey made his announcement that the investigation into the email messages on then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private computer server was being reopened. When Guiliani was asked by Blitzer whether he had been informed about the announcement that would be made two days later, the respondent timidly exclaimed that he did not have such information. His verbal wiggle resulted in something to the effect that his awareness related to rumblings about the Republican campaign's plan to release compelling evidence damaging to the Clinton cause but did not relate to the Comey announcement, which could presumably be attributed to coincidence.

Blitzer turned up the heat in asking Guiliani if information he received concerning Clinton's email travails had been received from current FBI sources. The former U.S. Attorney for the Manhattan District knew what such an admission would portend on a legal ethics scale. He nervously replied that all conversations he had concerning all aspects of the Justice Department investigation were with former rather than current FBI agents.

Blitzer's next question discombobulated Giuliani even more. Blitzer coolly asked the former federal prosecutor about a recent interview with conservative talk show host Lars Nelson. Blitzer explained that Guiliani had told Larson that he had discussed the Clinton email issue with current FBI operatives. A clearly nervous Giuliani was compelled relating to fears that a tape could be produced of the Larson interview to state that if he had made such a comment that he had misspoken on that occasion.

As a trained attack dog of the Republican right the battered former prosecutor sought to turn the tide at the close of the interview by employing the tactic that the best defense was a good offense. In response to a Blitzer question over whether he would be willing to answer questions in an investigation into the subject matter they had discussed, he sought to display a confident smile and asserted that he was not like individuals from the Democratic side who had taken the Fifth Amendment and sought to avoid responding to questions. He assuredly would testify fully on all matters without taking the Fifth Amendment.

The Giuliani interviews harkened back to a statement made earlier by Donald Trump at a news conference. The Republican presidential nominee was responding to a question relating to possible email hacking of Democratic Party campaign operatives by the Russian Government headed by President Vladimir Putin. Trump's response was that he hoped that alleged hacking incidents would continue.

Trump's response set off an immediate media firestorm within America and beyond. Analysts asked aloud if Trump was indeed advocating that a foreign government intervene in cyberspace to influence a U.S. presidential election. The parade of designated Trump paid toadies rushed onto the scene to "explain" that the Republican nominee was exercising his sense of humor and that the comment had been made in jest. A viewing of the incident in question displays anything but a humorous demeanor from Trump, whose expression and icy tone revealed hate and anger rather than someone delivering a joke.

The aforementioned events prompt attention to be devoted to Trump's unwillingness, as opposed to other recent presidential nominees of both major parties, to release his federal income tax returns. A concerned response was registered from both within and outside of political circles that Trump feared that such a disclosure would reveal a long and consistent pattern of tax avoidance.

While such concern was augmented by independent investigations that demonstrated such a long and consistent pattern, what has been heretofore ignored is another frightening possibility as to why Trump refused to release tax information. This involves the perhaps staggering and extensive activities in which Trump's American activities interlinked with foreign activity, or based on what appeared to lead investigators on a trail of interlocking international activity.

An example of such aforementioned activity can be conjectured based on how Rudolph Guiliani, Hillary Clinton's vigilant email critic, has been operating in the private sector as a practicing attorney and consultant. Giuliani not only has been busy on the international client front; it has been recently reported that foreign law firms with which he has done business included Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez and Abu Nidal. Is this the type of activity Trump has been citing in his quest to make America great again? Guiliani told Blitzer that he would not take the Fifth Amendment before legal tribunals while pointing the finger elsewhere. Would he in similar circumstances waive the attorney-client privilege?

While so much attention has been devoted to activity on American soil during the recently concluded election, it is time to shift the focus to an ever expanding colossus on the global scene. Occupying a major element in that picture is professional international cyber hacker Julian Assange. He has been vigorously involved in the hacking of Democratic political operatives.

An interesting name from the past that has surged to the fore with impish vengeance is Roger Stone, a proud and unapologetic Republican dirty trickster who began his career under none other than Richard Nixon, the nation's only president to resign after being handed the sword by Senator Barry Goldwater of his own party. Stone in his more veteran trickster days engineered the Brooks Brothers Riot in permanently disrupting the vote count at Dade County Courthouse in Miami, Stone's home territory. Stone, who remains prideful of his profession and his sundry activities, has openly stated his recent liaising with Julian Assange.

Trump would be expected to feel increasingly nervous as he prepares to take office in January over revealed connections involving himself and his campaign alongside Julian Assange's WikiLeaks contingent and the Russian Government headed by Vladimir Putin, a foreign leader of whom he has spoken highly. It would be understandable for Assange's legal team to seek assistance from Trump to improve their client's current situation as he remains ensconced in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Yesterday Assange's legal team fired off a missive on behalf of its client that hardly fits into the framework of legal justice. Trump was beseeched to assist Assange in the midst of an invasion of his legal rights. According to Assange's legal team his First Amendment rights of free expression should not be usurped. Those rights involve breaking into anyone's computer any time their client desires.

This prompts an analogy. If you reside in an apartment building and a person or team has proven capable of breaking into your private mail and you and your fellow residents seek to stop this activity then under the rationale of the Assange lawyers you are invading the break in artist's First Amendment rights and thereby pose a "chilling effect" on that individual's constitutional liberties.

Today's news includes a statement from Admiral Michael Rogers, National Agency Security Director, that Hillary Clinton's emails were leaked to WikiLeaks in a "conscious effort by a nation state to influence the election." Admiral Rogers, who also serves as commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, told a Wall Street Journal conference that the hacking of emails from Ms. Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee had not been "by chance."

While Admiral Rogers did not name the country, his statement harkened back one month to when the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security accused Russia of responsibility for the leaks. So what about that disclosure? Are the citizens of the United States and the rest of the world entitled to learn more concerning this charge and the rationale behind it? Would one expect an investigation into the alleged influencing of another nation using cyberspace against a major party in an ongoing presidential campaign by Trump, the candidate in a position to benefit from such information?

Meanwhile information surfaces of a crosschecking effort perpetrated against minority voters in key battleground states. The alleged effort is mindful of the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. This is a system devised by Kris Kobach, current Kansas Secretary of State. Kobach is an immigration adviser on Trump's transition team who is author of the Muslim Registry that the president-elect has demonstrated interest in employing. Former Navy SEAL and current Trump adviser Carl Higbie stated his belief on Fox News that he expects an American Civil Liberties Union challenge to fail and the Muslim Registry to pass muster. When Higbie used the precedent of the Japanese internment camps of World War Two as legal precedent interviewer Megan Kelly delivered a sturdy rebuke.

The concluded parade of horribles makes the constitutional trashing by President Richard M. Nixon and his administration look like a Sunday school picnic. The cumulative activities of a powerful nation run amuck was documented in one the world's most memorable history works, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer.

Shirer's epic work was a horror story about a regime operating as a criminal enterprise with intent to conquer the world. How does this differ from what is occurring in the power mad world of Donald Trump and his toadies? This brazen pattern of conduct extends all the way down to strident militarism and runaway racism with discrimination a key ingredient of a sick and pathetic order. Third Reich discrimination attained such robust scope and volume that the Holocaust resulted.

It is imperative before the fascistic misdeeds of a Trump regime can inflict widespread destruction to act swiftly. An interesting legal test would be a filing of current particulars in an action using the RICO statute under the rationale that Trump and his regime, including the strident alt-right arm of the Republican Party, constitute a criminal enterprise with tentacles extending well beyond America's shores. The FBI records relating to every aspect of the Hillary Clinton email episode should be subpoenaed. If a link can be established between Russian involvement and WikiLeaks hacking can be established then Donald Trump should be en route to a federal trial rather than the White House.

A particularly vital element of any investigation should be the activities of FBI Director James Comey. The momentum shift near the end of the recent presidential election occurred after Comey announced that the email investigation was being reopened. No satisfactory explanation was ever provided as to why the investigation was reopened and then shortly ended. During the interim period Trump and his surrogates pounded the Clinton email investigation home relentlessly. Nor can it be forgotten that during a presidential debate Trump had announced that Hillary Clinton would be jailed if he became president. So much for trial by jury as his rally zealots shouted "Lock her up and throw away the key!"

Legal action need be commenced promptly in the interest of preserving America from an incipient Fascist dictatorship. What about the election result? Given the massive evidence already disclosed in scores of media accounts, and notably the alleged intervention of a foreign government in the campaign process, along with what could be revealed in the way of voter suppression by investigating the crosscheck process, the response would be: Election fraud occurring in the midst of a concerted criminal enterprise headed at least nominally by a racist, misogynistic, narcissistic egomaniac with an insatiable lust for wealth and power.

Authors Bio:
Began in the journalism field in hometown of Los Angeles. Started as Sports Editor and Movie Writer at Inglewood Daily News chain after working in sportswriting of high school events at the Los Angeles Examiner.



Received a bachelor's in political science with history and English minors at California State University at Northridge. Later received a Juris Doctorate degree from University of San Fernando Valley College of Law, serving as editor of the Law Review.



Wrote international historical work "Struggle for the Holy Land: Arabs, Jews and the Emergence of Israel." In the movie historical field wrote "Early Film Noir", "L.A. Noir" and "Hitchcock and the Methods of Suspense."



On the political essay front, have done nearly 500 articles, posting at the former Political Strategy which is now Political Cortex along with The Smirking Chimp.