It was clear that the statements of Congressmen Richard Nixon, Harold Velde, and Ed Cox of the Committee, critical of Judge Samuel Kaufman for being pro-defense and for declaring the mistrial, were expressions of disappointment at the outcome. From the start, several members had shown strong prejudice against Mr. Hiss, believing him guilty, with or without proof. And now they were demonstrating their failure to accept the principle of American jurisprudence that a person is innocent until proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty.

Judge Kaufman was handicapped as he could not answer the allegations against him by the HUAC members. Former Secretary of War Robert Patterson, presently president of the New York Bar Association, had said that the independence of the judiciary would be compromised were a judge to be investigated by a Congressional committee every time a decision issued with which the Committee members disagreed.

The Christian Science Monitor compared the idea of trial by Congressional committee, while the witness was still presumed to be innocent, to the practices of a totalitarian regime.

The Greensboro Daily News commented that if Messrs. Nixon and Velde had their ways, there would be no second trials as the jury would always be forced to reach a verdict on the first trial, as in Russia.

The Louisville Courier-Journal accused the Congressmen of saying of Judge Kaufman that which the Communists were saying about Judge Harold Medina in the trial in New York of the top eleven American Communists on Smith Act violations.

It concludes that as long as HUAC permitted its members to run roughshod over the traditions of American justice, it would offer as much threat to democracy as the interests it was supposedly trying to expose.

Mr. Nixon would, unfortunately, never learn the lesson while in public service. His paranoid obsession with his "enemies" and his incessant lust for vengeance upon them would lead ultimately to his downfall.

And now we have on the scene another nut running for the presidency for the Republicans, probably worse than even Mr. Nixon—receiving advice, not coincidentally, from one of Mr. Nixon's chief dirty tricks experts from 1968 and 1972, the same individual who orchestrated the attack by Wall Streeters and crooked lawyers on the office of the Miami-Dade County Registrar of Voters in November, 2000, shutting down by threat and intimidation the recount in the Bush versus Gore contest just before Thanksgiving, by subsequent court order never to be resumed.

Conny Donny never saw a major news story which he could not relate back to "weakness" of the present Administration regarding "terrorism", even when it is evident to any sane and objective observer that these major news stories are merely acts of individual insane persons, glorified beyond their individuality by this nut and his cohorts in the media who likewise promote these individual acts as "terrorism". Mr. Nixon was politically shrewd, if a little unbalanced. Conny Donny is simply insane and, we charge, is fueling international incidents of the type which occurred in Nice, France, yesterday. These incidents were not so commonplace prior to his candidacy, after all, beginning 13 months ago. Political avarice is matching his avarice generally and knows no boundaries. He has no walls to limit his behavior, having been a spoiled brat growing up and having never developed any mature frame of reference vis à vis the world at large, never having worked a day in his life, beyond running his mouth incessantly. His only wall is the one now on which he focuses as an idée fixe, building a border wall just as the paranoid Soviets did in Berlin in 1961. The man genuinely needs psychiatric treatment. When he says that he could still win votes after firing a gun at people in the middle of Times Square, he really believes it. Yet, no one appears to call him out on these absurdities, demanding forcefully apologies. Instead, the media whores actually encourage him because he feeds their media whoredom with trumped-up news stories which these idiots then seek to lay at the feet of President Obama or even former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, out of office for nearly four years.

Isn't it convenient to blame an American President for purely domestic occurrences in France over which the President of the United States or the Congress of the United States obviously have no power to prevent whatsoever? To jump up and down and scream bloody murder, making accusations of "playing politics with tragedy" when the responsible President and the Democrats in Congress lay the blame for domestic acts of mass violence where it belongs, on lack of adequate gun control, is the height of hypocrisy when the Republican presidential nominee and his surrogates proceed to jump onto the television screen irresponsibly, without full information in the immediate aftermath of these tragedies, and play the worst political game imaginable with tragedy by blaming the President for not using specific terminology such as "radical Islam" in reference to "terrorist acts", acts which have not yet been determined to be anything more than that of an insane individual, as if, even if it were determined to be an act of organized terrorism, calling it by another name would change anything, as if this President and his Administration had not eliminated from the scene some of the worst terror agents of the last four decades, and with little response but condemnation by the Republicans.

Beyond bluster and absurd talk, what, concretely, would this Republican idiot, who advocates "gun rights", do to stop a "terrorist" action of an individual in France? Or in the United States? Give guns to everyone, worldwide? Closing borders to Muslims not only runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, as even his new running mate, Mr. Pence, said not long ago, and every tradition of this country, built by immigrants, but also would serve nothing but to stand as a challenge to native-born "radical Islamists" to take action in vengeance of such a reprehensible policy against their fellows were it tried. It would result in the very things this liar contends the present Administration has "allowed" to happen, as if there were terrorist attacks on American soil in the last eight years. Name one. The Boston Marathon bombing incident was the work of two insane brothers born in the Russian Federation, having nothing to do with Islamic terrorism except in their insane minds, and would not have been prevented, in any event, by your absurdly conceived plan to ban Muslim immigrants, even if it were Constitutional. Coming from Chechnya, not Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or Syria, such persons could leave their religious affiliation off the application for a visa and citizenship and no one would be the wiser. The Orlando nightclub shooter last month was born in the United States. How would you deal with him? What of the Dallas shooter last week? The Virginia Tech shooter in 2007?

You are a nut, Donny, who does not think things through to logical conclusions but shoots from the hip dangerously and irresponsibly, saying anything of the moment which is expedient, driving the engine meanwhile of hatred and division in the society rather than promoting healing, not apparently aware that you are shaping events tragically as you proceed to do so during the past year at will, in love with the sound of your rattling, irresponsible vocal chords. What medication are you on, Donny? Are you hallucinating in some alternative universe?

Mass shootings by individuals have been taking place with increasing frequency in the country since at least 1983, the MacDonalds shootings that year in southern California being among the first, not including the 1966 University of Texas shooting incident which led things off but which was not followed by any repetition because of sensible societal response banning mail-order rifles. Why now do we suddenly want to start labeling every such shooting by a nut as a "terrorist" act to be blamed on some form of lax "law and order" or tolerance of this or that "terrorist" group, rather than placing blame where it belongs, on too easy access to firearms, especially assault weapons, as was the instrument used to kill the five police officers in Dallas last week as well as the 49 nightclub attendees in Orlando three weeks earlier.

Let us try, however, to focus and maintain the attention level on the acts in this country, not in France or elsewhere, over which we have no control whatsoever. One nut on one of these idiotic programs even asked rhetorically last night whether the President might seek to ban trucks, as if these drugged-out, pill-popping, alcoholic lunatics they present as "experts" on these programs actually believe that this incident transpired on American soil and would be subject to any form of control by American law.

There was a woman who killed six people on Thanksgiving Day in 1980 in Reno, Nevada, by running them down with her automobile. In Las Vegas, this past December, a woman ran down a group of pedestrians, killing one and injuring 30 others. A woman in East St. Louis, Mo., ran down four pedestrians last summer. Were those acts of terrorism, calling for a "declaration of war" from Congress, as Donny proclaimed last night he would seek, or acts of individual madness? What if the woman in Reno had said she was protesting the Government's policy on the Iran hostage crisis and supported the Ayatollah? Would that change the conception of it one whit insofar as a proper reaction to it under the law?

Are you, Donny, just plain stupid, as are your ardent followers and pill-popping, alcoholic sycophants, or the ultimate demagogue? trumping even the likes of Lester Maddox and George Wallace, who, fortunately, had not at their disposal such devices as Twitter and social media and 24-hour "news", talky-talk networks to render their instant analyses of unfolding current events. Just as with the Dallas shootings, you jumped all over the term "terrorists", based on initial reports last night from France of there being more than one individual involved, and yet in both incidents, there was only one person, whom, thereby, you and your media pals glorified as doing the work of multiple people, thus encouraging others to follow in their suicidal course to wreak havoc.

Congratulations on your growing body counts, those of you who advocate "gun rights", for your continuing resistance to effective gun control in this country, again having nothing to do with incidents abroad, convenient Afghanistanisms for the gun nuts. There is a way to have effective regulation of guns, by having annual registration renewal, just as with automobiles, not just once at gun purchase, mandatory liability insurance just as with automobiles, a certificate of passing a state-qualified training program in firearm use and safety, and mandatory mental check-ups at the gun owner's expense at least every three years, all of which would be required before gun ownership would be any less than a felony with mandatory prison time of at least five years for a first offense of possession outside the home, whether or not used during the commission of a crime. Subsequent convictions would result in greater prison time. That, plus banning completely the sale, except for military and police use, of assault weapons and the clip ammunition for them, imposing mandatory sentences of twenty-five years for sale of same and twenty years for possession, would end these mass shootings very quickly. Would it eradicate all gun violence or violence generally? Of course not. But it would, in time, eliminate the sort of mass shootings which have become epidemic and disruptive of life and the sense of security for everyone in the country.

It is time to tell the NRA to go to hell. Conny Donny would be their good friend in the White House and mass shootings would only increase in frequency and numbers of victims. What is his version of "law and order", constructing walls around every city also and allowing in only authorized persons?

Proper remedial action may be gauged by applying the old Learned Hand formula for determining the extent of reasonable regulation of any object, weighing the social utility of the particular object against the extent to which limitation is sought and the cost to society of affording that limitation, not running afoul the while, in the instance of gun control, of any actual Constitutional restriction on governmental power, not the glossy one sought as a given by gun nuts, ignoring the "well-regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment and thus the proper power of the Government to restrict that supposed unlimited "right"—ratified at a time when powder-charged, single-shot muskets and pistols were the only "arms" capable of being borne—, in whatever manner is consistent with a "well-regulated militia".

By the way, there is a way to stop truck attacks, whether loaded with real explosives or only fake explosives, by simply setting up a couple of rows of movable concrete barricades to block traffic on motorways which are temporarily closed for mass gatherings of one sort or another, with those barricades backed up by two criss-crossed rows of police vehicles. Even penetration of such redundant barriers would slow a vehicle down and sufficiently alert police that they could quickly enough take further, forceful action to stop the movement of such a vehicle or vehicles. One thing is quite clear: it does not require a "declaration of war" by the United States, which, if the idiot understood his history, we never even had in Vietnam.

"Television Is Here" tells of a demonstration at the Armory-Auditorium this night of the new miracle of television. The new medium had great potential in the field of education and could have a dramatic effect on the nation's I.Q. It could bring arts to the hinterlands, solving the societal problem of their concentration in New York City.