Category Archives: Law

Words

Call me a quibbler if you like. I don’t mind. I believe that how we use words is very important and can reveal hidden meanings of intention of which the writer may be unaware. I expect, however, that the Editorial Board of the New York Times would be particularly conscious of the meaning of their statements. Recent experience suggests I am wrong about that, and I suspect I know the reason.

Some background. The Times describes its editorial board as “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.” Fine as far as it goes although a bit vague on details.

On May 1 a digital version of the Editorial Board’s position titled There Is a Way Forward: How to Defeat Trump’s Power Grab was published in the Times. On May 4, “A version” of the article appeared in print, Section SR, Page 2 of the New York edition with the headline: Fight Like Our Democracy Depends On It. Having not seen that version, I address here the digital version. The printed version at least has a title more accurately stating what the battle is really about.

Note first that the article is introduced by a probably-AI generated depiction of an American bald eagle, our national symbol, struggling to free itself from a green, goo-like substance adhering to its wings and claws. I read that image to mean that democracy is in serious trouble, an assertion that I and many others have made in multiple posts, and which I believe cannot rationally be denied.

I was intrigued to see the Times standing up for democracy this way. Then I read it.

The opening was very strong:

The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have done more damage to American democracy than anything else since the demise of Reconstruction. Mr. Trump is attempting to create a presidency unconstrained by Congress or the courts, in which he and his appointees can override written law when they want to. It is precisely the autocratic approach that this nation’s founders sought to prevent when writing the Constitution.

The opening was followed by recognition that the Trump challenge is not ephemeral:

Mr. Trump has the potential to do far more harm in the remainder of his term. If he continues down this path and Congress and the courts fail to stop him, it could fundamentally alter the character of American government. Future presidents, seeking to either continue or undo his policies, will be tempted to pursue a similarly unbound approach, in which they use the powers of the federal government to silence critics and reward allies.

But wait. Let’s look more closely:

Mr. Trump has the potential to do far more harm in the remainder of his term. If he continues down this path and Congress and the courts fail to stop him, it could fundamentally alter the character of American government. Future presidents, seeking to either continue or undo his policies, will be tempted to pursue a similarly unbound approach, in which they use the powers of the federal government to silence critics and reward allies.

The piece continues with “It pains us to write these words” …. The patriotic response to today’s threat is to oppose Mr. Trump. But it is to do so soberly and strategically, not reflexively or performatively.”

The strong opening has thus been diluted with reference to the “potential” for future harms that will occur “if he continues down this path,” suggesting there is a reasonable chance Trump will suddenly transform into a person different than he has been his entire life. And the article makes clear that the writers don’t like having to criticize Trump. The solution they propose is implicitly critical of what many people have been doing and thinking in response to Trump’s unhinged blast through the federal government. The authors slip-slide into a description of a “coalition” of damn near everyone who isn’t a committed Trump cultist. A coalition of the willing so broad and encompassing that it will seem, because it is, a bridge too far.

I am encouraged in my cynicism about the position being advocated by what comes next:

The building of this coalition should start with an acknowledgment that Mr. Trump is the legitimate president and many of his actions are legal. Some may even prove effective. He won the presidency fairly last year, by a narrow margin in the popular vote and a comfortable margin in the Electoral College. On several key issues, his views were closer to public opinion than those of Democrats. Since taking office, he has largely closed the southern border, and many of his immigration policies are both legal and popular. He has reoriented federal programs to focus less on race, which many voters support. He has pressured Western Europe to stop billing American taxpayers for its defense.

The reference to the southern border and other Trump policies is apparently based on a poll of 2,128 Americans crafted by and analyzed by the crafters for another article in the Times.

In the interest of fairness, I note this closing of the paragraph arguing that Trump has been doing what the American public wants:

Among these policies are many that we strongly oppose — such as pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, cozying up to Vladimir Putin of Russia and undermining Ukraine

But even that qualification comes with a qualification: “but that a president has the authority to enact. Elections have consequences.”

Then:

Mr. Trump nonetheless deserves criticism on these issues, and Congress members and grass-roots organizers should look for legal ways to thwart him.

Just criticism? Is the Times Editorial Board unaware that the Republican Party has majorities in both Houses of Congress and that the Congress thus constituted is incapable of judgment independent of whatever madness Trump wants, including an astonishing array of unqualified and incompetent cabinet and agency appointments?

The equivocation continues throughout the article. Under “Pillars of democracy,” the writers felt it necessary to point out that Presidents Biden and Obama had “tested these boundaries [separation of powers] and at times overstepped them.” While the Editorial Board strongly criticizes Trump/Vance about their attitude toward the judiciary, in my view there is no question that the approach used undermines the full impact of the Trump story. They note, for example, that Trump/Vance “seem to have defied clear [court] orders.”

Regarding Congress, the Board says, “Mr. Trump’s steamrolling of Congress involves more legal complexity, many scholars believe.” The obvious implication is that “many scholars dispute the view being stated. More equivocation subtly inserted at every turn. Another example:

Other attempts to assert power over previously independent parts of the executive branch seem more defensible, however. The executive branch reports to the president, after all, and parts of it have suffered from too little accountability in recent decades.

It is true, I admit, that the Editorial Board’s article contains much damning information about Trump’s conduct of the presidency. It could not be otherwise.

Yet, again and again, the subtle equivocation creeps in:

It remains possible that our concerns will look overwrought a year or two from now. Perhaps Mr. Trump’s shambolic approach to governance will undermine his ambitions. Perhaps federal courts will continue to constrain him and he will ultimately accept their judgments.

Sure, it’s “possible” that a lot of unexpected things may happen, but why in an article ostensibly designed to expose the President’s violations of the Constitution and his oath of office, to name just a few, are these constant “on the other hands” inserted?

Maybe I am just quibbling, but, as the Editorial Board notes near the end of its article:

our constitutional order depends to a significant degree on the good faith of a president. If a president acts in bad faith, it requires a sophisticated, multifaceted campaign to restrain him. Other parts of the government, along with civil society and corporate America, must think carefully and rigorously about what to do. That’s especially true when the most powerful alternative — Congress — is prostrate.

Yet, while noting that Trump’s political support seems to be waning, the Board warns us to avoid:

“exaggeration about what qualifies as a violation. Liberals who conflate conservative policies with unconstitutional policies risk sending conservatives back into Mr. Trump’s camp.”

In the end, the Board gets one thing right:

The past 100 days have wounded this country, and there is no guarantee that we will fully recover. But nobody should give up. American democracy retreated before, during the post-Reconstruction era, Jim Crow, the Red Scare, Watergate and other times. It recovered from those periods not because its survival was inevitable but because Americans — including many who disagreed with one another on other subjects — fought bravely and smartly for this country’s ideals. That is our duty today.

Having beat this dead horse, I point the Times Editorial Board and my readers to a video that nails it. The woman in the video understands how language usage matters as she states ways to avoid equivocation and ambiguity. You can see the video here: https://www.threads.com/@debbieelledgeofficial/post/DJb2YEIN-pg?xmt=AQF0BLloj6EmrkRVS8pzJFTxn8QHvGWYkz2cHHWwynWmrA

The Problem of Pledging Allegiance to a President Over the Constitution

Leave a reply

For those who don’t know ….

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No State shall … pass any ex post facto Law….

Pam Bondi (Attorney General) and Stephen Miller (White House Deputy Chief of Staff) maintain that since the gang to which Kilmar Abrego Garcia allegedly belonged to was declared a terrorist organization by President Trump, that since Mr. Garcia belonged to the gang back in 2019, he is now a terrorist and subject to immediate removal from the United States and return to his native land of El Salvador, at which point the United States is free to wash its hands of him and leave him to his fate at the hands of rival gangs in the CECOT Prison.

As Ms. Bondi, the US Attorney General robotically recited recently, “Mr. Garcia does not belong in this country.” Bondi and Miller must not have been paying attention during that part of constitutional law class. You can see where I’m going with this.

Even if it is absolutely true that Mr. Garcia is a bad guy, a gang member and all the rest of the allegations made against him by Bondi, Miller, and Trump, his kidnapping and removal from the United States after a federal judge ordered that he not to be removed cannot be justified because:

Garcia did not receive an indictment for a crime committed in the United States,
was not presented with the details of an alleged crimes,
received no Miranda warnings,
had no opportunity to retain and consult counsel and, therefore,
no opportunity to contest the “findings” on which the government purported to act in arresting and deporting him.

In short, whatever else Mr. Garcia may be, he is a “person”, and he received nothing resembling “due process of law” to which the Constitution entitles every “person.” He was secretly snatched from the street and forcibly removed from the country. Just like what the Nazis and other totalitarian regimes have done in the past. The faux anger displayed by AG Bondi and Stephen Miller in the White House video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv4HjZmiueo] are no excuse for this outrageous behavior. By comparison, the student who killed two people and wounded six others at Florida State University will receive the full panoply of opportunities guaranteed by the law and the Constitution.

What is the main difference between Mr. Garcia and the Florida State shooter? You know it without my spelling it out. The Trump regime is a foul collection of racist idol worshippers committing daily crimes against humanity, among other offenses to our Constitution, laws, and culture. Performative yelling at a White House press event that Mr. Garcia is bad person is no excuse for depriving him of the rights every other person in this country is entitled to receive.

Trump’s followers had better realize that if the government can do this to Mr. Garcia, it can do it to anyone. And it is.

NBC News reported on Senator Van Hollen’s visit to Mr. Garcia in El Salvador this way:

Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador on Wednesday to push for Abrego Garcia’s release after the Trump administration did not demonstrate any efforts to “facilitate” his return, despite a Supreme Court ruling last week requiring just that.

The legal battle continued Thursday, when a federal appeals court rejected an effort by the administration to put the requirement on hold. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel said the administration was trying to assert “a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process.”

In a statement Thursday night, the White House called Van Hollen’s efforts in support of Abrego Garcia “disgusting” and said Trump will “continue to stand on the side of law-abiding Americans.”

In addition to its other offenses against the Constitution and laws of this country, the Trump administration has decided it’s perfectly acceptable to try and convict individuals in the press without even a semblance of due process. We insist that murderers get full due process, but the President of the United States is allowed to assert the guilt of individuals without any process whatever? Trump has obviously learned nothing from his multiple court defeats in defamation cases. Read any history book about totalitarian regimes, and you can see where this is headed. Americans better wake up and put a stop to this.

We Have Reached the End of the Line

Leave a reply

OR: The Trump Noose Tightens on the National Neck

The Trump administration, laced through and through with unqualified and incompetent appointees to positions of great responsibility, mistakenly snatches a man (Kilmar Abrego Garcia) off the street and, in the face of a court order to stop, puts him on a plane for a hellhole prison in El Salvador. The court orders his return. Trump’s Department of “Justice” declines and appeals. The Supreme Court majority eventually votes unanimously to order the administration to “facilitate” the victim’s return. In doing so, however, the Court gratuitously and unnecessarily “advises” the District Court judge to act with due regard for the separation of powers and the President’s supreme authority over foreign affairs.

As was 100 percent predictable, the administration leaps upon that advice and says “no thanks, we’re not going to bring him back. Mr. Garcia, charged with no crime, can rot in El Salvador for all we care and there is nothing you can do about it because this decision is made under the President’s Article II power to control absolutely the foreign affairs of the country, just as the Court suggested.”

Recall that in a prior decision this same Supreme Court held that the President could conspire with the Department of Justice to commit crimes, including the crime of trying to overturn an election he clearly lost, and could not be held accountable for his criminal conduct in office. Further, in carrying out his “executive powers,” the President’s motives could not be questioned.

So, here we are. A man properly in the United States, charged with no crimes, is ripped from his family and employment, hustled onto a plane full of others similarly situated for the most part, and imprisoned in a foreign country. With the apparent approval of the highest court in the land.

Trump then invites the dictator of El Salvador to the White House where that dictator labels as “preposterous” the question of his returning his prisoner to the United States. In a statement that is typical of people who consider themselves unbound by law, the Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele told Trump: “To liberate 350 million people, you have to imprison some. That’s the way it works.”

The power of courts to hold the federal government in contempt of court and sanction it or its attorneys is far from clear. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11271 That is perhaps why the District Court judge, in whose face the Department of Justice has metaphorically spit, has thus far fumed and fussed over the DOJ’s recalcitrance but has not issued any form of mandatory punishment for its resistance to the court’s mandates. Likely the judge realizes that the Supreme Court, having recently pronounced the unprecedented and astonishing doctrine of presidential immunity for crimes committed in office, will not support mandatory sanctions against DOJ for its disobedience.

And we now hear the President of the United States and people who work for him remarking that the power to snatch people off the streets and imprison them in foreign countries permits the federal government to do this to American citizens as well as people like Mr. Garcia who were properly here under work permits but were not citizens. Many of us have seen the videos of armed men in blackened vans visiting people in their homes for what are ludicrously labeled by the men as “wellness checks.” And some people are literally being assaulted on the streets, arrested and hauled away with no formal charges, no due process, and no opportunity to get counsel. These behaviors are blatant violations of our criminal laws and the Constitution.

We have reached the point of no return. The President has made clear he will stand for no resistance to his wishes. It seems virtually certain therefore that we will soon experience a declaration of martial law and a presidential directive to imprison here or abroad, without trial or other due process, anyone the President or his compliant appointees selects for removal. Or maybe he won’t even bother with a declaration that he likely regards as superfluous.

If allowed to get away with this, the President will have completed his subordination of the Constitution and brought about his dictatorship over the United States. As insane as that future seems, there is little happening now that suggests it is an overblown scenario. Trump has repeatedly made clear that he regards the Constitution as authorizing him to “do whatever I want.” We are there now. He is doing whatever he wants.

It is beyond dispute that if he can with impunity deport and imprison Mr. Garcia, he can do it to anyone, including American citizens who cross him or are merely suspected of being “disloyal.” Anyone who has studied the history of dictators surely knows that is how the process works.

The question then becomes: who will stop him and how? Certainly not the Republican cowards in Congress who value retaining what they fancifully believe is their “power” over their oaths to support the Constitution. It was once believed that the senior military leadership would handle the problem, but Trump has replaced most of those who might have acted decisively to restrain him. The courts lack both the will and the mechanisms for holding the President to account.

Trump’s abuse of power is plain and open. He believes the law does not apply to him and that the Constitution grants him powers that the Founders would never have imagined. Who then will stop him? And when?

Where is the Moral Outrage at Nazis Running the Federal Government?

1 Reply

OR: Trump Administration is Guilty of Kidnapping, Unlawful Transport & Crimes Against Humanity

The Washington Post reported on Saturday, April 5, that: 1) the Department of Justice that has admitted it mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego García to a prison in El Salvador, and (2) DOJ has argued to an appellate court that the U.S. government is helpless to secure his return. https://tinyurl.com/yzm27mjy

In effect, the U.S. Department of Justice, an element of the Executive Branch of what was, at least prior to Trump’s re-election, the most powerful and influential country in the world, says it has no means of compelling or negotiating for Mr. Garcia’s return. This, even though the United States is paying El Salvador about $6 million to hold the group of deportees of which Mr. Garcia is a member.

In effect, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Justice Department is arguing that it (1) deported Mr. Garcia by mistake, (2) violated Mr. Garcia’s civil rights, (3) violated Mr. Garcia’s rights under multiple amendments to the U.S. Constitution, not least of which was due process of law, (4) essentially kidnapped Mr. Garcia and unlawfully transported him to a foreign country where it relinquished control of him to a foreign government over which the United States has zero influence, (5) that the Judicial Branch of the U.S. government effectively has no remedial authority as against a decision of the Executive Branch regarding a foreign national “removal decision.”

In short, the US government is saying “who cares?”

These astonishing arguments reveal a fundamental error that the Trump administration continues to make. It appears to believe that the Executive Branch of the U.S. government is the final word on legal decisions even where, as here, the Executive admits it make a mistake that, in effect, may destroy a man’s family and perhaps forfeit his life.

I cannot resolve the conflicting claims as to whether Mr. Garcia was a member of MS-13 that has now been declared a terrorist organization by the Trump administration. However, the admission by the administration that Mr. Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador was mistaken would seem, regardless of anything else, to compel the U.S. government to bend every effort to secure his return. AG Bondi says, “no, we may have erred in deporting him, but we owe him no duties now and are helpless to do anything to rectify our mistake. Let him rot in El Salvador.”

This is a perfect illustration of why we insist on due process in this country. That process, which may be slow and even tedious, helps assure that grotesque mistakes like the Garcia case do not occur. The Trump administration has shown time and again that it has no regard for constitutional protections, and that it will arrogantly disregard any damage it may do in it rush to prove how tough it is on “crime.”

Now, after the government disregarded direct orders from a District Court judge to stop the deportation of Mr. Garcia and to provide him with the due process of law to which every resident is entitled under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has finally, days late, awakened to the inescapable realization that it can’t paper over this outrage. But in doing so, the “moral majority” on the Court seems singularly unmoved by the potential human catastrophe that the incompetent fools running the Trump administration have created.

We have grown accustomed, though hardly accepting, of Justices Alito and Thomas (that one, who takes hugely expensive favors from sponsors with business in the Court without a whimper from the Chief Justice) taking severe umbrage at decisions they consider insufficiently respective of Christian values. Now, when the government has monumentally screwed up a deportation case, putting at risk of death by gang execution, among other risks, a father never accused of a crime here or in El Salvador, all we get are lectures about the proper procedure for bringing the issue before the Court and about the lower court being more respectful of the President’s authority over foreign affairs.

How exactly the Garcia case implicates the President’s foreign affairs powers has not been fully explained. We know the obvious: El Salvador is a sovereign country and to retrieve Mr. Garcia from its clutches may require some negotiating. But it shouldn’t be that hard a problem. The US is paying El Salvador a lot of money to house the people it has snatched off the streets and out of homes — the way a good Gestapo does — and shuttled out of the country as fast as possible without even a nod to due process. It shouldn’t take a negotiating genius, as Trump claims to be, to figure out a way to induce the El Salvadoran establishment to release at least one man that our government admits should never have been sent there in the first place.

Yet our Supreme Court, while nodding to the continued need for due process of law and all the rest seems most concerned with lecturing the District Court judge, the main judicial authority standing up for Mr. Garcia, about not overreaching into the President’s foreign affairs prerogatives. Is this a hint to Trump to slow-walk the entire business in the hope that Mr. Garcia will be murdered in the hellhole prison in El Salvador thereby solving the US government’s embarrassing problem? Is it a signal to Attorney General Bondi that her abject indifference to Mr. Garcia’s welfare is just fine if the US government just goes through the motions of seeking Mr. Garcia’s safe return?

Compare what has transpired. The District Court judge, closest to the evidence of what occurred here, found that Mr. Garcia’s removal, when the government knew an order was imminent to stop his removal, was a “grievous error” and that the risk to Mr. Garcia “shocks the conscience.” While DOJ claims Mr. Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, the District Court judge found that the government had not proved that claim:

That silence is telling…. As Defendants acknowledge, they had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador — let alone deliver him into one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western Hemisphere.

The judge’s ruling against the government was sustained by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, not exactly a liberal bastion of judicial decision-making.

DOJ, at the behest of the morally vacuous Attorney General appointed by Trump, claimed that the order to return Mr. Garcia was, despite conceded errors in deporting him to the El Salvadoran hellhole prison, “indefensible” because, golly, damn, it “commands Defendants to do something they have no independent authority to do: Make El Salvador release Abrego Garcia, and send him to America.”

“If this precedent stands, other district courts could order the United States to successfully negotiate the return of other removed aliens anywhere in the world by close of business,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. In simpler English, DOJ objects to being compelled to do its job because just imagine the horror of having to return “removed aliens” whose rights we have violated.

I haven’t read all the briefs, but reliable reports note that the “Government lawyers compared the administration’s power to bring Abrego Garcia back to a court ordering the administration to end Russia’s war in Ukraine or return Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.”

Arguments like that should have led the Supreme Court majority to, at a minimum, sanction government counsel for arguments lacking reason, precedent, and common sense. But no, the Court seemed more concerned with being sure no one stepped on the President’s authority in foreign affairs. No sense of moral outrage that the government conceded a terrible, potentially life-threatening and unconscionable error, then argued we should just ignore it and let the chips fall on Mr. Garcia who, after all, is, in the eyes of the Trump administration, a bad person, evil incarnate. The DOJ attitude recalled a segment from the Dragnet TV series of the 1950s. Detective Jack Webb captures a serial killer and asks him “what have you got against people?” The killer answers: “People? I got nothing against people. What do I care about people?”

The Americans arguing that the courts should butt out of this and leave Mr. Garcia to his fate apparently do not understand that if the government can do this to Mr. Garcia, it can do it to anyone. Indeed, there is talk of “removing” US citizens now.

In preparing this post for publication, I read that the government has balked at the timeline established by the District Court to explain what it’s going to do to comply with the court’s orders now reinforced by the Supreme Court. The judge, quite rightly, is having none of it. He should hold the government in contempt and, if necessary to get DOJ to comply, hold weekend hearings. This fiasco has gone on too long already and Mr. Garcia remains at risk.

If You Want To Destroy A Country ….

2 Replies

Or … 2025 is our 1984

There are several ways to destroy a generally well-functioning country. One is invasion. Vladimir Putin is trying that in Ukraine, cheered on by Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard and other Republican sycophants. Invasions are self-evidently messy. Lives are lost by the thousands, property is destroyed, and the psychological impact on all sides of the conflict can last for generations.

One can imagine that Trump’s stated desire to “own” Canada and Greenland (he would prefer the term “merge” no doubt, being a captain of industry and all) would, if anyone in his White House staff had the temerity to suggest this is a really bad idea, lead to Trump throwing himself on the floor, kicking his feet and screaming like the man-child he is: “I want it, I want it! I want it! Why can’t I have it?!! I’m now the king of the United States. Just ask the Supreme Court. I want it! Waaahhh!!”

But, of course, that’s not what’s happening. Despite being the largest collection of incompetents ever assembled, Trump’s “team” has discovered other ways to bring the country to its knees.

Most everyone has heard of, and many have read, the novel, 1984, by George Orwell. Wikipedia does a creditable job of summarizing the central idea:

The story takes place in an imagined future. The current year is uncertain, but believed to be 1984. Much of the world is in perpetual war. Great Britain, now known as Airstrip One, has become a province of the totalitarian superstate Oceania, which is led by Big Brother, a dictatorial leader supported by an intense cult of personality manufactured by the Party’s Thought Police. The Party engages in omnipresent government surveillance and, through the Ministry of Truth, historical negationism and constant propaganda to persecute individuality and independent thinking.

I don’t recall that the book explains how the world reached that state, but it’s not too hard to imagine when one recalls a little history. You know, Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, to name a few.

We have Donald Trump. Many people thought Hitler was insane. Many people also think Trump is insane. He was elected to a second term in office despite grotesque failures of leadership in his first term, resulting in, among other things, the avoidable deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Trump revealed himself fully between 2016 and 2021. His opponent in 2024 was an intelligent, accomplished person who has served as Vice President of the United States for four years, so she was also experienced in the highest echelons of government. BUT she was a woman, and she was of Asian heritage, and she was Black. Case closed. The American electorate chose to put the loon back in power.

And what did we get? Exactly what could be, and was, expected. Examples will follow in roughly reverse chronological order in the next post.

As an aside, first, I note that I am no wide-eyed dreamer. I have been around a long time, started my career as a federal employee in fact. The government of the United States, like all governments, has many “issues.” There are inefficiencies. One of the core driving principles of the government is “don’t make obvious mistakes.” A prime example is the rulemaking process. This is what often happens.

Congress adopts legislation. Even the most detailed laws are often the products of compromises that create ambiguities or simply leave major implementation details to later-developed regulations. The country prefers that approach to simply saying, “let the bureaucrats figure it out as they wish from time to time.” We have developed an astonishingly complex process to govern “rulemaking,” with the result that regulations can take years, literally, to produce after the enabling legislation has passed.

The process involves examination of the relationship of the law in question to many other laws having to do with economic impact, environmental impact and many others. This approach, long and tedious as it may be, is preferred to subjecting ourselves to the random, arbitrary decisions of people who may or may not know what they are doing and don’t want to take the time and effort to learn. Slow and steady wins the race in our system.

However, this approach has several strong advantages:

1. All interested parties get to express their views and offer their evidence to the decision-maker(s);
2. The process is designed to assure that the decision-making agency has all relevant information before it when it decides what regulations, if any, should be adopted;
3. The process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act is very demanding, taking much time and effort by many federal employees, many of whom are highly experienced experts in the subjects being regulated;
4. Court review is available to assure agencies adhere to the governing legal principles, assuring fairness to affected parties and that the process is properly executed;
5. All the foregoing takes much time and effort, especially given that most federal agencies are working multiple rulemakings simultaneously, in addition to enforcement actions and other statutory responsibilities.

I will now describe in horrifying detail an actual rulemaking of the Department of Transportation. I participated in on behalf of my then-employer, the American Society of Travel Advisors. Try your best to get through it. The “FR” references are to the Federal Register which is a triple-column “book” published every workday in 7-point type (a bit over half the size of the print in this blog) and including proposed and final regulations by all federal agencies. You can get a feel for its scale from the page numbers. I included them in case you want to see the actual documents.

On May 23, 2014, DOT published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to “enhance protections for air travelers and to improve the air travel environment, including a proposal to clarify and codify the Department’s interpretation of the statutory definition of ‘‘ticket agent.’’” [79 FR 29970] The NPRM also proposed, among other things, “to require airlines and ticket agents to disclose at all points of sale the fees for certain basic ancillary services associated with the air transportation consumers are buying or considering buying.”

The NPRM consumed 32 pages of the Federal Register. Comments were due by August 21, 2014.

Comments by interested parties were plentiful. And typically, they ran the gamut: the proposal is too broad, too expensive, not broad enough; you got this wrong, you got this right; the proposals are impractical and unnecessary; the proposals don’t go far enough … and many, many more.

On January 19, 2017, DOT issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to expand the scope of the original proposal:

In light of the comments on this issue, the Department is issuing this SNPRM, which focuses solely on the issue of transparency of certain ancillary service fees. The other issues in the 2014 NPRM are being addressed separately. [82 FR 7536]

The SNPRM consumed 24 Federal Register pages. Comments were due by March 20, 2017.

The Department withdrew the SNPRM on December 14, 2017:

In the notice of withdrawal of proposed rulemaking, 82 FR 58778 (Dec. 14, 2017), the Department stated that its existing requirements provide consumers information regarding fees for ancillary services and noted that the withdrawal was consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’ [issued by Donald Trump] which has since been revoked.

But,

On July 9, 2021, the President [now Joe Biden] issued E.O. 14036, ‘‘Promoting Competition in the American Economy,’’ which launched a whole-of-government approach to strengthen competition.

… section 5, paragraph(m)(i)(F) of E.O. 14036 states that ‘‘[t]he Secretary of Transportation shall: . . . not later than 90 days after the date of this order, consider initiating a rulemaking to ensure that consumers have ancillary fee information, including ‘‘baggage fees,’’ ‘‘change fees,’’ and ‘‘cancellation fees,’’ at the time of ticket purchase.’’

Thus, the changes of presidential administrations first killed, then revived the proposed rules that occupied most of 20 Federal Register pages, seven years into the mission. DOT published the new NPRM on October 20, 2022, more than eight years into the mission. Comments were now due by December 19, 2022.

But, alas, parties on both sides of the issues sought more time. DOT granted those requests, extending the comment deadline to January 23, 2023 [87 FR 77765]. Another request for extension was denied on January 26, 2023, although, typically, “late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.”

On March 3, 2023, DOT took the extraordinary step of announcing a virtual public hearing on certain issues in the rulemaking, the hearing to be held on March 16, 2023, with further comments due by March 23, 2023. [88 FR 13389]

Finally, on April 30, 2024, DOT published the final regulations in 89 FR 34620, consuming 57 Federal Register pages.

The rulemaking process had taken more than 10 years. In truth much more, because before the first publication in 2014, much legal, economic and other work had been put into creating the first set of proposed rules.

But, alas, it’s not over until it’s over. At the behest of the airlines, the regulation was “stayed” in 2024 by the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals and on January 28, 2025, the court remanded the rules to DOT for further proceedings. The decision was based on what the court held was a fatal mistake that violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the law whose requirements ultimately lead to all the process surrounding federal rulemaking: the court found, DOT had “justified the Rule using cost-benefit data … that was not available during the notice-and-comment period.”

Whether these rules will ever be finalized is an open question, given the Trump administration’s hostility to consumer interests and regulation of business in general.

To repeat: the alternatives to this long and often painful process would allow members of government to make arbitrary and capricious decisions driven by conflicts of interest, personal bias, and other inappropriate considerations. THAT is why the government seems “inefficient.” It is inefficient by design so that other critical values are protected.

Could the process be made more efficient? Perhaps. But opening the government process to oversight and interference by people who know nothing about the governing law and little or nothing about the underlying issues and problems being addressed every day is not better government. It is tyranny.

For better or worse, for richer or poorer, we are married to this process. The courts get very upset, and rightly so, when an agency fails to follow the process correctly. That results in “remands for further proceedings,” which can mean more years of delay in reaching final rules.

Government under a system of “laws not men” is probably one of the most complex and difficult endeavors that mankind has ever undertaken. Add to that the fact that the continental United States occupies roughly 3,706,269 square miles with 161,000 square miles of that being water. The contiguous United States has an area of about 3,119,884 square miles and the State of Alaska alone embraces 586,412square miles. There are 50 states, the District of Columbia, plus more than a dozen territories under US ownership, management or sovereignty.”

The land mass is astonishingly diverse. Some bodies of water (Lake Superior) are larger than some states (South Carolina thus also Rhode Island, etc.). Together the Great Lakes occupy more than 94,000 square miles and collectively are larger than the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. The State of Hawaii is about 2,400 miles from the US west coast and consists of 137 islands! We have mountains, deserts, forests, plains … everything.

Add to that the fact that the population of the United States numbers some 340 million people.

Legislating for this diverse aggregation of people, land, water and much else is complicated. It may be a general principle of the universe that a large, diverse country requires a large, complex government, especially if that government is to have a major role in promoting the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” of the population.

The lesson is ended. I may have bored you beyond repair. Sorry, not sorry. I will return to the headline topic, If You Want To Destroy A Country …., in another post shortly. Rest up. It’s going to get worse, much worse. Donald Trump means to have his revenge on the country he believes treated him badly. And the Republican Party is happy to go along to get along. The fate of our democracy, our economy, and our very lives is on the line. Trump’s goons, dressed in black, masked, with no visible identification, are snatching people off the streets and disappearing them. The United States is now the new Russia.

Worst Case Scenarios & Warning to MAGAs

Leave a reply

Think of this as a kind of law school exam.

Assume Donald Trump is still alive as the 2028 presidential election process begins in 2027;
Assume further that Trump during his second presidency has subverted the military, civilian law enforcement and the courts. In short, he and Elon Musk are in complete charge of the federal government without meaningful legal restraint.

Assume further that either:

civil war broke out but was brutally and quickly suppressed by the combined forces mentioned in Assumption (2) above, OR
the people of the United States succumbed without a meaningful fight to the fascist regime established by the Trump/Musk/Vance administration.

Assume further that either:

Russia has decided to work through Trump & team rather than physically occupying the United States, OR
Russia has defeated the NATO alliance (or what remained of it after the US withdrew), and has occupied the US without meaningful resistance,

AND in any case, assume that

The United States, or whatever it is called by then, has no meaningful international relationships or allies.

Before addressing the questions below, state any additional assumptions necessary to explain the probable relationships between the federal government, state governments and other countries after the presidency of Donald Trump is substantially completed in 2027. Include in those additional assumptions any relevant information about the degree of freedom exercised by the people of the United States (referencing, in particular, women (females), Black people, non-citizen residents (if any), the condition of the economy, employment and any other facts you consider significant to what the United States will look like in late 2027.

Exam Questions:

Is it plausible to believe that Trump will simply step down voluntarily and allow someone else (Vance? Someone not Vance?) to seek the presidency — explain; OR
Is it more likely that Trump will declare the term limits in the Constitution invalid and seek a third term? — explain, AND
If Trump seeks a third term, is it plausible to believe that he will allow a free and fair election to occur or is it more plausible to believe that he will simply declare himself the popular choice and remain in office for a third term? Explain

Open your red books and discuss. Take your time but bear in mind that time is rapidly running out.

For extra credit for MAGAs only, Google this question: “how many jews were killed in the holocaust?” You will see estimates of 6 million plus another 5 million non-Jews, including prisoners of war) in the various reports there.

Then Google: “how many Russians were murdered by Stalin’s regime?” Mussolini?

Then, answer the question: WHO were the people killed by the Germans and by Stalin and by Mussolini?

Finally, for double extra credit, MAGAs only: how likely is it that a dictator Donald Trump will behave differently than Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and all the other dictators through the vastness of time that have wantonly and randomly slaughtered “enemies” and “friends” and “supporters” who were merely suspected of becoming possible enemies or resisters even as they professed their undying loyalty to the regime? How many were murdered after being reported by neighbors? By friends? By family members?

Do you understand that a major part of the dictator’s view of the world is that everyone is a potential enemy, that spreading distrust throughout the population is essential to protecting the dictator, and that random killing ensures fear and compliance in advance from those still alive? How sure are you that an American dictator will not follow in the footsteps of all the other dictators through history?

You may leave when you turn in your red book. We assure you that your answers will be kept confidential ….

We assure you.

Trump & Vance Must Be Removed from Office

Leave a reply

I am starting to see suggestions in various social media sites that it is time to remove Trump from the presidency. I believe it is well past that time and this is why. I will be uncharacteristically brief.

If you were, say, an efficiency expert called in to evaluate how a company’s various employees were performing, you would initially conduct an investigation: Who are the people in question? What functions do they perform in the company? How can what they do be measured in terms of efficiency and perhaps other identified values?

Then and only then would you recommend to top management whether and which ones of those employees should be removed or have their functions changed. It would take time, yes. But if the true goal were to improve the efficiency of the company’s business, that is the process you would undertake.

Donald Trump has done the opposite. He brought in someone who knows little or nothing about how the federal government works. That person is very wealthy and apparently believes he is invulnerable. He and a bunch of uninformed people he hired were set loose on the government and have made a complete hash of the process of evaluating ways to, allegedly, save money.

If you have watched the reports of what this group has done, and in some cases immediately undone, you can see that this is not about cost cutting. Many of their actions are going to end up costing much more national treasure, and other costs including environmental degradation, than were being incurred before they showed up with, in most cases, unlawful claims of authority to fire federal workers at will. This is not about efficiency or lowering taxes, at least not for most people. It is a hatchet job designed to eviscerate the federal government.

Since at least the end of World War II, the United States has had the world’s strongest defense. It costs a lot of treasure, and there is always a reason to examine whether it can be done more efficiently. But it has helped, likely been essential, to the maintenance of world peace, on the whole, for decades.

Donald Trump has aligned himself with Russia against Ukraine, against NATO, against allies around the world. He has, as usual, lied openly about which country was the aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine war. WHY? Theories and speculations abound.

The overall picture is that Trump has, as he did throughout his first term, blatantly disregarded our law, the Constitution he swore to uphold, has violated the separation of powers and generally made clear he intends to operate as a dictator.

This isn’t going to change. It’s going to get worse. Trump is weakening the nation’s defenses. He is undermining the social safety net and threatening to do much more. The people he has nominated and that the Republican Senate has confirmed have, for the most part, no qualifications for the responsibilities they have undertaken and are hostile to missions they have sworn to perform. Trump knows little about how the government does its job and doesn’t care. He admires dictators and aspires to be one.

The wreckage continues to spread each day, undermining essential government services and weakening our capacity to resist aggression. Top military leadership has been removed. Cybersecurity defenses are being eliminated.

The country does not have to accept this.

It is past time, to remove Trump, and his sycophant Vice President, from office before he weakens our defenses beyond the point of no return and Vladimir Putin decides he can safely move against us even more aggressively than he already is.

Trump’s arrogance knows no bounds. I expect tonight’s address to Congress will be a long diatribe about his brilliance, packed with lies and deflections. I have written elsewhere that I believe the Democrats should wait until Trump reaches the podium to speak, then rise as a group and walk out, leaving one member behind, ideally seated at the back in the shadows. There is no reason to continue normalizing Trump’s incompetence and treachery. Do whatever it takes to bring this catastrophe to an end before it’s too late.

Treason in Plain Sight

7 Replies

“…. and soon the school feels to Werner like a grenade with its pin pulled.”

As I reread this morning Anthony Doerr’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, All the Light We Cannot See (2014), I reached the chapter entitled Everything Poisoned where that partial sentence appears. How astonishing that I would arrive at those remarkable words and the idea they capture as I was struggling to finish the post that follows below. Doerr’s observation about the young German Werner, one of the major characters in the story, captured perfectly how I, and millions of others here and around the world, felt watching the President of the United States, working in synchrony with his Vice President and his Secretary of State, ambush the popular, war-battered President of Ukraine at a press event called for that very purpose.

And make no mistake, while there may be no written script for the event we’ll ever see, I and many others are certain beyond any doubt that the attack was planned. The phony umbrage of JD Vance was calculated to unleash Trump’s angry denunciation of President Zelensky while Marco Rubio sat, hands folded, seemingly hoping no one would notice him. Everyone played their part to perfection at a public event that had no apparent purpose except to sabotage the mineral rights deal that Trump purported to want but only, it turns out, if Ukraine essentially surrendered to Putin’s Russia.

Zelensky wasn’t having it. Trump knew or should have known would be true and thus played out the end-game for the day: kill the deal while acting outraged that a visiting head of state engaged in an existential fight for the very survival of his country would have the temerity to disagree with the great and powerful Donald Trump making multiple demonstrably false claims about the war.

Why do this? Because Trump knew that Putin, the aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine war, did not want the United States to support Ukraine. Putin does not want peace. He wants conquest. Nothing could be clearer.

But, as he did during his first term with the COVID pandemic and the attempt to blackmail Zelensky into undermining Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy, Trump miscalculated both Zelensky’s character and the worldwide support for the survival of Ukraine as an independent democracy. The Republican sycophants who support Trump will proclaim their usual wonderment at how Trump “stood up” for the United States, but the reality is that he stood up for Putin’s Russia and sold out the United States once again.

Professor Timothy Snyder, author of On Tyranny among others, promptly posted a video on Substack entitled Five Failures in the Oval Office in which he outlines how Trump failed the country at the Zelensky lynching. https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p/five-failures-in-the-oval-office?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email The video takes less than six minutes and should be watched.

I am going to go a step beyond Professor Snyder. This post was originally intended to address only Trump’s directive that the United States vote twice with Russia against Ukraine on United Nations resolutions condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I will return to that but first ….

I make no claim to expertise in the subject of how the Constitution defines “treason.” But I have the Supreme Court to help, along with other credible sources.

Important background:

As the Library of Congress’s Constitution Annotated notes, the Framers were wary of vesting the power to declare and punish treason in Congress. Having just won their independence from Great Britain, the Framers had seen how the English kings and British Parliament had escalated “ordinary partisan disputes into capital charges of treason.” In other words, the ruling class used the crime of treason to eliminate their political dissidents.https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation24.html

Perhaps because of the limiting history of the constitutional definitions, there is almost no precedent in case law. There is a statute on the books, however:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. [18 US Code § 2381 (1948)]

And there is Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947) wherein the Supreme Court went to some lengths to spell out what is required to establish “treason” and which remains, as far as I can tell, as the last word on the subject.

The charges against Mr. Haupt related to aid and comfort he provided to his son with knowledge of the son’s mission to aid Germany in its war with the United States. After his arrest, Haupt volunteered information to FBI agents including that he had been present when the son told the complete story of his travel outside the U.S., his return by German submarine with large sums of money and plans to be a saboteur. During his confinement in the Cook County jail, Haupt also talked with two fellow prisoners concerning his case; they testified as to damaging admissions made to them.

Ultimately twelve overt acts in three categories asserted to be treasonous were submitted to the jury: (1) Haupt accompanied his son to assist him in obtaining employment in a plant engaged in manufacturing a bomb sight; (2) he harbored and sheltered his son; and (3) he accompanied his son to an automobile sales agency, arranging, making payment for, and purchasing an automobile for the son. Each of these was alleged to be in aid of the son’s known purpose of sabotage. The Supreme Court was faced with Haupt’s argument that his motives were merely those of a loving father supporting a son.

Key findings:

… the minimum function of the overt act in a treason prosecution is that it show action by the accused which really was aid and comfort to the enemy. Cramer v. United States,325 U.S. 1 (1945); This is a separate inquiry from that as to whether the acts were done because of adherence to the enemy, for acts helpful to the enemy may nevertheless be innocent of treasonable character;
Cramer’s caseheld that what must be proved by the testimony of two witnesses is a “sufficient” overt act.
… there can be no question that sheltering, or helping to buy a car, or helping to get employment is helpful to an enemy agent, that they were of aid and comfort to Herbert Haupt in his mission of sabotage. They have the unmistakable quality which was found lacking in the Cramercase of forwarding the saboteur in his mission.
We hold, therefore, that the overt acts laid in the indictment and submitted to the jury do perform the functions assigned to overt acts in treason cases, and are sufficient to support the indictment and to sustain the convictions if they were proved with the exactitude required by the Constitution.
The Constitution requires that “No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act . . . .” Art. III, § 3.
And while two witnesses must testify to the same act, it is not required that their testimony be identical. Most overt acts are not single, separable acts, but are combinations of acts or courses of conduct made up of several elements. It is not easy to set by metes and bounds the permissible latitude between the testimony of the two required witnesses. It is perhaps easier to say on which side of the line a given case belongs than to draw a line that will separate all permissible disparities from forbidden ones….and it is not required that testimony be so minute as to exclude every fantastic hypothesis that can be suggested.
The law of treason makes, and properly makes, conviction difficult, but not impossible…. [Haupt’s] mission was frustrated, but defendant did his best to make it succeed. His overt acts were proved in compliance with the hard test of the Constitution, are hardly denied, and the proof leaves no reasonable doubt of the guilt.

The judgment is Affirmed.

The Court thus found that, given the incriminating testimony of the required two witnesses, it was for the jury to decide between “treason” and “just a father helping his son get along.”

Mr. Justice Douglas wrote a concurring opinion, noting “…. As the Cramer case makes plain, the overt act and the intent with which it is done are separate and distinct elements of the crime. Intent need not be proved by two witnesses, but may be inferred from all the circumstances surrounding the overt act …. The requirement of an overt act is to make certain a treasonable project has moved from the realm of thought into the realm of action.”

Mr. Justice Murphy dissented in an opinion that suggested it was for the courts rather than the jury to decide whether “reasonable doubt” existed as to the true nature of the acts in dispute. Happily, that was not and is not the law.

The foregoing, I believe, fairly summarizes the law governing sustainable findings of treason.

Before turning to why I believe Donald Trump, among others, is plainly guilty of treason, you should also be aware of some facts set out in Autocracy, Inc., The Dictators Who Want to Run the World (2024) by Anne Applebaum, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Gulag, A History of the Soviet Camps (2004) and author of Twilight of Democracy, among others:

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale war against Ukraine, the first full-scale kinetic battle in the struggle between Autocracy, Inc. and what might loosely be described as the democratic world. Russia plays a special role in the autocratic network, both as the inventor of the modern marriage of kleptocracy and dictatorship and as the country now most aggressively seeking to upend the status quo. The invasion was planned in that spirit. Putin hoped not only to acquire territory, but also to show the world that the old rules of international behavior no longer hold.

From the very first days of the war, Putin and the Russian security elite ostentatiously demonstrated their disdain for the language of human rights, their disregard for the laws of war, their scorn for international law and for treaties they themselves had signed. They arrested public officials and civic leaders: mayors, police officers, civil servant, school directors, journalists, artists, museum curators. They built torture chambers for civilians …. They kidnapped thousands of children, ripping some away from their families, removing others from orphanages, gave them new “Russian” identities and prevented them from return home to Ukraine. [Autocracy, Inc. at 13]

And more. And more. Those facts are not disputable by anyone with a functioning mind and the ability to disassociate from the penumbra of subordination cast by Donald Trump on his followers.

The conclusion from that and much other evidence, all well-known, is that Russia under Putin is the enemy of the United States. To anyone observing Putin and his statements and behavior, he has made it clear beyond any doubt that he regards American democracy and our constitutional freedoms as anathema. Multiple investigations here have shown beyond doubt extensive Russian interference in our elections and more.

It is also clear beyond doubt that there are more than two witnesses to Trump’s issuing of instructions to the interim U.S. representative to the U.N to vote with Russia and against Ukraine. There is no possibility she would have just done this on her own without instructions from the highest level. Speaking in Trumpish, “America’s acting envoy to the UN, Dorothy Camille Shea, described the US resolution as a “simple historic statement… that looks forward, not backwards. A resolution focused on one simple idea: ending the war”. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7435pnle0go

Now add the sickening spectacle of Trump and Vance aligning with Putin’s Russia against Zelensky’s Ukraine and you have the perfect description of multiple acts of giving “aid and comfort” to an avowed enemy of the United States.

Trump has abandoned the western alliance formed after WWII and aligned himself and now the U.S. government with Russian aggression against a free and independent democracy on its border. Given the bizarre collection of appointments Trump has made to positions high in our defense, security and intelligence apparatus, it is not farfetched to believe that he is preparing to gift Ukraine to Russia and likely a lot more.

Recall that Trump is the same person who removed highly confidential documents from the White House when he left in 2021 and that he refused to return them, lied about what he had and engaged in overt acts to hide what he had from authorities seeking their protection and return. The FBI under Trump’s new appointed leadership has just returned those documents to Trump!

So now, etched in our memories forever, is the pathetic spectacle of Trump and his henchman JD Vance, with the silent acquiescence of Marco Rubio, attacking and berating Volodymyr Zelensky in an almost certainly staged event for that very purpose. Trump, self-satisfied that he had accomplished his mission, freely noted at the end that it would “make great television.” In this pathetic demonstration of anti-American animus, Trump gave further aid and comfort to a declared enemy of the United States he took an oath to defend. You can read a reasonably accurate account of the episode here: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/us/politics/trump-zelensky-us-ukraine-russia.html

This was a first in American diplomatic history and, I believe, an obvious effort to sabotage Zelensky and Ukraine in front of the American people. Trump set up the press event and, with VP Vance chiming in with a personal attack near the end, erupted when Zelensky tried to explain the true situation Ukraine faces with Russian aggression. Vance and Trump acted like Zelensky had forced his way into the White House, called the press event himself and then outrageously used it to stand up for the freedom of his country that is under existential attack designed to eliminate the very existence of the country.

Trump, as usual had spent the first two-thirds of the press event talking about himself, what a great negotiator he is, how he only wants the best for the United States, how he was persecuted, how terrible Presidents Obama and Biden were, on and on and on, the same old mindless lies and blather.

In my opinion, the entire nightmarish scene was planned to undermine Ukraine and Zelensky. Trump knows Putin does not want peace; he wants conquest. And it won’t stop with Ukraine if he’s successful. Trump had no intention of making a deal with Zelensky unless it involved the total surrender of Ukraine to Russia.

I have no idea what leverage Putin has on Trump – you have no doubt read many of the same stories and speculations as I have – but whatever it is, it must be very strong to produce such overt appeasement that rivals or exceeds anything ever seen in world relations. Russian media ate it up, of course, just as one would expect. Peter Baker, White House reporter, wrote that

Never has an American president lectured the leader of an ally in public like this, much less the leader of a country that is fighting off invaders.

I have covered the White House since 1996. There has never been an Oval Office meeting in front of cameras like this in all that time.

The damage Trump/Vance did to United States standing in the world is immeasurable and unforgivable. It was, I believe, pure and simple treason.

Time to Face Reality

Leave a reply

As Trump’s proposed cabinet of losers, criminals, and traitors continues to take shape, it is perhaps time to face certain realities. I am reminded of the statements of several wise people over the years.

Alan Bennett, 90-year-old English playwright and creator of The History Boys, wrote, “History? It’s just one f***ing thing after another…”

You no doubt recall the famous line attributed to the philosopher George Santayana, but here is the full quote:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Many others, Winston Churchill among them, have reiterated the last line, usually as a warning, usually ignored.

A variation attributed to Eugene O’Neill was that “There is no present or future – only the past, happening over and over again – now.”

And, of course, President Lincoln stated in his address on June 16, 1858, at what was then the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, after he had accepted the Illinois Republican Party’s nomination as that state’s US senator, an election he lost:

A house divided against itself, cannot stand.”

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.

The wisdom of these statements is often overlooked. Not now.

The Republican Party needs a new name. The Republican Party is no longer conservative or patriotic. In the hands of Donald Trump, the GOP is threatening to reduce the federal government to a shadow of its current self and turn such political power as remains outside Trump’s personal dictator hands to the states.

So, let us take a spin through some history that Trump and his billionaire shills have either forgotten, never knew, or simply don’t think is relevant.

I refer to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were the first “constitution” adopted during the Revolutionary War. The ConstitutionCenter.org explains it this way:

The Second Continental Congress approved the document on November 15, 1777, after a year of debates. The British capture of Philadelphia helped to force the issue. The Articles formed a war-time confederation of states, with an extremely limited central government. The document made official some of the procedures used by Congress to conduct business, but many of the delegates realized the Articles had limitations.

Two days later, Congress submitted the Articles to the states for immediate consideration. However, it took until March 1, 1781, for this “immediate” consideration to become final.

Here is a quick [edited] list of the problems that occurred, and how these issues led to our current Constitution.

1. The central government was designed to be very, very weak.The Articles established “the United States of America” as a perpetual union formed to defend the states as a group, but it provided few central powers beyond that. But it didn’t have an executive official or judicial branch.
2. The Articles Congress only had one chamber and each state had one vote.This reinforced the power of the states to operate independently from the central government, even when that wasn’t in the nation’s best interests.
3. Congress needed 9 of 13 states to pass any laws.Requiring this high supermajority made it very difficult to pass any legislation that would affect all 13 states.
4. The document was practically impossible to amend.The Articles required unanimous consent to any amendment, so all 13 states would need to agree on a change. Given the rivalries between the states, that rule made the Articles impossible to adapt after the war ended with Britain in 1783.
5. The central government couldn’t collect taxes to fund its operations.The Confederation relied on the voluntary efforts of the states to send tax money to the central government. Lacking funds, the central government couldn’t maintain an effective military or back its own paper currency.
6. States were able to conduct their own foreign policies.Technically, that role fell to the central government, but the Confederation government didn’t have the physical ability to enforce that power, since it lacked domestic and international powers and standing.
7. States had their own money systems.There wasn’t a common currency in the Confederation era. The central government and the states each had separate money, which made trade between the states, and other countries, extremely difficult.
8. The Confederation government couldn’t help settle Revolutionary War-era debts.The central government and the states owed huge debts to European countries and investors. Without the power to tax, and with no power to make trade between the states and other countries viable, the United States was in an economic mess by 1787.

George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Dickinson and others met and proposed that all 13 states meet in Philadelphia to resolve the debacle. The current Constitution emerged from that meeting, was ratified, and then promptly amended by the Bill of Rights to cure certain glaring omissions in the original version. Constitution-making is hard work.

While the issues with the Articles of Confederation were clear, by the time of the Constitutional Convention white people in the southern states were deeply entrenched in the system of slavery on which their economy depended. Compromises were required and made in order to reach a constitutional document that could be promoted among the states for ratification. Without those compromises there would have been no Constitution and no country, at least not one comprised of all the former colonies and territories. Even then, ratification consumed two years and eight months. Ratification of the Bill of Rights took another year.

A very detailed history of the events leading to the Constitution may be found in https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-colonies/The-decision-for-independence if you have interest in it.

What lessons can be learned from this early experience with nation-making?

One is that in the modern world of, say, the post-WWII era, a “nation” in which the major powers are dispersed among many widely spread and independent entities (read “states”) is extremely vulnerable to nations with more power concentrated in a central authority. It’s true, of course, that the separation of what became the United States of America was driven in major part by rejection of the totally centralized power of the King of England. But that king’s authority resided in one person and was absolute.

Under the Constitution (not the Articles of Confederation), the power of the central authority, the federal government, was strong but restrained by several features built into the system, not least of which was the division of federal power into the three co-equal branches we call the Executive (President), Legislative (Congress) and Judiciary (Courts). The idea was that each would serve as a check against the power of the other two. And, among the many brilliant elements of the new Constitution was the principle that the church and state must remain separate so that individuals would always be free to practice, without interference from the government, whatever religion, or none, that they chose.

Over time amendments were judged necessary as the country grew and society recognized that further centralization of certain principles was essential to secure the freedom that the Framers, and the Americans who fought the Revolutionary and Civil Wars to create and preserve the union, sought to protect in perpetuity. For example, the requirements of ‘equal protection’ and ‘due process of law’ apply to both the federal government and the states.

It is now clear that the constitutional regime thus formed has several serious flaws, not least of which is the unplanned for development of political parties. The operation of the Electoral College has also proved to be quixotic at best.

It is also apparent that the widespread rhetorical framework under which Americans claim to a special place in the world is a myth. American “exceptionalism” viewed against the reality of lingering racism, fear of “foreigners,” and fear of the future leads to the inevitable awareness that Americans are no more exceptional than the people of other countries. The US history of intervention in other countries has not endeared the nations of the world to unqualified respect for the intentions of this country.

The threat of climate change and our newly realized vulnerability to disease should be sufficient to bind all peoples together in a common effort to protect the species by protecting the only planet we’re ever going to know. But that’s not what’s happening.

The United States has one of the strongest economies in the world. Our people overall enjoy a standard of living far above most of the rest of the planet. Yet fear of change, fear of the “other” and fear of displacement have led the people to elect a convicted felon as national leader. That same “leader” is plainly guilty of other crimes that will never be adjudicated, including his leading an insurrection against the government to overturn the 2020 election and his theft, and refusal to return, highly confidential government documents.

The Supreme Court, laced with conflicts of interest and outright corruption, has held that the President of the United States may not be held accountable for crimes committed in office if, for example, they are committed while conducting “official acts.” Thus, the Court held that the President may with complete immunity enlist the Department of Justice to join him in a criminal enterprise by simply “discussing” the matter with leaders within the Department.

Trump has made clear that he and his cronies intend not to lead the federal government but to dismantle it. His initial selection of incompetent and blatantly unqualified departmental and other senior leaders is conclusive proof that he has no intention of complying with the oath of office he will nominally take on January 20, 2025.

Trump is literally free, per Supreme Court decision, to ignore the law and proceed with his agenda. Little stands in his way, given the composition of the Congress and the abdication of responsible jurisprudence by the high court. What then?

Many large companies, like Meta and Apple, have surrendered by providing massive funds for Trump’s inauguration, ignoring the advice of Prof. Timothy Snyder not to comply in advance. Trump knows these economically influential entities and their leaders will not resist him. Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, stopped the paper from endorsing Kamala Harris.

Perhaps even more remarkably, the Post’s Editorial Board has published a list of some Trump key appointments and indicated they should be confirmed. The list includes the likes of election-deniers Elise Stefanik and Pam Bondi (Trump’s second choice behind the disgraced and grossly unqualified Matt Gaetz. Also Kelly Loeffler, rejected by the voters of Georgia. The only ones who fail to pass the Post’s low bar are Robert Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, and Russell Vought.

Granted the Post spend little effort in explaining itself, but the criteria it chose to mention are, well, mind-blowing.

First, the Post says:

We would not have picked any of his choices for our hypothetical Cabinet. But, as we have argued for decades, that is not the standard we — or U.S. senators — should apply when evaluating potential executive nominees for Senate confirmation. The president-elect won the election. He deserves deference in building his team, and the Americans who elected him deserve an operational government, absent disqualifying deficiencies in competence, temperament or philosophy.

By that standard, all but two of Trump’s planned Cabinet nominees seem confirmable — as well as all but two of his picks for Cabinet-rank jobs that require confirmation.

But then the Post describes some of the nominees this way:

Marco Rubio for Secretary of State – “The son of immigrants, Rubio is respected by Senate colleagues and understands the vital importance of American leadership.”

My comment: this was news to me given Rubio’s post-2020 obeisance to Trump and the MAGA crowd. No sources are cited.

Scott Bessent for Secretary of Treasury — a “hedge fund billionaire, who seeks to stimulate growth and reduce the deficit, is among Trump’s most reasonable intended nominees.”

My comment: Again, no sources or authority cited. Maybe “billionaire” is sufficient for the Post’s purposes. It certainly is for Trump.

Pam Bondi for Attorney General – “Florida’s former attorney general is qualified; lawyers who have worked with her report that she is serious.”

My comment: Bondi is a 2020-election-denier and apparently has lobbied for foreign governments in the past. She’s serious alright. Bondi will be the perfect accomplice to Trump’s continuing efforts to use the Justice Department, with his Supreme Court’s approval, to commit further crimes without accountability.

Doug Burgum for Secretary of Interior – “The outgoing North Dakota governor and Stanford MBA built a successful software company that he sold to Microsoft.”

My comment: Being a software entrepreneur is not an obvious qualification for managing our natural resources. Prepare to lay your body down in front of a national park.

Howard Lutnick – Secretary of Commerce – “The co-chair of Trump’s transition team is a natural fit for a job traditionally held by a presidential friend.”

My Comment: A founding member of DOGE. Billionaire. His pinned Twitter/X account says: “Welcome to DOGE. We will rip the waste out of our $6.5 Trillion budget. Our goal: Balance the Budget of the USA. We must elect Donald Trump President. @elonmusk @realDonald Trump” The accompanying photo is of Lutnick & Elon Musk!

Balance the budget – riiight. Standard Republican rhetoric. Balance the budget and destroy the economy. A “natural fit.”

Lori Chavez-DeRemer – Secretary of Labor – “The former congresswoman from Oregon maintains surprisingly unorthodox views on organized labor.”

My comment: what “unorthodox views” means we are left to guess, and I’m guessing they are not good for unions.

Scott Turner – Secretary of Housing & Urban Development – “The former motivational speaker has never run a big organization, but that is not disqualifying.”

My comment: Lack of experience is self-evidently irrelevant in a Trump administration.

Sean P. Duffy – Secretary of Transportation – “The former reality TV star is also a former congressman from Wisconsin. He’ll still need to study.”

My comment: …..

Chris Wright – Secretary of Energy – “The Colorado oil and gas executive acknowledges that climate change is real.”

My comment: I suspect he also agrees the Earth is not flat. Prepare to lay your body down in front of a national park.

Linda McMahon – Secretary of Education – “The other co-chair of the president-elect’s transition team led the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term.”

My comment: Betsy Devos redux? Her SBA experience definitely, certainly, obviously, assuredly qualifies her to lead American education policy, though her opportunities to do more damage to our education system may be brief if Trump fulfills his plan to eliminate the Department.

Douglas Collins – Secretary of Veterans Affairs – “He was a firebrand as a congressman from Georgia, but his heart seems to be in the right place in caring for veterans.”

My comment: You can’t make this stuff up. The most the Post has to say is that the nominee cares about veterans.

Kristi L. Noem – Secretary of Homeland Security – “Dog jokes aside, she has served in Congress and two terms as governor of South Dakota.”

My comment: The Post apparently thinks Noem’s shooting her dog was a joke! And, South Dakota being at the center of our national security concerns, Noem is imminently qualified for … something, though not the complex task of securing the homeland against attacks, especially with Trump in charge.

Interestingly, the Post did not mention Trump’s anointing of Kash Patel as inside man at the Department of Justice with instructions, redundant in his case, to get even or better with many of Trump’s main enemies list.

You get the picture, I’m sure. This is the “government” that Trump promised and that the American people chose, albeit by the slimmest of margins.

The United States is in the deepest trouble.

Corporate America is lining up to bend the knee to Trump. Under Donald Trump the United States seems destined to become a weak state and an international pariah as Trump in turn bends the knee to dictators like Vladimir Putin.

Thus far, the Democratic Party, reeling from the loss of the presidency and both houses of Congress, and with a Supreme Court having conferred immunity for the president’s crimes in office, has nothing much to say. Everyone, it seems, is waiting to see the actual shape of the catastrophe about to begin. It won’t be long now.

The Nauseating Descent of Mainstream Media

2 Replies

[+Homage to Harry Litman]

This is not how I had planned to spend this day, but I can be silent no longer. This morning I read the latest USAToday hit-piece on President Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, to protect him from the vengeance that has been promised by the incoming Trump administration and the compliant Supreme Court that has granted the President of the United States king status, free of criminal responsibility to pervert the Department of Justice to serve the personal goals of the president rather than do its statutory jobs with political neutrality.

I have stated previously my belief that the media’s obeisance to Trump will cost it, and the country, dearly. Now, we see plainly the media doing exactly what experts in authoritarianism, like Yale Professor Timothy Snyder, have repeatedly warned against – obeying in advance. If they believe that someone of Trump’s ilk is going to give them credit for this, they are ignoring the lessons of history and will come, too late, to regret their cowardice.

I subtitled this piece regarding Harry Litman, who, after starting to write, I chanced to discover had resigned from the Los Angeles Times in protest to the editorial interference of its billionaire owner and Trump supporter. For those interested, Mr. Litman’s statement can be read here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/harrylitman/p/why-i-just-resigned-from-the-los?r=4gbf6r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Everyone should read it.

Returning to my own thoughts inspired by USAToday’s attack on Biden, the title implies there is a “debate” over Biden’s legacy resulting entirely from his “broken promise” not to pardon his son. To clarify, the author, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is, as near as I can tell, not a relation to Vivek Ramaswamy, the Trump bootlicker of same last name. An odd coincidence, but there it is.

The article notes that “The backlash against the 82-year-old lame-duck chief executive was predictable, swift and bipartisan,” implying the criticism is justified and widespread. The first “authority” cited is Marjorie Taylor Greene, Congressthing from Georgia, famous for belief in QAnon and other phantasmagorical conspiracy theories, screamer during Biden’s SOTU speeches, supporter of Matt Gaetz, and, well, you probably know the rest.

But, as if there were no history, notable Democrats have also jumped on the “let’s self-immolate” bandwagon. Adam Schiff is cited, claiming “It sets a bad precedent.”

Ramaswamy goes on to note that Biden’s pardon has “precedent-setting nature” that “could shape how he is remembered for years to come” because, according to Douglas Brinkley, presidential historian and professor of history at Rice University, he said he wouldn’t do it and “There’s nothing positive about it.”

There are plenty of positive aspects to it, to which I will return after I finish excoriating this execrable piece of journalistic nonsense. The author, for example, claims that virtually universal condemnation of Biden’s about-face on the pardon “make clear that his legacy will be defined by his two sons – and his nemesis Donald Trump, whose two nonconsecutive terms as president will serve as bookends to Biden’s single term in office.”

I suggest, with full disrespect, that Ms. Ramaswamy and the USAToday editors need to read some more history. And, after noting that Biden stepped in after the catastrophic failure of Trump’s administration to effectively deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, promising to and “mobilizing vaccination shots and instituting an unpopular mask mandate. Over time, COVID deaths declined, Biden lifted the mask mandate, and Americans went on with their lives.”

But that apparently counts for nothing because “Biden’s presidency also was at times rocked by turmoil. Inflation rose to a 40-year high [not plausibly charged to Biden], 13 soldiers died during the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan [a deal made by Trump], migrants poured into the country illegally along the southern border [Trump stopped the bipartisan deal to address this], and wars in Ukraine [Putin, Trump’s idol, started that war, not Biden] and the Gaza Strip [chargeable to Biden, really???] “tested the nation’s influence on the world stage.”

Well now, considering that Trump’s legendary ignorance and refusal to learn about foreign affairs, almost certain conspiracy with Russia to get elected and with whom he treasonously shared U.S. state secrets, any testing of the nation’s influence, if chargeable to anyone, is chargeable to Trump. And, to quote from the line in Natural Born Killers (movie), “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

The author’s bias is further evident in the claim that Kamala Harris’ loss to Trump dealt a “serious blow to Biden and his legacy since many of his accomplishments in office will almost certainly be wiped out by Trump when he returns to the White House in January.”

The reality is that history, if there is any after Trump’s presidency, will condemn Trump’s legacy for destroying the progress made under Biden’s presidency. If you don’t know about the American economy under Biden, you haven’t been paying attention. If you don’t realize what a bunch of losers and lunatics Trump is proposing to populate his cabinet and bring down the federal government, you understand nothing about how this country is governed.

It’s more than a little curious that a historian like Douglas Brinkley is so quick to make sweeping interpretations of current affairs when historians have always warned us against premature judgments about historical realities. Maybe he just likes seeing his name in the media. Equally disturbing in a piece of this nature, is the author’s observation, delivered without context, that Trump’s “attempts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden resulted in his first impeachment, which ended in a Senate acquittal.”

Yes, Trump was acquitted but he wasn’t found “not guilty” of the acts he obviously took (it’s on the tapes and everyone with a functioning mind knows what he did); he was “acquitted” because the Republicans in the U.S. Senate refused to do their duty, refused to hear evidence or witnesses of Trump’s traitorous conduct because they feared his vulgar retributive response. The author ignores those facts because they conflict with the narrative flow and, besides, Trump would not approve.

Finally, the author gets around to the reality of the Hunter Biden situation. Quoting the ever-quotable historian Brinkley:

If it had been a different type of Republican being inaugurated president in January, Biden may have thought twice. But the thought of Trump in the end having control over his son’s future in a federal prison was a bridge too far.

Indeed. Imagine that Joe Biden leaves office with his son exposed to Trump’s promise revenge along with the useless space-occupying Congressman Comer also promising to continue pursuing Hunter after years of fruitless and costly investigations into the Biden family. Republicans smell blood in the water and like the sharks they are, figured Hunter was an easy target once Joe Biden was out of the way. What would be said about Biden then? That he failed to protect his family in the face of multiple overt threats by Trump and his vengeance army? That he was a “bad father?” Worse?

Nevertheless, Ramaswamy persists with a roundup of Democrats eager to get their names in the press by criticizing Biden’s decision to protect his son, including Sen. Michael Bennett, D-Colo and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash.

Finally, the author notes, without acknowledgment, that her earlier statement about the “unprecedented” nature of the Biden pardon was exaggerated if not outright false:

…many [presidents], like Biden, have faced criticism for how they’ve used that power. Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon probably cost him a second term. Bill Clinton was pilloried for granting a series of pardons in his final hours in office, including one for his brother Roger Clinton, who had been convicted of selling cocaine to an undercover police officer. Trump pardoned dozens of people during his first term, including his son-in-law’s father and some of his closest allies who were convicted of crimes ranging from financial fraud to witness tampering and more.

Ah, but Ramaswamy notes that “Biden … is the first president to pardon one of his children” while dragging into the story the unnecessary criticism of a Trump-appointed judge who gratuitously offers his judgment that “nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.” Another example of a Trump-appointed judge speaking about a political matter that is none of his business. Maybe he’s looking for a Trump appointment to a higher court. We’ll know soon perhaps.

Finally, Ramaswamy drags in Melissa DeRosa, identified as a “Democratic strategist and author” bitching that Biden’s protection of his son from the promised vengeance of Donald Trump and his army of mindless sycophants was somehow going to contribute to the further splintering of the Democratic Party. Until now I though Ms. DeRosa was bright and committed to the country’s welfare. She was the “right hand” to Governor Cuomo during the pandemic that rages through New York in 2020, killing tens of thousands. Cuomo, you will recall, was forced to resign in the face of accusations of sexual misconduct, about which one hopes Ms. DeRosa was ignorant. Why she would choose now to say that Biden’s decision to protect his son against Trump creates questions Joe’s standing as an “honorable man with integrity” is beyond my ability to understand.

You might think from all this that Joe Biden acted arbitrarily to free his son of the potential consequences of an objective, independent prosecution directed by politically neutral law enforcement. In fact, however, the reality is that Trump has sworn vengeance against Joe Biden and his family. Anyone with a reasonably objective mind should be able to understand that the President had good reason to protect his son from what Trump credibly promised.

As Harry Litman noted in his resignation announcement cited at the outset of this post, Trump is exactly what you see. With the help of his appointed judges, the inexplicable reticence of Attorney General Garland, and the unprecedented interference of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Trump-appointed majority, Donald Trump has escaped accountability for his many crimes before and during his presidential terms. Now that he has been given a free hand to exact retribution against his perceived enemies, he has made clear his determination to use that power to the fullest.

Given that reality, I salute Joe Biden for protecting his family to the extent he can by using the power the Constitution gives him (no exceptions for President’s family members and plenty of precedent). There was no reason for Biden to leave his son at the mercy of a criminal like Donald Trump so his “legacy” could remain untouched. Like all presidents, who occupy the most difficult job in the world, there are many grounds for criticism for those who never stood in his shoes. In my book, Joe Biden has no reason to be concerned about how history will judge him in relation to his predecessors and successors. He has much to brag about, and his decision to protect his son is among those difficult decisions of which he should be most proud.

	wmmanuel on WAPO, Your Bezos Is Showi…
	Nadine Godwin on WAPO, Your Bezos Is Showi…
	shiningseausa on Which Side of the Boat Should…
	J. Rebekka Bonner on Which Side of the Boat Should…
	J. Rebekka Bonner on Which Side of the Boat Should…

SHINING SEA

Ideas & Images

Category Archives: Law

Words

The Problem of Pledging Allegiance to a President Over the Constitution

We Have Reached the End of the Line

Where is the Moral Outrage at Nazis Running the Federal Government?

If You Want To Destroy A Country ….

Worst Case Scenarios & Warning to MAGAs

Trump & Vance Must Be Removed from Office

Treason in Plain Sight

Time to Face Reality

The Nauseating Descent of Mainstream Media

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: