Category Archives: Politics

Harvard, Tell the Clown Prince to F*ck Off

1 Reply

Late yesterday, reports stated that the Department of Homeland Security, headed by dog-killer Kristi Noem, acting on instructions from Donald Trump, purported to revoke Harvard University’s certification of admit foreign students who account for more than one-quarter of the enrolled student body.

The pretext for this latest violation of law, the Constitution, and common sense, and without evidence, was that Harvard was allowing:

anti-American, pro-terrorist” foreigners “to harass and physically assault individuals … and obstruct its once-venerable learning environment.” The secretary also accused the university of working with the Chinese Communist Party by hosting and training members of its paramilitary group.

 As reported by the Washington Post,

The decision means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students, and existing international students at Harvard must transfer or lose their legal status, Noem said.

Noem gave the school 72 hours to turn over a list of records on international students to regain its certification before the upcoming academic year. DHS is seeking disciplinary records as well as electronic records, video and audio footage of international students who engaged in illegal activity, violence, threats to personnel or students, or protest activity on or off campus over the past five years.

Since neither Trump nor Noem appears to have any awareness of what goes on at our most important institutions of higher learning, we can perhaps see in Noem’s hostility the underlying resentment of what they neither know nor appreciate:

It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.

And there is this:

“Harvard has turned their once-great institution into a hotbed of anti-American, antisemitic, pro-terrorist agitators,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson on Thursday. “They have repeatedly failed to take action to address the widespread problems negatively impacting American students, and now they must face the consequences of their actions.”

Evidence? Compliance with procedures? The Clown Prince cannot be bothered.

There you have it. The federal government now claims the right to decide what the “right thing” is for universities it regards as unaligned with its agenda.

This hubris, based on no evidence and not in compliance with legal procedures for decertification, is likely inspired by the worst-in-legal-history Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in which it created the doctrine that the president can commit crimes in office within the scope of his official duties under Article II and that his motives may not be questioned, all without criminal accountability.

It goes without saying, though I’ll say it anyway, that Noem’s message has instilled uncertainty and fear among Harvard’s 6,793 international students. But it’s worse than that.

More than 1 million international students attend colleges in the United States every year, contributing nearly $44 billion to the national economy, according to NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

They play an outsize role in the economics of higher education, in that many international students pay full tuition …. and by creating a critical mass of students to support certain departments, such as computer science and engineering.

It’s time to call the question. Donald Trump and the sycophants that do his bidding believe they are above the law. The Supreme Court indicated as much and, given an inch, Trump always takes the proverbial mile.

So, Harvard, stand your ground. You’ve done it before in the face of gross government overreach, and you have the resources, including one of the world’s great law schools (disclosure: my law school) to mount a compelling defense against this grotesque overreach by the federal government.

It’s interesting that the political party that for decades decried the growing power of the federal government at the expense of the states now applauds anything that Clown Price Trump says he wants. Trump is a fraud, a cheat, a fool, and is intent on destroying not only the greatest American institutions but on removing the authority of the United States from the world arena, leaving it to the likes of Vladimir Putin. One of the many losses resulting from the Trump administration’s embrace of universal ignorance is the loss of opportunity to spread the message of democracy to the world through the voices of international students who learn about and experience it here.

It’s time to call the question and Harvard, your number has been called. Stand up to this petty wanna-be dictator and let’s get down to the core question whether our Constitution will be obeyed or not. If not, then the question will be put squarely before the people as to whether they want a democracy or not.

Finally, in case Trump is considering calling up the military to take control of Harvard and compel its submission, all military personnel should re-familiarize themselves with the principles of Nuremberg. You have no immunity for complying with unlawful orders. Think before you act.

Update: Harvard has sued to stop the administration’s unlawful overreach, citing violations of the First Amendment, the Due Process clause of the Constitution, and the Administration Procedures Act. Good. Meanwhile, Harvard, press your response in the media. Don’t give Trump the advantage of sole occupation of the public space. You have  the horsepower so use it!

If You Care About Democracy, You Must Read This

1 Reply

I copied the text below from a Facebook post. There is some confusion about who wrote it. I don’t care about that. The message is compelling. And if you care about whether it was Liz Cheney or the mysterious Dr Pru Pru (Facebook moniker), you should stop being distracted and focus on what is so critically important: the message. If you’re unsure about where Liz Cheney is coming from, you should read her book, Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning, that I reviewed at https://shiningseausa.com/2024/02/06/man-unacquainted-with-honor-courage-and-character/ In any event I urge to read the following in its entirety.

“Dear Democratic Party,

I need more from you.

You keep sending emails begging for $15,

while we’re watching fascism consolidate power in real time.

This administration is not simply “a different ideology.”

It is a coordinated, authoritarian machine — with the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, and the executive pen all under its control.

And you?

You’re still asking for decorum and donations. WTF.

That won’t save us.

I don’t want to hear another polite floor speech.

I want strategy.

I want fire.

I want action so bold it shifts the damn news cycle — not fits inside one.

Every time I see something from the DNC, it’s asking me for funds.

Surprise.

Those of us who donate don’t want to keep sending money just to watch you stand frozen as the Constitution goes up in flames — shaking your heads and saying,

“Well, there’s not much we can do. He has the majority.”

I call bullshit.

If you don’t know how to think outside the box…

If you don’t know how to strategize…

If you don’t know how to fight fire with fire…

what the hell are we giving you money for?

Some of us have two or three advanced degrees.

Some of us have military training.

Some of us know what coordinated resistance looks like — and this ain’t it.

Yes, the tours around the country? Nice.

The speeches? Nice.

The clever congressional clapbacks? Nice.

That was great for giving hope.

Now we need action.

You have to stop acting like this is a normal presidency that will just time out in four years.

We’re not even at Day 90, and look at the chaos.

Look at the disappearances.

Look at the erosion of the judiciary, the press, and our rights.

If you do not stop this, we will not make it 1,460 days.

So here’s what I need from you — right now:

⸻

  1. Form an independent, civilian-powered investigative coalition.

I’m talking experts. Veterans. Whistleblowers. Journalists. Watchdog orgs.

Deputize the resistance. Build a real-time archive of corruption, overreach, and executive abuse.

Make it public. Make it unshakable.

Let the people drag the rot into the light.

If you can’t hold formal hearings, hold public ones.

If Congress won’t act, let the country act.

This isn’t about optics — it’s about receipts.

Because at some point, these people will be held accountable.

And when that day comes, we’ll need every name, every signature, every illegal order, every act of silence—documented.

You’re not just preserving truth — you’re preparing evidence for prosecution.

The more they vanish people and weaponize data, the more we need truth in the sunlight.

⸻

  1. Join the International Criminal Court.

Yes, I said it. Call their bluff.

You cannot control what the other side does.

But you can control your own integrity.

So prove it. Prove that your party is still grounded in law, human rights, and ethical leadership.

Join.

If you’ve got nothing to hide — join.

Show the world who’s hiding bodies, bribes, and buried bank accounts.

Force the GOP to explain why they’d rather protect a war criminal than sign a treaty.

And while you’re at it, publicly invite ICC observers into U.S. borders.

Make this administration explain — on camera — why they’re terrified of international oversight.

⸻

  1. Fund state-level resistance infrastructure.

Don’t just send postcards. Send resources.

Channel DNC funds into rapid-response teams, legal defense coalitions, sanctuary networks, and digital security training.

If the federal government is hijacked, build power underneath it.

If the laws become tools of oppression, help people resist them legally, locally, and boldly.

This is not campaign season — this is an authoritarian purge.

Stop campaigning.

Act like this is the end of democracy, because it is.

We WILL REMEMBER the warriors come primaries.

Fighting this regime should be your marketing strategy.

And let’s be clear:

The reason the other side always seems three steps ahead is because they ARE.

They prepared for this.

They infiltrated school boards, courts, local legislatures, and police unions.

They built a machine while you wrote press releases.

We’re reacting — they’ve been executing a plan for years.

It’s time to shift from panic to blueprint.

You should already be working with strategists and military minds on PROJECT 2029 —

a coordinated, long-term plan to rebuild this country when the smoke clears.

You should be publicly laying out:

  • The laws and amendments you’ll pass to ensure this never happens again
  • The systems you’ll tear down and the safeguards you’ll enshrine
  • The plan to hold perpetrators of human atrocities accountable
  • The urgent commitment to immediately bring home those sold into slavery in El Salvador

You say you’re the party of the people?

Then show the people the plan.

⸻

  1. Use your platform to educate the public on rights and resistance tactics.

If they’re going to strip us of rights and lie about it — arm the people with truth.

Text campaigns. Mass trainings. Downloadable “Know Your Rights” kits. Multilingual legal guides. Encrypted phone trees.

Give people tools, not soundbites.

We don’t need more slogans.

We need survival manuals.

⸻

  1. Leverage international media and watchdogs.

Stop hoping U.S. cable news will wake up.

They’re too busy playing both sides of fascism.

Feed the real stories to BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Reuters, Der Spiegel — hell, leak them to anonymous dropboxes if you have to.

Make what’s happening in America a global scandal.

And stop relying on platforms that are actively suppressing truth.

Start leveraging Substack. Use Bluesky.

That’s where the resistance is migrating. That’s where censorship hasn’t caught up.

If the mainstream won’t carry the truth — outflank them.

Get creative. Go underground. Go global.

If our democracy is being dismantled in broad daylight, make sure the whole world sees it — and make sure we’re still able to say it.

⸻

  1. Create a digital safe haven for whistleblowers and defectors.

Not everyone inside this regime is loyal.

Some are scared. Some want out.

Build the channels.

Encrypted. Anonymous. Protected.

Make it easy for the cracks in the system to become gaping holes.

And while you’re at it?

Stop ostracizing MAGA defectors.

Everyone makes mistakes — even glaring, critical ones.

We are not the bullies.

We are not the ones filled with hate.

And it is not your job to shame people who finally saw the fire and chose to step out of it.

They will have to deal with that internal struggle — the guilt of putting a very dangerous and callous regime in power.

But they’re already outnumbered. Don’t push them back into the crowd.

We don’t need purity.

We need numbers.

We need people willing to burn their red hats and testify against the machine they helped build.

⸻

  1. Study the collapse—and the comeback.

You should be learning from South Korea and how they managed their brief rule under dictatorship.

They didn’t waste time chasing the one man with absolute immunity.

They went after the structure.

The aides. The enforcers. The loyalists. The architects.

They knocked out the foundation one pillar at a time —

until the “strongman” had no one left to stand on.

And his power crumbled beneath him.

You should be independently investigating every author of Project 2025,

every aide who defies court orders,

every communications director repeating lies,

every policy writer enabling cruelty,

every water boy who keeps this engine running.

You can’t stop a regime by asking the king to sit down.

You dismantle the throne he’s standing on — one coward at a time.

⸻

Stop being scared to fight dirty when the other side is fighting to erase the damn Constitution.

They are threatening to disappear AMERICANS.

A M E R I C A N S.

And your biggest move can’t be another strongly worded email.

We don’t want your urgently fundraising subject lines.

We want backbone.

We want action.

We want to know you’ll stand up before we’re all ordered to sit down — permanently.

We are watching.

And I don’t just mean your base.

I mean millions of us who see exactly what’s happening.

I’ve only got 6,000 followers — but the groups I’m in? The networks I touch? Over a quarter million.

Often when I speak, it echoes.

But when we ALL

speak, it ROARS with pressure that will cause change.

We need to be deafening.

You still have a chance to do something historic.

To be remembered for courage, not caution.

To go down as the party that didn’t just watch the fall — but fought the hell back with everything they had.

But the clock is ticking.

And the deportation buses are idling.”

Words

Leave a reply

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.

New York Times Lines Up with Bezos

1 Reply

Yesterday was a great day in our country. Millions of Americans participated in peaceful protests all over the country, including cities in  Red States and even other countries. Millions. Hopefully, this signals the beginning of the early end of the Trump administration and the clowns he has appointed, with Republican Party complicity, to destroy the government and our international standing.

In reviewing the remarkably clever signs created by protesters around the country and marveling at the size of many of the crowds, I turned to the New York Times online, expecting to see the top headline and at least a photo from the huge turnout in New York City, despite bad weather. But, lo, what did my eyes behold but a photo of Donald Trump and, well, see for yourself:

If you skip the dog story and the “Analysis” whose title suggests everything is going to be ok, scroll down a screen, you see this:

A presidential seal and another photo of Trump dominate the page. In the lower left corner, you finally  reach the report about the nationwide protests over Trump’s attempt to destroy the federal government.

Do the editors of the New York Times now thing a story about dogs in the workplace and talking about women’s cleavage there is more important? This presentation reminded me of how CNN had promoted Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election, showing constant pictures of podiums while waiting for Trump to appear. This is a Washington Post type presentation in the post-Bezos-ownership era.

The Times owes the world an explanation.

OR ….

2 Replies

It just hit me tonight … suppose the real reason Trump’s military “planners” for the attack on the Houthis did their talking in a Signal space that was vulnerable to spying by Russia was not a mistake. Suppose instead it was done that way at Trump’s direction because he made a deal with Putin that Putin and/or Putin’s people would be “in” on the conversation or at least be able to hear it. Maybe that’s why Trump didn’t fire Hegseth and Gabbard and the others who “should have known better.” It was because Trump had directed them to make the planning “visible to Russia and if Trump had then fired them when the disclosure was made public, they might have disclosed that Trump directed them to proceed that way. Maybe one or more of them have the receipts. Speculation, I admit, but ….

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 5th 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.