Tag Archives: Trump

Questions the Media Should Ask Republican Defenders of Trump

Leave a reply

It’s past time that the media did its job.

Have you read the federal and Georgia indictments? Answer yes or no.

If no, why not? How can you defend someone against serious criminal charges you haven’t even read?

If yes, do you think the factual allegations are correct?

If the factual allegations are not correct, how are they wrong, precisely and factually?

If the factual allegations are correct, do you believe it is acceptable to elect to the presidency a criminal who tried to steal the 2020 election? Answer yes or no.

****

We can reasonably anticipate from past behavior that Republicans will try to deflect with their customary “weaponization of the justice system” claims. Or the “what about Hillary” claims. Or the “what about Hunter Biden” claims. Or any of the other deflections that they use to avoid addressing difficult truths about Donald Trump and his co-conspirators.

The media, if they were to do their jobs, would demand in the strongest terms possible that the above questions be answered and that deflections be rejected. They should ask these questions every day until they get an answer. An actual answer, not a lecture on some other topic.

The job of journalists is to report the news. Ask questions, find and report information. For reasons I don’t pretend to understand, most of the political stories I read in mainstream media and obviously slanted sources are a mix of factual reporting and opinion, speculations, implied messages, what-about-isms and other misinformation and deflection. Headlines are frequently written as click-bait when the actual story is about something else.

Ask good questions and report the answers. If the person is lying or deflecting, report facts that show that but leave the commentary out. Just like Joe Friday used to say, “just the facts, ma’am.”

Just to be clear, the same rules should apply to Democrats.

Is Trump Disqualified?

Leave a reply

The New York Times reports that:

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office.

https://tinyurl.com/yh38rjyd

Oh, Lordy, I wish they were right.

But are they?

The NYT article says:

The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

Upon reading that, my first thought was Groucho Marx’s infamous saying that, “I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” But I digress. I do not adhere to such absolutist thinking about most things, and I suspect there’s a club somewhere that I might want to join, though whether there is one that would have me is another question for another day.

Returning to my new-found idols (if and only if they’re right) in the Federalist Society, they summarize their conclusion this way:

Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.

Affirming what I and many others have been saying since at least January 6, 2021, the esteemed authors of a forthcoming law review article state there is:

“abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.

“It is unquestionably fair to say that Trump ‘engaged in’ the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction,” ….

Abundant evidence. Yes. Unquestionably fair. Without a doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

But is saying it enough? What about innocent until proven guilty, etc. Right to a fair trial. All that.

The relevant sections of the 14thAmendment to the Constitution state:

No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The central question is, I think, whether the provision is self-executing or requires a judicial finding that the person in question has engaged in insurrection, etc. The least relevant question is whether Congress would give Trump a pass. Two-thirds of “each House” means what it says (originalists are stuck with that) and that’s not happening.

According to the Times, the article concludes that:

essentially all of that evidence pointed in the same direction: “toward a broad understanding of what constitutes insurrection and rebellion and a remarkably, almost extraordinarily, broad understanding of what types of conduct constitute engaging in, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to such movements.”

It added, “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

I’m fully down with that so far but the question remains, I think.

The provision’s language is automatic, the article said, establishing a qualification for holding office no different in principle from the Constitution’s requirement that only people who are at least 35 years old are eligible to be president.

“Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said.

In an interview, apparently, Professor Steven Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and Yale and a founder of the Federalist Society, said those administrators must act:

“Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so.

Therein lies the rub. Republican secretaries of state, many of whom are abjectly committed to support Trump no matter what, cannot be assumed to perform the asserted duty, no matter how forcefully that obligation is confirmed by Federalist Society professors. Some enterprising journalist should immediately put the question to each of the fifty secretaries of state, starting tomorrow. What they say will not, of course, be binding but still would be good to know their answers in fashioning a way forward.

As much as I desperately want to believe that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing, the cynics among us (me) do not believe anything so simple could possibly work in the political world Trump has handed down to our country. Lawsuits are going to be necessary, complicated, I suggest, by the fact that Special Counsel Jack Smith elected not to charge Trump with insurrection under the relevant statute:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. [18 U.S. Code § 2383-enacted June 25, 1948]

Why Smith did not bring that charge has not been, and likely will never be, explained, but Trump will try to drive his denial truck through that gap and, typically, more litigation will ensue if anyone tries to disqualify him through legal action.

A final observation. I just read that Alan Dershowitz, ready to defend Trump’s criminality at every turn, has reportedly declared that the 14thAmendment applies only to “those who served the Confederacy during the Civil War.” Reported in the Daily Caller (where else?) but published only in the SmartNews app, apparently. The piece notes that the “the text does not authorize Congress—or any other body or individual—to impose the disqualification in the first place.” Further, the article claims, “It wasn’t intended as a general provision empowering one party to disqualify the leading candidate of the other party in any future elections.”

That’s an odd claim for an ultra-originalist to make. That fact, moreover, undermines Dershowitz’s argument. If no mechanism for applying the law was created, the most reasonable conclusion is that Congress thought it was self-actuating. And, if it were true that the law was only to apply to ex-Confederates, it would be most reasonable to expect that the statutory text would have been explicit to that effect.

The contrary position states that

it was fairly evident who participated in the Civil War on the part of the South. No formal mechanism was needed for making that obvious determination. If the disqualification had been intended as a general rule applicable to all future elections, it would have been essential to designate the appropriate decision maker, the procedures and the criteria for making so important a decision.

That argument ignores that Marbury v Madison was decided by the United States Supreme Court establishing the principle of judicial review, that the Constitution was indeed the supreme law of the land that Congress could not by itself change. While the article lists all kinds of mischief that might ensue without explicit mandates of who decides what, the reality, I suggest, is that the claimed disabilities are overcome by the fact that judicial review of all actions inconsistent with the plain intent of the statute would be available. As with many other laws in which judicial oversight is not expressly mentioned, the supremacy of federal law and the even greater supremacy of the Constitution are sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Congress did not have to established a specific enforcement mechanism for the operative sections of the Amendment. The courts were available to adjudicate any conflicting claims.

Thus, the absence of an explicit provision for judicial review does not support the speculation that the courts “might regard as a political question” the issue of whether a candidate had engaged in insurrection. No reason exists to think of that as a political question beyond the courts’ purview or that “if the controversy were not resolved by the Supreme Court, there would be a constitutional crisis.” Such imaginings are the product of an overactive ultra-originalist imagination.

Dershowitz gives himself away in the ensuing argument that,

Interpreting this post-Civil War amendment as a general provision for disqualifying candidates who some people may believeparticipated in what they regard as an insurrection or rebellion—as distinguished from a protest or even a riot—would create yet another divisive weapon in our increasingly partisan war. It would be used by Republicans against candidates who may have supported (gave “aid or comfort” to) riots such as those that followed the killing of George Floyd or other violence-provoking events. [boldface added]

The Constitution articulated limited qualifications for presidential eligibility. Beyond those neutral criteria, the decision should be made by voters, who are free to consider the participation of a candidate in activities with which they disagree. Unless an amendment was clearly intended to further limit these qualifications, the voters are the ones to decide who is to be their president.

Quite clearly, Dershowitz is fine if “the voters” decide it’s acceptable to elect a criminal who tried to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power and who has threatened violence and further insurrection if he is elected. That is not the argument of a “constitutionalist,” at least not the one that laid the foundation for the United States. No basis exists, I suggest, for interpreting the Constitution or any federal statute as permitting the overthrow of the government if a bare majority use the ballot box rather than armed revolt to accomplish it.

That said, I believe it is entirely appropriate for lawsuits to be instituted to present to the courts for adjudication the question whether January 6 was an unlawful insurrection and, if so, whether Donald Trump inspired, incited, and directed it. If yes, he’s out. Period.

Let’s get on with it. Somebody (ACLU?) sue to bar his candidacy for the presidency and let the future of our democracy be decided.

What Are the Chances …

Leave a reply

that Donald Trump will comply with the Protective Order issued by Judge Chutkan in the January 6 case?

Near zero, I think. And his lawyers will be falling all over themselves to explain away or justify his violations when they are called before the judge, as they surely will be, to determine whether Trump should be held in contempt and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.

Trump will, I believe, continue attacking the judge, the justice system, the law, and anything else he believes will get attention in the media (who will duly report every outrage) and prepare his cultish supporters for what he hopes will be their next move, namely, a violent challenge to the law and order across the country. Trump likely believes that short of fleeing to a non-extradition country he may be out of options that his usual tactics of delay and obfuscation have achieved in the past. There is no reason to doubt that the carefully constructed evidentiary case against Trump for the January 6 insurrection will be persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt to any jury that fairly assesses it.

Trump’s trump card (sorry) is to force the judge to the edge of considering having him incarcerated, without his phone, pending trial. This prospect arises because no monetary penalty alone will suffice to control his behavior as long as he has free access, as he has in the past, to donated funds from his PACs and his rich benefactors. Money is literally no object to him in this circumstance.

Trump’s winning game therefore is to force the judge to order his arrest and detention, which will prevent him from campaigning, and thus drive his army of fanatical worshippers over the edge and into violent resistance. That is the true meaning of Trump’s social media post, ‘If you go after me, I’m coming after you.’

The judge has some alternatives, but none are going to suffice if Trump is determined not to be silenced. The judge could, for example, impose further restrictions on Trump’s access to the discovery materials that normally must be turned over by the prosecution to assist the defendant in preparing a defense. That approach hands Trump an additional claim that he was denied the opportunity for a fair trial because he could not participate fully in preparation of his defense.

The Protective Order issued by Judge Chutkan is not mysterious. It authorizes the Prosecution to designate various discovery documents as “Sensitive Materials” and imposes tight restrictions on their use [“defendant” replaced with “Trump”]:

Except as provided in this Order, without prior notice to the United States and authorization from the court, no Sensitive Materials, or information contained therein, may be disclosed to any person other than Trump, defense counsel, persons employed to assist the defense, or the person to whom the sensitive information solely and directly pertains and that person’s counsel….

… defense counsel may not allow Trump to write down any personally identifying information as identified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1 that is contained in the Sensitive Materials.

Of particular note:

…during any time that Trump reviews Sensitive Materials outside of defense counsel’s presence, Trump must not have access to any device capable of photocopying, recording, or otherwise replicating the Sensitive Materials, including a smart cellular device.

The trial judge has thus clamped the jaws of good order and justice tightly to send a clear message to Trump about what will be tolerated. That, of course, is a challenge Trump is unlikely to take lightly no matter how many assurances his lawyers offer up that he will comply.

Never forget that Trump has declared that “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president,” and he thinks he is still the president. People like Trump are unable to recognize that they have brought on themselves the troubles they face, by, in his case, and for example only, removing and mishandling top secret documents from the White House that he has claimed “are mine” and that he declassified just by thinking about declassifying them. He uses his abuses and law violations as a badge of victimization with which his cultish supporters sympathize because they see themselves also as victims. He hates and fears the same people they hate and fear, thus producing the perfect symbiosis.

Trump remorselessly directed his followers to attack the Capitol on January 6 to stop the transfer of executive power from him to Joe Biden. The whole world watched the attack on TV and has sense seen endless film of the assault in brutal detail, all the while Trump resisting calls from within and outside of his administration to call off the attack. Trump dug his own grave on this one, along with the Mar-a-Lago documents case, and has no one to blame but himself. He will, however, always true to his nature, almost certainly try to force the court’s hand because, well, that’s what he does.

Criminal Liar Donald Trump Attacks DC

Leave a reply

Donald Trump’s understanding of “truth” is whatever comes out of his mouth, even when demonstrably false. His adoring followers appear to believe whatever he says even when a moment’s reflection would reveal what a pathological liar he is.

On Trump’s latest involuntary “visit” to the nation’s capital to be arraigned on multiple felony charges for the third time, Trump, as he typically does, lied about his guilt, lied about his “persecution,” and, of course, lied about the District of Columbia. In a post-arraignment diatribe for reporters, Trump said (as reported by Newsweek):

“This is a very sad day for America,” said Trump. “And it was also very sad driving through Washington, D.C., and seeing the filth and the decay, and all of the broken buildings and walls, and the graffiti. This is not the place that I left. It’s a very sad thing to see it.”

https://tinyurl.com/2s32p5by

In case you have forgotten, here are some samples of what DC looked like under Trump:

Major areas around the People’s Houses, including both the White House and the Capitol (that Trump had directed mob to desecrate) were fenced off, with massive police and military presence. DC was effectively an armed camp, armed against the people by Trump, for Trump. Always for Trump.

 

Hubris and the Junk Heap of History – Part 2

Leave a reply

Let’s review what has happened most recently.

  • 6-8-23 Trump is indicted. Finally. Thirty-seven counts. Felonies. Trump is accused of harboring hundreds of classified documents dealing with, defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.
  • Classified documents were stored in multiple unsecured locations at Mar-a-Lago;
  • On at least two occasions, Trump showed classified documents to persons not cleared to see them;
  • Trump obstructed the grand jury investigation by:
  • suggesting that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;
  • directing co-defendant Waltine Nauta to move boxes of documents to conceal them from Trump’s attorney, the FBI, and the grand jury;
  • suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;
  • providing to the FBI and grand jury just some of the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena, while claiming that he was cooperating fully; and
  • causing a false certification to be submitted to the FBI and grand jury representing that all documents called for by the grand jury subpoena had been produced while knowing that, in fact, not all such documents had been produced;
  • Trump was personally involved in causing boxes containing hundreds of classified documents, to be transportedfrom the White House to The Mar-a-Lago Club;
  • Trump directed the move of some classified documents to non-secure locations at his Bedminster Club;
  • Despite public statements to the contrary, Trump was fully aware that he had not declassified the documents while he was president;
  • Trump and his co-defendant withheld key information from Trump’s attorneys regarding the location and number of document boxes at Mar-a-Lago;
  • Trump knowingly procured a false certification by one of his attorneys regarding the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago;
  • As a result, Trump was charged with:

Willful Retention of National Defense Information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § (e)

 Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512(k)

Withholding a Document or Record in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2

Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(l), 2

Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519, 2

Scheme to Conceal in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ lO0l(a)(l), 2

 False Statements and Representations in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 2

 All the allegations are supported by documents, testimony, photographs, and recordings.

TRUMP’S “DEFENSES” [Or “What, Are You, Nuts?]

[Warning: Do not eat or drink while reading this next part]

The willful ignorance of Republican politicians brings to mind Sam Cooke’s anthem song with the perverse (in current circumstances) title of Wonderful World:

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book

Don’t know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me, too
What a wonderful world this would be ….

One person who loves Trump is the Republican Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, who just hours after the unsealing of Trump’s 37-count felony indictment threatened the U.S. Attorney General, stating that House Republicans “are not going to stand for” the criminal prosecution of the ex-president. McCarthy, in keeping with the observations above, claims Trump is being treated differently than others, even though no one in modern times has committed the treasonous acts for which the evidence against Trump is overwhelming. No one.

The Republican idea of “equal justice” is to treat Trump better than everyone else. Trump had numerous chances to get true equal treatment; all he had to do was return the documents and, if, and it’s a massive ‘if,’ he had a claim to them, pursue it through legal channels. Instead, he chose self-help and then engaged in a coverup. By grossly misstating the legal processes by which the Trump indictment was issued, McCarthy proved he is just as dishonest as Trump himself, a believer in what Kellyanne Conway, acting as counselor to Trump, cynically called “alternative facts.”

McCarthy’s sycophancy is not peculiar to him. In his usual manner of double-talking between law, politics and delusion, Alan Dershowitz produced this preposterous standard for judging Trump’s conduct: “the Richard Nixon test.”https://tinyurl.com/5y6zz4yv (Fox Business. Where else?):

“It has to be at least as strong as the case against Richard Nixon, which we will remember led not to Democrats to demand his resignation, but Republicans, his own colleagues came to him and said, this case is so strong that we can’t support you,” Dershowitz said Friday on “Mornings with Maria.” “I haven’t seen any suggestion that Republicans agree with this indictment,” the professor continued.

Translated to simple English, Dershowitz thinks the proper legal test for Trump’s document crimes is whether Republicans approve of his being indicted. Wow. How the mighty have lost their way. Dershowitz had more to say:

American citizens, Dershowitz argued, should be able to cast their votes for those candidates who align with their social, economic or foreign policy views as opposed to “who’s more criminal.”

The professor argued there “has to be equal justice” served as he pointed out Republicans will likely speed up their investigation into Hunter Biden and the Biden family foreign business dealings.

“If I were a Republican leader, what I would do is draft a potential indictment against Biden and his son based on the information that’s now available, and present that in the court of public opinion in juxtaposition with the indictment that will come down on Tuesday,” Dershowitz said, “and let the public judge.

Dershowitz apparently believes that the reality and nature of Trump’s crimes is simply irrelevant to whether he should be president again.

Dershowitz seems to have forgotten about the long history of the Trump family’s foreign entanglements, including massive infusions of cash from Saudi Arabia. But I am for “equal justice” too. If there is evidence of corruption in the Biden family that relates to the president doing his job, bring it.  So far, nothing but phantasmagorical claims based on missing or criminally indicted “witnesses.” It looks a lot like the claims of election fraud that Trump and his cronies repeatedly asserted without evidence. Republicans are the reincarnation of the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.

Meanwhile, otherwise responsible media continues to bemoan the fact that a former president is being charged. The Washington Post Editorial Board wrote on June 9 that,

No one should celebrate Thursday’s indictment of Donald Trump in a case involving classified documents improperly stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Something has gone deeply wrong when, in a historic first, federal prosecutors reach the point of filing criminal charges against a former and possibly future president. Yet, in this matter, the defendant appears to have left them little choice.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-view/]

On the contrary, all patriotic Americans should applaud the fact that “equal justice” means what it says and that one’s political status does not confer privileges to violate the law that applies to others. The Post finds the allegations against Trump “disturbing” as if they related to shoplifting a shirt at Macy’s. And USAToday continues to publish click-bait pieces like this one: Donald Trump was indicted over classified documents. Why aren’t Joe Biden and Mike Pence? https://tinyurl.com/5xv63mjh

Concerns have justifiably arisen about the bizarre fact that the Trump-appointed judge in the documents case is the same judge that was reversed in dramatic terms by the 11th Circuit for gross errors of law and bias toward Trump. Jack Smith is unlikely to tolerate much funny business from her but there are clearly risks in her overseeing a criminal trial like this, given her lack of experience and apparent lack of judgment. Time will tell.

Trump is in serious trouble as his standard stratagems of delay and obfuscation are, one by one, falling apart. He appears to be destined for trial in the Mar-a-Lago documents case and for new indictments related to the January 6 fake-electors scheme and the January 6 insurrection. These cannot come soon enough, particularly since, reports already indicate that Judge Cannon is falling all over herself to stall the case against Trump. https://tinyurl.com/yck42wbt  She should be removed from the case before it’s too late.

If fair-minded juries are chosen and the trials are fairly administered, Trump will surely be convicted of multiple felonies, along with, hopefully, many of his co-conspirators.

Trump will then go down in history – down being the correct word here – as what he is: the worst criminal ever to occupy the White House. He will join the legions of failed putative dictators and other men that fortune falsely anointed as “great men” but whose ignorance and greed undid them. Trump loves to do his form of “dance” at rallies to the YMCA song to show that he’s young, virile, and cool, but his real song should be Send in the Clowns to distract from the reality that his day of reckoning may finally, at long last, be approaching.

Hubris and the Junk Heap of History – Part 1

Leave a reply

Watching the descent of Donald Trump from indecent, corrupt, selfish, ignorant, and foolish to deliberate gross criminality that put the national security of his country at risk raises yet again the question of how someone with his alleged wealth, claimed high level of education and all the opportunities for success imaginable falls to such a state. And it’s not just Trump and his constantly grifting family to whom the question fairly applies.

The elected leaders of one of the two major political parties continue to support a candidate for leader of the country and commander-in-chief of the armed forces who has been twice-impeached (the party refused to hear the overwhelming evidence of his guilt) and now twice-indicted for multiple felonies, including threats to national security and against whom the evidence is, yet again, overwhelming. And more felony indictments are virtually certain regarding Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021, and remain in power despite his defeat in the 2020 election. Such is the reality of the Republican Party today that has aided and abetted many of his most criminal and dangerous behaviors.

MAGA Republicans, it seems, can keep multiple inconsistent ideas in their “minds” simultaneously without experiencing disabling cognitive dissonance. They can, for example, treat as “equal” situations that are plainly not “equal.” Examples of this behavior abound. They are masters of deflection: whatever Trump may have done (“who cares anyway”), someone else did something worse and was not punished so Trump should not be held accountable either. And on and on.

Interestingly, none of Trump’s most ardent supporters claim, “he didn’t do it.” Rather, they argue that he should not be punished under the law for what he did because,

            It’s a witch hunt;

            Others are more guilty of something or other;

            The investigations are “politically motivated”;

            Trump did “nothing wrong”;

            It was all antifa and Black Lives Matter

            Or it was the “deep state” out to get Trump

            Trump was framed [my personal favorite].

All very familiar Trump tropes.

Recall that Donald Trump said this: “I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” And Trump thinks he is still the president.

As I have ruminated on what is happening here and why, I have, tentatively, come to some new conclusions. While I have never known anyone wholly like Trump, I have over my long life and career encountered many “successful” Type A people, almost all men, who share many characteristics with Trump.

I now believe, tentatively, that most men like Trump began their lives with various advantages that made them “successful standouts” at an early age. This phenomenon may go all the way back to grammar school, when the first genuine socialization behaviors are displayed. These are the boys who, regardless of actual talents, are always deferred to when teams are picked at recess or after school for pick-up sports. They are selected by default to pick the players they want on their side. The selection process is merciless and is repeated over and over day after day.

These same boys tend to be socially popular with both boys and girls. They exude confidence that is reinforced constantly at home and everywhere else. They are molded into dominant figures, accustomed to having their way, to being favored, to being successful in virtually everything they do. Often, they are rewarded in areas in which they do not excel because of their perceived status in other areas.

This reinforcement continues through high school and beyond. These men are the anointed “leaders” whose merit and status are rarely if ever questioned. They are, to paraphrase a line from the movie, Barry Lyndon, not the smartest, the quickest, the bravest, the most talented. They are, simply, the “best people.” And because they are so regarded, they are beyond reproach even when their behavior would otherwise warrant and even require condemnation and sanction.

Emergent from this process is a sense of self-worth, of self-regard that distorts their understanding of reality. Other men, and many women, are impressed by their self-confidence, their “authority,” that is evident in how they present themselves, independent of any objective reality as to their actual talents or worth.

The end of this process is, however, at least in my experience, almost always the same. Donald Trump is the purest manifestation of it. The hubris that develops blinds these men to the truth of their situation. They see themselves as untouchable, not subject to the same rules that govern everyone else.

How could they not? U.S. Senators and Congressmen (and now women) are fawned over, treated as special in every way, sought after socially, given power unrelated to their intelligence or actual skills. They are, after all, the “best people.” It’s just who they are. Or so they believe. American culture tends to venerate and elevate these men (mostly men).

The same is true of many “successful” businessmen. They may be dolts. They may be corrupt. Doesn’t matter. They are who they are – the winners, the top dogs. Media fawn over their every word, adding to the illusion of their superiority. These men attract money, followers, devotees – passionate supporters who need to share the penumbra of their worthiness.

Until they aren’t worthy. Until the sheen of invincibility is shattered by revelations of the lack of merit that has been concealed for so long beneath the veneer.  Examples are everywhere. Take the Cuomo brothers, Andrew and Chris. The sons of Mario Cuomo, the three-term governor of New York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Cuomo Mario Cuomo came from the humblest of circumstances – the family ran a grocery store in Queens. But he was highly intelligent and very ambitious. A powerful, dominating figure.

So too his sons. Yet, both have fallen from their pedestals, for different but related reasons. Then there is Rudy Giuliani, once called America’s Mayor for his post-9/11 “leadership.” By all accounts, he was highly intelligent and ambitious but, he too, fell from grace when he embraced Donald Trump’s brand of “truth.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

Consider the actor Will Smith. Highly talented and successful until he decided, and make no mistake it was a decision, to attack the Oscars’ host on live television for making a tasteless joke about his wife. Smith may recover. The Cuomo brothers and Giuliani may not.

Let’s not forget this: Trump Will Not Apologize for Calling for Death Penalty Over Central Park Five. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyregion/central-park-five-trump.html Presaging his views on the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017, involving alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and far-right “militias:  “You have people on both sides of that,” the president said when asked about the wrongly convicted defendants.”

So it goes. Over and over again. A seemingly endless progression of “great men” brought down by their own hubris – defined in dictionaries as ‘excessive pride or self-confidence.’ They come to believe they are untouchable, beyond reproach regardless of what they do. And in some sense their perception is correct, demonstrated by Trump himself in the way he has managed to not only survive but prevail, despite multiple obvious crimes, despite business mismanagement and multiple bankruptcies, and despite multiple credible allegations of sexual abuse and assault.

[to be continued in Part 2]

Moments Later – ABC News Again

Leave a reply

Almost immediately after posting the previous post, I came across this from ABC News:

Once again, the video with the story is about Donald Trump and promotes the idea that he is innocent. The story is about the tragedy of the sinking of the tour boat with loss of life. SHAME on ABC for using this to promote Donald Trump.

ABC News appears to be taking over where CNN left off.

ABCNews — What is Going On Here?

Leave a reply

The headline and story is about a fire and the collapse of the roadway on I-95, the major north-south interstate between, among many others, Washington, Philadelphia and New York. The video is Donald Trump declaring his innocence!

How can this be explained?  What is ABC News doing?

The Answer is Blowin’ in the Wind

Leave a reply

Those of you close to my generation will recognize that phrase as part of the refrain from Bob Dylan’s famous song that became a 1960s anthem against oppression and war. The song was made broadly famous by Peter, Paul & Mary, singing it here in 1966: https://bit.ly/3J6WK2w Joan Baez, among others, sang it in 1967: https://bit.ly/3SHSEB8

The lyrics to that song came immediately to mind when I read the report that the Department of Justice has, at long last, rejected Trump’s claims to be above the law. DOJ filed a brief arguing that Donald Trump’s claims of “absolute immunity” from civil suits must be limited at least regarding the January 6 abomination he sent to descrate the Capitol  https://bit.ly/3moh3jm

You know the story: Trump summoned the mob to DC and incited them to attack the Capitol to stop the final certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory. True, he mentioned in passing that they should be peaceful, but that was classic Trump. Say one thing, then the opposite again and again. He also said, for example, “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” His message was received loud and clear as evidenced by what the mob did. One of the many remarkable videos was produced by the New York Times, showing exactly what happened: Day of Ragehttps://nyti.ms/3mlhISw Many of those later arrested have testified under oath that they understood Trump had invited them to Washington and urged them to do just what they did.

Those revelations can come as no surprise to anyone with a fully functioning mind. Recall that Trump famously said, “I have Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” It’s on tape. He said it. He believed it. Still does. Often wrong, but never in doubt.

As recounted in the USAToday story, a group of House Democrats filed two civil suits and two Capitol police officers filed the third one. USAToday reports that Trump’s lawyers have argued to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that, “The underlying question here is simple: is a president immune from civil liability when he or she gives a speech on a matter of public concern? … The answer is undoubtedly, yes.”

The Department of Justice rejected that position: “The district court also correctly rejected President Trump’s categorical assertion ‘that whenever and wherever a President speaks on a matter of public concern he is immune from civil suit.’”

Let’s briefly examine the “absolute immunity” claim. Let’s pretend you’re in law school. You adopt Trump’s position that he was addressing the election results, a “matter of public concern” and thus just “doing the job of the president.” He should, you contend, be immune from vexatious and meddlesome civil suits [law students love to talk like that] that could interfere with his ability to carry out his many constitutional responsibilities.

Having adopted the role of professor of law, I hook my thumbs in my vest [law profs love vested suits, or did back in the day], frown, pace a bit, spin, and face you: “That sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Don’t we have to protect the nation’s chief executive and chief law enforcement officer from being hauled into court every time he says something that someone doesn’t like? Isn’t it true that someone always objects to virtually everything the president, any president, says?”

You smirk at having been recognized as oh-so-clever as to receive that rare law school commodity: praise from a professor. You are sure the other students are burning with envy at your achievement and recognition.

Then I, thumbs out of the vest now, lean forward closer to you, and you start to get a queasy feeling. I glare into your eyes and ask, “but suppose the president’s January 6 speech included this statement:

…and if you meet resistance from police at the Capitol, just knock them down, beat the hell out of them. Anybody gets in your way, kill them. I don’t care, but get the job done. Safe our country! Save meeee!

President still immune? Suppose Trump further said, “Mike Pence, the vice president I mistakenly chose to elevate from well-earned obscurity, failed to do his job. He needs to be set straight. Punished if he won’t do what needs to be done. If he refuses to comply, I say, Hang Mike Pence! Repeat after me, Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!”

You spend the rest of class looking at your shoes, wondering why you didn’t just get a job.

You think back to Trump’s penchant for lying and making outrageous claims, then, when called out for it, saying, “oh, that? I was just joking.” On January 6, his followers knew he wasn’t joking. They understood exactly why he summoned them and what he wanted them to do.

The claim of “absolute immunity” is utterly implausible in a country with a democratic republican Constitution that sets up a three-part balance of power structure in which each of the three main branches acts as a check on the other two. It makes for complex problems and many troublesome questions, to be sure. Democracy is “messy,” according to a popular formulation. But one thing is clear: no man is above the law.  A president who incites violence in an effort to interfere with constitutionally mandated processes designed for the peaceful transfer of power must be held accountable by those directly harmed by his conduct.

Now, to return to our law school conceit for a bit longer, some will argue that the proper method for holding the president accountable is impeachment and nothing more. Impeachment certainly would work … if it worked. But Trump was impeached twice and not convicted because the Republican members of Congress refused to hear all the evidence, refused even to hear witnesses, and announced they would support him even before the “trial” occurred. Republicans thus made that constitutional process a sham.

It follows that the inherently political process of impeachment is not sufficient to hold a president accountable for inciting violence that harms not only the democratic system but individual citizens as well. Therefore, there must be another remedy.

To paraphrase Trump, if you don’t hold a president accountable for inciting insurrection, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

Now to conclude today’s lesson, let’s look at the broader implications of the position taken by the Justice Department. Despite what I’ve said above, I have little hope that the courts are going to agree with the Department of Justice. I am especially doubtful that the 6-Justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court, where the case is inevitably headed, is going to hold the president accountable as DOJ has proposed.

However, many observers, the writer included, have repeatedly expressed frustration that the Attorney General was going to let Trump skate despite his many crimes. While this set of civil cases is a far cry from a criminal indictment, the position taken by Justice signals that even its relatively conservative approach to “presidential law” has its limits. It may also signify that the Special Counsel appointed to independently investigate Trump’s many crimes has more juice behind his mandate than first appeared. Hope that it is so because our survival as a democratic republic depends on it. The answer, my friends, is blowin’ in the wind.

 [Pedagogical Note: in law school, the professor rarely jumped from one proposition you thought was right to the death blow to your sense of self-worth. Instead, they usually proceeded in small steps, slowly sucking the life out of what you thought was the intellectually plausible content of your thoughts, then delivering the coup de grace at the end. I have collapsed the dialogue in the interest of time and space. It was always worse.]