Twelve dead, four wounded
Another day of mayhem
Something must be done
Twelve dead, four wounded
Another day of mayhem
Something must be done
Maybe the Democrats think that having 24 declared candidates is seven better than the GOP’s 17 in 2016. Or perhaps the lunatics are running the asylum. Nancy Pelosi can’t do everything, you know.
Either way, the party of Andrew Johnson has a problem There are so many aspirants, it’s as if there were none. Perhaps it’s better to think of the double dozen, not as viable contestants, but rather as a think tank, and the primary contests an extended brainstorming session.
The most prominent candidates, professional pols like current frontrunner Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, and Bernie Sanders, do not have a single, signature issue. However, there are talented prospects on the taxi squad; people who possess experience in particular disciplines. For example:
How about locking them into a free-wheeling Internet-aired discussion, two or three at a time; forcing them to grapple with a single issue; challenging one another to propose a plan and then defend it. Require a proponent to explain how a program would be funded. Americans love new ideas, but we hate paying for them.
These forums would provide the second-tier candidates with a way of distinguishing themselves, and at the same time giving the issues some Oxygen. The discussions could be posted on Youtube. They would be a stimulating sideshow to the Debates, an insufferable circus.
Family and friends aside, America is the best thing ever to happen to many of us. This is why I get emotional over the travesty of Trump’s government. He gets wrong so many things that I love about this country.
Foremost, the Constitution has been an incredibly ingenious document. Not perfect for sure, but resilient; so far unbreakable. Through the Constitution, the people of America have steered the nation through crises which threatened the continued existence of the republic. Fundamentally, the Constitution is nothing without the people who interpret, study and honor it. It will never replace the King James version for some or the Torah and the Qaran for others. For me, the Constitution shares top billing with all of them.
The Constitution was conceived as a compact between and among states. Alabama reminded us just last week that states are sovereign, making their own laws, even if they are out of sync with the Constitution. The three branches each have an establishing article: Congress is set forth in the first part; the executive the second; and judiciary the third. Congress makes laws, the Executive carries them out and Judiciary rules on conflicts between the two branches.
The judiciary has a busy season ahead of it, if the White House continues its siege against the Congressional hordes. Yesterday, Rep. Elijah Cummings’ House Oversight Committee prevailed in its onslaught against the obstructive administration. See The Sun Poked Through, 9/20/2019. Aaron Schiff and Jerry Nadler are teeing a few up as we speak.
This case and some others likely will reach the Supreme Court; a few no doubt will be consolidated for a decision. Trump calls it “his Court.” He may be in for a surprise. The judges don’t even think it is their Court. They are its caretakers only.
Even the most extreme members of the bench have lived in the law for decades. Its precept of stare decisis (let the decision stand) is the cornerstone of our laws. Judges tend to follow precedent. A court would rather create an exception to a strongly-held law, such as Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision the right of a woman to decide whether or not to abort an unwanted pregnancy and in passing decriminalizing the performance of abortions by doctors, rather than overturn it.
When the new wave of anti-abortion laws reaches the high court, the media’s noise will be about overturning Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court had an opportunity to recall the Roe decision but refused to do it. Some of the qualifiers and restrictions under the Pennsylvania law were adopted; others stricken. Thus began the death of Roe by a thousand cuts. The pro-life movement has attacked abortion practice using Planned Parenthood‘s lower standards to show to justify a restriction. Most likely, Roe will be so eviscerated as to remove any semblance of control from the woman undergoing the procedure, assuming she can find a doctor willing to give perform one. Trump will say that Roe’s been overturned, and the pro-choice movement will deny it. It will depend on the state, because ( improbably) it is a state by state decision.
The Court will hear many other cases, some likely to rest on the meaning of the Constitution. The prospect does not promise judicial consensus. In some cases, though, the Judges should see the Constitutional situation for what it is. Nixon’s tape case (1974) was argued before the same court as Roe v. Wade. The bench split 7-2 on Roe with a dissent and a number of concurring decisions. Nixon was unanimous 8-0, Justice Rehnquist having recused himself.
Even when the Constitutional issue is difficult (Nixon’s was not, nor will Trump’s be) the Justices tend to put forth a united front. The Court was the final backstop for the conflict between Nixon and Congress.
Trump has restocked the current Court with right leaners. The Chief has flirted with the center to maintain the Court’s credibility. At least five judges will condemn Trump’s efforts to stonewall Congress. Even Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh may recognize that setting a good precedent is more important than the expedient alternative. Even if the Court votes to quash Congress’s investigative authority, Congress may nevertheless claim victory as long as the case is honestly fought, and the arguments are sincere and well-considered.
US District Judge Amit Mehta knocked down Trump’s application to quash the subpoena of his accountants’ records. Judge Mehta wrote a 41-page opinion. The gist of it is this:
“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a sitting President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.”
In a nutshell, the Judge ruled that if Congress expresses a legitimate purpose for its investigation, it is not for the court – or the President – to second-guess it.
The same reasoning applies to other subpoenas issued by the House and Senate committees. It remains to be seen if Trump will continue to resist the House’s investigations. If Mehta’s ruling stands, and it probably will, Trump’s continued refusal itself is a reason for impeachment, which the House will be constrained to undertake.
Congress is bearing down on Donald Trump and his administration of looters, opportunists and enablers.
The House Judiciary Committee has voted to cite Attorney General William Barr for contempt, for his refusal to share the Mueller Report in its complete and non-redacted form. For Congress, this is the first step in a journey of thousands up to the November 2020 election, unless something occurs or is uncovered that will short-circuit the secrecies of the Trump administration.
I agree with most people who believe that impeachment is the correct action to go against a renegade executive, whether or not acquittal in the Senate is guaranteed. Congress cannot allow unprincipled refusal to cooperate to be the norm. Secrecy enables self-dealing and other corrupt practices.
Journalists, purveyors of the alleged fake news, are enjoying a golden age of investigative reporting. Dogged persistence, in the face of White House recrimination and intimidation, has produced material revelations almost daily. The leaking of information, even if done for the wrong reason, casts light on the clandestine operation of Trump’s Washington. Without journalists, the government would be as dark as Dante’s Inferno.
Entire departments of the government are understaffed and opaque. Voters need to know about the government’s policies when they are affected by them. Voters need to know if elected officials are carrying out the laws in the direction promised. They need to know if the officials themselves are complying with law.
Whether or not Trump’s obstructions were criminal, surely they were acts of misconduct. The Mueller Report at its root is a compendium of the administration’s bad conduct, a subject with which our Congress in the first instance must be concerned. The Judiciary and Intelligence committees are charged with that duty. They should be allowed to know all of the facts and sources in order to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of government.
The Special Prosecutor’s Office was concerned with criminality. Congress must address the non-criminal aspects of the administration. CASE CLOSED, Senator Mitch McConnell’s latest declaration, is intended to shut down Congress in its work. The Majority Leader is so wrong-headed as to warrant censure himself. Those of us who survived the Nixon presidency and the Watergate investigation know how close Nixon actually came to getting away with it. A bipartisan Congress and an incorruptible independent counsel forced his hand.
The founders understood the principles of divided government, but they did not envision or provide for a government so split that it is polarized on the necessity of government. The reason for the administration’s failure to fill posts and to keep policy under wraps is a distaste for governmental initiative. The administration governs by the law of the jungle. Anti-democratic principles, such as Cheney and Barr’s unitary executive theory , fulfill a reactionary vision of American life, in which wealth rules with impunity, and those without it are subjects, not citizens.
Robert Mueller wrapped up his Report on the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election within a few weeks after Attorney General William Barr took office. Mueller spent 2-1/2 years and $30 million in taxpayer money investigating the Russia-US connection. However, when the Report reached the Attorney General’s desk, Barr dropped his capacious, prosecutorial shorts and sat on it. Barr needed only two days to comb through the 448-page tome and reduce it to a four-page summary; one which did not do Justice to it, according to its author. After squashing the life out of the Report, Barr picked up gobs of it and threw them at his Senate interlocutors, much like a monkey might do. Barr trashed the Mueller Report but has not been able to destroy it. It remains a hot potato.
Robert Mueller may be ready to reveal some of its details. Then again, Barr’s Justice Department will impede Mueller as much as possible. [At the time of this writing, written, Trump has tweeted that Mueller should not testify] Barr will not overtly refuse to have Mueller testify. He will do whatever he can to limit the questioning. Meanwhile, Trump and Barr are trying to cast doubt on Mueller’s mental process and judgment.
Barr’s conduct as Attorney General has been overtly political. He has justified his lifelong reactionary bias with “masterful hairsplitting,” as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse described it. He has used his legal skills to dodge questions and avoid conventional legal processes. Barr will never recuse himself or resign. Because of Republican control of the Senate, impeachment will be only for show. The only remedy is political; a Recall in November 2019.
Politics has always been serious business. Status, money and power always draw the messianic and the megalomaniacal. Things didn’t get crazy. It’s just crazy suddenly got a whole lot crazier. When it comes to destroying the American way of life, well, there are good people on both sides.
What Barr is doing goes beyond political gamesmanship. He his endorsing views that put constitutional balance and restraint at risk. That’s just the way Trump and Barr like it; at least while they are in power. Barr’s believes in his vision of America as fervently as anyone else. He believes it is important enough to through his professional reputation on the pile. He believes it is important enough to declare new legal postures that are preposterous. His newest formulation of the extent of executive power would place the president beyond checks and balances.
According to Barr, the president has the right to terminate an investigation into his conduct without committing an obstruction of justice when the president knows he’s done nothing wrong. And if the president is wrong? You’ll never know because the investigation has been crushed. That’s some catch, that Catch-22.
Unfettered executive power will sustain a minority party president when coupled with 1) defiance of congressional oversight and 2) a majority or a filibuster-wielding minority in the Senate. TheBarr Doctrine was crafted specifically to place the White House beyond the reach of the Congress. As for the courts, the administration is, like, bring it on! The administration will try to hold the ball through the campaign season. If it can’t and if the ruling goes against it, ti will try to fast-track a decision to the Supreme Court.
Christmas has come early for Donald Trump.
The best news Attorney General William Barr delivered Thursday morning is that Congressional leaders from both parties will see the almost-naked Mueller Report. Grand jury testimony will remain sealed because Barr refuses to seek its disclosure. He’s exercising his discretion and is acting within the scope of his authority.
Barr’s refusal lays the groundwork for House Democrats to try seek the grand jury testimony legally, which Barr no doubt would oppose on legal grounds. The process could take a year, which will allow Barr to run out the clock legally.
Barr’s recap of the Report falls squarely within the law. Barr and Rosenstein decided that there was as much evidence of Trump’s frustrations at being stymied after the inaugural as there was that he was trying to kibosh on the investigation. I don’t buy Trump’s defense but he has a right to assert it. Then it’s left to a jury, and juries are unpredictable.
Prosecutors get to decide which cases to prosecute. The U.S. Attorney doesn’t bring cases that are a toss-up, especially hot potatoes. In fact, judges run from those cases, too. They call them, “political questions,” and it’s the law.
We appoint a Special Prosecutor who works as free from political influence. Prosecutors don’t bet on trial outcomes because juries are just so unpredictable as possible . Even in a solid case, a defense verdict is always possible. Even if Trump we enough to see indicted, he might walk. If Mueller was undecided then it’s hard to tackle Barr for putting his finger on the scale. He is acting within the scope of his office. That’s the criminal law.
There was plenty of red meat for progressives in Barr’s press conference. Beyond any reasonable doubt, Barr is Trump’s boy. Pundits and Congress have good reason to see Barr as Trump’s fixer. He was Bush I’s operative in his first stint as Attorney General. Barr is a highly skilled lawyer. He knows how to find a matter’s seams; the loophole; the catch; the escape clause; the space; the slack; the soft underbelly. That is where he has discretion. That’s especially where lawyers lurk. Under the law, the only way to override Barr’s discretion is to show that he has abused it. It’s a high bar.
While I see the issues differently, I can’t attack Barr’s legal process. He has done what people demanded. He has invoked the rule of law. He has twisted it to fulfill his political view. Democrats are capable of the same sleight of hand. That’s good lawyering for you.
The obstruction case against Trump is over. It won’t be reopened. House Democrats aren’t bound by Barr’s decision. They might see impeachable offenses where the DOJ saw nothing to prosecute. The House will investigate as long as it have public support. It won’t impeach because it can’t convict in the Senate trial. But that’s Politics, and 2020 is no longer very far away.
The other night, a friend asked me who I would vote for in Tuesday’s Special Election to fill out the remainder of Letitia James’ term as Public Advocate, I answered plainly: I don’t know. I’ve had a day to think about it and to read up on many of the seventeen candidates, and I can now give a more informed answer: I don’t know.
Public Advocate is the minister-without-portfolio office created by the City of New York to replace the elected position of City Council President once it had been declared unconstitutional. The PA has no official duties, which is fortunate because the office has no executive power. It can investigate but can’t issue subpoenas or hold hearings. It is an office that is mostly about being a foil to the mayor. Historically, the office has been a stepping-stone for young pols, who seek the searchlights of the City.
The PA’s megaphone and $3.6 million budget galvanize ambitious people. Seventeen heat-seeking prodigies (15 Democrats and 2 Republicans) have stepped forward for this one-off vote. The Democrats are fighting for the ambience of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s bright sunlight. They agree in varying but insignificant ways on the two leading issues of the day: Diversity and Amazon, as the embodiment of all income inequality issues. The better-known Republican has been the only supporter of the now-scuttled Amazon deal. This may boost him above the mostly-partisan affair; aside from political rhetoric, many New Yorkers considered Amazon’s selection of Long Island City to be good for New York. For good or ill, Amazon has been a linchpin for his pitch.
New York is a city engulfed by end-stage capitalism, having fully gentrified two of five boroughs already. Progressives have good reason to fear the introduction of a new corporate predator to the already-unbalanced New York Eco-System, More corporate jobs, more displacement of long-time residents and the dismantling of residential communities. The crux of the Democratic argument is that rather than suck up $3 billion in tax subsidies, Amazon should have been willing to pay for its place in the New York firmament.
The law of supply and demand is sometimes suspended in New York politics. Over the past 50 years, New York has lost its position as the center of the corporate and financial universe. It is a notoriously expensive and challenging place to live and work. This is one reason that so many corporations removed headquarters from Manhattan. It was astonishing that Amazon selected New York at all. Naturally, tax subsidies sweetened the pot.
Amazon had pledged 25,000 corporate jobs, the kind that creates the demand for new housing stock, services, good schools, etc. This is a boon to a city whose economy is closely tied to finance, real estate and tourism. The return of corporate jobs is a good thing but for the fact that those who provide services to the new enclaves are being priced out of the places where they now live and arguably would work. Many working people already have long and largely unpleasant commutes. A good transit system would help, but our crack lawmakers don’t have a clue about that. New York needs the jobs and the revenues but it also needs to figure out a way to make life available and affordable within the city precincts.
I’ve searched in vain for a candidate who articulates even an acknowledgment of the complexity; never mind the solution. Retail politicians advance on the quality of rhetoric. They depend upon others to develop new ideas. Judging by the discourse, New York’s think tanks are at drought levels. Its public advocate candidates have nothing new or interesting to offer. Under the circumstances, I Don’t Know is a ringing endorsement.
Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, Democrat, admitted yesterday that he posed in a racially offensive photograph . In 1984 he and another medical school student posed as a black man in black face and a Klansman in a Ku Klux Klan hooded robe. The picture was published as his yearbook page. The editors at the East Virginia Medical School didn’t have a problem running it.
The two men are shown standing next to each other but it isn’t a promotion for National Brotherhood Week. Northam issued a public apology (although, today he’s denying it) and didn’t try to defend the photo or offer context. So far, despite calls for his resignation, he refuses to step down. He will probably be forced to resign; replaced by Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, who is black.
It’s hard to look at the picture and say, “That was then and this is now.” Certain instances of racially and sexually abusive behavior have ended public careers and caused public ostracism. There is no statute of limitations and no possibility of rehabilitation. Some acts are so shocking and offensive that forgiveness would be considered acceptance. In those cases, there is zero tolerance. Our society is still working through how Northam and others like him should be treated for such offenses. There is a compelling reason, other than politics, to banish Northam. Short of physical violence, black face, along with the “N word,” is the most publicly reviled display of racism. The photo is a graphic representation. It is more nauseating to see it than to hear about it. Ostracism sends a clear signal to parents and children to preach against this form of hatred, or else make sure it’s hidden in a place where no one will see it.
For now, Northam, a Democratic politician, will be forced out due to the 1984 photo. For now, Steve King, a Republican politician, was stripped of all leadership positions by Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader, due to racially offensive statements made publicly and reported. However, Congress stopped short of censure and removal. Different result if there was no picture of Northam or if King had been videotaped? I think so. Different result if Northam was a Republican and King a Democrat? Without a doubt.
If Trump specifically directed Cohen to conceal the true status of Trump Moscow in his Congressional testimony, that is subornation of perjury, a crime. It’s the kind of crime Congress can’t ignore.
It would have to be that precise and there’s got to be corroborating evidence. Cohen vs Trump won’t do it.
Prior to his testimony, Cohen filed a written statement with Congress, reviewer in advance by the White House, which falsely represents Ed that the Moscow project ended in January 2016 in fact, it didn’t end until the following November.
Cohen: “I assume we will discuss the rejected proposal to build a Trump property in Moscow that was terminated in January of 2016; which occurred before the Iowa caucus and months before the very first primary.”
No one st the White House interceded to correct the record.