It’s Starting

Posted: June 10, 2025 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“I tasted a little tear gas — tasted like fascism.”

An unidentified protester in Los Angeles in a street interview on CBS on 8 June 2025.

Starting last Friday, protests in Los Angeles have continued in response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions to apprehend undocumented immigrants. The protests started small, but have grown in reaction to the federal government’s response to the unrest. It seems that Trump (aka TACO — Trump Always Chickens Out, a name given to him in an article about tariffs in the Financial Times) seized upon this development to embrace his attempts to try and show how tough he is. His poll numbers and national support are dropping sharply in all areas except immigration. Therefore, he wants to make immigration his central focus in order to drown out all the criticism of all of the other parts of his agenda that are failing.

While it is true that playing to his base is one of his main motivators, it is not all that he is doing, nor is it the most important. We as a nation are on the brink of losing our democracy to an autocratic regime that has no patience for criticism and is willing to take extreme measures to achieve their goals.

It is extremely ironic, not to mention hypocritical, that a man that is a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual offender and well known draft dodger (“bone spurs”) who pardoned over 1500 people that brutally attacked law enforcement officers in an insurrection designed to keep him in power after he lost an election, is now screaming about law and order and pushing for the harshest punishments for anyone that even bumps into a law enforcement official. The leaders of the Trump regime are immune to feelings of hypocrisy and shame.

Let there be no doubt. Violence, looting, destruction of property are all crimes and people should be held accountable for any form of criminal activity, whatever “heroic” actions they may think that they are taking. However, the vast majority of the protesters are acting peacefully, if forcefully, to express their dissatisfaction and fears for their safety and the safety of their family, friends and neighbors. California is the fifth largest economy in the world — all by itself. Los Angeles is the biggest city in the state. It has a diverse, well integrated economy that relies on immigrants in every aspect of social and economic activity. It is a majority-minority city — meaning white people comprise less than half of the population. Estimates put the number of undocumented immigrants in the greater Los Angeles area as being about a million people. ICE and other Trump regime members claim that they are only going after hardened criminals. Yet another lie. Finding and arresting hardened criminals is difficult, time consuming and expensive. When Trump’s deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller (a white nativist) tells the ICE and other federal law enforcement officials that they must arrest 3,000 people a day or else they are fired (the bottom ten percent of field offices each month), those officials are going to go for the easy pickings. Day workers outside of Home Depot. Construction sites. People coming in for their immigration hearings or other appointments in accordance with our laws and their asylum or citizenship requests. As I and many others pointed out before Trump took office, many people now in the administration were saying that anyone that is here illegally is breaking the law and therefore is a criminal. We should not be surprised. They told us what they were going to do but no one believed them. That is what is happening in Los Angeles. ICE raided the parking lot of a Home Depot scooping up day workers and then raided the garment district. That is how the protests started.

According to NBC news, and other sources, Mr. Miller already directed 5,000 federal law enforcement officers to augment ICE and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to round up immigrants. This includes FBI agents, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) personnel, U.S. Marshalls and many other agencies. First, none of those officers have been trained to apprehend immigrants. Second, their reassignment creates huge gaps in our ability to conduct anti-gang investigations, break up drug cartels, provide counter-intelligence and generally keep our country safe and secure. Instead we are arresting moms and high school kids and other long term, law abiding, tax paying members of our society. Their only focus is on immigration and looking “tough.”

Which brings us back to what I am afraid is really going on. The protests in Los Angeles and the sporadic violence that broke out was ably and effectively controlled and monitored by the LAPD and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office. They are trained, equipped and expert in handling protests bigger than what was happening in the beginning. They did not need outside help, and if they did, there were thousands of other area law enforcement officers available to help them under mutual aid agreements that most counties and cities have with jurisdictions in their areas.

Instead, the president mobilized two thousand National Guard troops. The desired result was achieved. Instead of calming things down — which any right minded leader would have as their objective — it exacerbated the situation and tensions increased. In my view, Trump was hoping for exactly what happened. Things got worse. When they got worse, his lackey in the Pentagon decided to send in a battalion from the U.S. Marine Corps base in Twenty-nine Palms California (about 700 Marines). Why do that? First, local law enforcement officials said that they could handle it. Second, 2,000 National Guard troops were there. Third, the California National Guard has about 18,000 members. If those on the ground needed help why not mobilize more National Guard personnel? He did it for many reasons — political, precedent, court tests and because Trump thinks that the U.S. military is his personal armed force. (He loves to play with “his” toys. There is a massive display of military power on tap for Saturday 14 June. It is the Army’s 250th birthday (happy birthday soldier!) and coincidentally Trumps 79th birthday. Washington DC is already closing down and Reagan National Airport will be closed during the parade. Totally disruptive. I will only note that the Navy (October) and Marine Corps (November) are also celebrating their 250th birthdays this year. No parades are scheduled.)

Here is why I think Trump and his henchmen and women are purposely escalating this situation. It is a dress rehearsal for bigger and better (in their minds) use of the military under the Insurrection Act of 1807, essentially martial law. Immigration enforcement is a political winner for this administration. It is also a fig leaf for trampling on the Constitution. It is no coincidence that Trump’s foray into this test case took place in California, a deeply blue state with a powerful governor that Trump happens to hate. If he can get away with it there, then he can go after other blue states that anger him (watch out Maine.)

California Governor Gavin Newsom did not request that the National Guard be activated and sent to Los Angeles. The president did so on his own, the first time since 1965 that a president has done so. (In that instance President Lyndon Baines Johnson activated the Alabama Guard to protect peaceful civil rights protesters being harassed and beaten by Alabama law enforcement officers. What a turn around today.) Of course in those 60 years the National Guard has been called out in a variety of circumstances, but always only upon request from the state’s governor.

I am not a Constitutional expert nor any kind of attorney, so I will not get into all of the U.S. codes covering the use of the military domestically. In brief, it is legal for the president to call up the National Guard and to deploy the Marines. However, under the law, they are only to be used for force protection (guarding buildings and the like) and support services (logistics, communications, transportation, and so on). Under a U.S. law known as the Posse Comitatus Act, federal military personnel cannot be used for civilian law enforcement purposes. (Ironically, if the governor had mobilized the Guard, they could be used in that way, but since now that they are federal military forces, they cannot.) I will vouch for the fact that the Marines being sent in have had absolutely no training in crowd dispersal, riot control or any other element of dealing with protesters, unless one or two were previously law enforcement officials. Probably the first time they had ever held a baton and shield in crowd control formation like the pictures show, was yesterday. What could go wrong? This is not the Marine’s mission. They are only there to show how “tough” the Trump regime can be. Some might say cruel, but then we know that when it comes to this administration, fear and cruelty is the point. One prays that an anxious young Marine or excited young protester doesn’t do anything stupid. It could all go down hill fast. Some of us remember what happened at Kent State University in Ohio when National Guard troops opened fire on unarmed war protesters in 1970.

Language is important, precision is important, especially when it comes to the law. Trump and his cohorts are aggressively using the word “insurrection” in their barrage of comments about the evil people of Los Angeles. They are not insurrectionists, of course. No one is trying to overthrow the government. However, there are several reasons for that. One, perhaps the least important, is an attempt to change the narrative and re-write history concerning the attack on the Capitol building on 6 January 2021. Those were insurrectionists, but Trump and the MAGA crowd want you to think otherwise which is why they continue to call them “patriots” — as if Trump even knows what that word means.

Second, the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act allow for the military to be used in law enforcement under the provisions of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Remember that Trump wanted to invoke that law during the protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020. He wanted to direct the military to shoot protesters in the legs. The then Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (CJCS) refused to implement his requests and true to his TACO form, he backed down. Thankfully. Who is there now telling him that what he has in mind is wrong? No one. SECDEF Pete (DUI Hire) Hegseth certainly will not. DHS Secretary Kristi (ICE Barbie) Noem certainly will not. Attorney General Pam (Police State Barbie) Bondi certainly will not. I don’t know about the current CJCS but I am worried that we have heard nothing from any source as to any mitigating recommendations senior uniformed officials are making. Crickets so far. Trump’s senior civilian officials seem to be competing amongst themselves to see who can impress the boss the most with their cruel and demeaning behavior.

Immigration is a legitimate issue. The system has been broken for a long time. In 2024 there was a legitimate bi-partisan effort in Congress to try and untangle the mess in a fair, but practical way. Trump killed it during his campaign because he thought that it was his best issue to win re-election. It appears he was right. Now he can use it as a handy tool anytime anything else goes wrong in his administration. Think of all the things that he was going to change/solve/fix in his first 24 hours/month/100 days. None of them happened. But with actions such as he is taking in California, and pretty much around the country, he can say he is doing what the electorate wanted by cracking down on undocumented immigrants. He has a winning political issue and the enablers in his administration, the Project 2025 crowd, have a willing enforcer to Make America White Again.

Only about ten percent of his term has gone by. Stand by for what is coming. This is just the start.

“A Republic If You Can Keep It”

Posted: December 21, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In a 4-3 vote on 19 December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court reached a momentous and far-reaching decision. Citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, they deemed that Donald J. Trump was ineligible to be president again because he engaged in an insurrection on 6 January 2021. This decision raises many perplexing questions that could impact the future of our democratic republic.

The 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868 to solidify the civil rights gained through the Civil War. Primarily, it protects the rights of all Americans by addressing the basic tenets of citizenship in the United States. Perhaps its most cited sections concern birth-right citizenship and equal protection under the law found in Section 1 of the five sections. Section 3 is included to prevent former Confederates from holding state or federal office and reads as follows:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, 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 Colorado decision will undoubtedly be appealed by Trump’s lawyers to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), as I believe it should. While current “conservatives” push state’s rights, our system will not function if each state decides for itself what criteria are necessary to run for president. The question is how quickly the SCOTUS will hear the case. The Colorado court stayed its decision until 4 January 2024, unless the case is heard by the SCOTUS before then. The date reflects a 5 January deadline for printing the state’s primary ballot. There is precedent for a quick SCOTUS decision regarding presidential ballots as found in the 5-4 decision in 2000 that effectively handed George W. Bush the presidency in the case Bush v Gore.

Before moving forward with this piece, there are a few things to say up front. I am not an attorney and certainly not an expert on the Constitution. I do, however, have a brain and believe that this section of the amendment is pretty straight forward in its language. I must also add that this case in not the result of far left wing radicals or an attempt by Democrats to derail the Trump campaign. The plaintiffs in the case are five conservative Republicans and an independent voter. The original arguments for applying the 14th Amendment to Trump came from some of the most conservative judges in the country, including members of the Federalist Society. It remains relevant to remember that the ruling disqualifies Trump from the ballot. It does not impose any punishment or result in a conviction for a crime. As is often cited, he is not qualified under the 14th Amendment just as he would not be qualified if he failed to meet the other requirements for the presidency under the Constitution (at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen and lived in the country for at least 14 years).

It would be easy to get down in the weeds and parse every word of Section 3. I am sure some will do exactly that. It seems to me that there are a few salient points that address the issues in larger ways through these main arguments. 

Is the president an “officer of the United States?” Common sense and logic say yes. Why would the Constitution disqualify an insurrectionist from every office requiring an oath to the Constitution, except for the highest office in the land and the one most susceptible to danger from insurrection? The counter argument is that the Constitution often references specific requirements, duties or official actions for office holders. The President and Vice President are not listed in Section 3 by name so therefore they cannot be disqualified for being insurrectionists. This just does not pass the logic test. It does not even pass the Trump logic test. In other court cases he is arguing that he is immune from prosecution as an officer of the government, but here, he claims not to be. 

Another area of dispute involves the boundaries of what exactly constitutes an insurrection. Was the attack on Congress on 6 January an insurrection? And if it was, how is Trump as president responsible for the attack or giving “aid and comfort” to it? To me, the actions Trump took for days and weeks leading up to the attack clearly demonstrate his intent and clear actions to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. The counter argument is that Trump has never been found guilty of engaging “in an insurrection or rebellion,” indeed he has yet even to be indicted for insurrection. Therefore, the argument goes, he cannot be disqualified. The Colorado Supreme Court and the lower court before it, studied the available, exhaustive investigations into the attack and unequivocally declared it to be an insurrection. I am with them.

Some argue that the disqualification would be imposed without due process. Again, I am not an attorney but it seems that Trump had lawyers in the court room presenting the case for his continued eligibility. They presented arguments as to why the Constitution should not apply and provided evidence to support their case. They will have the same opportunity in front of the SCOTUS. What more do they want?

Other arguments against the disqualification include questions concerning whether or not the provisions in this amendment are “self-executing.” In other words, is it a provision that can stand on its own and that can be enforced without any other action or laws required? There are a number of self-executing provisions in the Constitution, especially in the designation of powers of the three branches of government. Partly, this is about what exactly is an insurrection or rebellion. Should it be defined in law with specific consequences clarifying the 14th Amendment?

These are the broad outlines of the legal arguments swirling around the Colorado decision. The real fall out, of course, is political. Many MAGA and Republican luminaries are arguing that Trump’s fitness and qualifications for office should be decided at the ballot box. It is, they shout, un-American to keep the people from voting for the candidate of their choice. When I stop laughing, it might be worth noting that Trump tried, and continues to try, to do exactly that. He still claims he won the 2020 election and worked hard (including an insurrection) to keep the will of the voters from coming to fruition. He already tried to overthrow the government! He tried to prevent the duly elected president from taking office! How can that be any more un-American or anti-democratic? One might argue that disqualifying him from the ballot is actually the most pro-American, pro-democracy act we could imagine. The court system works “without fear or favor!”

(Note: In a future piece I plan to address Trump’s attacks on the judiciary, of which this is one more. The main institution that saved our Republic after the 2020 election was the courts. Trump is now working as hard as he can to disrupt, destroy and de-legitimize our court system. If he succeeds, there will be no guard rails to save our democracy should he prevail in 2024.)

The vast majority of the original citizens impacted by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment were never indicted or tried for insurrection or rebellion. There were no Congressional laws defining how the amendment should be applied. Why must we always bend the system to fit Trump’s desires and demands?

I hope that the Justices decide the case purely on legal and Constitutional grounds while ignoring the crescendo of pro-Trumpers that will put tremendous pressure on them to “stay out of politics.” Screaming “separation of powers” and all of that. I do not see how the SCOTUS can ignore the political and social ramifications of any decision they make. It will be viewed as a political decision, whichever way they go. My guess is that they will decide the issue on a narrow technical aspect of the law and the Constitution. As some suggest, they may hang their hat on the final provision of the section and decide that since the Congress can override a “disability” with a two-thirds vote of each House, then this is really a matter for the Congress to decide and the courts should stay out of it. 

In the end, we will be further down the road of dysfunction and division. 2024 will be wild. Be there.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Posted: January 7, 2022 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 4 Comments

President Joe Biden gave a speech yesterday on the first anniversary of the assault on the U.S. Capitol building where he clearly and unequivocally laid the blame of the attack on our democracy at the feet of the ex-president. It was the first time since taking office that he directly addressed the issue in depth. Never invoking his name, President Biden made it clear that “the defeated former president” was, and continues to be, a grave threat to our nation. There were no “patriots” attacking the Capitol that day, they were a mob “literally defecating in the hallways.” If you did not have a chance to see the speech, I recommend that you read it here.

In his speech, he addressed many of the lies being told by the ex-president and his radical supporters. To me, this was one of the key sections of his speech:

“The Big Lie being told by the former president and many Republicans who fear his wrath is that the insurrection in this country actually took place on Election Day. November 3, 2020. Think about that. Is that what you thought? Is that what you thought when you voted that day? Taking part in an insurrection, is that what you thought you were doing, or did you think you were carrying out your highest duty as a citizen and voting?

The former president’s supporters are trying to rewrite history. They want you to see Election Day as the day of insurrection. And the riot that took place there on January 6th as a true expression of the will of the people. Can you think of a more twisted way to look at this country, to look at America?“

President Biden, was, of course, immediately attacked by his predecessor in a series of unhinged “press releases” that mostly made no sense and were echoed by his lackeys in the House and Senate. No surprise there.

The saddest parts of the day were the moment of silence in the House chamber for those that died that day and in the following days and the candle light vigil on the steps of the Capitol. Only two Republicans attended. Representative Liz Cheney (WY) and her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney were the only two from either the House or the Senate Republican caucus to attend. What a sad day for the Republican Party. What a sad day for America.

“And so at this moment, we must decide, what kind of nation are we going to be? Are we to be a nation that accepts political violence as a norm? Are we going to be a nation where we allow partisan election officials to overturn the legally expressed will of the people? Are we going to be a nation that lives not by the light of the truth but under the shadow of lies? We cannot allow ourselves to be that kind of nation. The way forward is to recognize the truth and to live by it.“

Cowardly Copouts

Posted: February 15, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | 2 Comments

As we well know now, the Impeachment Trial for Donald J. Trump ended on Saturday with 57 votes to convict and 43 votes to acquit. Since 67 votes (a two-thirds majority) were required to convict him, Trump is not held accountable for his actions in fomenting an insurrection culminating in an attack on the Capitol building on 6 January, 2021. A shameful day for our country.

My schedule in these days of a pandemic was such that I could watch or at least listen to most of the proceedings. I am not an attorney, but I learned a lot about various interpretations of the Constitution and about legal concepts. Foremost in my education was understanding the term “but for.” In this case, it was clear that but for Trump, there would have been no Big Lie, no campaign to overturn a free and fair election, and no attack on the Capitol. Take Trump out of the equation — say he did not exist or more realistically, was not president or a candidate for president — and there is no attack. Period. It is unimaginable that any other presidential candidate would have provoked the same attempted coup that Trump undertook. Today, I am not so sure that it couldn’t happen again in the future. A smarter, more knowledgeable future losing candidate might be able to pull it off, especially if that candidate is aided and abetted by key election officials and members of the House and Senate.

Most disappointing during the week were the spineless votes cast on the single Article of Impeachment. Of the 43 Republicans that voted “not guilty” I would say that some — those in the Sedition Caucus — would have voted for Trump regardless of anything that he did. They voted to acquit not from fear, not from an appreciation of his policies, but rather for pure personal power reasons. Their sworn oaths of office are just words to them, not a solemn promise that protects our country. I would put six or seven of the Republican Senators in this category. The others mostly voted to acquit, in my opinion, out of fear. Some out of political fear that they might lose their job, some out of personal fear given the nature of the domestic terrorist threat that saturates Trump’s supporters, and some out of fear that their colleagues might criticize them. Some could possibly be found in all of those camps. What was galling was that immediately after the vote, many of the “not guilty” crowd came to the Senate floor to give speeches that point to the fact that they did think that Trump was the inciter-in-chief, but they let him off on a technicality. Pick your copout — as there were several — but the most common was that a former official could not be tried by the Senate. Once out of office, impeachment does not apply.

There are several things wrong with that approach. Foremost, of course, is that Trump was impeached while in office. When the House tried to convey the Article of Impeachment to the Senate, then Majority Leader Mitch McConnell adjourned the Senate so that the Article could not be delivered. It was out of session until the Inauguration. Remember that, because it will come up again. If it is possible for common sense to be a factor, it is logical that a president or other official subject to impeachment under the Constitution cannot commit a “high crime and misdemeanor” and then resign and get out of a conviction. Indeed, there are precedents in our own history where people were tried by the Senate after they left office.

As I understand it from my Constitutional Law 101 course watching the proceedings, the Founding Fathers left the rules and procedures for impeachment and subsequent trial rather vague. In this case, well over 100 Constitutional scholars of all political stripes opined that the Senate sets its own rules for the trial and that most certainly a president can be tried after he leaves office for offenses that took place while in office. Prior to the actual trial, this issue came up. In a bipartisan vote, the Senate voted 56-44 that it was Constitutional to hold the trial. That should have settled the matter and the presumption moving forward should be that the Constitutionality of the trial is not a factor when rendering a verdict. But then, in this day and age, and especially in Trump World, rules do not seem to matter.

The shamelessness of the 43 can best be epitomized by the speech that Senator McConnell gave immediately after the vote. He hung his “not guilty” vote on his claim that the trial was un-Constitutional. He did so by claiming that the House did not deliver the Article of Impeachment in a timely manner. (See above. Hypocrisy, you’ve found a home.) He did so even after the majority of his speech condemned Trump and his actions in great detail and said that “there is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.” Whaaat? It appears the Mr. McConnell may have wanted to vote to convict. He probably would have brought more Republican Senators along with him by voting to convict, possibly even reaching the 67 vote threshold. But he would not have been with the majority in his own party and thus would not be the Republican Leader. His decision to acquit was a pure personal power move. He likes being his party’s leader. There were only a few profiles in courage that day.

What are the takeaways from this episode? I have a few that I discerned from the proceedings.

  • There are no impeachable offenses. Two precedents have been set with Trump. You can try and get a foreign power to intervene in our elections and not be held accountable. Was the Ukraine case too complicated, arcane, or insignificant for you? Okay, how about Obstruction of Congress? Obstruction of Justice? Trump dodged all of those. But attempting to overthrow the government of the United States? That’s not an impeachable offense? If a president attempting a coup is not worthy of a conviction on that charge, then I am hard pressed to think what would be worthy.
  • It is okay to use violence to try and overturn an election. In fact, if you lose and don’t like it you can use any means necessary to over turn it. Bully election officials. Lie. Threaten state officials. Lie. Disenfranchise millions of Americans and nullify their votes. Lie. Ignore election laws. Lie. Send a mob to disrupt the certification of the Electoral College vote. If someone in your administration — say, the Vice President of the United States — doesn’t help you overturn the election then send white supremacists to track him down and hang him. (“Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence.” I hope all of those loyal Trumpists in the Sedition Caucus took notice of what loyalty gets you with Trump.) Violence is okay if you don’t win the vote and you can do anything you can think of to try and change it.
  • The minority rules. The conservative political observer David Frum wrote a very interesting article in The Atlantic titled “The Founders Were Wrong About Democracy”. In it he argues that the Founding Fathers thought that by setting up the government so that head strong populist charlatans could not hoodwink the American public into wild and self-defeating actions, they would create a stable and enduring republic. They specifically did not want a true democracy because they did not trust the vast unwashed, uneducated, and ill-informed average American (all white men, by the way) to do the right thing. But what we have now is a minority (Republicans) that control nearly every aspect of government by their ability to block actions favored by the majority of the people.
  • The Electoral College exacerbates the problem of minority rule and aids hooligans like Trump in their attempts to thwart the votes of the majority. Trump lost the popular vote by over 3 million ballots in 2016. He got about 46 percent of the vote. As the math shows, that it is less than Al Gore, John Kerry and Mitt Romney got when they lost. There were other even closer elections. Trump did not win in a “landslide.” In 2020 he lost by over 7 million popular votes. In the current era that is a landslide. It is too big of a number to overcome. So where did Trump focus his efforts? He focused on states to try and get them to change their Electoral College votes. Where did he focus his efforts in Congress? On the certification of the Electoral College vote. He was hoping to throw the election into the House of Representatives where, although the Democrats have the majority, the vote would be by state, and the Republicans control the most state delegations. One state one vote. Thus South Dakota gets the same vote as California. We can see that the Electoral College is vulnerable. It is an anachronistic vestige of another time.

It was a near miss. Trump came closer to pulling it off than I think most people realize. Despite the hand-wringing over Trump’s acquittal and the jubilation of the Seditionists and Trumpists (mostly all the same folks), Trump is an injured power broker. He is soon to be engulfed in significant legal challenges that are not ignorable now that he is an ex-president.

For the moment, I rejoice in having a competent president, addressing the nation’s crises. Best of all I don’t have to hear about Twitter attacks, Big Lie rallies, or see a failed showman suck up all the air whenever he shows his face. In fact, I don’t think I’ve seen the face of the twice impeached worse president ever in weeks. And I sleep a lot better at night as a result.

I hope we learn the lessons of these past weeks and months. The system is not perfect. It can be broken. We need to address the issues that were exposed and close the legal loopholes. Forgetting the past and moving forward will not work in this case. Our republic is too important to pretend that it doesn’t need fixing.

Crushing An Insurrection

Posted: January 26, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | 1 Comment

Only one week into the Administration of President Joseph R. Biden, there is a definite change in tone from the White House and around the country. The remarkable Inauguration Day, in spite of the pandemic and extremely tight security precautions, brought home the sense that indeed, a new day had dawned and hope is in the air. Unfortunately, there is some unfinished business that must be attended to in order to keep our country moving forward.

Donald J. Trump is impeached for a second time. The Senate trial is scheduled for the week of 8 February. It is imperative that after a due process, the Senators vote their conscience and carry out their Constitutional duty rather than play party politics. This is not a “both sides do it” issue. The impeachment is not “politics as usual.” Only one side tried to destroy our country. As I will review below, for the first time in our nation’s history a president, of these United States, actively sought to overthrow the government and install himself as the unelected leader of the country. So far, the Trump supporters have presented a circular argument. They continue to raise questions about the electoral process claiming that it was subject to widespread fraud and was rigged. Trump and his cultists in the House and Senate continued to repeat these claims loud and long. This is propaganda utilized to its fullest to convince his loyal followers that the allegations — and it never moved beyond unproven allegations — were true. The House and Senate cultists argue that since their constituents believe the election was rigged, then they must represent their constituents. Of course they think that there was fraud because their elected officials tell them that. And they do this with a straight face. Senators Ted Cruz (TX) and Josh Hawley (MO) are the leaders of this ridiculous argument for their own personal ambitious goals. They use allegations that they create to justify their claim that it should be investigated — even though roughly 90 court cases proved otherwise and all 50 states certified the election, including those run by Trump’s own party. Even Trump’s personal attorney, oops, I mean the Attorney General of the United States, said that there was no fraud and that the results were legitimate.

And yet, after the insurrection that caused five deaths at the Capitol, eight Trump cultists in the Senate and 139 in the House voted to overturn the election. Learn their names. They are guilty of sedition and are as culpable as anyone else for the death and destruction that resulted from their lies. Unfortunately, most will not be held accountable. Probably none of them will be held accountable. Some of them are proud of the havoc that they wrought.

Make no mistake what they are saying and doing. Those Trump followers, the majority of their party, are demonstrating their belief that any candidate but their own is not legitimate. Period. They believe that stopping Democrats by any means necessary is better than succumbing to their “socialist” ways. Democracy be damned. White Christian men are supposed to be in charge. One party believes in elections and the peaceful transfer of power and one believes that such quaint customs apply only when they win. As the newest Senator from Alabama, a member of the Sedition Caucus, and eminent scholar Tommy Tuberville put it “my dad fought 76 years ago in Europe to free Europe from socialism.” In his speech he later explained that his dad helped in “liberating Paris from socialism and communism” during World War Two, therefore Democrats must not gain power. Facts just do not matter to them.

The Senate trial is a place to start. Contrary to the revisionist stories starting to be spun, Trump had a long pattern of trying to overturn this free and fair election. It was not a spontaneous act. The lead up to the attack started well before the election. For months, Trump repeated at his rallies that the only way he could lose was if the election was “rigged.” He touted fraud at every turn. He made baseless claims about mail-in voting and bogus concerns about voting machines. These despicable lies were the only foundation to his campaign’s numerous lawsuits around the country. They were all based on allegations, not facts. Every case was shot down. To put a finer point on it, the maker of the voting machines, New Dominion Voting Systems, is going after those that spread the lies. They just filed a defamation lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani for over a billion dollars (yes, billion). Other lawsuits caused Fox News to retract their statements repeating the lies against Dominion and to confirm that there was no fraudulent use of the machines. Other news outlets such as Newsmax had to do the same.

In court, baseless allegations do not win cases. Facts do. If you lie in court, there are penalties. Apparently, the Trump cultists in the House and Senate have no fear of retribution in the courts. They may be surprised.

After losing every meaningful court case surrounding the election, Trump pressured election officials in Michigan. Then he pressured the Michigan legislature. When that did not work, he tried pressuring the Pennsylvania legislature. When that did not work he went after officials (Republican, but that did not matter to him) in Georgia and Arizona. When that did not work he made his now infamous phone call to the Republican Georgia Secretary of State and threatened him with criminal proceedings if he did not “find 11,780 votes” — one more than Mr. Biden’s margin.

But that was not enough. Upstanding state and local officials refused to cave to his demands. So he moved on. We now know that he plotted with an attorney in the Department of Justice (DOJ) to fire the Acting Attorney General, bypass the chain of command and install a person as the Acting Attorney General that was willing to bring the full power of the government to get the election overturned. When that plan was thwarted he wanted the Solicitor General to take a case directly to the Supreme Court to have millions of votes thrown out.

It seems a pattern is developing here. But, wait! There’s more! And it gets worse.

Trump started Tweeting in December urging people to come to Washington DC for a “wild” “Save America” rally on the day the Electoral College votes would be certified by Congress. Trump campaign money and former staffers were used to help organize it. In the days before and again at the rally, Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to defy the Constitution and overturn the election by decertifying the Electoral College votes. Before the rally, Mr. Pence told Trump that he could not and would not decertify the votes. As a result, Trump implied to the mob at the rally that Mr. Pence was a threat to his continued campaign to overturn the election. They understood what they were being told to do. Mr. Pence was now a target. Many groups that participated in the attack clearly pre-planned their actions based on Trump’s statements at rallies and over Twitter. The attack on the Capitol was definitely not a spur of the moment spontaneous attack.

Trump sent the mob to the Capitol to “fight” for his re-election. When they broke through police lines and violently entered the building he did nothing to stop it for hours after the riot started. Numerous reports indicate that he actually enjoyed it. His followers were “fighting” for him like no one else would do. Reliable reports indicate that Mr. Pence had to fill in as the Commander-In-Chief to get the National Guard moving into the fray because Trump would not do it. (This should also be troubling to all of us. Separately, an inquiry should be held on this point. If the Vice President was the de facto Commander-In-Chief, there was a very real breakdown in Constitutional law.)

Now the Trumpists are arguing that the Impeachment and trial is “divisive”. As if defying the will of the people at the ballot box, fomenting sedition, and sending insurrectionists to overthrow the government is not divisive. Spineless politicians such as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA) change their story daily. Originally he said that Trump “bears responsibility” for the attack. Now he says “I don’t believe he provoked it” and that “we all have some responsibility” for the attack. Perhaps he realized that if they convict Trump, then the whole cabal is admitting their own guilt in the plot.

So if the argument now is to “move along — nothing to see here folks” how many dead police officers or dead politicians would it take to convict him? Apparently one officer beaten to death by the “demonstrators” is not enough. Four other deaths is not enough. Would it be an impeachable offense if the mob got ahold of Mr. Pence and/or Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and harmed them? Would Leader McCarthy’s stance be different if he had been taken out of the House in zip tie handcuffs and put on trial on the Capitol steps? A near miss of a massive catastrophe does not absolve anyone of a crime.

More importantly, many experts on the dark side of our society where the white nationalists, Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois (Boys), white supremacists and others operate say that for the attackers and their supporters, 6 January 2021 was their equivalent of 19 April 1775 at Lexington and Concord. They view the attack as the opening shots of the coming revolution. Some are ardent Trump supporters, some support Trump as a means to an end, but the goal is to overthrow the government. Just because they failed this time doesn’t mean that they have given up on doing so.

Without punishing every domestic terrorist that participated, without convicting Trump in the Senate, without holding politicians responsible for the Big Lie, we send the message that it is okay to do it. Without punishing those proven guilty to the fullest extent of the law, then 6 January was merely a dress rehearsal for what is to come. Whether or not we think that is true, the insurrectionists think it is. Whether or not you believe that Trump really expected to overthrow the government and have himself installed as the leader, the insurrectionists believed it. Whether or not you think Trump’s message was often racist, the racists thought he had their back.

Without accountability we cannot begin to heal and without healing there can be no unity.

I will be surprised if the Trump defense team actually tries to defend his actions. What will ensue in his “defense” is a Constitutional argument that an ex-president cannot be removed from office that he has already left. Therefore, they will argue, to try him, much less to convict him, is un-Constitutional. I am not an attorney and I am not a Constitutional scholar, but that line of argument makes no sense to me. If it carries the day, then no president can be held accountable for their actions. Even when, as in this case, it was the worst action ever taken by any president in our history. Trump systematically and with malice of forethought worked to destroy the Constitution and people died as a result. To that we just say “oh well?”

Trump supporters in the House and Senate remain afraid of Trump. Why this is so, totally escapes me. However, if in their hearts they wish he was gone, a conviction is the way to usher him onto the dust heap of history. Unfortunately, for most of them, cowardice trumps honor and truth. When the Senate Trumpists acquit him for a second time, it will make him relevant again. He would have no power if they did not give it to him. Apparently, for them, holding power is more sacred than their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

End it now, or suffer the ongoing violence and acrimony that our country can ill afford now, in the midst of a pandemic, or ever, if we really stand for what we say we do.