High Drama! Barr lashes out at Trump! Trump tweets furiously back. Extra! Extra!
Of course it's all nonsense, staged for effect.
Trump knows Barr will do his bidding without being asked directly and if any direction is required a public statement in which he provides guidance will avowing never to provide guidance will suffice.
Barr realized that his politically motivated meddling in the sentencing of Roger Stone had created the impression, if it were not already firmly there, of his being a lacky of Trumps, willing to bend the rules for his boss. And that was going to make his job at the DOJ -- protecting Trump -- harder. So he had to appear to chartise Trump to fix the problem internally and counter the perception that he and Trump were interested in ends (Trumps), never mind the means.
What better way than to orchestrate a phoney bust-up that the media would rush to cover? Which is just what they did. Barr emerges as a hero, the only Trump appointee to publicly stand up to his boss. Trump reiterates his "right" to do whatever he wants, and Trump's buddy, Stone, gets his sentence reduction.
But none of it is real. Trump knows exactly where Barr stands, that is to day firmly in his corner, exactly the AG he always wanted. Barr know Trump knows where he stands so he can get away with being critical without fear of being fired and humiliated on camera and Twitter.
What a glorious 24 hours of the news cycle.
Friday, February 14, 2020
Thursday, February 13, 2020
We were warned...
Trump's philosophy of violating norms in plain sight was on full display this week, as was the fatuousness of the GOP senators' arguments that Trump will have "learned a valuable lesson" from his impeachment (and acquittal). Senators Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski should be ashamed to show their faces in public after their disgraceful appeasing of the president on the Sunday talk shows last week. Entirely predictably, what Trump did seem to learn was a reinforcement of so many of his earlier life lessons, namely that the powerful can get away with things that ordinary folk can't. That's exactly what anyone with half a brain had been predicting.
Equally unsurprising has been his petty, vindictive acts of retribution. The firing of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's brother, Yevgeny, who was not involved in the Ukraine scandal, is a textbook example of Trump's spiteful exercise of power; going after family members (something Trump talked about with respect to terrorists) only makes him look like a tinpot dictator or a mob boss. It should send a chill down the spine of anyone who has one (the GOP clearly don't).
Trump's public meddling in the sentencing of Roger Stone further highlights the danger in which the US system of justice now finds itself. While the judge in Stone's case has little to fear, she cannot be removed without an impeachment, civil servants in the Justice Department are rightly worried that Trump's public statements have compromised the independence of the Justice Department's leadership (which was anway pretty firmly in Trump's camp) and thereby created undue influence in the conduct of their proprietorial duties.
While Trump's misbehavior has highlighted the system's weaknesses there is little sign that the political classes on the left have any solutions, or that those on the right have any interest in eschewing the dog-eat-dog political free-for-all Trump's is ushering in. Many who voted for the Tea Party and then for Trump just wanted to "blow up the system"; it seems as though they are getting what they wanted.
Equally unsurprising has been his petty, vindictive acts of retribution. The firing of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's brother, Yevgeny, who was not involved in the Ukraine scandal, is a textbook example of Trump's spiteful exercise of power; going after family members (something Trump talked about with respect to terrorists) only makes him look like a tinpot dictator or a mob boss. It should send a chill down the spine of anyone who has one (the GOP clearly don't).
Trump's public meddling in the sentencing of Roger Stone further highlights the danger in which the US system of justice now finds itself. While the judge in Stone's case has little to fear, she cannot be removed without an impeachment, civil servants in the Justice Department are rightly worried that Trump's public statements have compromised the independence of the Justice Department's leadership (which was anway pretty firmly in Trump's camp) and thereby created undue influence in the conduct of their proprietorial duties.
While Trump's misbehavior has highlighted the system's weaknesses there is little sign that the political classes on the left have any solutions, or that those on the right have any interest in eschewing the dog-eat-dog political free-for-all Trump's is ushering in. Many who voted for the Tea Party and then for Trump just wanted to "blow up the system"; it seems as though they are getting what they wanted.
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
The sound of ripping paper
Whether Trump heard it or not is debatable; I suspect he did since it was right by his left ear. But the sound of ripping papers is going to reberate in the 2020 general election. Whether or not Pelosi planned to do it (I suspect not) the effect will be to enrage Trump's base and Fox, and delight--and worry--his opponents.
After his snub where he ignored Pelosi's extended hand at the start of his SOTU address, not to mention the now expected slew of misrepresentations that followed, she may have felt angry enough to take the risk that the gesture would be a filip for Democratic voters and turnout and have little marginal impact on his base who are anyway likely to be completely riled up come November.
Interesting times.
After his snub where he ignored Pelosi's extended hand at the start of his SOTU address, not to mention the now expected slew of misrepresentations that followed, she may have felt angry enough to take the risk that the gesture would be a filip for Democratic voters and turnout and have little marginal impact on his base who are anyway likely to be completely riled up come November.
Interesting times.
... Barr, the shouting
It's over. Donald J. Trump was acquitted. The vote was bipartisan (!) but not in the way Republicans had hoped; Mitt Romney voted guilty on Article 1 (abuse of office) though with his party on Article 2 (obstruction of Congress). He was the only US senator not to vote with his party.
How will history remember Trump's impeachment? Given the way the GOP has fallen into line behind Trump since his inauguration, the final outcome - acquittal - was never in doubt. But there were two things that were not preordained. One was the possibility of using the Senate trial to gather additional evidence. While to most Democrats the case was already quite clear, some hoped that were witnesses to testify under oath to the events described in the complaint, removal from office might be possible, and if not, then at least GOP Senators up for reelection would be vulnerable and a better case for replacing Trump and the ballot box would emerge. That didn't happen.
The second question was whether some Democratic senators would be sufficiently fearful of an electorate that wasn't completely decided on the president's guilt that they would vote with the GOP not to impeach. Interestingly and slightly surprisingly, that didn't happen either; all the Democratic senators voted guilty on both counts.
Somewhat unexpectedly, Mitt Romney emerged as the only senator to break ranks, although just on one vote, that on Article 1, the abuse of office. Thus the vote was ultimately bipartisan but not bipartisan in the direction the president had been hoping for and predicting.
Parenthetically, it's hard to see how Romney could have acknowledged the crime but refuted the coverup; but that's a question interviewers will have to pressure him on in the coming days. What is sad about his split vote is that the second alleged offence is arguably more consequential for American democracy than the first. Using the power of the office to dig up dirt on a political rival is certainly serious but Trump's acquittal sets a relatively narrow precedent. By contrast, the decision to acquit the president from a blanket assertion of his right not to cooperate with Congressional oversight investigations is unlimited in its scope. If the decision is to stand, Congressional oversight will be rendered powerless; administrations can simply use the decision to evade any Congressional requests for information pursuant to its role and authority granted to it in Article 1 of the Constitution. This will certainly now have to be litigated in the Supreme Court.
So the impeachment of Donald J. Trump is over, bar the shouting. But no doubt there will be plenty of that in the weeks ahead.
The second question was whether some Democratic senators would be sufficiently fearful of an electorate that wasn't completely decided on the president's guilt that they would vote with the GOP not to impeach. Interestingly and slightly surprisingly, that didn't happen either; all the Democratic senators voted guilty on both counts.
Somewhat unexpectedly, Mitt Romney emerged as the only senator to break ranks, although just on one vote, that on Article 1, the abuse of office. Thus the vote was ultimately bipartisan but not bipartisan in the direction the president had been hoping for and predicting.
Parenthetically, it's hard to see how Romney could have acknowledged the crime but refuted the coverup; but that's a question interviewers will have to pressure him on in the coming days. What is sad about his split vote is that the second alleged offence is arguably more consequential for American democracy than the first. Using the power of the office to dig up dirt on a political rival is certainly serious but Trump's acquittal sets a relatively narrow precedent. By contrast, the decision to acquit the president from a blanket assertion of his right not to cooperate with Congressional oversight investigations is unlimited in its scope. If the decision is to stand, Congressional oversight will be rendered powerless; administrations can simply use the decision to evade any Congressional requests for information pursuant to its role and authority granted to it in Article 1 of the Constitution. This will certainly now have to be litigated in the Supreme Court.
So the impeachment of Donald J. Trump is over, bar the shouting. But no doubt there will be plenty of that in the weeks ahead.
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
The Iowa caucus
Certainly the Iowa caucus is something of an oddity. It is anachronistic; it is cumbersome to manage; and it is not representative of the racial diversity of the Democratic party. But those might also be its strengths. Its old fashioned reliance on talking to people rather than at them provides candidates with a richer understanding of voters' concerned than any poll or even a focus group, and it allows them to hone their messaging. That is it cumbersome to manage, despite the Dem's lamentable failure to execute effectively yesterday, a debacle reminiscent of the roll out of the DHSS' Obama Care website, is not insurmountable. Bringing in competent professionals, and doing better testing would have avoided this embarrassing screw-up.
And as to racial (and socioeconomic) unrepresentativeness, reflecting the more diverse makeup of the Democratic party could easily lead to the serial selection of candidates who represent the concerns of the two coasts and large cities but are disconnected from the issues of the more rural middle of the country. That would disadvantage Democratic candidates in swing states and could lead to many years in the political wilderness, at least until national demographics overwhelm the inherent bias in the electoral system towards the more sparsely populated rural interior.
And as to racial (and socioeconomic) unrepresentativeness, reflecting the more diverse makeup of the Democratic party could easily lead to the serial selection of candidates who represent the concerns of the two coasts and large cities but are disconnected from the issues of the more rural middle of the country. That would disadvantage Democratic candidates in swing states and could lead to many years in the political wilderness, at least until national demographics overwhelm the inherent bias in the electoral system towards the more sparsely populated rural interior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)