Many of us hope Robert DeNiro's dream becomes reality, that
he "can handcuff him and take him away in an orange jumpsuit."
Of course, we all know of whom DeNiro was speaking because
we learned Thursday of the crime(s) committed by Donald J. Trump. (The chat with Stephen Colbert had been taped Tuesday.) That's all the
more reason the famed actor is wrong when he asserts "this guy has proven
himself to be a total loser."
As noted by Will Rahn of CBS News Digital, there are ten
instances which the Special Counsel identified President Trump possibly
committing obstruction of justice. They are, in Mueller's words:
- the campaign's response to reports about Russian support
for Trump;
- conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn;
- the President's reaction to the continuing Russia
investigation;
- the President's termination of Comey:
- the appointment of Special Counsel and efforts to remove
him;
- efforts to protect public disclosure of evidence;
- further efforts to have the Attorney General take control
of the investigation;
- efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered
him to have the Special Counsel removed;
- conduct toward Flynn,Manafort (Redacted);
- conduct involving Michael Cohen
One piece of evidence is fairly insignificant. Two can begin
to grab the attention of a prosecutor, and three is highly suspicious. Ten, and
no prosecutor will give the suspect a free pass.
Nobody- and that might even include de facto Trump attorney
William Barr- would deny that obstruction of justice would be considered a
"high crime" under terms of the Constitution's impeachment clause.
Mimi Rocah tweets
As a federal prosecutor I was taught to pursue obstruction
of justice cases with zeal because if obstruction goes unchecked our whole
justice system is at risk. If we let the POTUS get away with obstruction, what
message do we send to criminals, prosecutors & juries?
Not a good one, certainly. And even Robert Mueller, though
afraid of offending his boss, the Attorney General, implied that the President
of the USA probably did obstruct justice. In a passive-aggressive assertion
that the President committed obstruction of justice, the Special Counsel
implied that some other measure (i.e., impeachment) should be considered.
Mueller concluded
... If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of
the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we
would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are
unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude
that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
And yet, the Democratic controlled House of Representatives
is slow walking the constitutional remedy, Elizabeth Warren is (at this moment)
alone among Democratic candidates explicitly recommending impeachment hearings,
and Democrats are being challenged not to justify their reticence but instead
their belief that maybe, just maybe, the President should not be immune from
consequences of his actions.
Though no one can know for sure how this ends, that doesn't
sound like a "loser." That sounds a lot more like "winner,"
and a big one at that.
In her excellent analysis for Slate, Lili Loofbourow
recognizes
In Barr’s summary of events, Trump wasn’t just innocent but
wronged—a persecuted party whose injudicious actions could be chalked up to
distress at being falsely accused. Sound familiar? It’s not a bad public
relations strategy: It worked for Brett Kavanaugh. His extraordinary tantrum
during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was rationalized by defenders as
the understandable excess of a tormented man. No lawyer could have come up with
a better defense for the president, anyway. As Fox News’ Chris Wallace
characterized Barr’s press conference, the attorney general was essentially
“acting as the counselor for the defense, the counselor for the president …
talking about his motives, his emotions.” And just like Kavanaugh, Barr took
his stage knowing he was performing for an audience of one.
And so, the nation whose elections were targeted and
attacked by a foreign adversary (whose leader Trump constantly praises) was
instructed, by its own attorney general, to forget its troubles and sympathize
with the man who openly asked Russia to hack his opponent’s emails. Barr, no
fool, understands that he has a challenging client. “In assessing the
president’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind
the context,” he intoned. That context turned out to be that Trump was upset.
“Federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after
taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates,” Barr stated,
presenting this as a hardship. Worse still, “there was relentless speculation
in the news media about the president’s personal culpability.” Our attorney
general wishes us to understand that this, too, was unfair. That Michael Flynn,
the man Trump had chosen to be America’s national security adviser, was an
unregistered foreign agent who had acted on behalf of a foreign government was
none of America’s concern. Neither was Trump’s subsequent defense of the man,
long after his firing, nor his request for James Comey to let it go. It wasn’t
the conduct that was unwarranted and inappropriate, but the scrutiny of that
conduct. It is we—the news media and the American people—who ought to think
long and hard about What We’ve Done.
Turning accusation against the accusers, William Barr
adopted the highly effective Brett Kavanaugh playbook. However, this was not a playbook written by
the Supreme Court nominee or even his facilitator/chaperone, then-White House Counsel Don
McGahn. It merely was borrowed by Barr
(and sure to be used again) after it was adapted last autumn for the Supreme Court
nominee.
McGahn probably realized it had been used successfully
previously. Late last September in the wake of Kavanaugh's testimony before
the Senate Judiciary Committee, Michael Rosenwald drew a parallel in Kavaugh's
strategy and that of another Supreme Court appointee. He described the
fury from Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh as he
angrily denied allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, calling his
confirmation process a “national disgrace” during testimony before a Senate
committee. He testified after his accuser Christine Blasey Ford described an
alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh at a drunken Maryland house party in the
early 1980s when they were in high school.
“You may defeat me in the final vote, but you’ll never get
me to quit, ever,” Kavanaugh said.
Kavanaugh defended his innocence again and again.
“Listen to the people I know. Listen to the people who have
known me my whole life. Listen to the people I’ve grown up with and worked with
and played with and coached with and dated and taught and gone to games with
and had beers with. And listen to the witnesses who were allegedly at this
event 30 years ago," he said.
The comparisons with the Thomas/Hill hearing was inevitable.
In 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee reopened Thomas’s
confirmation to hear Hill’s sexual harassment allegations and the nominee’s
response. The lurid testimony that followed — about penis sizes, breasts, pubic
hairs and pornography — captivated the nation, with open arguments in homes and
workplaces over who was telling the truth.
Following Hill’s testimony, Thomas angrily addressed the
committee, saying:
Senator, I would like to start by saying unequivocally,
uncategorically that I deny each and every single allegation against me today
that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about
pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that
I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever
harassed her. Second, and I think a more important point, I think that this
today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. I think that this hearing
should never occur in America. This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt
was searched for by staffers of members of this committee, was then leaked to
the media, and this committee and this body validated it and displayed it in
prime time over our entire Nation. How would any member on this committee or
any person in this room or any person in this country would like sleaze said
about him or her in this fashion or this dirt dredged up and this gossip and
these lies displayed in this manner? How would any person like it?
And then he uttered the most repeated and analyzed portion
of his defense:
This is a circus. It is a national disgrace. And from my
standpoint, as a black American, as far as I am concerned, it is a high-tech
lynching for uppity-blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do
for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that, unless you
kow-tow to an old order, this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched,
destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from
a tree.
Circus. Lynched. Destroyed.
Those words set the tone for how Thomas saved his
nomination, a defense that was later deemed shrewd and “well designed” by
communication and rhetoric experts.
William Barr's line of strategy itself stretched from himself to Brett
Kavanaugh and all the way back to Clarence Thomas. Rosenfeld noted
“I desperately needed a break,” Thomas wrote in his memoir.
With his wife, Virginia, Thomas drove to Maryland’s Eastern
Shore. From there, they took a ferry to New Jersey.
“The summer tourist season was over and the beach was
deserted and quiet,” Thomas wrote, “but I found no peace there.” He had a
nagging feeling that “my opponents were still holding something in reserve.”
He was right.
The day after returning to their home in Alexandria, Va.,
two FBI agents knocked on the front door.
“They flashed their credentials and started asking questions
before I could close the door behind them,” Thomas wrote.
The first question: “Do you know a woman named Anita Hill?”
Oops. That "nagging
feeling" probably was the realization that his history of sexual harassment in the
workplace would catch up to him. Similarly, according to Jeff Sessions, when
Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel, on May 17, 2017 President Trump told then-AG Sessions “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my
presidency. I’m fucked."
The parallel appears even greater when Rosenfeld
explains that Thomas not only played the victim, vowing not to "provide rope for my
own lynching" but also attacked the process. The nominee whined
I have endured this ordeal for 103 days. Reporters sneaking
into my garage to examine books I read. Reporters and interest groups swarming
over divorce papers, looking for dirt. Unnamed people starting preposterous and
damaging rumors. Calls all over the country specifically requesting dirt. This
is not American. This is Kafka-esque. It has got to stop. It must stop for the
benefit of future nominees, and our country. Enough is enough.
On Thursday Attorney General Barr attempted to
paint Donald Trump as a victim, complaining
In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the
report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an
unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his
responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing
his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his
associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news
media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the
beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report
acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was
frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was
undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by
illegal leaks.
In short, the attorney general is saying that the
president’s possibly obstructive efforts were not corrupt, because Trump
sincerely believed he was the victim of a conspiracy. Because the president was
“frustrated and angered,” Barr seems to think it was reasonable for him to, for
example, pressure the FBI director to drop an investigation.
The President was "frustrated and angry," as was
Clarence Thomas ("enough is enough") by those "reporters"
and "interest groups" and "unnamed people."
William Barr took from the script written by Clarence Thomas
and passed along to Brett Kavanaugh. Unfortunately, it looks as if Donald Trump
may survive politically, as did Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas. And now-
for the cherry on top of the cake- the fellow who smoothed the way for
"high-tech lynching" Thomas to get a lifetime appointment on the
highest court in the land is set to announce his candidacy for the presidency of the
United States of America.
Protesters shouting about "Sodom and Gomorrah"
interrupted South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg on Tuesday at an Iowa
campaign rally.
Buttigieg hopes to become the first openly gay president in
American history.
One of the men who shouted about the biblical cities
destroyed by God's wrath for their sinful ways was Randall Terry, a Christian
activist who founded the anti-abortion rights group Operation Rescue. The
organization says it split with him 18 years ago and now considers him too
radical.
The crowd at the Des Moines rally drowned out Terry's shouts
by cheering Buttigieg’s name.
"The good news is, the condition of my soul is in the
hands of God, but the Iowa caucuses are up to you," an unshaken Buttigieg
responded, pointing at the crowd.
CNN's Jeff Zeleny reported that Buttigieg was interrupted
three times by protesters and that they were all affiliated with Terry.
Randall Terry has to stop. He must stop not only because
this is clearly intolerant. He must stop also because they can
boomerang.
Pete Buttigieg is unusually quick on his feet as it is. And,
unless his IQ is 100 points or so lower than suspected, he knew that he would
face criticism, ridicule, or catcalls because he is gay. Moreover, this being
the Democratic Party primary process rather than a general election including
Independents and Republicans, calling attention to the mayor's sexual preference
can only increase his popularity.
That would not be a good thing, and not only because
Buttigieg's record as mayor has been, generously speaking, mixed. Buttigieg, well-informed, witty, civil, gay, and short, would like you to believe that he is the antidote to Donald Trump.
Nonetheless, there is one area, far more important than height or sexual preference, in which they are alike.
They both seem to have a problem with the United States
Constitution. For Trump, in the matter of emoluments, immigration, and so much
else, it is obvious. Not coincidentally, his Attorney General, who acts as the
President's personal attorney rather than the nation's attorney, has the same
allergy. Consider
BREAKING: Attorney General William Barr tonight directed immigration judges to deny bond hearings to asylum seekers.
Our Constitution does not allow the government to lock up asylum seekers without basic due process.
Amanda Marcotte argues that the offense cited is equivalent
to a traffic ticket. However, while a
visa overstay is a mere civil offense, illegal entry is a Class B misdemeanor,
roughly equivalent to what possession of a small amount of
marijuana or stealing a loaf of bread would be on the state level. Still, not terribly serious- and
individuals who apply for asylum have complied with the established, legal process and have
broken no law.
Pete Buttigieg also has a bad court-related idea, an appellate rotation plan to increase the size of the Supreme Court, about
which Mark David Stern explains
Also called the 5-5-5 plan or the “balanced court solution,”
the 10 partisan justices would pick the remaining five justices from the
federal courts of appeals and would need to select them unanimously. If the 10
partisans could not agree, they would lack a quorum to hear any cases. The
Supreme Court’s work would grind to a halt until they reached a compromise.
One problem is immediately evident. Republicans
being Republicans and Democrats being Democrats, the Democratic Justices would
be tempted to acquiesce in the choice of the GOP Justices in order to allow
court work to precede unimpeded. (Norms and the rule of law, you know.)
Assessing the proposal as a lawyer, Stern notes
This plan’s appeal is obvious—it gives neither party an
advantage and thus avoids the judicial arms race that could result from
straightforward court packing. Its flaw, however, is fatal. As Pack the Courts
has explained in a white paper, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause declares
that the president “shall appoint” Supreme Court justices “with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate.” The justices themselves have no power to appoint other
justices; that authority is explicitly assigned to the president alone. If
Congress forced the president to share appointment power with the justices, it
would radically alter a key constitutional procedure. That cannot be done by
mere legislation. It requires nothing less than a constitutional amendment.
Pivoting from the legal to the strategic, Stern recognizes
that appellate rotation
sounds technocratic and centrist. Buttigieg insists that he
does not want to “make the court more progressive” but rather wishes to “arrest
the decline in the perception of the court toward being viewed as a nakedly
political institution.” Appellate rotation “takes the politics out of it a
little bit,” making it the “most intriguing” option to him. “If we want to save
that institution,” Buttigieg asserts, “I think we better be ready to tune it up
as well.”
That line might poll well, but it’s the wrong way of looking
at court reform—and not just because the “most intriguing” option is also
unconstitutional. Buttigieg may not want to cross the Rubicon of altering the
makeup of the Supreme Court, but Republicans already blew past that norm. In
2016, Republicans proposed, and partially enacted, their own version of court
reform by refusing to even hold hearings for Garland. The GOP effectively
shrank the size of the court to eight seats for more than a year, resulting in
deadlocks that hobbled the court’s work. Then, multiple Republican
senators—including John McCain, Ted Cruz, and Richard Burr—announced that they
would not confirm any nominee put forward by Hillary Clinton if she won the
presidency. Burr said he would “do everything I can do to make sure four years
from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.” Sympathetic
commentators like Ilya Shapiro cheered them on, arguing that it would be
“honorable” for the Senate to refuse to confirm Clinton’s nominees and “let the
Supreme Court die out, literally.”
It's an idea that's unconstitutional, dependent on
Republican good faith, and redolent of an individual who is afraid to wield power:
Buttigieg is a lot like Pelosi or Biden. he doesn't want to wield power. He wants to be President, but he does not want to do the job. https://t.co/vJo9GmoZb9
In a far more complex manner, Ezra Klein lays it all out in
this cogent analysis with the apt section titles "Hopeful liberals,
concerned conservatives;" "Democrats miss Obama;" "Pete
Buttigieg's play for the 'hope and change' vote;" and "It's not 2008
anymore" (more on that one later).
Objectively, in the last seven presidential elections- 2016,
2012, 2008, 2004 (arguably), 2000, 1996, and 1992- the more charismatic
and engaging presidential nominee
emerged victorious. Additionally, in
each of those contests- 2016, 2008, 2000, and 1992- in which there was no incumbent, the less experienced candidate won.
Neither is likely a coincidence.
The more personally appealing and less experienced candidate
may prevail because, as McNeil understands, getting elected is not about policy
or ideas but about emotion and reflecting "back what we want to see."
That played a major role in the election of Barack Obama, as
many Americans sought to prove (as they saw it) that neither they nor their
country is racist. His nomination, aided
by opposition as a state senator to the Iraq War that Hillary Clinton voted to
give a GOP president authority to conduct, also was boosted by the appeal of the hazy "hope and change." While once it was "who would you rather have a beer with?" it is now the "it" factor, or who grabs the voter's attention, or a similar factor..
Of course, another obstacle Elizabeth Warren faces is occupation of the
ideological "lane" (insofar as the lane concept isn't actually lame) by Bernie Sanders as the one candidate who ran
in 2016 and amassed a deep and loyal following. However, if Klein's analysis
suggests that the mayor of a mid-sized Midwestern city is inevitable, he warns
that it isn't still 2008 and
Another challenge for Buttigieg is that Obama didn’t win
just by impressing openness-minded liberals. He won by building a coalition
between them and black voters. As of yet, there’s little evidence of Buttigieg
breaking through among nonwhite voters — and, notably, nonwhite voters aren’t
as sorted by the openness dimension between the parties, so the messages that
work for white liberals in New Hampshire often fall flat with black churchgoers
in South Carolina.
That of course opens the door for a minority woman (Harris),
the loyal servant to Barack Obama (Biden), and a few others to counter the
support and experience Senator Sanders picked up the last time around. If that too is hazy, we do know that if recent history is any guide
whatsoever, any combination of brilliance, experience, and thoroughly
researched policy prescriptions is not the path to the presidency.
A visibly excited Ezra Klein finds in Pete Buttigieg "America’s history as a lesson in hope,
cable news politics as a threat to the country, an alienated kid with a funny
name whose unlikely rise proves change is possible." David Axelrod, who typically is excited only by the thought of that other "alienated kid with a
funny name whose unlikely rise proves change is possible," concurs,
remarking
A powerful, coherent and well-delivered announcement speech from @PeteButtigieg. Rooted himself in the middle of the country and American values AND heralded a new generation and new era.
Who knows where it goes, but this is not a thing. It’s real.
Additionally, Buttigieg reportedly now has surged to third in popularity
among likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa, suggesting it is approaching time, or should be approaching
time, for the South Bend, Indiana mayor to put up or shut up.
Admittedly, that could apply to all the Democratic hopefuls.
However, it is only about the gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana about whom
self-identified "queer" Bob Moser writes
It was the dishonestly named “religious freedom” law—which
Pence had signed in March 2015—that helped spur Buttigieg to come out publicly
three months later. And Pence’s praise of Buttigieg came after his own
popularity had tanked in the wake of the roundly unpopular legislation, which
was making his re-election campaign for governor in 2016 an uphill climb. Pence
was scrambling to save his political skin, until Trump tapped him as his
running mate and delivered him from Indiana. No gay person, by then, could
consider him anything but a dangerous and determined enemy of their very humanity.
By refusing to let Pence off the hook, Buttigieg was taking
square aim at the religious right’s most cherished rationale for its anti-gay
bigotry—the old canard of “loving the sinner but hating the sin.” Growing up
among conservative Christians myself, I heard it constantly: “I love you as a
child of God, and part of my love is telling you that you’re eternally damned
if you don’t suppress your desires.” Pence is the poster boy for this insidious
brand of hate masquerading as love, and the smiling face he put on for
Buttigieg exemplified it.
Pete Buttigieg's life story, especially his sexual voyage,
is heartening to many Democrats. However, the "change" cited by Klein
and "the thing" cited by Axelrod are ultimately meaningless and prone
to lead to disappointment if unmoored to actual policies.
The "religious freedom" (appropriately placed in
quote marks by Moser) legislation signed by then-Indiana governor Pence may have in fact have
pushed Buttigieg out of the closet. The mayor now, to much criticism from the right,
declares "that’s the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would
understand—that if you’ve got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with
me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”
So let's have at it. Neither a presidential candidate nor
the mayor of an Indiana city can reverse Indiana Senate Bill 101/ Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which since has been amended. But he
(or she) can advocate the revocation of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, unhesitatingly signed by President Clinton in 1993.
That should not be difficult for Democratic candidates,
several of whom already have blasted the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994,
whose ardent support by then-Senator Joseph Biden is considered a hurdle he
must overcome to nomination.
Only one Democratic hopeful is openly gay, has explicitly referred to "my
creator," or has boasted “My marriage to Chasten has made me a
better man. And yes, Mr. Vice President, it has moved me closer to God.” He contends his own Party "has lost
touch with a religious tradition that I think can help explain and relate our
values.”
"Religious freedom" laws subject not only gay
individuals but everyone to being denied equal opportunity by someone hiding
behind a claim of religious faith. Pete Buttigieg must reveal whether he
believes such measures are critical, or antithetical, to the values of a
liberal, inclusive society. That applies to all presidential aspirants, but only one has
proposed himself as a Christian antidote to the horrid values embodied in
Donald Trump.
Itdoes appear that David Frum has remained a registered
Republican. However, he has barely been in position to influence the Republican Party since he was effectively thrown out of the
American Enterprise Institute in 2010, and probably not at all since he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
In the article to which Frum linked in his tweet, he
addressed the most recent controversy surrounding Democrat Ilhan Omar, in which
the Minnesota congresswoman at a meeting of the Council of American-Islamic
Affairs in March indelicately stated “CAIR was
founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and
that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”
Frum notes that two Democratic presidential candidates
already "have offered full-throated endorsements" with other
Democrats having defended her. He
reasons
Having promised not to “let him drive us apart” from Omar,
Democrats are now stuck with responsibility for the reckless things the
representative from Minnesota says, not only about Jews, but about other
issues, too. Omar has already served notice that she does not intend to behave
more circumspectly in the future. In a Friday-night interview, Stephen Colbert
asked Omar whether she would heed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s advice to back-bench
it for a while. Omar answered, “I think Nancy knows this very well. Women have
been told to go slow and not be seen and not be heard for many years. She
wouldn’t have made it to where she is if she did. And it’s certainly the case
for minority women … We are not there to be quiet. We are not there to be
invisible. We are there to follow the lead of people like Congressman John
Lewis and make good trouble.”
Well, this is trouble, and not only because John Lewis
suffered a skull fracture when clubbed by an Alabama State Trooper in de facto enforcement of de jure segregation. Some
54 years later, Representative Omar, her family, and her staff (thankfully) are being givenincreased security
by Capitol Police in response to a death threat from a civilian, who already has been apprehended.
It's a problem also because, as Frum wrote
The Democrats are on notice. More remarks will be coming...
After Trump’s tweeted attack, Omar will become even more
internally uncriticizable and unmanageable, without becoming any more careful
or responsible. Indeed, the speech by Omar that provided Trump with the sound
bite he exploited—“some people did something”—itself exemplifies her
carelessness and irresponsibility.
CAIR was founded in 1994, which was seven years before 2001,
a not insignificant distinction in light of the statement by the freshman Democrat. Nonetheless,
her Democratic defenders rightly believe that the comment must be considered in context, in which it appears less callous than the GOP is making it out to be.
However, the full context impels also the recognition that
Against Omar’s propensity to provoke, the Democratic Party
seems institutionally almost defenseless. Pelosi was thwarted when she
attempted to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitic expressions by House members.
Instead, the House substituted more muddled language in which Jews appeared in
a laundry list condemning all expressions of intolerance against
“African-Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims,
Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants and others.”
And then at the Republican-Jewish Coalition convention,
President Trump told the assembled American Jews that Benjamin Netanyahu is "your
prime minister" and a Democratic victory in 2020 "would cripple our
country and very well could leave Israel out there all by yourselves."
Thus having accused Jews of dual loyalties, Trump could have been censored by the House of Representatives for anti-Semitic remarks had House Democrats not taken a pass on justifiably accusing Omar of a similar expression of hate.
And now, as Frum realizes, the Democratic Party is stuck. Representative Omar, far more intelligent
than careful, got the message when her Party refused to address her statement on its own (lack of) merit. Therefore
It cannot be pleasant for Omar’s colleagues to have to
wonder and worry what that next remark will be—knowing that Donald Trump and
his Twitter feed will be waiting to blame all Democrats for the provocations of
one. But by not putting themselves on record about Omar when they could,
Democrats now find themselves bound to her for the duration. This problem will
get worse, and its political consequences will become ever more costly for
Democrats who want to win national elections and govern the country.
First out of the gate with what was at that moment the
latest Trump iteration of disturbing immigration policies was The Washington
Post, which reported very late Thursday
White House officials have tried to pressure U.S.
immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary
cities” to retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries, according
to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The
Washington Post.
Trump administration officials have proposed transporting
detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months —
once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and
again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump’s
border wall.
If you instinctively recognized that President Trump intended to
punish his enemies, you win a prize because
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco was
among those the White House wanted to target, according to DHS officials. The
administration also considered releasing detainees in other Democratic
strongholds.
White House officials first broached the plan in a Nov. 16
email, asking officials at several agencies whether members of the caravan
could be arrested at the border and then bused “to small- and mid-sized
sanctuary cities,” places where local authorities have refused to hand over
illegal immigrants for deportation.
At least four Democratic Representatives- Mark Pocan
(Wisconsin), Earl C. Blumenauer (Oregon), and Nydia Velazques and Alexandria
(Sandy) Ocasio-Cortez of New York- have called for the abolition ofImmigration and Customs Enforcement, and at least two Democratic senators have
strongly implied it should be dismantled. It seems, however, that it took that
most evil of agencies to shoot down the President's brainstorm, for
The White House told U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement that the plan was intended to alleviate a shortage of detention
space but also served to send a message to Democrats. The attempt at political
retribution raised alarm within ICE, with a top official responding that it was
rife with budgetary and liability concerns, and noting that “there are PR risks
as well.”
After the White House pressed again in February, ICE’s legal
department rejected the idea as inappropriate and rebuffed the administration.
As so few have, someone from within the federal government
has stood up to Donald Trump, and it turns out he or she is from ICE.
San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, demonstrating an
impressive depth of dexterity with adjectives, called the President's idea
"ludicrous," "petulant," "insulting,"
"un-American," "illegal," "immoral,"
"pathetic," and- most impressively- "the sophistry of
adolescence." He did, however, omit one critical adjective: revealing.
Suppose you are an unauthorized immigrant caught at the
border or in the nation's interior. You may be returned to the host country,
given a court date and then released, or (if arrested for an offense), jailed
and then released.
But Donald Trump reportedly wanted to deport (at government
expense) some detained immigrants to sanctuary cities. There is no legal or official definition of
"sanctuary city," rather a general concept. Still, we
know that if an individual were taken to what the Administration considers a
"sanctuary city," he or she could simply relocate if wished.
Presumably, however, the immigrant would not want to move.
He/she has been given free passage to a jurisdiction which treats illegal
immigrants rather kindly. Moreover, most of these are municipalities in which
already reside a large number of the foreign-born, thereby making it easier for
the individual to adjust.
Were this policy to have taken effect, President Trump would
have been giving the illegal immigrant a huge break and belated Christmas gift. This would not be an
unforced error; it would be precisely what Donald Trump intends.
This is revealing, and even a little obvious, if unremarked
upon by virtually everyone. Of course, Donald Trump's immigration policies are
intended to be cruel; that's Donald Trump. And they are intended to promote
"liberal tears," to sadden and/or anger liberals, minorities, and the
other folks his base dislikes; that's Republican.
But they are a fraud. President Trump may be mean and
heartless. However, contrary to the assumption of both supporters and
opponents, his intent is not to limit the number of foreigners in this country.
If it were, he probably wouldn't be expanding the H-2B visa program, nor slashing aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, thereby offering residents of those countries incentive to travel north.
ICE may understand what so many on the left, the right, and the
center do not. Trump is motivated less
by ethnic animus or a desire to make America great again than he is
simultaneously to welcome cheap labor and to signal to his supporters that he's
standing up for "us," not "them." It's a cynical game he's
playing, using race and pseudo-patriotism as a diversionary tactic. But his
strategy has worked before, and he plans to make it work again.
