Trump: I Can Fire Any Prosecutor I Want

Saturday, May 4, 2019

In congressional testimony a few days ago, Attorney General William Barr commented that President Trump has the power to legally fire any prosecutor he believed was investigating false charges against him. Presumably, his comments were limited to federal prosecutors, but given Trump's ongoing run for tyranny, maybe that applied to all prosecutors in his mind.

Slate writes:

That defense was shocking not simply because it had nothing to do with the legal questions of conspiracy and obstruction before Mueller and Barr, but also because it seemed to have explicitly adopted and accepted the Trumpist worldview that holds any attempt at oversight or investigation deemed by the president to be unjustified harassment is illegitimate. This is, by the way, pretty much the same legal theory being invoked this week to reject the authority of congressional oversight and subpoenas. As Steve Vladek observed this past weekend, the defense that absolutely everything is a witch hunt and thus not legitimate is not a specific constitutional claim. It is, however, a recipe for a constitutional crisis.

Then, in response to questions from Sen. Dianne Feinstein about why it was that Trump ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to end the Mueller probe, Barr seems to have again taken the legal position that the president’s anger and frustration over press reports that he had instructed McGahn to fire Mueller somehow made this directive permissible. Barr seemed to be saying that Trump could not have committed obstruction by asking McGahn to fire Mueller, so long as he was attempting to forestall further negative press. As Barr put it: “If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false [which is a lie], and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel.”

That Trump is truly making a run at being a tyrant cannot be much clearer. Of course, if Trump declares martial law, shuts the “enemy of the people” press down, arrests democrats in congress, and orders the US military to machine gun protestors down in the streets, then it would be about a clear as it can get.

The question is obvious: How much clearer does this need to be for Trump supporters and the republican party (the Trump Tyrant Party, not the GOP) to see what is happening before their eyes, or do they actually want tyranny? It is hard to imagine that by now hardly any Trump opponents do not see the grave danger that American democracy and the rule of law are both in. Or, does that overstate the situation?

Book Review: On Tyranny

'People Would Revolt' if Trump is Impeached is Not His Opinion, it's an Instruction to commit violence

Historian Timothy Snyder's 2017 book, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From The Twentieth Century, is a warning aimed directly at President Trump and his now obvious political goal of establishing anti-democratic, right wing tyranny in America. There's nothing subtle about this short, easy to read book (126 pages). It gets right to the point by comparing the tactics, rhetoric and mindset of 20th century tyrants like Hitler and Stalin to what Trump is doing today in America. Each of the twenty lessons constitute a short chapter. It can be read in a several hours. What Snyder is arguing here is generally in accord with how some others, e.g., Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism, have described the 20th century's political monsters.

Unilateral surrender: Snyder's first lesson, do not obey in advance, makes the point that in the face of the tyrant or tyrant wannabe, many people simply let their own freedom go. Power flows from the people to the tyrant. Snyder writes: "Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. . . . . A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do." Examples include a willing transfer of power by the people to Hitler in Germany in 1932 and to the communist tyrants in Czechoslovakia in 1946.

Institutional defense: Snyder argues that democratic institutions do not defend themselves, people defend them: "We tend to assume that institutions will automatically maintain themselves against even the most direct attacks. This was the very mistake that some German Jews made about Hitler and the Nazis after they had formed a government." Snyder asserts that many Americans are making this same mistake again today. He suggests people pick an institution such as a pro-democracy law, a court, a newspaper or a labor union and defend it publicly.

It is worth noting that a court or labor union would need to be defended. Courts strike many as a rock solid and unassailable institution. However, Trump and senate republicans are packing the federal courts with radical authoritarian ideologue judges. The time is coming when more temperate courts and court decisions will be attacked and the tyrant will foment both public and executive branch resistance to those courts, judges and decisions. We are seeing the beginnings of that right now.

Also consider the proposition that, unless they are co-opted and/or corrupted, labor unions are pro-democratic institutions. Powerful, persuasive arguments by other careful observers make this case. Both Nancy MacLean in her 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America, and Jane Mayer in her 2016 book, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, make it clear that a key target of anti-democratic authoritarians is labor unions. Powerful billionaires exemplified by the radical right political movement built and still funded by the Koch brothers have a raging, visceral hate of labor unions. Labor unions allow collective action, which is pro-democratic in that they represent some collective power and wealth. That literally enrages the radical libertarian, authoritarian right. Before reading Snyder on this point, the idea of labor unions being a democratic institution seemed out of synch with reality for me at least. But on reflection, Snyder makes an excellent point. He's right.

Resist toleration of violence: Some of Snyder's lessons seem far-fetched. But on consideration, maybe they are not far fetched at all. His lesson six, be wary of paramilitaries, brings this point home: "When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching with torches and pictures of a leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the end has come. . . . . For just this reason, people and parties who wish to undermine democracy and the rule of law create and fund violent organizations that involve themselves in politics." Snyder points out that non-authoritarian governments try to hold a monopoly on violence mediated by official police, secret services and sometimes the military, but always constrained by the rule of law. Snyder defines a paramilitary broadly, and it can include an authoritarian leader's personal bodyguard. People in Germany and Austria made the grave mistake of tolerating paramilitary intimidation and violence, and many of the survivors among them came to regret it.

Snyder points to Trump as an example: "As a candidate, the president ordered a private security detail to clear opponents from rallies, but also encouraged the audience itself to remove people who expressed different opinions. . . . . . At one campaign rally [Trump] said, 'There's a remnant left over. Maybe get the remnant out. Get the remnant out." When the pro-Trump mob tried to do that, Trump was pleased, saying: "Isn't this more fun than a regular boring rally? To me, it's fun." Other recent events have made it clear that Trump is actively fomenting violence by his supporters against political opposition.

So, after announcing his candidacy for president in 2020, Joe Biden's opening attack on Trump led with "Charlottesville", referring to the fascist, white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, South Carolina, he was directly attacking a core tyrant tactic. Trump had defended the fascists by calling them 'good people'. Biden threw that directly back in Trump's face as he should have.

Snyder's book is useful to help put tyranny and Trump in better historical and current context. It makes Trump look even more threatening than viewing him without the context.

Power Is Flowing Away From Individuals

Monday, April 29, 2019


Age discrimination: A couple of changes from court decisions indicate that the long-running flow of power from individuals to businesses is continuing. Some years ago, federal courts made it more difficult to win age discrimination lawsuits against an employer. In a 2017 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protected only existing employees of a business, not job applicants. That greatly expanded the scope of exceptions the ADEA did not cover. When originally passed in 1967, the ADEA was supposed to protect all persons over 40 years of age. In general, the courts now tend to defer to employers, making winning an age-discrimination lawsuit a rare event. Despite the ADEA, age discrimination is in employment common. And even when the discrimination is blatant, it is usually impossible to win a lawsuit.

Class arbitration lawsuits: Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela that employees cannot file a class arbitration lawsuit against an employer who has harmed a group of employees. To be susceptible to such a lawsuit, the company must agree in writing in advance to accept such a lawsuit. The implications of that lawsuit are clear. Probably no employer has ever expressly consented in writing to any class arbitration lawsuit. And in the future, the few exceptions that may exist to that will make sure their employee agreements will remove that clause from the agreement. There are probably no exceptions.

Arbitration: The Lamps Plus lawsuit highlights the matter of forced arbitration. Forced arbitration clauses are the norm for employee agreements, credit card agreements, service agreements and essentially everything that can come under the scope of arbitration, which is essentially everything. Forced arbitration has been dominant for decades. Very few consumers and employees have the individual power to avoid forced arbitration. Arbitration clauses invariably include a requirement that decisions are to remain confidential.

The net effect of forced arbitration is a massive shift of power to companies and wealthy individuals. Companies and individuals, e.g., Trump and Trump companies, can and do act badly and if caught, they use arbitration to shield their bad acts in secrecy. The public is kept in the dark and fed nothing. In Lamps Plus, the Supreme Court argued that while arbitration has procedural advantages, which is arguably mostly a lie for consumers and employees most of the time, those advantages are absent from class lawsuits and that creates a potential for “procedural morass.”

The massive power advantage that forced arbitration affords companies and wealthy individuals and the secrecy that shields the underlying bad and illegal actions and settlements, constitutes a shadow system of law that sometimes operates outside the law without any means for society to know. For example, when a company or wealthy person has injured many people and one of them is forced into arbitration and a secret settlement arises, other injured people may never know of their injury or the amount of money the company paid. Essentially all advantage goes to the company or wealthy person.

From my point of view, forced arbitration constitutes a major assault on the rule of law. In essence, one can see forced arbitration as a powerful anti-democratic, authoritarian tool to keep the masses ignorant and in check, while the rich and powerful remain free to continue their bad and illegal acts with impunity most or nearly all of the time.

Orig B&B: 4/29/19

Proposal: An Open Primary for Everyone

Saturday, April 27, 2019

The IVN (Independent Voter Network) has long been dissatisfied with the grip on electoral power the two parties exert. A new proposal suggests a primary for independent voters in view of the failure of the existing two-party system. IVN rejects the argument that although some candidates say that if we elect them, they will unite the country and solve our problems. IVN rejects that rhetoric as empty.

The group argues that our election system incentivizes partisanship by making candidates, regardless of party, accountable to the voters in their party, not to the electorate in general. Therefore, unless a candidate intends to unrig the system, calls for unity are just empty rhetoric.

In proposing a primary for all voters, IVN points out that taxpayers, not the parties, fund primary elections. The proposal is called nonpartisan and would open voting up to any voter, regardless of party, and allow voting for any candidate.

IVN comments:

Bottom Line: Let the parties keep their own ballots. Let the parties exclude or include whoever they want. Let the parties decide their own rules of nomination. BUT, give every voter their fundamental right to participate at every stage of the taxpayer-funded public election process.