The rule of law is collapsing

This 1 page Nov. 22, 2024 order by judge Merchan indefinitely delays sentencing in DJT's massive fraud trial. He was convicted by a jury of 34 felonies for business fraud in New York state. One of the felonies was the Stormy Daniels hush money payoff.

The judge here, a state judge, not federal, gives DJT permission to file for complete dismissal of the case. No explanation is given. 

That order to delay is the direct effect of the radical right authoritarian supreme court's decision to grant immunity to Trump for crimes committed while he was in office. Trump committed those felony crimes before he was elected as president in 2016. 

So why the delay? The only answer that makes even a little sense to argue boils down to this: Legally, he is the president-elect. DJT will argue that a president-elect is immune from crimes committed as a regular citizen before being elected as president. Second, and if the 1st argument fails, that president-elect status extends to the existing grant of presidential immunity, even if DJT committed his crimes as a regular citizen. 

Does that make one shred of sense? Not to me. It certainly does to DJT and all or nearly all of his supporters. And, I am coming to believe it probably makes sense to a lot of people who are not DJT supporters. Why? In my opinion it is mostly due to sympathy for authoritarianism among Americans who have been taught to distrust and even hate democracy, whether they know or believe it or not.

Does that make any sense? Absolutely not, in my staunchly pro-democracy opinion. By definition, authoritarians can be as corrupt and brutal as their power and circumstances allow. In a democracy, the rule of law is supposed to restrain at least some of the more egregious brutality and theft. Those restraints do not exist under authoritarianism.

In my firm opinion the American rule of law is crumbling in real time, right now.

Peanut gallery

Peanut 1: Can someone help me make this make sense? He was tried and convicted while not president of crimes he committed while not president. He still isn't president right now when the sentencing was pushed out to for some reason. He was then elected president

What does the one have to do with the other? I understand the doctrine of sovereign immunity. I get that. The president can't be sued or tried for illegalities committed in office as part of his regular duties. But that's not what ANY OF THIS IS. So what the hell is going on here? I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like I'm a pretty smart guy and I can't come up with a way that this makes any sense.

Peanut 2: The judge is a coward is what's happening. He doesn't want to be the judge to order Trump to appear for sentencing and then be expected to answer the "now what" question that must be asked when Trump says, "No." There's a term for this when analyzing the rise of authoritarianism as well as fascism. It's called "preemptive compliance," and it's one of the warning signs that shows that it's almost too late to stop it.

Peanut 3: Exactly. He should have sentenced Trump in September. It would have made no difference anyway as he would have appealed it. The judge is probably afraid of getting sent to Guantanamo bay. And he might be right.

Peanut 4: The darkly hilarious thing is that if he's doing this because he's afraid of the new emperor coming after him...this doesn't prevent that. It guarantees it.

Perplexity

In response to my question 3, Perplexity summarizes deeper complexity of the legal landscape in answer 3.  

A3: The judge's decision to delay sentencing in Trump's hush money case, despite the crimes being committed before he was in office, is not directly related to presidential immunity. There are several factors at play. 

1. Legal complexities: The case presents unprecedented legal questions about sentencing a president-elect for crimes committed before taking office.

2. Procedural considerations: Judge Merchan is allowing Trump's legal team to file a motion to dismiss the case, giving both sides time to present arguments.

3. Practical concerns: Prosecutors acknowledged that sentencing might not occur until after Trump's potential term ends, given the unique circumstances.

4. Separation of powers: The court is likely considering the balance between the judicial process and the executive branch, given Trump's status as president-elect.

5. Pending motions: The judge has also delayed ruling on whether the Supreme Court's recent presidential immunity decision applies to this case, which requires further review.

My response to those legal concerns are: 

• 1 and 2 are bullshit -- all of this will either be decided by the US supreme court or New York state will figure a way to weasel out and let DJT off scot-free

• 3 is direct evidence of shocking weakness in the American rule of law for elites, i.e., waiting until DJT is out of office in 2028 (assuming he will ever be out of office again in his lifetime) is a complete failure of the rule of law -- America really does have a two-tiered system of law

• 4 separation of powers questions are for the supreme court to decide, not for a state trial judge who is obligated to follow the rule of law in New York as it exists right fracking now -- it does not matter what Merchan decides, because the case will go to the supreme court no matter what or, the law in New York will be chicken shit and unilaterally drop the prosecution and sentencing in some way 

• 5 is also bullshit -- it clearly contradicts Perplexity's assertion that this is is not directly related to presidential immunity

Q: Is all of that way too hyperbolic, regular hyperbolic, almost hyperbolic, basically correct, spot on or an elephino*?

* Elephino: What you get when you cross an elephant with a rhino.

Taking stock and reassessing the political war: It's worse than I thought

What is going to happen next is becoming pretty clear, pretty fast. It is going to be authoritarian, ugly and shockingly corrupt. What to do next isn't obvious. Most of my common sense-grounded predictions are well on their way to being more right than wrong. No surprise there. He's doing what he said he was gonna do and tried to do the last time.[1] 

Reflecting on America's current political situation, its feels reasonable to think that my understanding of the war between deeply corrupt authoritarianism and less corrupt democracy was significantly off the mark about the democracy side of the war. It appears to be significantly more corrupt and authoritarian than I previously believed. That reassessment comes from factors like (i) blind Dem support for the corrupt authoritarians running Israel and their goal of making criticism of Israel by American citizens illegal, and (ii) the plutocratic neoliberal wing of the Dems, which is in control. In essence, the Dem party has its own internal deeply corrupt plutocratic authoritarian war going on against already unacceptably corrupt democracy. 

I now think that internal war has made the Dems rather ineffective in dealing with at least ~20 years of constant Repub attacks on democracy and inconvenient facts and truths. The war seems to be better framed like this: Deeply corrupt radical right authoritarianism (autocratic, plutocratic, theocratic) against too corrupt democratic-plutocratic impulses. That doesn't look very good for democracy.

Worse, the MSM seems to be buckling under the open threat of radical right authoritarianism and the pressures of corporate ownership and demands for profit. Since Bezos bent his knee to protect his wealth in the face of DJT's very credible public threats, the tone of the WaPo has begun to change for the worse. I won't renew my subscription when it ends next April. The NYT is already under a massive threat that could put it out of business, i.e., a $10 billion defamation lawsuit. All or most of the rest of the non-MAGA mainstream media is in disarray and under intense economic pressure to simply survive. 

There is a hint that some in the non-MAGA MSM are starting to sense a deadly threat to democracy. What will lead to, if anything at all, is unclear. A WaPo opinionologist (not paywalled) put it this way, democracy needs a different model for journalism. Well, duh. One could reframe that as journalism needs a different economic model. The opinionologist suggested a non-profit model based on what ProPublica is doing.[2] 

I support ProPublica and recommend it to anyone who can afford to donate. It may wind up being among the last survivors standing in defense of democracy. Capitalism is implacably hostile to professional journalism, so the money for operations has to come from a different economic model. MSNBC and CNBC are up for sale and they could, probably will, wind up under the control of a MAGA billionaire or consortium. Again, all forms of authoritarianism are incompatible with professional journalism. Bye, bye Rachael Maddow, hello morally rotted, lying, slandering, crackpot MAGA propagandist.

Q: Is American democracy and honest governance on a bumpy road, in a rough patch, on the way to being great again, and/or something else?

Footnotes:

1. The one important prediction that might be going off the rails is about DJT handing Ukraine to Putin by a mutual agreement, presumably in secret, followed by mass slaughter of Ukrainians. It may be the case that Putin is going to be openly contemptuous of DJT and his blither about ending the war in one day. A lot of Russians are dead. Putin is probably implacably furious and out for bloody revenge, regardless of DJT's nonsense. 

Complicating the analysis is Biden's unexpected decision to allow the Ukraine to shoot long-range US missiles into Russia. In response, Putin issued a warning that aggressive move gives Russia the right to use nuclear weapons and to attack countries that supply the missiles. We just inched closer to nuclear war, in Ukraine, NATO and/or the US. Regardless, one probably can still reasonably expect the start of mass slaughter of Ukrainians in the next 2 years. NATO seems to be a steaming pile of uselessness.

What's the range, ~100 mi or ~180 mi?

2. The opinion comments:

The plight of the news business has gotten steadily worse over the past decade. Cable TV networks are shedding audience share at an alarming rate. Increasingly, they seemed to have forgotten who their audience even is. The hosts of “Morning Joe” visiting Mar-a-Lago was the sort of move, judging from the backlash, that is likely to increase its progressive audience’s flight from MSNBC. CNN, in its effort to be all things to all people, is also hemorrhaging viewers. Many national newspapers are losing subscribers (and hollowing out their coverage), and local media has been shriveling for years. (The Post’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate unleashed an exodus of hundreds of thousands of readers who had expected a clarion voice in defense of democracy.)

It is not merely this shrinkage in conventional news consumption that should be alarming. The preponderance of voters who get no news whatsoever suggests the very notion of an “informed electorate” might become a thing of the past. 

ProPublica has pioneered an inventive partnership with local papers all over the country. ProPublica provides an enterprising investigative reporter with salary for a year plus the infrastructure necessary to report the story, including editors, research assistance and lawyers. 

Was the notion of an “informed electorate” ever more real than illusion? I doubt it, but that depends on how one defines the concept of “informed” in this context.  

Fighting against dark free speech: "Authoritarianism" propaganda wars

Propaganda tip #1

Key arguments that Trump and MAGA made and still make against basically the entire left are that (i) the left is radical and authoritarian, and by implication (ii) this alleged authoritarianism by the left justifies it by Trump and MAGA. False beliefs of allegedly radical left authoritarianism are deeply embedded in the authoritarian MAGA movement and also many or most conservatives outside of MAGA. At present, very few of those MAGA minds can be changed. Maybe that will change somewhat after radical right authoritarianism starts to take hold and bite.

 

A hypothetical example

Claim 1: Progressives need to remember that conservatives and especially social conservatives view the progressives as the authoritarians. When the employer or education establishment was forcing them to bend the knee to black lives matters, and same sex marriage, conservatives were viewing it as the heavy hand of the government. 

Response 1: One can argue that most MAGA people do not really understand what authoritarianism is or what democracy is. One can argue that a major factor is that decades of divisive, polarizing radical right authoritarian propaganda has deceived and manipulated tens of millions of Americans. Take this for example:

Q: Compare the seriousness and depth of authoritarianism in Trump, Project 2025 and the MAGA movement to the authoritarianism of progressives alleged by conservatives and other critics.

A: The comparison of authoritarianism between Trump/Project 2025/MAGA and progressives reveals significant differences in scope, intent, and potential impact.

Trump/Project 2025/MAGA Authoritarianism

Project 2025 and associated MAGA policies propose sweeping changes that would significantly expand executive power and reshape American governance. Consolidating presidential control over federal agencies, including independent ones like the DOJ and FBI. Reclassifying tens of thousands of civil servants as political appointees to replace them with loyalists. .... Imposing conservative Christian values in government and society. .... Weaponizing government agencies against political opponents. These proposals would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the U.S. government, potentially undermining democratic norms, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

Progressive Policies Criticized as Authoritarian

Conservative critics often label certain progressive policies as authoritarian, including:
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, expanded social welfare programs, environmental regulations, gun control measures, and COVID-19 public health mandates.

However, these policies generally work within existing democratic and constitutional frameworks, rather than seeking to fundamentally restructure government power. They aim to address social issues through legislation and established governmental processes, not by concentrating power in the executive branch or dismantling core democratic institutions. (emphasis added)

Scope: Project 2025 proposes a comprehensive overhaul of government structure and function, while progressive policies typically focus on specific social or economic issues.

Institutional Impact: MAGA proposals seek to fundamentally alter the balance of power between branches of government, while progressive policies generally work within existing institutional structures.

Democratic Norms: Project 2025 explicitly challenges many longstanding democratic norms and institutions, whereas progressive policies, even when controversial, typically operate within established democratic processes.

Individual Rights: MAGA proposals include rolling back certain civil liberties and protections, particularly for marginalized groups, while progressive policies often aim to expand protections for these groups.

While both sides accuse each other of authoritarianism, the scale and nature of the changes proposed by Project 2025 and associated MAGA policies represent a more significant departure from traditional American governance and democratic norms than typical progressive policy proposals. (emphasis added)

Q2: Did the black lives matter movement hurt or kill conservatives?

A2: Based on the search results provided, there is no evidence that the Black Lives Matter movement directly hurt or killed conservatives. The search results do not contain any information about Black Lives Matter protesters physically harming or killing conservative individuals.

In other words, progressives are not significantly authoritarian. But the politics that most Trump supporters have embraced, at least by voting for him, are authoritarian. 

Claim 2: The homicide rate in the U.S. jumped 35% starting soon after the George Floyd video hit the media. There are estimates that there were more than 1,000 additional homicides of blacks due to the push to de-police and end incarceration. Also, traffic fatalities also jumped in that time due to ending of enforcement of traffic laws in many areas. Progressives increased crime while trying to hunt down the thought criminals on the rights.

Response 2: It is doubtful that there is solid evidence to support any of those assertions.  Here is some data that contradicts those implications and allegations:

Q: Are the following comments mostly true? The homicide rate in the U.S. jumped 35% starting soon after the George Floyd video hit the media. There are estimates that there were more than 1,000 additional homicides of blacks due to the push to de-police and end incarceration. Also, traffic fatalities also jumped in that time due to ending of enforcement of traffic laws in many areas. Progressives increased crime while trying to hunt down the thought criminals on the rights.

A: The comments contain some accurate points but also include exaggerations and unsupported claims.

The claim of a 35% jump in homicide rates soon after the George Floyd incident is not supported by the provided search results. While there was an increase in homicides during this period, the exact percentage and direct causation are not verified.

There is evidence supporting an increase in traffic fatalities coinciding with reduced traffic enforcement. Experts attribute this to bad driving habits that developed during the pandemic and reduced traffic enforcement.

The search results do not support claims about:
1. Specific numbers of additional homicides among Black individuals.
2. Direct causation between progressive policies and increased crime rates.
3. Motivations related to "hunting down thought criminals on the right."

These assertions appear to be opinions or speculations not backed by the provided information.

Q2: Did the bad driving habits that developed during the pandemic and reduced traffic enforcement occur only in areas that liberals or progressives controlled, or was the phenomenon more widespread and included rural areas and conservative-controlled areas?

A2: The phenomenon of bad driving habits and reduced traffic enforcement during the pandemic was widespread and not limited to areas controlled by liberals or progressives. .... In summary, the increase in bad driving habits and the decline in traffic enforcement were widespread issues affecting both urban and rural areas across the political spectrum, rather than being confined to liberal or progressive jurisdictions.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note the serious asymmetry in dealing with false information and false beliefs. False allegations and implications are usually short and easy to assert. It is rarely backed up with links to data sources. Claim 1 = 48 words, but Response 1 = 484 words, with a link to the information sources. Claim 2 = 73 words, but Response 2 = 342 words, with a link to the information sources. 

In short, falsehoods, deceit via opacity and DFS (dark free speech) generally have a sedrious advantage in their power of persuasion compared to honest speech. They are short, emotion-provoking and almost completely devoid of cognitive dissonance due to inconvenient facts or reasoning. In short DFS is a lot more fun and easy than honest speech. 

In my firm opinion, DFS is the most potent and effective weapon that American radical right authoritarianism brings to bear against secular democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law, transparency in government and inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning.

Bluesky link

The drama unfolds: A mind awakens, but too late; Environment update; Rule of law update; Prediction comment

The US is ranked 26th at 0.70

By 1/11/26, it will be ~30th?

US News opinion:

Forget Matt Gaetz. 

Merrick Garland Is America’s Worst Attorney General.

His abject failure to hold Trump accountable doomed us

Let people debate whether President-elect Donald Trump’s headline-grabbing pick of former Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz as his attorney general will be good, bad or really ugly. But there is no debate in my mind that President Joe Biden’s chief prosecutor, Merrick Garland, is already the biggest failure of an attorney general in our lifetimes.

We are where we are today because Garland failed spectacularly to act swiftly to hold Trump accountable for his illegal efforts to stay in power four years ago for inciting the violent Capitol insurrection that resulted in deaths, injuries, destruction of property and devastation to our democracy. By turning a blind eye to those crimes for as long as he could, Garland paved the way for the election of a disgraced felon who should not have been on the 2024 ballot. Thanks to Garland, Trump is storming back to the White House vowing revenge. 

Garland’s focus from Day One should have been to appoint a special counsel to investigate the former president for an insurrection that everyone saw him incite. Trump – still ginned up from the Jan. 6 violence – had just spoken at the conservative political gathering CPAC and hinted he would run again. Garland should have realized – as the rest of us did – that Trump was not going quietly into the night.  

Instead, Garland slow-rolled any Justice Department investigation, waiting nearly a year and a half after taking office before finally appointing veteran prosecutor Jack Smith as special counsel in November 2022 to probe Trump’s mishandling of classified materials and his incitement of the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Why did Garland wait? “Wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace,” The Washington Post reported.

The Justice Department didn’t even start investigating Trump in earnest until former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s June 2022 blockbuster testimony to the bipartisan House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection “jolted” Garland’s office into discussions, according to The New York Times.   

Garland helped normalize Trump. The longer the Justice Department stalled before investigating the former president, the more the GOP and the media embraced Trump as the Republican front-runner for 2024.

Finally, someone among the literati, or whatever they are, sees Garland the way I do. He is deeply corrupt and a traitor, pure and simple. I saw Garland's critical failure early on, in May 2021, as a matter of incompetence and timidity. But it wasn't until Sept. 2024 that I came to realize that Garland was neither incompetent nor timid. He was corrupt, complicit, treasonous, audacious and competent in destroying the rule of law and the DoJ. Garland did not fail to hold DJT accountable. He refused.

Well, now it's too late to do squat. Garland greatly helped DJT get back in power. He was arguably necessary for that. Sadly, there will be no accountability or penalty for him and his treasonous betrayal of the rule of law. 

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

The Verge:

Donald Trump’s pick for energy secretary says 

‘there is no climate crisis’

President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Energy is fossil fuel executive Chris Wright — who has misleadingly claimed on LinkedIn that “there is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition either.”

Wright is a staunch evangelist for fossil fuels who consistently rejects mainstream climate science. .... Wright is the CEO of Liberty Energy, a major oil and gas service provider that launched during America’s fracking boom more than a decade ago. Around 10 percent of total US primary energy production comes from wells fracked by Liberty, according to the company.

In a video posted by the right-wing think tank Heritage Foundation last year, Wright refers to “irrationally restrictive policies against the production of oil and natural gas” that “do nothing to change the demand for oil and natural gas,” he claims. “Our business today is the most profitable it’s ever been. As I say, I’m one of those people needlessly enriched by [the] bad energy policy environment we live in today. I don’t celebrate that. In fact, I adamantly oppose it.”

Trump campaigned on a Republican platform that says simply, “We will DRILL, BABY, DRILL.”

Keep your eye on the propaganda: Notice that Wright saying there is no “climate crisis”  and regulations “do nothing to change the demand for oil and natural gas” is subtle, powerful radical right authoritarian propaganda. That dark rhetoric is designed to distract from inconvenient facts that (i) global warming is real, (ii) most Americans are concerned about it and want to do something  about it, and (iii) there is demand for clean energy, but it is not yet available, in large part because people like Trump, Wright and the GOP vehemently oppose environmental regulations. In other words, Wright’s rhetoric is a pack of cynical, sophisticated misdirection intended to deceive the public to keep the profits flowing to elite authoritarians.

Serious erosion of environmental regulations by Trump was predictable, so I predicted it, accurately so far (“The Environmental Protection Agency will be gutted and neutered by then [11/1/26]. International climate agreements will be terminated.”)

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

The New Republic:

It looks like the guy who has made it perfectly clear he doesn’t care about federal law is violating federal law. Oh, and also he’s about to be the president of the United States.

Donald Trump and his campaign are currently in violation of the Presidential Transition Act, a federal law that coordinates and funds the transition of power from one administration to the next.

The PTA has a few components that must be submitted by the Trump campaign—and so far, the president-elect’s team hasn’t handed over a single one.

Trump has yet to submit a Memo of Understanding to the General Services Administration, which would theoretically articulate an ethics policy pledging not to hire individuals with conflicts of interest to assist with its transition. The document would provide $7.2 million to fund Trump’s transition, and was due at the beginning of October.

It’s become increasingly clear the president-elect has no intention to submit one. That’s possibly because the PTA also requires candidates to disclose all of their private donors, and places a $5,000 cap on individual donations to the transition.

Trump has also failed to submit security clearance requests for members of his administration, with each appointment more disturbing than the last.

Last week, the Department of Justice said that it was ready to “process requests for security clearances for those who will need access to national security information.” Trump’s top advisers have previously suggested that the president-elect hand out security clearances without FBI vetting.

Further erosion of the rule of law by Trump was predictable, so I predicted it, accurately so far. 

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

In retrospect - it’s not prescience, it’s common sense

Looking back on my predictions, there’s not much prescience in them. Honestly. Trump is just (1) continuing to do the things he clumsily tried to do the last time he was in power, and (2) repeatedly told us he would do it again before the 2024 elections. It’s not a mostly matter of predicting the future. It is mostly a matter of knowing what Trump did and listening to him saying he will do it again. But this time he will do it again with less clumsiness and more ferocity. 

Q: Do predictions of future actions and outcomes based on solid evidence of (i) current political circumstances, and (ii) Trump’s past behavior and intent constitute, mostly prescience/intelligence or mostly old-fashioned common sense?

Bluesky post