Imagine the Texas National Guard facing off against the Illinois National Guard and hearing a shot fired by one or the other. Then, the march toward a divergent country and the end of a coherent United States accelerates. The administration is probably counting on that.
Trump is term-limited. He must vacate office in three years and cannot return to it. His heir apparent is Vice-President Vance, who could potentially serve eight years as President and would likely perpetuate Trump's MAGA policies. Therefore, what the Democrats need to do is forestall this threat by discrediting Vance with attacks on his character. Better yet, impeach and convict him, which would disqualify him from office entirely. Call it defeating him in "ad-Vance."
This corroborates what I have been saying: that this isn't just Trump; that the building blocks for this fascism were put in place by the last several administrations.
This particular enactment was passed in 2006, during the George W. Bush administration, during a time when Congress was particularly supine, giving the Executive branch free rein to start the Persian Gulf War and reneging on its Constitutional duty to be the only branch of government to declare war.
All past administrations since the 1980s have contributed building blocks, both Democrats and Republicans.
It is an irony that the Posse Comitatus Act was in part the legislative codification of the "Dirty Deal" that gave Rutherford Hayes the presidency in 1876. Removing Federal troops from the former Confederate States that had protected the lives and rights of former slaves leaving them to the mercy of local and state oppression.
Who would think that this act, born out of racism, would turn around and become the legal bulwark that might protect us from the excesses of Trump. On the down side there are the Posse Comitatus Sheriffs who have decided that every county where they are elected is their own fiefdom and they have the right to decide which laws are constitutional and that enforcing federal and state laws is their choice.
What comes next is precisely the question. This week's lower court decisions have given us hope, but we know that the radical right-wing crazies who hate democracy and our country (to use DJT's own over the top rhetoric) could undue all of that. Call or write your senators and congresspeople now.
Trump has appointed 1/3 of the appellate judges in the federal system. Some are better than others about putting the law above deference to Trump.
The Florida case about closing "Alligator Alcatraz" was decided by 2 Trump appointees on the 11th Circuit. I read their decision yesterday and the dissenting opinion of the Obama appointee. The Trump judges had to use all sorts of pretzel logic to reach their decision. The Obama judge just decided "If it looks like a duck it must be a duck" common sense reading of what is going on in Florida.
The lower district courts might give us hope but the appellate courts are likely to rob us of hope. As for the Supreme Court that is pretty much where hope goes to die!
What comes next is that the media won't be talking about Jeffrey Epstein; and the Administration's coverup of all things linked to America's most prolific serial pedophile and the GOP politicians that enabled him.
Bondi's DOJ just released an Epstein trove--95% of which is already in the public domain--but now with dozens of pages of redacted flight logs. Who exactly traveled on the Lolita Express? And why doesn't Trump/GOP want us to know? Why is the DOJ blocking Sen. Wyden's probe of the $1.5 BILLION that moved into and out of Epstein's account in the year before his death? Why haven't Alex Acosta and Barry Krischer, the Federal and FL DA's who gave him his slap-on-wrist deal in 2008--because they said Epstein was "...owned by Intelligence." been called to testify by the GOP's Comer?
The media is allowing itself to be distracted yet again from the blockbuster story of the decade.
Maybe nobody is paying attention but we're already ensconced in fascism; already in a Constitutional crisis. Troops in Chicago is simply the next step in the takeover. I appreciate Pritzker and Chicago's leadership, but the Courts can make all the noise they want; Trump is not paying attention.
As a mere citizen and not a lawyer, I'm getting very confused about what would happen should the guard be deployed around election day.
This morning, over at Harry Litman's substack, Talking Feds, he posted a guest essay by Rich Bernstein discussing how the Trump administration's arguments in the case recently decided by Judge Charles Breyer were attempting to lay the groundwork for election interference. (https://harrylitman.substack.com/p/rich-bernstein-administrations-arguments)
Yesterday, Joyce Vance on her substack, Civil Discourse, seemed very confident that any such attempt would be rebuffed by the courts. I can't say I was tremendously reassured given the track record of the Supreme Court Six. (https://joycevance.substack.com/p/can-federal-troops-be-stationed-at)
I not asking for your response to those opinions, but it would be really interesting if you, Harry/Rich, Joyce, Steve and maybe others were to have an on-line discussion of the issue of election interference by the guard and the likelihood that it can be successfully opposed.
He *has* to generate chaos to distract from Epstein.
I think ideally we would offer him some sort of plea deal where he steps down and agrees to avoid further runs for office, and otherwise pretend his name didn't appear in the files. Would it be possible to campaign for Pam Bondi to do this?
If you watch the O'Keefe video, I believe it claims that both Patel and Bongino (top FBI officials, appointed by Trump) are in favor of moving forward with the Epstein case. So basically there's an internal struggle within the administration over what to do about Epstein.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if that ridiculous Justice Dept tweet is actually an attempt from DoJ insiders to wink at the public, and let everyone know what's really going on with the Epstein case. It's the sort of "denial" which practically confirms the veracity of what it's denying. That might be a deliberate decision.
So it seems there's an internal power struggle within the DoJ. I estimate Pam Bondi is basically an amoral, selfish actor who's only out for herself. She's currently aligning with Trump because that's the best move for her pragmatically speaking. I could see her flipping under pressure. I doubt she feels genuine loyalty towards Trump.
Some sort of game theorist type person should think about the incentives facing various actors in the DoJ (and other Trump officials) and how we can change their incentives so that uniting against Trump is the best play for them. I personally think that Vance would make a far better president than Trump, so persuading Trump to step down seems like a very worthwhile goal.
Chicago resident here. I live in downtown Chicago where city residents are bracing for a siege by the trump regime. Fencing has been installed around the federal building and civic organizations are preparing to protest. “Hands off Chicago” is our protest cry. Chicago has a long history of non violent protest (Vietnam protests turned violent only after police provocation). We know the federal agencies and troops will try and provoke a physical confrontation so the Governor, Mayor and the Police Superintendent are urging everyone to stay calm while protesting.
Trump has already won since multiple Mexican American organizations have canceled their Mexican Independence Day celebrations for fear of ICE using them as a means of mass incarceration.
Tell 'em to chant something about Epstein as well. We have to teach Trump that stunts like this will just create additional attention on the Epstein thing.
Many will resist it, but if this happens, it is time to start arresting people and responding to force with force as needed. Immunity extends only to legitimate government activity, and Texas has no legitimate activity to carry out in Illinois (anticipating, that is, the state use described). They can raise any affirmative defense they want at trial.
Imagine the Texas National Guard facing off against the Illinois National Guard and hearing a shot fired by one or the other. Then, the march toward a divergent country and the end of a coherent United States accelerates. The administration is probably counting on that.
Trump is term-limited. He must vacate office in three years and cannot return to it. His heir apparent is Vice-President Vance, who could potentially serve eight years as President and would likely perpetuate Trump's MAGA policies. Therefore, what the Democrats need to do is forestall this threat by discrediting Vance with attacks on his character. Better yet, impeach and convict him, which would disqualify him from office entirely. Call it defeating him in "ad-Vance."
This corroborates what I have been saying: that this isn't just Trump; that the building blocks for this fascism were put in place by the last several administrations.
This particular enactment was passed in 2006, during the George W. Bush administration, during a time when Congress was particularly supine, giving the Executive branch free rein to start the Persian Gulf War and reneging on its Constitutional duty to be the only branch of government to declare war.
All past administrations since the 1980s have contributed building blocks, both Democrats and Republicans.
It is very interesting how focused on the Epstein files are many commentators here and elsewhere.
I wonder if the whole Epstein files thing is in fact a distraction in itself.
It is an irony that the Posse Comitatus Act was in part the legislative codification of the "Dirty Deal" that gave Rutherford Hayes the presidency in 1876. Removing Federal troops from the former Confederate States that had protected the lives and rights of former slaves leaving them to the mercy of local and state oppression.
Who would think that this act, born out of racism, would turn around and become the legal bulwark that might protect us from the excesses of Trump. On the down side there are the Posse Comitatus Sheriffs who have decided that every county where they are elected is their own fiefdom and they have the right to decide which laws are constitutional and that enforcing federal and state laws is their choice.
What comes next is precisely the question. This week's lower court decisions have given us hope, but we know that the radical right-wing crazies who hate democracy and our country (to use DJT's own over the top rhetoric) could undue all of that. Call or write your senators and congresspeople now.
undo, not undue
When Autocorrect becomes Automistake, the only remedy is good proofreading.
This is why I hate Spell Check. ☺️
Trump has appointed 1/3 of the appellate judges in the federal system. Some are better than others about putting the law above deference to Trump.
The Florida case about closing "Alligator Alcatraz" was decided by 2 Trump appointees on the 11th Circuit. I read their decision yesterday and the dissenting opinion of the Obama appointee. The Trump judges had to use all sorts of pretzel logic to reach their decision. The Obama judge just decided "If it looks like a duck it must be a duck" common sense reading of what is going on in Florida.
The lower district courts might give us hope but the appellate courts are likely to rob us of hope. As for the Supreme Court that is pretty much where hope goes to die!
What comes next is that the media won't be talking about Jeffrey Epstein; and the Administration's coverup of all things linked to America's most prolific serial pedophile and the GOP politicians that enabled him.
Bondi's DOJ just released an Epstein trove--95% of which is already in the public domain--but now with dozens of pages of redacted flight logs. Who exactly traveled on the Lolita Express? And why doesn't Trump/GOP want us to know? Why is the DOJ blocking Sen. Wyden's probe of the $1.5 BILLION that moved into and out of Epstein's account in the year before his death? Why haven't Alex Acosta and Barry Krischer, the Federal and FL DA's who gave him his slap-on-wrist deal in 2008--because they said Epstein was "...owned by Intelligence." been called to testify by the GOP's Comer?
The media is allowing itself to be distracted yet again from the blockbuster story of the decade.
Suggest this to the editors at the NYT and every other media outlet.
Treason is the levying of war against another state. This steps over that line.
Maybe nobody is paying attention but we're already ensconced in fascism; already in a Constitutional crisis. Troops in Chicago is simply the next step in the takeover. I appreciate Pritzker and Chicago's leadership, but the Courts can make all the noise they want; Trump is not paying attention.
As a mere citizen and not a lawyer, I'm getting very confused about what would happen should the guard be deployed around election day.
This morning, over at Harry Litman's substack, Talking Feds, he posted a guest essay by Rich Bernstein discussing how the Trump administration's arguments in the case recently decided by Judge Charles Breyer were attempting to lay the groundwork for election interference. (https://harrylitman.substack.com/p/rich-bernstein-administrations-arguments)
Yesterday, Joyce Vance on her substack, Civil Discourse, seemed very confident that any such attempt would be rebuffed by the courts. I can't say I was tremendously reassured given the track record of the Supreme Court Six. (https://joycevance.substack.com/p/can-federal-troops-be-stationed-at)
Steve Vladeck on his substack, One First, has also weighed in on these questions. (https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/176-illinois-v-texas and https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-176-law-lawlessness-and-doomerism)
I not asking for your response to those opinions, but it would be really interesting if you, Harry/Rich, Joyce, Steve and maybe others were to have an on-line discussion of the issue of election interference by the guard and the likelihood that it can be successfully opposed.
Very good suggestion!
I think maybe Trump feels like a cornered animal due to the Epstein thing
https://xcancel.com/TheJusticeDept/status/1963635111112446449#m
He *has* to generate chaos to distract from Epstein.
I think ideally we would offer him some sort of plea deal where he steps down and agrees to avoid further runs for office, and otherwise pretend his name didn't appear in the files. Would it be possible to campaign for Pam Bondi to do this?
Not a snowball's chance in hell Bondi would cooperate with what you describe, although it's a very good idea.
If you watch the O'Keefe video, I believe it claims that both Patel and Bongino (top FBI officials, appointed by Trump) are in favor of moving forward with the Epstein case. So basically there's an internal struggle within the administration over what to do about Epstein.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if that ridiculous Justice Dept tweet is actually an attempt from DoJ insiders to wink at the public, and let everyone know what's really going on with the Epstein case. It's the sort of "denial" which practically confirms the veracity of what it's denying. That might be a deliberate decision.
So it seems there's an internal power struggle within the DoJ. I estimate Pam Bondi is basically an amoral, selfish actor who's only out for herself. She's currently aligning with Trump because that's the best move for her pragmatically speaking. I could see her flipping under pressure. I doubt she feels genuine loyalty towards Trump.
Some sort of game theorist type person should think about the incentives facing various actors in the DoJ (and other Trump officials) and how we can change their incentives so that uniting against Trump is the best play for them. I personally think that Vance would make a far better president than Trump, so persuading Trump to step down seems like a very worthwhile goal.
Interesting game theory video which could have some relevant ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrS6Z6nG_jc
I'll check it out.
Chicago resident here. I live in downtown Chicago where city residents are bracing for a siege by the trump regime. Fencing has been installed around the federal building and civic organizations are preparing to protest. “Hands off Chicago” is our protest cry. Chicago has a long history of non violent protest (Vietnam protests turned violent only after police provocation). We know the federal agencies and troops will try and provoke a physical confrontation so the Governor, Mayor and the Police Superintendent are urging everyone to stay calm while protesting.
Trump has already won since multiple Mexican American organizations have canceled their Mexican Independence Day celebrations for fear of ICE using them as a means of mass incarceration.
Please read From Dictatorship to Democracy by Dr Gene Sharp
Tell 'em to chant something about Epstein as well. We have to teach Trump that stunts like this will just create additional attention on the Epstein thing.
https://xcancel.com/TheJusticeDept/status/1963635111112446449#m
How sad is this. Perhaps non-Mexicans should celebrate the holiday by proxy?
Many will resist it, but if this happens, it is time to start arresting people and responding to force with force as needed. Immunity extends only to legitimate government activity, and Texas has no legitimate activity to carry out in Illinois (anticipating, that is, the state use described). They can raise any affirmative defense they want at trial.