Category Archives: Random Blogging

Makes Me Proud To Be A Lawyer!

Okay, a recovering lawyer…but still.

One of the worst aspects of this traitorous and criminal administration has been its willingness to spit in the eye of those who believe in and support the rule of law. After a period of stunned silence, lawyers who have retained their integrity have begun to respond. 

Above the Law has reported on a lawsuit that–as it says–“Drags the Trump Administratiion to Hell.” I am going to quote liberally from the complaint filed by Williams Connolly on behalf of another law firm–Perkins Coie–because I cannot improve on its language. Trump had issued one of his insane “Executive Orders,” purportedly stripping Perkins Coie lawyers of security clearances, and terminating government contracts with the firm.

From the Complaint:

The Order is an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice. Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients. Perkins Coie brings this case reluctantly. The firm is comprised of lawyers who advocate for clients; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients—and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all—are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied. The firm is committed to a resolute defense of the rule of law, without regard to party or ideology, and therefore brings this lawsuit to declare the Order unlawful and to enjoin its implementation.

The document notes that the Order’s “peculiar title” demonstrates that its purpose isn’t executive. “Rather, the Order reflects a purpose that is judicial—to adjudicate whether a handful of lawyers at Perkins Coie LLP engaged in misconduct in the course of litigation and then to punish them.” The purpose is, rather clearly, to deter law firms from representing clients antagonistic to Trump.

Above the Law judges the following lengthy paragraph to be the hardest-hitting:

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment.

It isn’t just the lawyers.

While the legal profession takes to the courts, other Americans possessing specialized expertise are using that expertise on behalf of the resistance. Heather Cox Richardson recently reported on three recent outages of X, spanning more than six hours. She cited the former head of the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Center, who said that the outages appear to have been an attack called a “distributed denial of service,” attack– “an old technique in which hackers flood a server to prevent authentic users from reaching a website.” He added that he couldn’t “think of a company of the size and standing internationally of X that’s fallen over to a DDoS attack for a very long time,” adding that the outage “doesn’t reflect well on their cyber security.” (Musk, of course, blamed hackers in Ukraine for the outages, an accusation Martin called “pretty much garbage.”)

I think the resistance is just getting started…

Comments

A Functional Media?

Research strongly suggests that Americans are split between an informed electorate and those delicately referred to as “low information voters” (also known as “MAGA”). As I’ve pointed out repeatedly on this blog, our current information environment reinforces misinformation and disinformation, catering to those who simply want their prejudices confirmed. The Internet has proved to be a warm and fuzzy place for those whose “research” is confined to searches for confirmation of their pre-existing biases.

That reality allows Trump to engage in fact-free bloviating–also known as lies–secure in the knowledge that a multitude of propaganda sites will obediently echo them, no matter how ridiculous or easily and repeatedly debunked.

A recent essay from the Bulwark posits that today’s media falls into roughly three categories:

There’s the state media—Fox, Newsmax, the Federalist, HughHewitt.com—which have become pure propaganda outlets.

There’s the “neutral” media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, CNN—which believe that politics should be covered as a sport with reports about who’s up and who’s down. Extraordinary efforts are made by these institutions to present both sides of every question, even if it means presenting the case for illiberalism or platforming people who the media orgs know are lying to their audience.

Finally, there’s pro-democracy media—outlets which understand that America is experiencing an ongoing authoritarian attempt and that they must stand on the side of small-l liberalism.

The author believes that maintaining these categories is unsustainable-that the three spheres will soon “collapse into just two: Media organizations that oppose authoritarianism and media organizations that accept it.” He quoted an editorial from a technical publication–Techdirt— which recently made a surprising announcement:

Over the last few weeks, I’ve had a few people reach out about our coverage these days . . . [and about] how much we were leaning into covering “politics.”

When the very institutions that made American innovation possible are being systematically dismantled, it’s not a “political” story anymore. It’s a story about whether the environment that enabled all the other stories we cover will continue to exist. . . .

We’re going to keep covering this story because, frankly, it’s the only story that matters right now, and one that not everyone manages to see clearly. The political press may not understand what’s happening (or may be too afraid to say it out loud), but those of us who’ve spent decades studying how technology and power interact? We see it and we can’t look away.

So, here’s the bottom line: when WaPo’s opinion pages are being gutted and tech CEOs are seeking pre-approval from authoritarians, the line between “tech coverage” and “saving democracy” has basically disappeared. It’s all the same thing.

Digital illiterate that I am, I had never heard of Techdirt. But the quoted language confirms something that most political scientists know instinctively: at base, everything is politics. The people who refuse to follow the news of what government is doing, who claim that they “aren’t political,” are kidding themselves.

When the federal government stops funding cancer research, when Social Security checks fail to appear in a timely manner, when government operatives are erasing efforts to counter discrimination (or, as they currently are, reinstating discriminatory messages and behaviors)–when federal officials are telling states to handle their own fires and floods, and threatening your employees with deportation, when insane policies are threatening to tank the economy and erode your retirement–it is no longer possible to tell yourself that “politics” is irrelevant to your life.

The article suggests that tech outlets are among the first to speak out because “they have specialized knowledge—and because they don’t have relationships with people in politics to tend to.”  They are able to see clearly what is happening and willing to speak out against it.

We have seen the exact same thing with some specialized legal publications. Lawfare and JustSecurity.org were once destination sites for law nerds. Today they have become two of the most essential media organizations in America.

Why? Because since these people specialize in the law they know exactly how serious Trump’s attack on the rule of law is—and how dangerous it is.

Like Techdirt and Wired, serious people in the legal space are being radicalized—democracy pilled?—because they understand that this isn’t a game and that the liberal press does not have an obligation to present illiberalism as a point of view worthy of consideration.

The people in pro-democracy media understand that liberalism has a moral obligation to take its own side.

“Fair and Balanced” was never accurate, because “balance” by its very nature/definition cannot be accurate. And stenography–he said/she said–isn’t journalism.

Comments

When People Have No Idea what They’re Doing

Simon Rosenberg recently explained what even minimally-informed people know: mass deportation–if it occurs– will raise prices for Americans, disrupt businesses and slow growth. (Of course, growth is already tanking as a result of Trump’s on-and-off tariffs. When even the Wall Street Journal calls a GOP economic policy “stupid,” you can pretty much assume widespread agreement among people who can spell “economics.”) Rosenberg noted that even the threat of deportations is having its effect; victims of crime and witnesses aren’t showing up for court dates because they are afraid ICE will seize them. “That means cases can’t be prosecuted and that means criminals stay free to commit more crimes. Party of law and order my sweet Aunt Annie.”

Speaking of “law and order,” there are reports that the administration is considering a pardon for Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd on camera. Such a pardon would be further evidence of the GOP effort to return the U.S. to the days of Jim Crow.

Let’s be candid. The daily havoc being applauded by Trump supporters demonstrates the profound ignorance of the MAGA cult–as does their rejection of expertise as “elitist,” and their inability to recognize the all-too-obvious effects of Trump/Musk actions.

Research confirms that the polarization that characterizes our politics is largely between the informed and uninformed. (For confirmation, you can review the occasional comment from trolls on this blog.) 

The monumental ignorance shown by those cheering Trump and Vance’s thuggish behavior toward Ukraine is a perfect example. In a recent post to The Bulwark, Jonathan Last wrote.

Donald Trump and Republicans explain their worldview by calling it “America First.” That’s a lie.

American foreign policy has always put America first. That’s what nations do. It’s axiomatic. Why did the United States do Lend-Lease with Britain before we entered World War II and bankroll the Marshall Plan afterwards? Why did we airlift supplies into West Berlin? Why did we spend trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons that have never been used? Why do we police the global shipping lanes and ensure stability in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East?

It’s not because we’re nice.

It’s because these actions further our interests. They make America safer and wealthier. They check the rise of rival powers. They put America first.

I urge you to read Last’s entire essay–especially his explanation of “Pax America.”  As he writes, for 75 years after the Second World War, the U.S. was the dominant global power. No country, anywhere on earth, could act without considering our interests.

The relationships in NATO, and among the Five Eyes, and with America’s other really close allies—Japan, South Korea—aren’t merely military agreements. They’re kinships. They transcend peace and war; they’re diplomatic, political, cultural, and economic.

Again: This is leverage. It means that when we go to war, we bring a huge crew with us. Other countries are willing to expend resources, and even shed blood, to stay aligned with us. Even for a contentious war like Iraq, we got nearly 40 countries to participate in some way or another.

This makes things cheaper for us. The Soviet Union and China and Iran have to spend money to dominate and subjugate their clients. Our allies spend money on our behalf, pursuing our interests, because we have shaped them in our image.

As Last writes, no country has ever been more globally dominant–and that dominance has largely been a function of our wealth–our ability to spend money.

Here is the thing you must understand: America will win any contest determined by the ability to spend money.

Rightly understood, this is just another example of how America created rules to benefit ourselves: Of course the richest country in history would build a system in which it could exert influence on the global order by spending money: Because the ability to spend money is one of our key advantages.

And yet today’s “America First” class thinks that spending money in order to shape the world is some kind of weakness…

Why do we spend $10 billion a year fighting HIV/AIDS in foreign countries? I have to keep saying this: It’s not because we’re nice.

We spend that money in order to stabilize the global order. If AIDS runs wild in one country, that creates ripple effects. It destabilizes the local economy, risking political instability, which in turn risks regional instability. All of which poses some small danger to the established order which—QED—benefits America.

We spend that $10 billion to preserve the system that benefits us.

That’s what soft power is.

When people in charge are clueless about how the world works, the world no longer works for us. Thanks, MAGA….

Comments

The Evidence Mounts

Remember The Manchurian Candidate? The story centers on a Korean War veteran who is part of a prominent political family. He’s brainwashed by communists after his Army platoon is captured, and when he returns home, he becomes an unwitting assassin in an international communist conspiracy. 

I’m beginning to see uncomfortable parallels with that fictional plot.

I’m loathe to give credence to the longstanding assertion that Trump is a knowing Russian asset–after all, it’s improbable that this pathetic bundle of ego and ignorance is a “knowing” anything. A recent article from the Kviv Independent does make that case, however, the author writing

Questions about U.S. President Donald Trump’s possibly shady relationship with Russia and the country’s security services have long swirled, even culminating in a special counsel investigation during his first term in office.

Though that investigation found evidence of “extensive criminal activity” by Trump, his associates, and some of his family members, it found no evidence that he was working for, or had ever been recruited by, Russia’s security services.

Yet despite this, the topic refuses to go away — most recently in a viral Facebook post from a former Kazakh security official that claimed Trump was recruited by the Soviet Union’s spy agency, the KGB, in 1987 and given the code name “Krasnov.”

Craig Unger, an American journalist and writer who has written two books on Trump’s connections to Russia’s security services and the Russian mafia stretching all the way back to the 1980s, says he is “absolutely certain” that the U.S. president is a Russian asset.

You can click through and read Unger’s arguments, but just as the central figure in the Manchurian Candidate was unaware of his brainwashing, I think it unlikely that Trump is consciously pursuing his pro-Russian, pro-Putin, anti-American rampage.

That, of course, doesn’t make his actions any less destructive. And it does raise a question about the operatives he is installing in various agencies of the federal government. Among the clowns, predators and preening incompetents, there are clearly some who are knowingly–and purposely– acting as Russian agents. Talking Points Memo recently reported on one of them.

Before Peter Marocco was selected to dismantle America’s entire foreign aid sector on behalf of President Donald Trump, he was an official with the State Department on a diplomatic mission.

During Trump’s first term, Marocco was a Trump appointee tasked with promoting stability in areas with armed conflict. In 2018, he made a two-week trip to the Balkans in what was advertised as an effort to counter extremism and strengthen inter-religious dialogue.

American diplomacy is carefully prescribed, identifying both the people officials should meet and those they should avoid.  On that 2018 visit to the Balkans, Marocco secretly met with officials, including Milorad Dodik, whom the American government had determined were off-limits: Bosnian Serb separatist leaders who had been working for years to undermine the American-backed peace deal and to promote a Christian Bosnian Serb state….

At the time, Dodik was under U.S. sanctions for actively obstructing American efforts to prevent more bloodshed. Dodik has since described himself as “pro-Russian, anti-Western and anti-American” in a meeting with Putin. Nevertheless, Trump has named Marocco to a senior post at the U.S. Agency for International Development, where he’s attempted to halt dozens of programs. Former colleagues describe his agenda as “overtly militaristic and Christian nationalist.” 

Trump has made Marocco the director for foreign assistance at the State Department, and deputy administrator of USAID —  the two agencies that previously rejected him. “And unlike last time, Marocco is now without strictures and answers to few in the executive branch besides Trump himself.”

Immediately after the inauguration last month, Marocco drafted the order shutting down all of USAID’s programs and freezing foreign aid. He’s led the efforts to place nearly all of the agency’s staff on administrative leave, though the courts have temporarily lifted many of those. Much of USAID’s work has not resumed, according to interviews with dozens of government employees and nongovernmental organizations, despite the State Department’s claim that waivers allow work involving “core lifesaving medicine, medical services, food, shelter and substance assistance” to continue.

The article has much more detail about Marocco’s past activities–all of which raise the question why he has been empowered to orchestrate the Trump administration’s foreign aid policy.

TPM also reports that Rubio and Marocco have now

completely ended nearly 10,000 aid programs — including those they had granted waivers just days earlier — saying the programs did not align with Trump’s agenda. The move consigns untold numbers of the world’s poorest children, refugees and other vulnerable people to death, according to several senior federal officials. Local authorities have already begun estimating a death toll in the hundreds of thousands.

It hardly matters whether Trump is a knowing Russian asset….

Comments

Why Economic Ignorance Matters

America’s election of Donald Trump–horrifying and destructive as it was and is–was part of a global lurch to the Right, and that lurch can be attributed to one over-riding factor: a negative reaction to immigration. There are a lot of moving parts to that reaction, but I want to focus on one inarguable element of MAGA’s hatred of (certain) immigrants–a hatred that blinds the economically-ignorant to the predictable consequences of mass deportations.

Racism has always been the central part of Trump’s appeal, and his promises to “protect” the border have, accordingly, focused on the southern border. When he talks about limiting illegal immigration, it is quite clear that he is talking about poor brown and Black people, not the rich, or the stray Canadian or Norwegian.

The promised massive deportations have yet to occur, but early reports reflect two “Trumpian” realities: his disregard for legal and constitutional niceties, and his ignorance of the way the economy works. It isn’t just his love of tariffs that illustrates that ignorance; he clearly has no comprehension of the importance of both legal and illegal immigrants in selected sectors of the economy.

In his first few weeks back in office, Trump has consistently ignored the law, so it isn’t surprising that early “roundups” have frequently crossed the constitutional line. As Paul Krugman recently noted, “if you make it clear that respecting the rights of the accused is a liberal, DEI thing, of course some ICE and Border Control agents will run wild. Basically, anyone with brown skin will be at risk of at least temporary detention.”

And speaking of risk, even though the number of immigrants arrested is small so far, Krugman and others point out that  the raids that have occurred have already inspired widespread fear.  Some workers have stayed home rather than coming to work. Others have returned to their home countries. And some businesses have even laid off valuable employees for fear that they may be raided.

In the linked essay, Krugman offers charts documenting the likely economic impact of widespread deportations, beginning with the fact that almost 1 in 5 U.S. workers is foreign-born. Most of those are here legally, but unauthorized immigrants make up around 5 percent of the work force.

Losing a large fraction of these workers would be a serious blow to the economy, especially because immigrants, legal and not, play a much bigger role in some industries and occupations than they do in the economy as a whole.

Agriculture is the most striking example: Immigrants — many of them undocumented — make up most of the farm labor force.

Push those workers out, either by actual deportation or detention or simply by creating a climate of fear, and just watch what happens to grocery prices.

About a quarter of construction industry employees are immigrants — 40 percent in Texas and California — but this number rises to 31 percent if you look only at “construction trades,” i.e., people who actually build stuff as opposed to working in offices or marketing. And the immigrant share is much higher in particular trades.

So at a time when Americans are still angry about the price of groceries and, with more justification, about the unaffordability of housing, Trump’s immigrant crackdown seems set to hobble food production and home construction.

Krugman notes that Trump can probably call off most of his threatened tariffs, granting exemptions in return for concessions benefitting him personally, but his constant, ugly screeds against (certain) immigrants have played into racial hatreds that can’t easily be reined in.

I have previously posted about the gap between immigration facts and the fallacies that allow MAGA bigots to use migrants as a handy wedge issue. As I said then, if anyone harbors doubts about the GOP’s entirely political approach to what the media routinely calls the “border crisis,” it should have been dispelled when Republicans abruptly walked away from a bipartisan proposal that–after difficult negotiations–had given them pretty much everything they’d been demanding, so they could use the “border crisis” as a campaign issue.

And speaking of the border–most of the 11 million immigrants who are here illegally flew in and overstayed their visas.

America’s anti-immigrant hysteria is central to today’s White Christian Nationalism. Of course, there has always been a nativist streak in America; Ellis Island was first established to keep “undesirables” from entering the country. “Give me your tired, your poor, your masses yearning to breathe free” was Emma Lazarus’ response to the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Know-Nothing Party was formed largely by people who feared that Irish Catholic immigrants would take jobs from God-fearing Protestant “real Americans.”

We haven’t come very far, and MAGA wants to take us back……

Comments