Tag SCOTUSblog

The facts: Trump’s not-so-secret plan “for the most corrupt political party ever” in America to capture the next Congress

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

Welcome back to the blogosphere’s recently-dedicated home of facts about our president.  In today’s installment we focus on the fact that any time he is confronted with true facts that do not suit him, TFG acts like a four year old who’s been told he can’t have any more ice cream.  Plus, we look at the associated counterfactual statements (the lies) he produces in these instances to salve his ego and (he thinks) to convince us all that he really is our favorite president ever.  That will include, currently most crucially, his lies about the integrity of next month’s elections.

There are very many sources that are independent of this Administration where you and I can check for verification of the truth or falsity of things Donald Trump says.  CNN has a dedicated area, as does the Washington Post, and there are websites that do nothing but fact-check politicians (not just Trump), and I have links to some of them in the far left column of this page under Reference.   (I wish there were a Meghan Trainor song-inspired https://iknowyoulieyourlipsaremovin.com/.)  You can check stupid things, like him ham-handedly altering a National Hurricane Center map to add Alabama to the predicted track of a hurricane, or repeatedly insisting in the face of compelling visual evidence to the contrary that the crowd at his first inauguration was the largest ever.  In these cases he’s much like the brat who stomps his feet and cover his ears screaming “I can’t hear you” when told it’s time to come inside for dinner.

TFG has proven over and over that unlike most mature human beings, he insists that all “truth” not only does not put him in a negative  light, it must be nothing less than the most complimentary light.  Ever since he left military school he has existed in a world where his family’s wealth has allowed him to do pretty much whatever he wants and to ignore any negative consequences.  For example, The University of Pennsylvania couldn’t be forced to give him the good grades he’d need to graduate first in his class, but it couldn’t stop him from lying about it afterward.  If ever there is offered any “truth” which claims Trump is anything less than the sterling and respected character he pretended to be on a television show, then that “truth” is a vicious lie being spread by his enemies.  (Who all “hate Trump,” apparently.)  No matter what he’s talking about, he always sounds like a real estate huckster incessantly selling the biggest and best deal, making you an offer you’d be a fool to refuse.  If he had stayed in that private business world his lies wouldn’t matter to the rest of us, so long as we had the good sense not to do business with him.

But he didn’t.  Now, his lies are about things that really matter.  Every single, solitary accusation of “fake news” directed at a reporter or newspaper or network that doesn’t praise the president for every single, solitary move he makes, facts notwithstanding, does two things. It proves that he does not know how journalism is supposed to work: reporters are not there to promote the president (any president), they are there to report what really happened, as truthfully and as fairly as they can, for the benefit of the American citizens for whom every president works.  No president likes negative coverage and some publicly object to the emphasis reporters put on “bad news” stories, but no other president has so blatantly, transparently and falsely accused the journalists of just making shit up to hurt him.  And, his use of repeated false claims are a political propaganda technique to make people believe outrageous things that are not true.  It was called “the big lie” by that noted political philosopher Adolf Hitler, who wrote that the general population could be manipulated with the use of this tool since they wouldn’t believe that anyone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”  Well folks, someone does.

The most dangerous example of Trump’s use of the big lie is his refusal to accept that he lost the 2020 election, to continue to deny it to this very day despite the complete lack of evidence of any fraud significant enough to have changed the outcome, and his continued insistence that all American elections are “rigged.”  Always against him, apparently, even in the two cases where he won.

That claim, which is false – unsupported by any facts – has a very specific goal in mind:

  • to give Americans a reason to believe him when he claims the expected Republican losses in this year’s midterm election are the result of voter fraud,
  • and to get them to agree with his efforts to overturn the results of that election
  • so Republicans maintain control of the House and the Senate
  • where the party will continue to roll over and play dead for Trump’s destructive agenda.

Republicans will smugly respond (as they often do) that it’s not hard to find liberal or even moderate commentators who will shill for this anti-MAGA conspiracy.  They have a harder time arguing the facts when they’re offered by a real Republican, a certified conservative – not a Trump butt boy but a true conservative, like former federal appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig.  He argues in The New Republic that the Trumpist assault on the November midterms is an important next step in their effort to overturn American democracy: fight the results of the expected Democratic victories in House and Senate races, which lays the groundwork for Congress to refuse to seat the Democratic winners  next January and seize control of the government.  Read it yourself and see if you think he’s overstating the case.

…Donald Trump and his Republican congressional allies are even more determined to prosecute the president’s war against American democracy to its catastrophic end than they were on January 6, 2021.

That catastrophic end could well come on January 3, 2027, when Trump and his Republican congressional allies wage the final battle in Trump’s determined war to corrupt America’s democracy and deliver a lasting political victory over the Democrats for his MAGA Republican Party.

Trump and his Republican allies have been preparing for this final battle since January 6, 2021. For the past six years, they have embarrassed themselves and the U.S. with their preposterous, win-at-any-cost denial that Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and their deceitful slander of America’s democracy. Since his return to the White House, Trump’s every unconstitutional act in his effort to seize control over the midterm elections—each hailed by his prostrate Republican Congress—has been toward the end of ensuring that Republicans retain a majority in the 120th Congress.

(snip)

So unalterably subjugated to Trump is today’s Republican House that even a decisive victory for Democrats and a resounding repudiation of Trump and the MAGA Republicans at the polls in November will not guarantee that a Democratic majority-elect will be seated in the 120th Congress on January 3 [emphasis added].

All year long, Trump has been dragooning House Speaker Mike Johnson and the congressional Republicans into prejudging as fraudulent the upcoming November elections of the presumed Democratic majority, as he himself has already prejudged those elections. His dragooning appears to have worked. House Republicans are now poised to claim that the midterm elections were stolen from them when they meet on January 3 to decide which members-elect will be seated in the 120th Congress.

Over the past year and a half since his return to the White House, Trump has exploited every conceivable unlawful means possible to rig the midterm elections in favor of the Republicans, and the federal courts have struck down as unconstitutional every one of these unlawful attempts. He will try every unlawful means over the remaining weeks to ensure that Republicans handily win the midterm elections in November. Those of us who oppose his illegality will look to the courts, but the federal courts will be institutionally incapable of checking his final unlawful rampage.

Trump punctuated his expressed intent to interfere in the midterm elections eight weeks ago in a national prime-time address on “election integrity,” accusing the Democrats and the Chinese in particular of threatening the free and fair elections in November. In that address, he claimed without evidence or support (as usual) that the 2026 midterm elections were being threatened by noncitizen voting, weaknesses in voter registration systems, foreign interference, and vulnerabilities in electronic voting systems.

(snip)

Everyone knows that the greatest threat to the upcoming midterm elections is not the Democrats or the Chinese, noncitizen voting, or electronic voting machines, but the president of the United States and his servile Republican Congress.

(snip)

There was a time not long ago when virtually every member of Congress could be expected to commit to the peaceful transfer of congressional power in advance of an election, just as every president could be expected to commit to the peaceful transfer of presidential power. But those times came to an abrupt end upon Donald Trump’s arrival in January 2017. In a damning indictment of the president and today’s congressional Republicans, it would be hard to find even one congressional Republican with the integrity, sense of duty to country, honor, and courage to put America above the Republican Party, let alone above Donald Trump.

Yet America’s only hope for saving its democracy and avoiding another crippling constitutional crisis on January 3 is for the House Republicans to decide that they are not going to betray their oaths and their country one last time for Donald Trump, and telegraph to Trump and Mike Johnson that any unconstitutional plan they might be contriving to deny Democratic members-elect their rightful seats in the 120th Congress would be dead on arrival January 3.

If there are any such Republicans in the Congress today, they should announce well before November 3 that they will not be party to Trump’s and Johnson’s attempt to steal the midterm elections from the American people.

In fact, Luttig encourages all House members, both parties, to campaign on that point: make sure to loudly highlight any candidate who refuses “to affirm that they will not be complicit in any attempt to steal the midterm elections.”  It will be effective, assuming the issue becomes important to voters to care about and if we can trust the candidates who promise not to steal the election.

He also he lays out – in enough frightening detail to make you realize that some people have actually given this “plan” a lot of thought – the steps the Republicans may take to refuse to allow some or all of the Democrats who win in November to take their seats in the new House in January.  It begins with Speaker Mike Johnson unilaterally, and quite legally, removing current House Clerk Kevin McCumber, “a Republican appointed by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He is widely respected for his integrity and faithful adherence to the Constitution and is reputed to be unwilling to carry out orders he considers to be unconstitutional.”  Then Johnson appoints someone more loyal to TFG, who “refuses to list Democrat representatives-elect on the clerk’s roll of representatives-elect that determines who may participate in organizing the new Congress.”  When those who are excluded from that roll object, this whole circus expands into the courts.  And that will take time.  Time during which the country would be in a full-blown constitutional crisis with Congress unable to do any business, including responding to international threats.

It is not difficult to imagine the many possibilities, some of the most critical being entirely realistic. It would be the ideal moment for China to move against Taiwan, by way of military blockade, attack, or even invasion. It would be the perfect moment for Vladimir Putin to complete his conquest of Ukraine, and perhaps even to move militarily against Estonia. Every passing day could bring a deepening economic crisis, worsened by our angry allies around the world who would welcome the opportunity to requite Donald Trump for his belittling mockery of their countries and presidents. Without the Congress, the United States would be powerless to respond to any of these crises.

But we can always count on the Supreme Court to be the voice of reason, to restore a little sanity to the whole process…right?

I don’t intend to be overly sanguine about this Supreme Court. This is the court that shattered the one constitutional truth in the U.S. since 1789 that “no man is above the law” and placed Donald Trump of all presidents above the law in Trump v. United States. This is the court that betrayed the Constitution by refusing even to decide whether Trump was disqualified from the presidency under the Fourteenth Amendment because of his insurrection against the Constitution, which he clearly was. This is also the court that has cynically authorized Trump’s lawlessness for the past two years through its aptly named “shadow docket,” without so much as briefing, argument, or written opinion.

But surely by now this court must understand what it has wrought for the U.S. and the Constitution, and is aghast as we all are, even if it is not penitent. Surely, surely, it will understand the signal moment in American constitutional history that would be presented, and this time understand its supreme obligation to the nation.

Surely indeed.

I hope relying on the Supremes to save America’s bacon is not our only chance to kick Trump in the teeth and defeat his election-stealing plans.  (Note to the people who indicted James Comey in North Carolina: this is not a threat of actual unlawful violence against the person of the president, it is the use of a common metaphor indicating I would like to beat him in this contest.  Er, change that “beat” to “triumph over.”)  I like to think that enough people across this country have sufficient distaste for this Administration and its extralegal antics to turn out in numbers large enough to flip enough House and Senate seats into a Democratic majority that would resuscitate the Congressional checks-and-balances impulse that has gone dormant during Trump II.  And I trust that those same people – and maybe a good portion of the inhabitants of MAGA world, too – won’t stand for a blatant attempt to commit such a fraud.  Luttig hopes the same:

Between now and November 3, congressional Republicans would do well to ponder one last time the fate of their Republican Party were the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse a fraudulent determination by the 120th Republican Congress not to seat Democratic members-elect who would give the Democrats majority control of the House.

Two hundred and fifty years into the greatest experiment in self-government in the history of the world, the Republican Party would finally meet the fate to which it has been destined since January 6, 2021, and cement its place in history as the most corrupt political party ever to emerge in the United States of America for its second attempt in six years to defy the will of the American people on Election Day.

If we Americans are to save our democracy from the forty-seventh president and his MAGA Republican Party, we must disenthrall ourselves from our political bondage to Donald Trump and MAGA, as Abraham Lincoln urged the nation in 1863 to disenthrall itself from its bondage to the ruinous political dogmas of its time. “We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country,” the sixteenth president admonished. The Republican Party in particular must finally loose the chains of its political and moral enslavement to Donald Trump and separate itself from the MAGA political party cult.

The writing is already on the wall, Republicans.

Courting trouble for the former guy

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

Former President I Will Not Be Ignored got a little more of what he’s been begging for yesterday: attention from our nation’s judicial system.  In response to his ridiculous-on-its-face insistence that former presidents enjoy lifelong complete criminal immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office, lest they be indicted by forces of the opposing party the instant they leave office, a federal appeals court panel ruled – unanimously – that he is off his rocker.  Essentially.  In a legal sense.

At public arguments in January, the three judges expressed concern over the most extreme implications of Trump’s view, with one suggesting it would allow a future president to order the assassination of a political rival. But in their opinion Tuesday, they said it is Trump’s own alleged crimes — “an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government” — that threaten democracy if left beyond the reach of criminal prosecution.

“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”

When he “warns” that all political parties would legally attack former leaders from other parties if those leaders did not enjoy legal protection, it’s a textbook example of the projection associated with his narcissism: in fact, such a thing has never happened in the past, but it is something that he himself has already promised he will do if he becomes president again next year.  This case could still go to the Supreme Court; we will know within weeks.  But we do know that the Supremes will be hearing a Trump case tomorrow, a case over his Constitutional eligibility to ever become president again.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday in what is shaping up to be the biggest election case since its ruling nearly 25 years ago in Bush v. Gore. At issue is whether former President Donald Trump, who is once again the front runner for the Republican nomination for president, can be excluded from the ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. 

Although the question comes to the court in a case from Colorado, the impact of the court’s ruling could be much more far-reaching. Maine’s secretary of state ruled in December that Trump should be taken off the primary ballot there, and challenges to Trump’s eligibility are currently pending in 11 other states. Trump warns that the efforts to keep him off the ballot “threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans” and “promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead.” But the voters challenging Trump’s eligibility counter that “we already saw the ‘bedlam’ Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost.”

At issue is a section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, approved in the years following the Civil War to prevent former rebels from entering government and continuing their rebellion.  Paraphrasing here, it prohibits anyone who’d previously been a U.S. government official, and then later “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution, from later serving in government again.  Pretty sensible, right?  In other words, among the requirements to be president, one must be at least 35 years old and not have previously been a traitor.

Trump’s arguments that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to him are from the same book as his “presidents need to be able to commit crimes with impunity” arguments in the immunity case he’s currently losing.

Trump’s first, and main, argument is that Section 3 does not apply to him because the president is not an “officer of the United States.” In other provisions of the Constitution where the phrase “officer of the United States” appears, Trump notes, it does not apply to the president – for example, the clause that requires the president to “Commission all the Officers of the United States” and the impeachment clause, which lists the president and vice president separately from “civil Officers of the United States.” Moreover, Trump adds, the Supreme Court in 2010 indicated that the phrase applies only to federal officials who are appointed; it does not extend to elected officials like the president.

The voters dismiss this argument, countering that the president has been called the “chief executive officer of the United States” since long before the 14th Amendment was drafted. As with the phrase “office under the United States,” they say, Section 3 simply uses the phrase “of the United States” to distinguish between federal offices, such as the presidency, and state officers.

The voters also discount Trump’s reliance on other provisions of the Constitution. They note that although the appointments clause requires the president to appoint some “officers of the United States,” it also indicates that the Constitution provides for the appointment of other “officers of the United States” – including the president and vice president – by the electoral college. And the impeachment clause, they reason, provides for the impeachment of the president and vice president separately from “all civil Officers of the United States” because (unlike other officials) the president and vice president play both civil and military roles.

Section 3 also does not apply to him, Trump continues, because when he is sworn in the president pledges to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” – rather than “support” it, as Section 3 requires.

The voters contend, however, that “Section 3 is about violation of a sworn duty, not about pedantic wordplay.” The oath that the president takes to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution is an oath to support the Constitution, they insist.

The voters add that an interpretation of Section 3 that excludes the president, while still applying to all other officials – including “postmaster or county sheriff” – who took an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection would be at odds with the purpose of the provision. Moreover, they suggest, it would be an exception that would apply only to Trump, because “every other President (except, of course, George Washington) had previously sworn a constitutional oath in some other federal or state capacity.”

Trump pushes back against any suggestion that it would be inconsistent with the purpose of Section 3 to hold that the president falls outside its scope. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, he contends, there weren’t any former presidents who had supported the Confederacy, so the drafters would not have had any reason to exclude the president from serving again.

There are a couple of schools of thought among Never Trumpers and other reasonable people: is it better to invoke the Constitution to keep the former guy from being on the ballot for president this year and not take a chance that he wins, or just let the election runs its course and have him suffer electoral defeat?  Of course, we’ve seen what happens when he loses an election fair and square, and we’ve seen what happens when he wins.  I found E.J. Dionne’s argument of how his mind has changed on this question to be persuasive.

Though I agreed that Trump had, indeed, engaged in insurrection, I thought it would be best for the country to have him go down to defeat again in a free and fair election. Keeping him on the ballot so voters could decide was the path to long-term institutional stability and might finally force a reckoning in the Republican Party.

Many people I respect continue to hold versions of this view. But the more I read and listened, the clearer it became that Section 3 was directed against precisely the conduct Trump engaged in. [Emphasis added] Its purpose is to protect the republic from those who would shred the Constitution and destroy our system of self-government. What Trump did in advance of the attack on the Capitol and on Jan. 6, 2021, legally disqualifies him from the presidency.

The record is clear that the legislators who wrote and enacted the amendment in the wake of the Civil War were not just thinking of the Confederacy’s leaders but also of “the leaders of any rebellion hereafter to come.”

Those are the words of John B. Henderson, a Republican senator from Missouri, when he cast his vote for the amendment in 1866. They are recorded in a powerful amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court by a distinguished group of historians of the era: Jill Lepore, David Blight, Drew Gilpin Faust and John Fabian Witt.

The amendment’s authors, they argue, “hoped not only to prevent a resurgence of secessionism but also to protect future generations against insurrectionism.” It was intended “to bar anyone who has betrayed an oath to uphold the Constitution from becoming President of the United States.”

(snip)

And to argue that barring Trump from the ballot is “antidemocratic,” wrote professors Carol Anderson and Ian Farrell in another brief, is “ironic … as he bears by far the most responsibility for attempting to subvert democracy on Jan. 6.” An effort to overthrow constitutional procedures, wrote [Sherrilyn] Ifill, should be distinguished from political protests, even those “accompanied by sporadic acts of violence.” Demonstrators are not the same as a mob trying to hijack the government.

(snip)

Throwing Trump off the ballot would seem, on its face, the opposite of democracy. Yet the whole point of Section 3 is to protect constitutional democracy from anyone who has already tried to destroy it. If its provisions don’t apply to Trump, they don’t apply to anyone. The court would not be disqualifying him. He disqualified himself.

The court convenes at 10 a.m. ET tomorrow; you can listen live to the arguments here or download the clip later.

ALSO: The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake with insight into the damage done to Trump by the loss in his immunity claim case.