Sherlock Holmes: A Scandal in Bohemia

 

Things have been anxious lately, so what do I do to be calm?  Read through the complete works of Sherlock Holmes, of course.  

We have gotten through Arthur Conan Doyle's first two novels -- A Study in Scarlet and Sign of the Four.  Next comes The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, a series of short stories.  In fact, although Doyle wrote a few more novels, he appears to have decided that the short story was truly his medium.

The first short story is A Scandal in Bohemia.  It introduces a character who has fascinated many later writers of adaptations -- Irene Adler.  For all that her character is played up in later adaptations, she appears in only one work, a short story.  Moreover, she and Holmes do not know each other.  They meet only three times, briefly, each time with one party in disguise and the other unaware.  Adler marries another man and the story ends with her flight.  She apparently dies some time later offstage under uncertain circumstances.  Watson refers to her as "the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory."  We do not find out what happened to her.  The story takes place in 1888 and she was born in 1858 making her 30 years old at the time, so she died prematurely.  Watson also emphasizes the Holmes never loved Adler.  Holmes knew love mostly as a motive for crimes.  But he did respect and admire her and refer to her as "the woman."

I suspect that Doyle first tried to end the series at the end of the last novel by marrying Watson off and having him move out.  It must be emphasized how much of an improvement this is in Watson's life.  When Watson first met Holmes, his health was in ruins and he was living on a military invalid pension, not knowing anyone in London, too ill to go out and with no one to visit him.  Watson had nothing to do but observe his roommate and learn about him.  With his marriage, Watson acquires not only a wife, but his own household.  Presumably he begins building a social circle.  He also returns to the practice of medicine.  In short, he has his life back.  But he can still drop in on Holmes.

Holmes' latest client calls himself a Bohemian nobleman, but Holmes recognizes him as the king.  (We are not told how, but he is six feet six inches tall, which must be distinguishing).  In this case, there is no murder and no mystery.  There is, I suppose, a crime, or several.  The circumstances are plain.  The king had an affair with an opera singer (now retired) named Irene Adler and was so indiscrete as to allow himself to be photographed with her.  He is now to marry a Scandinavian princess.  Irene Adler is threatening to reveal the photograph when the engagement is announced.  Paying blackmail is hopeless -- she doesn't want money; she wants to ruin him.  So blackmail is a crime, except that this is not exactly blackmail.  At least some of the king's attempts to get the photograph back also sound like crimes.  He has had people break into her house twice, diverted her luggage once, and waylaid her twice.  Hm.  The photograph is portrait sized and framed, so it is not something Irene Adler would hide on her person.

So, there is no mystery as to what happened.  The only mystery is how Holmes will find the photograph.

He disguises as a stable groom and mingles among the other stable grooms in the neighborhood to pick up the latest gossip about Irene Adler.  He also follows her when she goes to the Church of St. Monica and learns that she has gone there to marry her lawyer, Godfrey Norton!  The matter is so hasty and so secretive that the clergyman insisted on having a witness, and Holmes was the first person at hand to serve!  The marriage is secret, and the parties go their separate ways.  Holmes comments that the photograph is now a double-edged weapon.  Irene Adler presumably no more wants her husband to see it than the king wants his prospective wife to see it.  That the marriage takes place just as Holmes begins watching her seems like an extraordinary coincidence, but let that go.  Holmes still wants to find the photograph.

To do so, he enlists Watson in a obviously staged seen outside Irene's house.  A few street louts get into a fight just has Miss Adler steps out of her carriage.  Holmes, now dressed as a clergyman, rushes to her defense and falls to the ground, fake blood streaming from his face.  The brawlers run off, and some bystanders persuade Irene Adler to take Holmes into her sitting room.  He gestures her to open the window.  Watson waits outside with a smoke bomb to throw in.

I do not know whether he was seized with compunction at that moment for the part he was playing, but I know that I never felt more heartily ashamed of myself in my life than when I saw the beautiful creature against whom I was conspiring, or the grace and kindliness with which she waited upon the injured man. And yet it would be the blackest treachery to Holmes to draw back now from the part which he had intrusted to me. I hardened my heart, and took the smoke-rocket from under my ulster. After all, I thought, we are not injuring her. We are but preventing her from injuring another.

Watson throws the smoke bomb and cries fire.  A commotion ensues, in which Holmes escapes.  As they walk home, Holmes explains that when a woman thinks her house is on fire, she will reach for whatever she values most -- in this case, the photograph.  It was behind a sliding panel by the bell-pull.  Holmes did not take it because the coachman was watching him.  As they arrive home, an unknown passer-by said good night, and Holmes thinks the voice sounds familiar.

Early the next morning they summon the king and let him know of the situation.  The king is still clearly in love with Miss Adler.  He responds with jealousy when he hears about her marriage and insists that she cannot love her new husband.  Holmes points out that if she does, she will no longer have any reason to be jealous of the king's prospective marriage or to break it up.  They head to her house at 8:00 a.m., assuming she will not be up yet and they will be able to take the photograph.*  Upon arriving, however, they find that she has fled and taken the photograph with her.  Instead, she leaves a letter, in which she explains that the mysterious passer-by was her, in male disguise.  Recognizing how dangerous Holmes could be, she and her husband have fled with the photograph, which she will not reveal, but will keep as insurance if the king ever bothers he again.  In place of the photograph of herself and the king, she leaves a photograph of only herself.

The king assures them that they have nothing to fear, her word is inviolate.  Again, his admiration for her beauty, her intelligence, her resourcefulness, and her resolve make clear that the king is still in love with her.  "Would she not have made an admirable queen? Is it not a pity that she was not on my level?”  Holmes responds that she does, indeed, appear to have been on a very different level.  And he asks to keep the photograph and cherishes it in honor of the only woman to outwit him.

_____________________________________________

*What sort of hours did people keep in London at this time?  In the upcoming story The Speckled Band, Watson is awakened at 7:15 and thinks it outrageously early.  

PS

 Oh, yes and one other point about the war on Iran.  Not only does the Israel tail appear to be wagging the US dog, but the evidence rather strongly suggests that Trump and Netanyahu are working at cross purposes. 

 Trump's original goal appears to have been something like what we did in Venezuela -- leave the machinery of government in place and just change out the name at the top.  Trump's reasoning is that destroying the state can create a godawful mess.  We fired all of the Baathist Party in Iraq and they ended up turning into ISIS.  And much as I hate the man, he has a good point there.  As such, he would very much like to find someone he can make a deal with.

Netanyahu, by contrast, appears to want to destroy the Iranian state and doesn't care what a mess that creates.  Every time someone comes along who might make a deal, the Israelis kill him.  The goal appears to be to thwart any deal that could end the war until the Iranian state is destroyed altogether.

One would think that sooner or later, this will lead to conflict between the allies.

Not Very Original Thoughts on the Iran War

 

I don't have anything very original to say about the war in Iran, but it is hard to think about anything else these days, so let me offer some unoriginal thoughts.

Beware the cornered animal.

Obviously not an original observation, but Trump did not expect this kind of retaliation.  He did not expect it because he had hit Iran before, fairly hard, and not received a strong response.  In his first term, Trump killed Qassim Suleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Iran made only the most token retaliation.  Last year he launched the 12 Days War to wreck Iran's nuclear program and Iran barely even made that.  This led Trump to assume that the Iranian regime was made of pushovers who would not strike back no matter what.  What he failed to take into account was the desperation of a government that truly has nothing to lose.  When you tell an enemy that you want their head on a platter and will not settle for anything less, you can expect an extremely hostile and belligerent response.  

Iran's response may be an extreme example, but the phenomenon is universal.  It is also a thing to keep in mind when we consider the merits of punishing Trump, his inner circle, and ICE.  Yes, they all richly deserve it, and yes, it has value as a deterrent.  But many a dictator has been allowed to escape punishment to avoid triggering the cornered animal response.  A thing to consider.

Harsh measures can strengthen resolve.  This cuts both ways.

By destroying the top leadership and making clear we considered the regime's existence unacceptable, we made it resolve to resist at all costs because there was no alternative.  Maybe the people will rise up if we destroy the Iranian military but spare civilian targets.  But heavy bombing is not normally conducive to domestic rebellion.

The same applies to Iran's opponents.  The Arabian Gulf states warned against war because they feared that they would be targets.  Now that they have been hit, Gulf Arabs are understandably furious at Iran. Iran hitting hotels and apartment buildings was a clear war crime.  Indeed, even the Iranian leadership appears to have recognized such strikes as counterproductive, apologized, and promised to stick to military targets. But even if we make the dubious assumption that the Iranians will keep their word, the Arabs are still in an extraordinarily awkward spot.  They invited US military bases to protect them from Iran.  The bases led them to be targeted.  But what choice do they have now?  If they kick the US out, they will be completely vulnerable to Iranian domination.  And this is to say nothing of Iran's attacks on Arab oil production.  The laws of war are unclear on the matter, and the devastating effect on Arab economies is all too obvious.  Again, Arabs are furious over this.

Israelis are also understandably furious.  And so is much of the rest of the world at seeing its economy attacked.  Which leads to a closely related point.

Wars like this are easier to get into than out of.

Look, given the balance of forces, it seems safe to assume we will eventually emerge with something that could be called victory.  My guess is that if there were a face-saving way for Trump to declare victory and stand down, he would take it.  The problem is that neither Iran nor Israel appears willing to agree to such an arrangement any time soon, and that so long as the opposing party is willing and able to strike back, the war is not ended.

Worse yet, things like this tend to spread.  After all, it is not just our economy that is being affected by this war; it is every oil importing economy across the world.  Given how Trump has been treating our allies, it is entirely understandable that they may not want to join us in forcing open the Straits of Hormuz.  Given the stakes, they may not have the choice.

Even worse -- we have used up so many anti-missile defensive weapons that we are being forced to move them out of South Korea.  It seems likely that the North Koreans will take advantage of the situation.  Suddenly, we are starting to get a WWIII vibe.

Russia

I don't believe that Trump undertook this war as a favor to his friend Pooty to build up Russia's war chest against Ukraine.  There would be easier ways to assist Putin, such as just lifting sanctions, cutting off intelligence sharing with Ukraine, or even directly assisting Russia.  All evidence points to Trump being genuinely caught off guard by spiking oil prices and wanting to bring them down.  That being said, he may very well view any advantage this war gives Putin as a side benefit.

Also, I don't think it is crazy to dismiss Russian intelligence assistance to Iran as an ordinary incident of war -- an expected response to our intelligence assistance to Ukraine.  And yes, the situations are comparable.  Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine.  We are the aggressor in Iran.  Both sides appear to be giving intel on appropriate military targets.  Admittedly, the Iranian regime is much worse than the government of Ukraine and more deserving of being overthrown.  But then again, the Russian homeland has been hit.  Ours has not.

So I understand Trump declining to be outraged over Russia's assistance to Iran.  On the other hand, all of this point to the strategic incoherence of pursuing a policy that is simultaneously pro-Russian and anti-Iran.  Maybe, just maybe, this war will drive home even to Trump the incoherence of such a policy.  That would be a good thing.  Unless it leads to WWIII.

Domestic politics.

Domestic politics clearly are a factor here.  This does not mean that the war is just a ruse to distract from the Epstein files.  The whole obsession with the Epstein files is just a replay of the error we made in Russiagate -- looking for the one silver bullet that will slay the Trump monster.  There is no such silver bullet.  But I do believe that Trump is focusing on foreign policy at least in part because of growing signs that his domestic power is slipping.  The Epstein files are part of that, but by no means all.  Consider:

• More and more material is being released from the Epstein files, including credible evidence that Trump physically and sexually assaulted a girl under 16.
• The House Oversight Committee has issued a bipartisan subpoena to Pam Bondi to testify about the Epstein files.
• High power law firms appear to be prevailing in their suit to keep Team Trump from punishing them for their opposition.
• Universities are also prevailing in their suits against Trump,
• The Supreme Court has largely blocked deployment of the National Guard without the consent of governors.
• The Supreme Court has also blocked Trump's tariffs, at least in their most arbitrary and capricious form.
• Prosecution of political opponents has failed.
• Anthropic is defying the Pentagon and taking it to court.
• Thus far, Senate Republicans are refusing to yield to Trump's pressure to block the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act.
• Republicans are clearly bracing for large-scale losses in the midterms.
• Opponents of ICE have landed their first Cabinet-level scalp in Kristi Noem.* Admittedly, her proposed replacement is not better, but we have proven that sufficiently intense and sustained outrage can remove a Cabinet Secretary, which may have an effect on her successor.
• ICE appears to be behaving marginally better, at least for now.

This is not to say that all is well.  ICE continues to expand in personnel, budget, prison network, and surveillance capabilities, and to treat opposition as terrorism.  Democracy is not safe until that ends.  And we don't yet know what tricks Trump has up his sleeve for the midterm elections, or how he will respond if he loses.

And let's face it.  This war just might be what Trump needs to revive his domestic fortunes.  Consider:

The war has proven to be expensive and Trump is seeking new funding.  Democrats have pledged to oppose it, but does anyone seriously believe that Congress will deny our troops funding for the munitions they need to defend themselves while they are being shot at?  Particularly if Iran shows no willingness to stop shooting?

The risk of Iranian terrorist attacks will massively increase pressure on Democrats to fund the Department of Homeland Security.  There have already been three terrorist attacks -- all apparently isolated instances not backed by the Iranian regime, but alarming nonetheless.

And there is some evidence that support for the war is rising and the rally-round-the-chief effect is taking hold.  And here is the thing.  A long, drawn-out war almost always becomes unpopular, but the effect can take years.  A quick and easy victory can give a leader a boost, but it is rarely more than a short-lived sugar high.  But US bases being attacked, troops being killed, terrorist attacks at home, and the like -- well, see the first point above about initial hardship strengthening resolve.  A serious war may be just what Trump needs to revive his domestic popularity.  Yes, it will eventually decline if the war drags on for years, but that is a remote concern.  And it may not last long after a successful conclusion -- see GHW Bush, Churchill, etc.  But that just gives Trump incentive to prolong the war, at least in the medium term.

Buckle up, folks.  Things could get rough.

______________________________________________

*Really, their second scalp counting Greg Bovino.  And there is a third scalp as well in that ICE Barbie appears to be taking her ICE Ken with her.  But Noem is the only Cabinet-level scalp so far.

So, How Does Trump Stack Up to Biden

Shortly after Trump was inaugurated, I reviewed this ridiculous article, claiming that any fears about Donald Trump's lawlessness were purely hypothetical, while Biden had already proven himself to be our most lawless President ever.  To make her point, the author compared Biden's actions to rash actions by previous Presidents, arguing that Biden was worse.  I do wonder what the author would say now that Trump has been in office long enough to allow a point of comparison.

Consider what the author argued:

Andrew Jackson: Defied a Supreme Court ruling seeking to protect the Cherokee Nation and paved the way for the Trail of Tears.
Joe Biden: When the Supreme Court struck down his student loan forgiveness, he looked for ways to modify it or expand existing programs to achieve his goal.
Trump II: When the Supreme Court struck down his unilateral tariffs, attempted to impose them under another statute.

(Um, does the author really thing that student loan forgiveness is worse that the Trail of Tears?!?!?  And even if she is only comparing them in the sense of being done in defiance of the Supreme Court, well, Trump has done much the same thing as Biden now).

Abraham Lincoln: Unilaterally suspended habeas corpus, ordered arrest of opponents in Congress and the media.
Joe Biden: Encouraged his Attorney General to indict Trump and taunted Trump when he was indicted.
Trump II: Pressured his Attorney General to indict at least three opponents and a Federal Reserve official. All attempts thrown out as baseless.

Woodrow Wilson: Palmer Raids, with some 6,000 opponents of US participation in WWI arrested.
Joe Biden: Harshly pressured social media to take down misleading posts about COVID.
Trump II: Masked thugs making sweeps and arbitrary arrests, indefinite detention. and a whole network of immigration prisons. Also had an FCC chairman threatening to take broadcasts off the air for news that displeased him.  And bases approval or disapproval of media mergers on promises to give favorable news coverage.
(The author somewhat grudgingly acknowledged that putting pressure on social media is not quite as bad as mass arrests on political grounds.  I wonder what she thinks of ICE).

Franklin Roosevelt: Made a serious threat to pack the Supreme Court.
Joe Biden: Appointed a commission to study proposals to pack the Supreme Court.
Trump II: Attempted to destroy the independence of the Federal Reserve.

Barrack Obama: Refrained from enforcing marijuana and immigration laws.
Joe Biden: Refrained from enforcing a TikTok ban that went into effect one day before he left office, when his successor made clear he wanted to have the chance make the decision.
Trump II: Shelved the Tik Tok ban altogether, even though the law is still on the books.
(And just for the record, none of these guys enforced marijuana bans).

George W. Bush: Signed a campaign finance law he admitted might be unconstitutional.
Joe Biden: Undertook action to forgive student loans, institute and eviction moratorium, and climate change action despite doubting his actions were constitutional, criticized the Supreme Court "in the most strident and partisan terms" when they struck down his actions.
Trump II: Unilaterally imposed tariffs and moved them around in a most arbitrary and capricious manner. Also criticized the Supreme Court in strident and partisan terms when they struck down his actions.
(Um, seriously, does the author think campaign finance was the worst thing Bush II did?  Black sites?  Torture memos?  Warrantless surveillance?  That all sounds a lot like Trump -- and not at all like Biden).

Donald Trump: Tried to overturn the election when he lost.
Joe Biden: "To his credit" did not try to overturn the election he lost, but did conceal his mental decline. And then there is the matter of his pardon of Hunter Biden and his attempt to declare the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution ratified.
Trump II: Attempting to rig the midterm elections.

(Plus, stay tuned).

Trump and the Tariffs

Well, well, well, that didn't take long.  We are beginning to see some movement on item 6 of my list of signs that Trump's power is waning.  The Supreme Court struck down his unilateral tariffs.  Let's applaud them for that.  

Tariffs were definitely something that was worse than I expected.  I thought of tariffs as something that would damage the economy and thereby undermine Trump's power, but not a serious threat to democracy.  I was wrong.  Tariffs have proven much less damaging to the economy and more damaging to the rule of law than I anticipated.  I had not foreseen how incredibly arbitrary and capricious Trump would be in imposing tariffs as forms of punishment or coercion, or even pique.  And I failed to understand how much he would use them as a means of avoiding Congress's power of the purse strings.

So, good work, Supreme Court, in striking them down.  Trump is now proceeding under other statute, of which there are several, none allowing such complete abandon as Trump has been exercising.  The law he is currently applying limits import taxes to 15%, generally requires them to be broad and across the board, and to expire after 150 days unless extended by Congress.  150 days is about 5 months.  Five months from now will be late July.  The primary elections will be over and the midterms will be only a few months off.  I don't think Congress will extend the tariffs in late July.

Confession:  I haven't read the Supreme Court opinion yet.  Some time when I don't have anything better to do I will have to.

Latest on Trump's Power

I previously offered eleven signs to look for to suggest that Trump's power might be diminishing, or at least that he might be taking longer than he had hoped to consolidate it.

1. Media outlets bought by Trump allies are willing to criticize or oppose him;
2. Republicans in Congress splinter and Trump cannot bring them into line;
3. Attempts to target opposing organizations through taxes or RICO are thrown out, or never materialize;
4. Universities, high power law firms, and other institutions targeted by Trump start consistently defying him;
5. The Supreme Court makes a meaningful attempt to reign Trump in;
6. Democrats win control of the House and Trump cannot stop them;
7. Democrats win control of the Senate and Trump cannot stop them;
8. Growing numbers of state and local jurisdictions reject cooperation with ICE, putting more strain on the organization;
9. ICE starts losing personnel faster than it can recruit them and begins shrinking;
10. Trump supporters stop making death threats and harassment against people who he criticizes;
11. Big money interests start standing up to him.

Looking it over, I do want to make a few changes. More significant than continued media independence but less significance than loss of control over Republicans in Congress would be Trump losing control of Republicans at the state level.

And I really was too snarky in suggesting that the ultimate sign of his downfall would be defiance by big money interests. Certainly that would happen very late in the game, and only if big money interests were certain that Trump was finished. What will never end is death threats by a few supporters. No matter how unpopular Trump may become, in a country with a population over 300 million there will always be some supporters left. And it doesn't take many to be online terrorists.

So, by these new standards, where are we?

1. Media outlets bought by Trump allies are willing to criticize or oppose him. Look, I haven't been following all the in's and out's of CBS News or the Washington Post. Both, I realize, are failing because they are alienating their old audiences while being too establishment to attract new ones. But I do see critical stories in both.
2. State Republicans defy Trump. Indiana Republicans defied him in refusing to gerrymander. And now when Trump excluded Democrats from his meeting with the National Governor's Association, Oklahoma Republican Governor Kevin Stitt let it be known that Republican governors would not attend if their Democratic colleagues were not invited. Trump backed down. Stitt also criticized Trump's proposal to deploy the Texas National Guard to Chicago last October. An encouraging sign.
3. Republicans in Congress splinter and Trump cannot bring them into line. Well, Congressional Republicans famously revolted over the Epstein files. None House Republicans defied Trump to vote for Obamacare subsidies, although they did so with the knowledge that the measure would fail in the Senate. And six House Republicans voted against tariffs, a meaningless vote. Trump was still able to twist House Republican arms and get them to fund the government except Homeland Security. I suppose the real tests will be over voting restrictions and attempts to reign in ICE.
4. Attempts to target opposing organizations through taxes or RICO are thrown out, or never
   
   materialize. This one is a mixed bag, and a disturbing one. I think we can say that Stephen Millers "all of government" attempt to shut down the opposition has been dropped. At the same time, a very disturbing memo, alleging that "Antifa" was engaged in widespread terrorism, including "organized doxing of law enforcement, mass rioting and destruction in our cities, violent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement, targeting of public officials or other political actors." In terms of specific examples, the memo listed the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, and numerous actions opposing ICE. The memo called for federal law enforcement to review their files within 14 days and make a report, and for granted to local law enforcement to be conditional on cooperation against "terrorism."  It also called for setting up a tip line and cash rewards within 30 days and a report on "Antifa" and associated groups within 60 days.  Given the focus on doxing and obstructing law enforcement and anti-ICE actions, the memo gives the distinct impression that immigration advocates are the targets.  Terrifying reports are coming out about ICE spying on activists, and using social media and other internet tracking tools to evade the need for warrants.  Team Trump appears to have decided that dissent will be tolerated -- except in matters of immigration.
5. Universities, high power law firms, and other institutions targeted by Trump start consistently defying him.  Well, UCLA faculty and unions apparently won a victory on behalf of the university. Unions had an employee reinstated when he was fired for heckling Trump.  So some institutions are standing up to him. But not enough to make a trend.
6. The Supreme Court makes a meaningful attempt to reign Trump in.  The Supreme Court has made a bizarre ruling limiting Trump's ability to deploy the National Guard until the regular army has failed to keep order.  It doesn't make sense and seems like a potentially pyrrhic victory, but thus far it has prevented any further deployments of the National Guard.  The bad news:  ICE is effectively a paramilitary, not so well behaved as the National Guard.  On the other hand, ICE has a lot less personnel than the National Guard.  Coming up:  rulings on tariffs, Federal Reserve independence, and birthright citizenship.  Stay tuned.
7. Democrats win control of the House and Trump cannot stop them.  Clear attempts to rig the election by voting restrictions are underway.  Stay tuned.
8. Democrats win control of the Senate and Trump cannot stop them.  Ditto.
9. Growing numbers of state and local jurisdictions reject cooperation with ICE, putting more strain on the organization.  Newly elected Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger has terminated state police agreements with ICE, but allows local police to continue such agreements.  I recall hearing a Maine sheriff recently breaking up with ICE after they targeted one of his deputies, but cannot find the link.  These are promising but still fall well short of a trend.
10. ICE starts losing personnel faster than it can recruit them and begins shrinking.  One hears about discontent in the ranks, but none of that has actually led to widespread resignations.  The Department of Justice, by contrast, has seen widespread resignations, to the extent that its is experiencing serious personnel shortages and being limited in its ability to function.  The federal prosecutor in charge of Somali fraud investigations is actually representing Don Lemon!  So the federal government is actually seeing a reduction in its coercive power -- just not where it matters.
11. Big money interests start standing up to him.  No.  If Trump's power collapses, this will be a very late sign.
12. Trump supporters stop making death threats and harassment against people who he criticizes.  Ain't gonna happen, for the reasons discussed above.

Looking Back to My Comments on How to Handle Immigration

 

I have been looking back at my earlier comments on what I recommend immigration activists do to see how they stack up to how things have proceeded (thus far).  

Well, first of all I was wildly over-optimistic in thinking that labor shortages would eventually make Republicans relent.  There is no sign of it yet.

But what about my recommendations to a activists?  My suggestions were as follows:

Flood social media with images of ICE outrages. Done. And it seems to be working, at least in terms of shifting public opinion.

Send Congress to investigate detention centers. Congress has been doing its best, but ICE has frequently not been complying.

Deploy white people. That has certainly been done in Minnesota. Not that there has been much choice. People who are not white in Minneapolis are not safe.

Have a song and a symbol.  I recommended something well-known or easily learned, something that comes from the heart, and something that conveys moral authority.  The cute costumes in Portland were a good start.  Minneapolis appears to have come up with a song -- "Lean on Me."  It seems a good choice -- well-known or easily learned, and conveying a sense of solidarity. 

Make Stephen Miller our hate sink. Stephen Miller has been mentioned, but so far Team Trump has managed to deflect -- making Greg Bovino the face of mass deportations and then offering him up as their sacrifice, also drawing attention to Kristi Noem. Kristi Noem may end up losing her job, for all the good that will do, but Miller seems safe.

Avoid causing violence or disruption. I wrote that about a month after there had been riots in Los Angeles -- not on a par with the 2020 riots, but riots nonetheless. Since then, ICE has launched other blitzes -- primarily in Chicago and Minneapolis, but on a smaller scale in Washington, DC, Boston, Charlotte, and New Orleans. Clashes, confrontations, hostile insults and the like happened, but no riots on a comparable scale to Los Angeles. Let's keep it that way, and cut down even on the hostile insults.

Create a pipeline for ICE officers who want to quit. It has occurred to me that the one advantage of ICE agents wearing masks is that if they ever do want to quit, they can blend back into society without their past being known. It is irrelevant, however. ICE has grown, rather than shrunk.

Above all, seek out allies and minimize enemies. I made some suggestions.

Immigrants and immigration activists. Obviously.

Anti-Trump activists. Ditto.

The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has taken a strong position against these mass deportations.

Evangelical megachurches. I was reading accounts of ICE raids on Evangelical mega-churches and hopes they would join the general outrage once their own were targeted. So far that has not happened. However, mainline Protestant churches, long forgotten, have appeared out of the woodwork and voiced their opposition.

Veterans. I hoped that Afghan War veterans would speak up on behalf of Afghans who what put their lives on the line for us and were facing being returned to the Taliban. Certainly Afghan War veterans were great champions of their comrades who Biden failed to get out of Afghanistan. This time around, however, they have disappointed..

Animal lovers. I suggests this because pets had been abandoned after their owners were arrested. It seemed like a good hook for people all across the political spectrum. Nothing much seems to have happened, though.

Texas and Florida Republicans. There is some sign that Republican politicians from both states are becoming concerned that mass deportations will hurt their prospects. Whether it will lead them to support actual constraints on ICE remains to be seen.

Police. This has been a mixed result. On the one hand, when bystanders interfere with ICE making arrests, local police have little choice but to enforce laws against obstructing law enforcement. Anyone who wishes to engage in civil disobedience and seek to physically block ICE needs to understand the consequences. And this has hurt police-community relations. On the other hand, police seem to be widely outraged by La Migra's failure to meet with the most basic professional standards enjoined on ordinary police.

Unions. There have been unions championing members.

Employers. This has happened to some degree with small employers. Big money interests have been extraordinarily craven, which is a shame. The thing most likely to put this outrage to an end is if big money interests use their influence against it.

Reigning in versus Defunding ICE

 

There is a factional disagreement on our side on how to handle the Homeland Security shutdown and ICE.

On the one side are people, including most Democrats in Congress, who want to make any funding for ICE and Border Patrol conditional on serious laws reigning them in.  On the other side are people who propose denying ICE and Border Patrol any funding whatever regardless.  The argument for no funding as that La Migra hasn't shown any disposition to obey laws up till now, so why should they start just because Congress passes some.  Sure, they also have a large war chest, but at least we should make them spend it down, and the prospect of not receiving new funding for the next two if Democrats win the midterms will discourage any further expansion.  The opposing argument is that even if withholding funds crimps La Migra's expansion, it will not make the goons behave any better, and they can wreck a lot of havoc before midterms.

I see a great deal of merit to both viewpoints.  However, ultimately, I would come down on the side of enacting laws to reign La Migra in.  If ICE's annual budget is about $10 billion and their war chest is $75 billion, then they have enough funds to keep going at their present rate until the end of Trump's term and his predecessor's term even if they do not receive any additional funding.  Their present behavior is not tolerable, not for months, let alone years.

On the other hand, lawless as La Migra has been, they have not been wholly impervious to legal, judicial, and political pressure.  Restraining orders have had at least some effect on them, even if it has not been enough, and the outcry appears to have made them at least somewhat less trigger happy.  Making the laws they are breaking crystal clear and leaving no room for ambiguity will make it a least somewhat harder for La Migra to defend breaking them.  Laws alone will not reign in La Migra, but unmistakably clear laws, combined with courts ordering compliance and unrelenting political pressure might just begin to reign ICE in right now, as opposed to after some future election.  And reigning La Migra in now is vital to ensuring that there will be free and fair elections down the line.

PS: One other obvious reason: So long as La Migra is uncertain whether it will receive funding, it will have at least some incentive to show some restraint.  It the answer is a firm and unequivocal no, all such incentive disappears.

An Obscure But Vitally Important Provision in the Constitution

 

So, as I have struggled to understand our insane system of budgeting, some major defects have come into full view.  Does it make any sense at all to require a super-majority in the Senate for annual appropriations and allow a simple majority for appropriations that can last up to ten years?  It would make infinitely more sense to me to pass ordinary legislation, including annual budgets, by a simple majority and require a super-majority to anything that commits us for an extended period of time.  Yet Senate rules have decided differently.  

To be clear, this requirement is not part of the Constitution, nor is it a statute.  It is a Senate rule that can be changed any time.  And as we face the extremely dangerous prospect of a lawless paramilitary with enough funding to last over seven years without further appropriations, I begin to fully appreciate an obscure but important provision in the Constitution and wish that it could be brought up to date to face our current situation.

The Constitution does not expressly authorize mandatory spending in the sense of spending that is required to continue for an extended length of time, often with a special fund to finance it.  But it does implicitly authorize mandatory spending by banning it in only one instance.  

Article I of the Constitution establishes Congress as the legislative branch of the Federal government.  Section 8 of Article I sets forth Congress's enumerated powers.  And Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 contains the only restriction on the duration of funding, giving Congress the power, "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

Congress is not allowed to commit funds to support an army for any duration longer than two years, i.e., one House term.  Note that this provision does not place such a limit on all military spending, only on spending on an army.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 13 authorizes Congress, "To provide and maintain a Navy" with no equivalent restriction.

The reasons for this provision are well understood.  The Framers of the Constitution distrusted standing armies but also recognized that unilateral disarmament was suicidal.  The two-year restriction was a compromise.  If an army started to look menacing, Congress would have the option of defunding it.*  Presumably the threat of loss of funds would also serve as a deterrent to any army with dangerous aspirations.  No equivalent restriction was placed on navies because navies posed no such danger.

Fortunately, that situation has never come about.  Unfortunately, the Framers did not include a similar provision for paramilitaries, a contingency they presumably did not foresee.  Well, here we are.

__________________________________________________________________

*Not addressed: What to do about a well-armed and trained body of men starting to act menacing and then are suddenly deprived of their funds.  It is a prospect I am apprehensive about if we feed ICE into the woodchipper, but still better than the alternative.

The Budget Battle Continues

 

So, the budget battle continues, this time solely over the Department of Homeland Security.  Some thoughts:

Good news:  Republicans agreed to release their hostages.  Funding has been passed for the entire government except Homeland Security.

Good news:  This was at the insistence of Donald Trump, a sign that he really as soured on shutdowns and is unlikely to use them for a power grab at least in the near term.

Good news:  This means Congress is finally getting serious about exercising its power of the purse.  Better still -- the budget seems to be on terms generally acceptable to Democrats.

Good news:  This is the fight we have really wanted for some time -- the fight to reign in La Migra.  Also good news: Public opinion appears to back us on this one.

Final good news:  Things could have gotten a lot worse in Minneapolis.  There were plans to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy 1500 winter-trained troops.  Border Patrol forces had 35,000 munitions and were readying to use them.  Team Trump appears to be tiptoeing away from such extreme measures -- at least for now.

Unfortunately, this good news is seriously outweighed by bad news.

Bad news:  That means we don't have hostages either.  Well, a few in the form of Homeland Security agencies such as the Coast Guard and FEMA, but not a lot.

Bad news:  Republicans passing the budget at Trump's insistence means that his power over them is still intact, at least if he insists enough.

Worse news:  Republicans seem dead set against any meaningful attempt to reign in La Migra.

Worst news of all:  La Migra has a large enough war chest to keep going for years without any further funding.

That means a serious lack of leverage.

 Ah, I see the Department of Justice has released the Epstein files to distract us from the outrages in Minneapolis.

A Response to Conservatives Who Say the Law Must Be Upheld

 

Following Twitter posts and responses, I have seen a certain viewpoint coalesce among the non-crazy right that nonetheless ultimately supports the Minneapolis crackdown.  That viewpoint basically acknowledges that yes, La Migra is engaging in excessive force and yes, this is bad, but it is a side issue.  The real issue is Minneapolis' defiance of the law and Trump cannot relent or he will be creating a de facto mob veto on the laws.  Matthew Yglesias quotes Rich Lowery on the issue and I have seen similar comments by Erick Erickson and Dan McLaughlin.  

So, what do they mean by defiance?  Several answers are possible, but they fit in two main categories -- resistance by government and resistance by private individuals.

Sanctuary policies by state and local government

The usual answer we get is that the feds have to crack down because of blue state and city sanctuary policies.  Invariably, such statements are rather vague about what "sanctuary policies" mean.  Sanctuary policies can mean many different things:

• policies restricting the ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal civil immigration violations, or to detain individuals on civil immigration warrants;
• policies prohibiting “287(g)” agreements through which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputizes local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law;
• policies that prevent local governments from entering into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention;
• policies preventing immigration detention centers;
• policies restricting the police or other city workers from asking about immigration status;
• policies restricting the sharing of certain information on immigrants with the federal government;
• policies restricting local police responses to federal immigration detainers; and
• policies refusing to allow ICE into local jails without a judicial warrant.

Hence someone denouncing "sanctuary policies" can be making very different demands on state and local governments.  Do they mean that state and local governments should hold any inmate ICE asks to have held for deportation?  That state and local governments should automatically turn over the names of everyone who is arrested so ICE can check their immigration status?  That police and other state and local officials should ask people's immigration status and provide ICE with the information if asked?  That local police should actively take part in immigration enforcement?  Most people denouncing "sanctuary policies" are rather vague on that point.

But in any event, the law is clear.  State and local governments may not actively obstruct or seek to exclude federal officials enforcing federal laws and, in fact, "sanctuary jurisdictions" are well aware of this restriction and are not actively obstructing federal officials.  But the anti-commandeering doctrine says that state and local jurisdictions may not be compelled to enforce federal law.  Any city or state that wishes to passively step aside and leave immigration entirely up to the feds is within its rights to do so.

There have been accusations (can't find link) that government officials may be actively participating in warning immigrants of the presence of immigration officials.  That is more of a legal gray area.

Individual Resistance and the "Mob Veto"

The other, related argument, is that government should not back down and allow laws to go unenforced because of resistance by private citizens.  There can be no doubt, wherever La Migra goes it runs into resistance by private citizens.  The resistance in Minneapolis is particularly intense because the surge there is particularly intense, but the difference is one of degree, not of kind.  Individual resistance can also take legal, semi-legal, and illegal forms.

It is legal to teach immigrants their rights and tell them that they do not have to admit enforcement agents without a judicial warrant.  It is legal to deliver groceries to immigrant homes or hold school online or take other action so that immigrants can avoid going out in public where not warrant is needed.  It is legal to film law enforcement in action.  It is legal to protest outside ICE facilities.  These things make enforcement harder to do, but they are not, in and of themselves, criminal obstruction.

Assaulting federal officials and damaging federal property are crimes, of course, and should be treated as such.  Creating loud disturbances at night in hotels where federal agents are staying may violate some sort of noise ordinance or misdemeanor offense of disturbing the peace.  Seeking to block La Migra from leaving their facility or interfering with an arrest really is criminal obstruction, though some might defend it as civil disobedience.

And then there are people who scan Migra signals, trace Migra vehicles, text out warnings among networks, and follow La Migra honking horns and blowing whistles to warn people away.  There are people who chase La Migra away, yelling and cursing and shouting "Shame!"  I will admit to not knowing enough about obstruction law to know whether or at what point these might be considered criminal obstruction.

So, is it essential for the feds not to back down, even from legal opposition of this type so as not to allow a mob veto?  One obvious response is that it is not unheard-of for government to back off enforcing laws or to change them in the face of overwhelming public opposition.  That is what the Civil Rights Movement was all about, after all.  Or, to take a more recent and less emotionally charged example, the federal government has tacitly allowed is anti-marijuana laws to go unenforced, while many states authorize the most flagrant violations of federal marijuana law.  If the federal government suddenly changed its mind and decided that marijuana laws must be enforced with all rigor, it seems safe to assume that there would be strong resistance at many levels.  Would this resistance be reason to decide that marijuana laws are outdated and should be left alone, or grounds for an all-out crackdown to show that federal authority could not be defied?  Reasonable minds might differ.

Resistance to federal lawlessness

In any event, there is an obvious problem with all of these rather dry and abstract discussions.  They ignore what La Migra is actually doing on the ground.  Its actions go well beyond anything that could possibly be defended as necessary to enforce immigration law and stand up against "sanctuary policies" or a "mob veto."

La Migra is not enforcing the law.  It is being grossly lawless.  It is stopping and harassing anyone who looks too brown.  Meeting a wholly unrealistic arrest quota by random arrests of anyone who isn't white enough.  Entering houses without a judicial warrant.  Leaving abandoned cars across the road, windows broken, seatbelts cut, occupants arrested.  Harassing Somalis, 90% of whom are citizens.  Arresting people who have been granted asylum and shipping them from Minnesota to Texas for groundless "status review."  That is what the good people of Minneapolis, and the people of Los Angeles and Chicago before, have been resisting.  Even if you believe that the feds must continue enforcing immigration law just to show that they won't allow a "mob veto," it does not logically follow that the feds must continue to "enforce the law" in the blatantly lawless manner they have been using.  It is possible to step up immigration enforcement without behaving like complete thugs.

What other enforcement options are there?

I have made various suggestions about measures that might reign in La Migra.  Do I have any suggestions as to how deportations hawks might step up the pace without resorting to all-out lawlessness?  After all, Trump ran as a deportation hawk and won.  He can reasonably say that he has a mandate from the people to step up deportations.  

I can think of several such measures.

In terms of state and local sanctuary laws, the feds can sue the challenge them.  Trump can issue executive orders requiring cooperation from local jurisdictions, or seek anti-sanctuary legislation or withhold funds from sanctuary jurisdictions.  Just to be clear, these measures with all probably fail as unconstitutional "commandeering."  More likely to pass constitutional muster is some sort of measure for offering police assistance to local jurisdictions but making it contingent on cooperating in immigration.

Or, circumvent the refusal to report immigration status of arrestees or honor immigration detainers by trawling through arrest records for immigration status and getting a judicial warrant.  Or show up in courtrooms (public places) when someone with a deportation order is being arraigned.  Or keep a steady court presence just in case.

In terms of general enforcement, vastly expand the number of immigration judges and deportation lawyers to speed up asylum and deportation proceedings.  Remember, it is swiftness of consequences, not severity, that is the most effective deterrent.  Do more employer audits.  Go through outstanding deportation orders, find the individuals, and get a judicial warrant.  

No doubt at this point deportation hawks would ask, would these measures be acceptable to our side.  And the honest answer is probably no.  Then what is the point?  Simple.  All policies have opponents.  No matter what the policy, you will doubtless find many people who do not consider it acceptable.  Normal, healthy politics is all about policy disputes.  But it would reduce the issue of immigration enforcement to an ordinary, mundane policy dispute.  Right now, immigration enforcement is truly a secondary issue.  The primary issue is complete, all-out government lawlessness.

A Plea to Our Side to Watch the Optics

 

Today I went to an anti-ICE protest.  Attendance was remarkable good, given that it was just noticed yesterday.  Cars drove by, honking their horns in support.  I am not sure they would have been so supportive if they had heard what some of our speakers were saying.  Support for the Palestinian cause, which easily translates into support for Hamas.  Saying that our whole system is hopelessly corrupt and must be overturned.  Saying that no one is illegal on stolen land, implying -- and something saying directly -- that the United States is an illegitimate entity.  

Look, up till now we have been frustrated, seeing La Migra's tyrannical behavior as the most important issue, but having to focus on kitchen table issues because that was what the public cared about.  And now, finally, La Migra's full abusiveness has broken through to the general public and become THE issue.  Can we please not blow it?

Anti-anti-Trump conservatives are largely coalescing around a particular view of the situation in Minneapolis, namely, that while La Migra may have used excessive force and they don't approve, the excessive force has to be seen in the context of all the hostility La Migra has been receiving lately, and that Team Trump has to hold firm and not back down or they will be giving a veto to the mob.  In other words, they are portraying La Migra as the forces of law and order and the protesters as the forces of lawlessness and disorder.  

Clearly one way to fight that is to show massive footage of Migra abuse that is neither lawful nor orderly.  Another is to convey to the extent possible just how lawless La Migra has been when the cameras are not watching.  Talk about their harassment of anyone who is not white and demands to see proof of citizenship.  Talk about all the people they have arrested who really were citizens or legal residents.  Try to convey the fear and persecution experienced by people minding their own business simply because they were not white.  And team up with cops here to talk about how much this violates the most basic standards of police professionalism.  Let us, by all means, seek alliance with police to dispel any notion that La Migra stands for law and order.

I would urge our side to keep in mind with every action that it will probably end up being filmed and shown on social media, so always act with that in mind.  I also bear in mind that not everyone sees things the same way we do.  We may see shrieking whistles, honking horns, shouting insults and general hostility as righteous resistance.  At lot of other people will see it as disorderly and abusive and sympathize with La Migra, especially if they stoically accept abuse.  And yes, I understand that the blowing whistles and honking horns are necessary to warn people.  They still aren't pleasant.  And I also understand that while we can control where protests take place, we can't control where La Migra will show up.  And I understand that expecting people to keep their cool in the face of ICE outrages, often against friends and neighbors is a very hard ask.  But this is still the battle for public opinion, so optics should never be far from our minds.

Good optics:

• Protesters dancing in cute inflatable costumes.
• Minneapolis sledding with cute, anti-ICE themes.
• Protesters singing "This Land is Your Land" or "Lean on Me."
• Protesters dressing as Lady Liberty or carrying the flag
• Footage of Migra violence, threats, or abusive behavior.

Bad optics:

• Mexican flags.
• People shouting, cursing, and yelling obscenities at La Migra.
• People obstructing immigration officers on their time off, minding their own business.
• Disrupting church services.
• Anything that looks like a "clash," as opposed to one-sided violence by La Migra.
• Anything that could be termed a mob or a riot.

Homeland Security Funding Battle

 

I am still struggling to understand the Congressional funding rules.  It appears that the House passed the final four bills, agreeing to vote on Homeland Security separately from the others, but then stitched all together and sent to the Senate to approve or reject.  In other words, they are not about to give up their hostages.  Since the Alex Pretti shooting, Democrats have vowed not to vote for the Homeland Security bill.  There has been talk of passing the other bills and allowing only Homeland Security to close, although I cannot see why Republicans would agree to that.

But even if they do agree, Democrats are in a difficult spot.  First of all, refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security would not just defund La Migra.  The Coast Guard and FEMA are also included.  Furthermore, the proposed ICE budget is $10 billion.  Funds given to ICE in the One Bad Bloated Boondoggle -- $75 billion.  In other words, even if Democrats were to cut off all funding for ICE, they would have a war chest large enough to last to the end of the Trump Administration and the first term of a hypothetical future Democratis Administration!  

All of which means that we have to face facts.  Sooner or later Democrats will climb down and agree to some sort of deal to fund DHS in order to restore funding to the Coast Guard, FEMA, etc.  Not funding ICE at all will not so much as crimp its operations.  At best, Democrats can seek to impose some restrictions on La Migra.  I have made some suggestions and can think of more.  Possibilities include:

• Outlaw arrest quotas and incentives.  This has the advantage that it would probably appeal even to ICE agents themselves and the disadvantage that it might be seen as unconstitutional micro-managing of the executive by the legislature.  But it is the wholly unrealistic arrest quotas that are driving everything else.
• Ban Border Patrol from internal enforcement.
• Strengthen Congress's authority to inspect immigration detention facilities.
• Mandate that La Migra follow the pattern of any other law enforcement agency -- any officer who discharges a firearm is to be suspended during (mandatory) investigation.
• Limit the President's power to fire immigration judges for making decisions he doesn't like.
• Require release on bond for anyone with a plausible claim to legal status who has strong ties to the community and is not a flight risk.
• Clearly define what is deemed to be proof of citizenship and require immigration agents to release anyone who can show it.
• Affirm the right of citizens to film and protest, perhaps setting more clearly defined limits of how close they can get and what constitutes "interference."
• Require a judicial warrant to enter a private space.
• Make clear that murder and mayhem on the job are prosecutable under state law.
• Create individual civil liability.
• And possibly, as a sop to Republicans, make it easier for La Migra to access arrest records and put a hold on people in custody.

Of course, I doubt that most of these would get past Republicans in Congress, let along Trump's signature.  But that it is where we, the people, come in.  Our job is to create political pressure.

What the Fresh Hell?!

 So let me get this right.  Donald Trump, after huffing and puffing and threatening war over Greenland has now backed off and agreed to basically indefinite negotiations that will probably end in expanded military bases that were his for the asking.  

I can see any number of possibilities of what happened.

• The bond market cracked its whip and Trump jumped into line.
• European leaders stood up firmly and he backed down.
• The European leaders flattered and cajoled him into a deal.
• Trump thinks that a deal gotten through threats and coercion is much better than the identical deal given voluntarily.
• Trump thinks that his base is more likely to applaud the deal if it seems to have been gotten by force.
• Trump likes stirring up crises so he can get credit for resolving them.
• It was an attempt to distract attention from his flagging approval at home.
• Trump was getting bored and wanted to stir up a little excitement.  After a while, he got bored with the crisis and decided to move on to something new.

I suspect there is some truth in many of these things.  But my guess is that the first explanation is primary.  The bond market cracked its whip and Trump jumped into line.  

I never thought I would say this, but let's all be grateful for the bond market.

Donald Trump at One Year

 

So, here we are at the one-year mark.  The good news is that civil society continues to flourish and democracy, though wounded, is far from dead.  The bad news is that we have three more years of this and whether democracy can take three more years is anybody's guess.

The obvious thing to do now is a retrospective, sort of like the 100 day retrospective.  How has Trump compared to my worst fears?  A lot has happened since May, but in terms of my fears, less than one might think.

Things that were not as bad as I feared:

Attempts to shut down the opposition:  That was what I feared most -- not so much that he would prosecute political opponents (the independent judiciary would thwart that), but that he would use federal money, tax exempt status, and other regulatory actions I did not know enough about to predict to cut off all funding for the opposition and establish a de facto one party state.  That hasn't happened.  It shows no signs of happening.  I got nervous again after the Charlie Kirk assassination, especially when Steve Miller pledged an "all of government" approach to shut down the opposition in all forms.  That hasn't happened, and so far as I can tell they really aren't planning to shut the entire opposition -- just anyone who opposes ICE.

Schedule F: Again, I considered this very dangerous because it could fly under people's radar screens.  The entire federal bureaucracy could become a patronage organization and an instrument for enforcing ideology and punishing enemies.  In this I underestimated just how much Republicans in general and Trump in particular hate the federal bureaucracy.  Instead, he sent Elon Musk in to wreck general havoc until the entire Cabinet revolted and demanded that he go.  This seriously undercut any plan to weaponize the federal bureaucracy by keeping it from functioning altogether.  Even Republicans are quietly trying to pick up the pieces.

Right wing militias: What was the biggest difference between Trump and Hitler when they both came into power?  Hitler had a large private army and Trump did not.  I feared that after Trump pardoned the Proud Boys for their attempt to overturn the election, they would become the new Storm Troopers and terrorize Trump's opponents into submission.  Yes, we do have a serious online Brown Shirt mob, menacing opponents with threats, SWATting, and unwanted pizza deliveries.  But online Brown Shirts are still not as bad a the real thing, which has not emerged.  And strong-willed opponents have defied them.  The real question is, have the Proud Boys just joined ICE?

Kash Patel and Dan Bongino: No, seriously!  I'm not saying these guys are good, obviously.  Patel seems unduly fond of the privileges of the office and runs the FBI like an internet troll, tweeting out possible developments before they are confirmed.  But Kash Patel's FBI has not been fabricating evidence or infiltrating opposition groups (so far as we know). When an arrest turns out to be a mistake, they release the suspect.  Patel appears to have acknowledged that agents fired for being involved in the January 6 investigation were being treated unfairly, blamed his superiors for their being fired, and even encouraged them to sue.  And the FBI did genuinely good work in catching the Capitol Hill bomber and did not cut him a break for being a Trump supporter.  When confronted about this, Bongino answered, "I was paid in the past for my opinions. One day I will be back in that space but that's not what I'm paid for now. I’m paid to be your deputy director and we base investigations on facts."  And, no, it is not great that Bongino thinks podcasters have no reason to show fidelity to the facts.  But at least he thinks law enforcement does have that obligation.  Yes, I know it is a low bar to clear, but just watch what ICE is up to and recognize that the FBI is not that.

Media control: My fears were somewhat outdated, focusing on attempts to control media by threatening advertisers. I did not understand the degree to which people get their news on social media and how much control of algorithms controls what people see.  I also feared attempts by Trump supporters to buy up media outlets, making mergers contingent on coverage, and perhaps censorship by the FCC.  The buying of out of outlets and politicization of mergers has certainly happened.  Bari Weiss is attempting to subvert CBS.  Many of us feared that big money owners of media like Jeff Bezos of the Washington Post and Patrick Soon Shiong of the LA Times would fall into line.  Well, the LA Times has been absolutely unsparing in reporting ICE outrages.  The Washington Post continues to say "Democracy Dies in Darkness" and to do fearless exposes.  (See below).  And the Administration continues to leak like a sieve.

The federal district and appellate level judiciary:  I think most of us feared what sort of judges Trump would appoint.  "Most of us" appears to include Federal judges, who have fearlessly and consistently ruled against Trump regardless of which President appointed them.  Very few have retired, presumably fearing just that, and most have apparently vowed to leave the bench only under a different Administration or in a coffin.  Of course, sooner or later one of those has to happen. . . 

Foreign policy:  Democratic backsliding is taking place the world over.  If democracy fell in the US, what chance did it have anywhere?  Instead, we are seeing some degree of a thermostatic reaction across Europe -- far right political parties losing popularity because of their association with Trump.  I feared Trump would withdraw from NATO and halt all aid to Ukraine.  That may yet happen, but it is happening in slow motion, which allows other countries to adapt.  I do think he did the right thing in recognizing the new government in Syria and seems to work better with Arab governments than any other President.

Things that are about what I feared:

Pardons:  Trump pardoned the January 6 defendants.  He said he would.  He is prepared to pardon anyone who supports him, bribes him, or claims to be persecuted by the Deep State.  Is anyone surprised?

Immigration:

I said at the 100 day mark:

I was afraid of ICE teaming up with local law enforcement and possibly informal militias, of Trump calling up the National Guard where the local authorities would not cooperate, of large-scale workplace raids, of makeshift outdoor facilities, of house-to-house searches. . . 

Most of this had not happened at the time, but there had been a group of men deported without trial to a torture prison in El Salvador, with the threat of many, many more to come.  That was thwarted, but, well, the rest of it is very much with us.  What we are seeing now is very much what I most feared.

Prosecution of political opponents:  I believed this would be constrained by an independent judiciary and trial by jury.  There have been a few attempts to prosecute high level political opponents, and more numerous (but still not very numerous) attempts to prosecute First Amendment protected activity surrounding La Migara.  So far the independent judiciary has shot down all attempt to prosecute high-level opponents and most attempt to prosecute First Amendment protected activity.

Abortion;  I did not expect much action on this.  Trump does not care much about it and learned from the 2022 midterms that it was toxic.  So he has wisely stayed away from it.

Things that are worse than I feared:

Tariffs:  I was not afraid of tariffs.  I thought of them as something that could hurt the economy, but not a threat to democracy or the rule of law.  I was wrong.  First of all, thus far tariffs have not hurt the economy and especially have not increased prices as much as I expected.  But more importantly, wildly arbitrary tariffs have been a mechanism for bullying and coercing other countries.  They have also been a source of unaccountable money that can evade Congress's power of the purse strings.  Tariffs are much more dangerous than I realized and must be stopped.

DOGE:  Words fail me.  It certainly never occurred to me that Elon Musk would make a serious attempt to seize control of the government and institute a dictatorship of money and tech.  Nor did I anticipate how much completely random damage he would cause before moving on, or the extent to which he would truly stage a tech coup by shutting federal employees out of their computers and even out of their offices.  The attempt failed.  There may very well come a time when computer programs are good enough to let 89 tech bros take over the entire federal government.  But we are not there.  We are not anywhere close.  I think the government shutdown was one last attempt to create a dictatorship of money and tech, this time by Russ Vought.  It failed.  But the danger was very real, and so is the damage.  The damage is still very much with us.

Attacks on universities and law firms:  On the one hand, yes, I fully expected Trump to attack the independence of universities.  It was what Orban did, after all.  It would be harder than in Hungary, obviously, because we have so many more universities, but I did expect it.  I think I expected the attack to take the form of attacks on college endowments and threats to their tax-exempt status.  It did not occur to me how much universities depend on federal grants and I had no idea how much the depend on foreign students.  And attacks on law firms never even occurred to me.

The Supreme Court:  I did not have much confidence in the Supreme Court ever since they ruled that Republican Presidents have an unrestricted license to crime but left a little wiggle room just in case a Democrat is ever able to be President again.  But I at least expected them to set forth their reasoning when upholding blatantly illegal actions instead of issuing emergency rulings that would allow the illegal acts to continue until full briefing and argument.

Health and science: Insane.  I honestly did not expect much movement on this.  RFK, Jr. is hard at work seeking to ruin our healthcare system and undermine science.

The budget;  I did not expect any serious cuts.  I expected the Republicans to follow their usual playbook of making a huge fuss about deficits so long as Democrats were in power and losing all interests as soon as they took power.  I did not take impoundment too seriously because it would be obviously unpopular.  I was wrong.  Republicans have not gone as far as they would like, but they have gone a lot farther than I expected.

Was Ice Barbie a grownup in the room?

The grownups in the room:  Like many people, I was much relieved when Trump named Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Scott Bessent as Secretary of the Treasury, Doug Burgum as Secretary of the Interior, Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, and Suzie Wiles as White House Chief of Staff.  A President Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, or even Chris Christie might have made the same appointments.  Pam Bondi as Attorney General?  Not great, but preferable to either Matt Gaetz or, say, Ken Paxton.  As Attorney General of Florida, she was presumably reasonably qualified and, though somewhat corrupt, did not seem insane.  As for Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security, she met my two most important criteria for the job -- she was not Steve Bannon or Steve Miller.  Well, if Kash Patel was not as bad as I feared, the grownups in the room have proven completely useless.*  

Violence against protesters:  I was actually not too worried about this.  Apparently Project 2025 mentions use of the National Guard, which many have taken to mean shooting peaceful protesters.  I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this referred to actual violent riots.  And I was reasonably confident that the 2020 riots were an aberration, born of frustration with COVID lockdowns and would not recur.  And, indeed, there have been many large-scale protests in the first year of Trump with (almost) no riots.**  And the protests have not been met with violence except where La Migra is involved.  Here the violence has been serious -- teargas, pepper spray, flash bangs, rubber bullets, and even live ammunition.  It seems to be the firm and settled position of the Administration that where La Migra goes, the First and Fourth Amendments are suspended. And, indeed, while there does not appear to be a systematic attempt to shut down the opposition in general, there does appear to by a systematic and violent attempt to outlaw any championship of immigrants.

Corruption:  Honestly, I didn't give this subject much thought, assuming we would have other things to think about.  And in one sense, at least, corruption to enrich one man is less dangerous than a systematic attempt to turn the federal government into a patronage instrument for one party.  Parties are a lot more enduring than individuals, after all.  But the extent to which Trump is basing pardons and policy on bribes is truly alarming.  I think I need to back and read articles about systematic corruption to see if we are there yet.

Foreign policy: Seriously, this has gotten alarming lately.  Trump appears to be hijacking Venezuela's oil to create is own private slush fund, and now a "Board of Peace," which appears to be a multi-billion dollar private slush fund to do who knows what.  And threats to start a war with NATO over Greenland?!?!?!  The man appears to be losing his mind!  This is one area that is both not as bad and worse than my fears.  And the worst part -- the not as bad part seems to have passed.  The worse part has just begun.

_______________________________________________
*Actually, I suspect that some day we will learn that some of them have actually been reigning him in, just not as well as the grownups from Trump 1.0.
**There were some significant riots in Los Angeles in June with cars burning and people waving the Mexican flag, but only within about two blocks of the federal building.  Bad, but not on a 2020 scale.