Trump Cabinet Nominees in General

 

Pete Hegseth

So, let me give some thought to Trump Cabinet nominees in general.  

Clearly one has been defeated -- Matt Gaetz, formerly of the House of Representatives, who managed to incur the hatred of all his colleagues.

At least four others are highly controversial -- Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, RFK, Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Kash Patel for Director of the FBI, which is not actually a Cabinet post.  And after the latest dustup, Russ Vought of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has presumably made some enemies.

It is customary for the Senate to approve most of the President's Cabinet picks, but to reject one just to show they can.  To reject four (or five, let alone six!) is unheard of.  Of course, most Presidents do not make such outrageous pic  In this case the Senate has claimed their scalp -- Matt Gaetz for Attorney General.  That is all good so far as it goes.  Is there any chance they would reject any of the others?

My impression at the outset was that Hegseth -- by far the most dangerous because he is the only one who could actually launch a coup -- was a shoe-in to win.  Allegations of sexual assault threatened to sink his candidacy at the outset, not because anyone in the Trump Administration cares about sexual assault, of course, but because they were angry that he had not told them.  But, it appears, when Hegseth hit back and said he had been defamed by the liberal media he won Trump's heart.  Trump made clear that confirming him was a test of party loyalty, so in the end only Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitch McConnell -- one from Maine, one from a state that uses ranked choice voting, and one not running for reelection -- voted no.  Probably not by coincidence, that was just short of enough to defeat the nomination.  The Senate split 50-50 and JD Vance broke the tie.*

I considered RFK, Jr. to be the most likely to be defeated.  After all, his basic ideology is out of sync with Republicans.  He favors abortion, greater regulation of agriculture, and banning high fructose corn syrup (a serious loser in Iowa!).  Bill Cassidy, chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, is a doctor, which does not dispose him well to RFK, Jr.  He also voted to convict on the second Trump impeachment.  But he is also up for election in 2026.  Mitch McConnell is a childhood polio survivor and seems a strong bet to vote against an anti-vaxer.  So I guess we will see.

Currently Tulsi Gabbard seems the most likely to be defeated.  National security conservatives don't trust her, and she has not shown any of Hegseth's combativeness, so there is a serious possibility she may be rejected.  That seems a shame because she actually looks like the least bad of the big four (five? six?).  Sure, she is totally unqualified for the post, and her politics are certifiably flaky.  But I see no sign of disloyalty, either in the sense of being a foreign agent or of being subversive of the constitutional order.

Kash Patel is the second most dangerous after Hegseth.  As director of the FBI, he will not be in a position to launch a coup, but he will be able to prosecute Trump's enemies, all in the guise -- of course -- of fighting "weaponization" of government. Prosecution is not as bad as a coup. Trump's enemies will have the protection of the need to charge an actual crime, an independent judiciary, and trial by jury, presumably in Washington, DC. So naturally I expect him to be a shoe-in for confirmation.  I have no idea if any Republicans will vote against him.  Hell, even John Fetterman seems to be leaning toward confirmation.  All that is very bad, but not as bad as Hegseth.

The recent budget freeze just might generate some controversy over another nominee -- Russ Vought of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  The OMB is a small (under 800 employees), but powerful agency in charge of ensuring that agency reports, rules, testimony, and proposed legislation are consistent with the president's budget and administration policies.  The OMB will be responsible for overseeing Schedule F -- the firing of numerous career federal employees and their replacement with dogmatic ideologues.  The OMB was also responsible for the recent freeze of all federal grants.  Someone commented that its willingness to take such a radical action before Vought was even confirmed as director suggests that he has no fears about confirmation.  And, indeed, Congressional Republicans all appear to have defended the freeze, so I imagine they will all vote to confirm.  If the freeze had gone one a few days longer, I suspect it might have been a different story.  I will dare hope, at least, that after having inflicted such a debacle on the Trump Administration, The Donald will reign him in somewhat.

_______________________________________
*Why are there 100 Senators if Marco Rubio has been appointed Secretary of State?  Apparently his replacement has already been sworn in.

I Am Not Confident in Pete Hegseth's Loyalty

Pete Hegseth

All of which leads to the subject of Pete Hegseth.  

My biggest concern about Pete Hegseth is not the allegations of sexual assault or domestic abuse. It is not the allegations of extreme alcoholism.  It is not even that he seriously mismanaged two small veteran's charities, raising serious doubts about is qualification to manage an organization as large as the Pentagon

More serious is his ideology.  Hegseth has notoriously defendedUS soldiers convicted of war crimes.  There is every reason to believe that he would condone or even encourage war crimes as Secretary of Defense.  But maybe we can avoid that issue by not getting into a war.

Hegeseth's worst trait is that is not loyal.  I don't mean, of course, that he is a foreign spy or anything like that.  But he gives all signs of not being loyal to the Constitution and the rule of law.  Hegseth appears to regard half his fellow countrymen as a dangerous enemy within.  He wanted to treat Black Lives Matter protests as all-out war. He was barred from service at the Biden inauguration as potentially unreliable.

Hegseth talks constantly about ending the "woke military."  Can there be any doubt that he means imposing a strict ideological test on the leadership -- anyone is not solidly MAGA need not apply.

And what are the implications of this if, by some miracle, a Democrat were elected President in 2028.  In 2020, Trump talked about sending the military to seize the ballot boxes.  That was too much, even for Giuliani.  

Does anyone think it would be too much for Pete Hegseth?
 

Loyalty > Competence

 Whenever I hear criticisms of Donald Trump -- or anybody else, for that matter -- valuing loyalty over competence I can only shake my head and say, well, duh!

Of COURSE loyalty is more important than competence.  To anyone who doubts it consider.  Suppose someone is disloyal and out to get you.  Would you rather they were supremely competent or a total idiot?  The answer is so obvious as to make the question rhetorical. When someone is disloyal, greater competence means greater danger.

So the real issue is not whether loyalty is more important than competence (it is), but whether the fear of disloyalty is rampant.  In other words, to say that someone values loyalty over competence really means that they are beset by fears of disloyalty.

These fears are usually justified.  In other words, when the fear of disloyalty is rampant, it usually means that disloyalty really IS rampant. 

There are a number of things that can make disloyalty widespread.  One is being surrounded by real enemies, offering numerous opportunities for betrayal. That is the situation, for instance, in a collection of city-states, or mafia gangs.  It could be a sleazy, underhanded leader asking people to do sleazy, underhanded things that undermine their morals, including their sense of loyalty.  That seems a fair description of Trump.  And it is also true, as some wise person remarked, that by regarding everyone around you as an enemy and treating everyone as an enemy you will, in fact, end up with a lot of enemies.  Note also that when disloyalty is rampant, it becomes self-perpetuating.  If everyone else is trying to stab each other in the back, only a fool and a sucker would refrain.*

Only a society in which loyalty is simply assumed can promotions be based on competence.  We have had that up until now.  Trump is undermining it.

So how does one guard against disloyalty?

It may seem terribly naive and utopian, but one important way to fight disloyalty is through moral authority.  That is, so far as I can tell, the real message in A Team of Rivals.  Instead of looking for loyalists, Lincoln chose the top talent in the Republican Party for is cabinet and won their loyalty.  It took no particular insight for Lincoln to recognize that his cabinet consisted of the top talent in the Republican Party.  His real genius was in persuading them to take orders from Mr. Nobody from Hicktown, Illinois.  Our whole system functions because our government has moral authority that people respect.  That is why Trump and MAGA's attacks on its moral authority are so dangerous.

Of course, this is not to suggest that moral authority alone can can prevent treachery.  Another way to prevent disloyalty is to make it difficult.  Treachery is easier in a small city-state surrounded by hostile neighbors than in a giant country with ocean to the east and west and friendly neighbors to the north and south.**  A favorite fantasy of mine is to imagine myself teaching civics in high school or political science in college and assigning my class to write a paper on what they could do to commit treason.*** The point would be that committing treason in our society today would be extremely difficult.**** It is easy to be loyal when there are almost no opportunities to be disloyal.

Another way is to lower the stakes for disloyalty.  This is the approach taken in most commercial capitalist ventures.  In a commercial/capitalist context, disloyalty is seen as a minor offense, if an offense at all.  Loyalty is valued to an extent, but too much loyalty is regarded as corrupt -- "crony capitalism."  In other words, it is not seen as dishonorably for an employee to leave a job when a better offer presents itself, or for an employer to lay off an employee it cannot afford to pay, or a customer to switch to a supplier who offers a better deal.  In another context, this would be seen a disloyal, but disloyalty of this type is tolerated because the stakes are not high -- it costs some money, that is all, and money is fungible and can be replaced.

What is valued is integrity -- honest dealings with strangers and associates alike.  This would mean not embezzling from an employer or selling trade secrets, but these things are condemned not so much as a betrayal, but as dishonest -- no worse, really than ripping off a stranger or deceit in arm's length transactions.  

Donald Trump famously commented that he valued loyalty more than integrity, but that is contrary to the ethos of a commercial/capitalist enterprise, which sees integrity as as foundational and loyalty is a mere extra -- nice to have, but not all that important.  For Trump to prize loyalty over integrity in business dealings is another way of saying he values honor among thieves.  But honor among thieves is not to be trusted.  People with no integrity can hardly be counted on to be loyal.  Another reason Trump is beset by fear of disloyalty.  

Of course, in the end moral authority, limited opportunity, and low stakes and only make disloyalty infrequent.  They cannot eliminate it altogether.  That is why we still have security clearances for people doing top secret work that really does offer opportunities for disloyalty with high stakes.

_________________________________________________
*That is why I do not believe people who think that Machiavelli's The Prince should be understood as satire, or as a warning to the common people.  It is a realistic assessment of how to survive when treachery is rampant.
**Trump can't do anything about the oceans, but he is working hard on alienating our friendly neighbors.
***Of course I would never actually do that.  It would be way to easy to misconstrue.
****I live in New Mexico.  It has Los Alamos Labs and Sandia Labs, both of which offer access to classified information.  So the first step would be to get a job there and somehow get access to classified information.  The next step is to visit the nearest Russian consulate, which is located in Houston, Texas -- 884 miles from Albuquerque and 904 miles from Los Alamos.  Presumably the Russians have spies around both Los Alamos and Sandia Labs, so you would not have to go to Houston every time you wanted to give them information.  But the point stands.

An Exercise in Absurdity

What inspired the foregoing was this article, by a purportedly anti-Trump conservative who is never so irate as when talking about Trump's opponents.  The article argues that Joe Biden was our most lawless President ever (no, seriously!)  The article is so eyeroll inducing that I just can't bear to let it go without a rejoinder.

In making her case that Biden was our most lawless President ever, the author compares is actions with instances of lawlessness by earlier Presidents to show how much worse Biden was.  Judge for yourself.

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.

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.

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.

Franklin Roosevelt:  Made a serious threat to pack the Supreme Court.

Joe Biden:  Appointed a commission to study proposals to pack the Supreme Court.

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.

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.

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.

The author ends up by acknowledging that there might be reason to fear seriously unconstitutional actions by Trump, but these were purely hypothetical, while Biden's actions were real.

Where do I begin?  From the start, I guess.

Does anyone seriously believe that student loan forgiveness is worse than the Trail of Tears?  I suppose the author might say that the Trail of Tears is substantively worse, but the actions are procedurally equivalent because they both involved defying the Supreme Court.  But responding to a Supreme Court defeat by attempting to tweak one's actions to pass constitutional muster is not the same as open defiance.  It is fairly normal behavior.

Both Biden and Lincoln were acting under extraordinary circumstances.  Nonetheless, encouraging the prosecution of one's political opponents to an Attorney General who (it should be noted) did not always agree, is not the same as arresting them.  And, contrary to what many Republicans are now claiming, being a political opponent is not an automatic get out of jail free card.

 Even the author appears to acknowledge that putting pressure on social media is not quite the same as mass arrests, but apparently doesn't see them as all that different.  Do I have to point out that Trump threatened to throw Mark Zuckerberg in jail for life for kicking Trump of off Facebook?

Nor is studying the possibility of court packing but not making a serious attempt quite the same as make a serious, though failed attempt.  And before 1869 Congress routinely changed the number of justices for to achieve political goals.

Again, the history of Presidents leaving laws unenforced did not begin with Obama by any means.  And Biden's refusal to enforce the TikTok ban amounted to a one day delay that his successor clearly intended to extend.

As for the idea that GW Bush's worst offense against the constitution was signing a campaign finance law -- the mind boggles.  GW Bush distorted evidence to get us into a war, ran a chain of secret torture chambers designed to be outside the law, and openly defied laws requiring a warrant to tap phone calls.  Presidents -- or Congress -- testing the limits of their power by taking actions that the Supreme Court might strike down is not extraordinary lawlessness.  It is fairly normal behavior -- so long as they obey the Supreme Court once it makes a decision.  (Bush also quite routinely tried to tweak his behavior to pass constitutional muster when the Supreme Court struck it down).

And if the author seriously wants to argue that Biden's efforts to conceal his cognitive decline were worse than at attempt to overturn an election, why does she consider it "to his credit" that he did not commit the lesser offense?  For that matter, why is it "to his credit" that Biden did what every candidate for President has done with one exception -- accepted the outcome of the election.

As for Biden's pardon of his son (and others), does anyone seriously believe that Trump would not have pardoned the January 6 offender if Biden had not pardoned his son?  He openly ran on the promise to do just that, after all.  

I agree there is no excuse for unilaterally attempting to declare the Equal Rights Amendment ratified.

I suppose the author might acknowledge that Biden's actions, taken individually might not be as bad as her points of comparison, and it is the combination that makes them worse.  But the argument is unconvincing.  I heard similar argument about the Obama Administration -- that the sheer volume of its misconduct was unparalelled.  The flaw in either case is obvious.  

Examine any administration under a microscope and you will find plenty of things to criticize.  The author is taking particularly notorious actions by previous administrations and comparing them to the day-to-day actions of the current one.  Examine the day-to-day actions of any administration and you will find grounds for criticism, as hyperbolic as you may wish.

Reflection on Joe Biden's Legacy

 

So, when historians write about the legacy of Joe Biden's presidency, what will they say?

I think they will have to say that he failed in the only way that really matters -- he failed to prevent the re-election of Donald Trump.  If he had stepped aside and his successor had won, then Biden would go down in history as the man who saved US democracy twice -- once by defeating Donald Trump, and once by stepping down.  

Maybe US democracy will survive.  Maybe it won't.  But if it does survive, somebody else will get the credit for saving it.  And if it does not, Biden will be on the list of people who are to blame.

I do think history will give him credit for suppressing paramilitary activity.  What a shame it is making a comeback now.

And it will look back at his actions to see which ones were responsible for Trump coming to power and what he might have done differently.  I think we are as well qualified to weigh in on that as future historians.  So what do I say?  People have posed many suggestions as to which of Biden's actions made him so unpopular as to bring Trump back to power.  What do I say?

Too much stimulus ignited inflation:  The assumption is that if we had not passed a stimulus, all would have been well.  I disagree.  The US passed a larger stimulus than any other country.  Our economy rebounded faster and more strongly than any other country.  Incumbents lost everywhere, but the swing against incumbents was less marked than anywhere else.  I believe that these three things are all related.

On the other hand, the US was not any sort of outlier on severity of inflation.  It began in the US a little ahead of the rest of the world and subsided in the US a little ahead of the rest of the world.  But in terms of severity, the US was completely average and unremarkable.  

It may be that a smaller stimulus would have meant lower inflation, at the cost of a weaker recovery.  I am not convinced that would have done the incumbent any favors.  Maybe there was a perfect happy medium that would have led to a strong recovery without strong inflation, but the chances of hitting it were minimal.  Too much guesswork, too little certainty.

A crime wave:  Crime went up in the wake of the pandemic and riots and then subsided.  It would have done the same regardless of who was in the White House.

The disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal:  This appears to be when Biden's popularity began to tank and never recovered.  I basically agree with people who say that Biden was dealt a bad hand and played it badly.  His predecessor negotiated the terms of withdrawal that led to the collapse of the Afghan government before the Taliban.  Biden should have anticipated such a thing and prepared for it, working on issuing visas and getting our supporters out well ahead of time.  Arguably, it might have worked better to withdraw during the winter, when a Taliban offensive would have been more difficult.  The number of people we successfully evacuated was impressive, but not good enough.

Immigration:  I believe this was Biden's biggest unforced error.  The "Remain in Mexico" program was working, though as great cost to the individuals involved.  Biden should have kept the program and worked to make it more humane, i.e., offering more protection to asylum seekers waiting in Mexico.  Giving the opportunity to apply from afar was actually a good idea. It might even have been popular if the border had not been so badly inundated, but inundated it was, and it sank the Biden presidency.

Not tooting his own horn:  There is a good argument that Biden would have been more popular if he had put his name on the stimulus checks that went out and showed up to take credit for all the infrastructure projects that he backed, as well as naming names for which Republicans voted against them.

Not being aggressive enough in prosecuting Trump:  Maybe things would have gone differently if the Trump prosecution had begun right away.  Maybe it would have killed his political career for good. But I really do believe that the failure there lay earlier -- with Mitch McConnell not voting and whipping to convict on the second impeachment.  That would have killed Trump's career for good.

Overreach on "identity politics," including transgenderism:  I don't know how important this was, or big the effect was in the real world, but I do think there was some overreach in both these matters.  (I plan to post on them at a later date).  I also fully expect Trump to overreach in the opposite direction.

Foreign policy:  I think Biden handled the Ukraine and Gaza wars as well as could be reasonably expected.  As for assumptions that an alternative would have worked better (not enough aid to Ukraine!  Russia would never have gone nuclear!  No restraints on Israel!  Or maybe more!), hindsight is not, in fact, 20/20.  We know what did happen and all the problems with the outcome.  We do not know what would have happened if some other option was tried.  In any event, most Americans do not vote based on foreign policy.

Running for a second term in the first place:  There were clear problems with Biden withdrawing as late as he did.  Would the result have been different if he had declined to run for a second term?  This is another case of hindsight not being 20/20.  No doubt a bruising primary would have ensued, which might have done real damage to the Democrats.  I also do not really see who would have been a more effective candidate.  Definitely not Gavin Newsome, who would have had "California" tattooed all over him, much to his detriment.  Maybe a red or purple state governor -- Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Andy Bashear of Kentucky, or John Bel Edwards of Louisiana.  But anyone who thinks the problem was particular to Biden -- or Harris for that matter -- underestimates the power of the Great Right Wing Noise Machine.  Any candidate would have been a target of massive vilification that would be extremely difficult to overcome.

In short, if any Democrat had beaten Trump, Biden would have gone down in history as the man who saved democracy twice.  If a normal Republican like Nikki Haley or even Ron DeSantis had been elected in 2024, Biden might have gone down in history as a leader who did reasonably well under difficult circumstances.  

But as it  is, he will go down as the man who failed to stop Trump.

Don't Despair

 

Don't despair.  Scary as things may be, we are seeing signs of elite and popular resistance to Donald Trump.

Popular resistance

People are setting up helplines for immigrants, letting them know which rumors are true and which ones are false, and letting them know their rights.  People are passing out "know your rights" cards to immigrants.

People are flooding Trump's anti-DEI line with spam.  

And no doubt a lot more is going on as well.

Elite resistance

A federal judge is poised to declare Trump's decree ending birthright citizenship unconstitutional.  At least one fired Inspector General is refusing to leave.  Litigation will presumably ensue.  Chuck Grassley has demanded an explanation!  While I rather doubt that anything will come of that, still Grassley is 91 years old, and his term runs till 2028.  I don't think he is all that afraid of a primary challenge.  Lindsey Graham has criticized Trump for pardoning January 6 rioters who attacked police.  Tom Cotton and Hugh Hewitt have criticized Trump for withdrawing Secret Service protection from former officials threated by Iran.

I know it ain't much, but let's take what we can.

Why Attacks on the Elite Are the Most Dangerous

 

And there you have it.  In my view, Trump's attacks on our elite and institutions (much the same thing, really) are more dangerous than his attacks on ordinary people.

I realize this will not be a popular opinion on our side.  Our elites, after all, have the resources to protect themselves in a way that ordinary people do not.  While ordinary people are clearly to blame for Trump being in power, many of us are wholly innocent in that, while all our elites may be considered complicit with Trump in the sense of not succeeded in stopping him.  And the maneuvers in the corridors of power seem remote from most people's ordinary lives.

And I acknowledge this.  But in the end, it is our institutions and elites that either will stop Trump and his abuses, or they will not.  

It is my firm and settled view that if Trump is able to stay popular for long enough, he will be able to subdue our elites and subvert our institutions, and then if he takes unpopular actions there will no longer be a way to stop him.  That is what has happened in Russia and Venezuela.  It has probably happened in Hungary and Turkey.  In all these cases, an aspiring dictator focused his attacks on the elite and refrained from taking unpopular actions until it was too late to stop him.

A fascinating contrast is the Philippines (see Freedom House rankings).  In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte launched a horrifying campaign of extra-legal violence against purported drug traffickers.  Freedom House found widespread arbitrary detention, disappearances, kidnapping and abuse of suspects, as well as harassment, torture and disappearance of indigenous peoples, especially in land disputes.   Obviously, all of this merits our condemnation and is a serious human rights abuse.  (It is also much worse than even a worst case scenario under Donald Trump).  But here is the thing. Duterte did not direct his attacks on the elite.  Opposition parties continued to operate openly and seriously contest elections.  Duterte stepped down as required by term limits.  His handpicked successor won. There has been a significant improvement in human rights under his handpicked successor.  We are left with the impression that all is not lost, as it is in Russia and Venezuela, and probably in Hungary and Turkey.

Let's bring this closer to home and be more specific.  Trump has issued a number executive orders taking extreme action against immigration.  Many of these decrees have been challenged as illegal or unconstitutional.  A federal judge appears poised to strike down the decree ending birthright citizenship as unconstitutional.  We can hope that other executive orders will meet the same fate.

Meanwhile, Trump has pardoned the January 6 insurgents.  Private militias such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Three Percenters are on the rise.  Many of us fear that these groups will serve as Trump's private paramilitary.  Will they focus on terrorizing immigrants or challengers to Trump in our ruling elite?  And which is worse?

Well, clearly our elites can hire private bodyguards and take other steps to protect themselves much better than ordinary immigrants, so in that sense targeting immigrants is worse than targeting elites.

On the other hand, consider.  There are about 11 million people in the US without legal authorization.  Trump plans to add to their number by revoking humanitarian parole for some 500,000 asylum seekers admitted by Biden.  I have not found any estimate as to the number of paramilitary members in the US, but it seems safe to say, nowhere near that number.  Furthermore, these immigrants are mingled with the citizenry and not easy to distinguish.  And I do generally trust local authorities to prosecute militias who commit crimes against immigrants.

By contrast, there are 870 federal judges in the US.  The locations of federal courthouses are well known, and judges' personal residences should not be too hard to find.  Furthermore, not all federal judges are hearing immigration cases at any given time.  Suppose the Proud Boys, etc. start targeting federal judge, harassing, threatening, and even killing judges unless they uphold Trump's actions.  Such acts are federal crimes, of course, but Trump can direct the federal authorities not to prosecute.  He can issue pardons for the offenders.  

And the IRS, at Trump's direction, can deny tax-exempt status to immigrant's rights organizations, effectively closing them down.  Paramilitaries can target lawyers advocating for immigrants.  Trump can withdraw funding from any local jurisdiction that does not cooperate in his anti-immigrant agenda -- or even any jurisdiction that dares to prosecute his private bands of thugs.  

I venture to say this would leave immigrants worse off than if the militias had targeted them directly -- it would shut down their defenders.

Or, on a less dramatic note, keeping the very worst people out of office depends on elite resistance by the Senate to reject Trump's nominees.

And this is frustrating to those of us who oppose Trump, not just because we can dismiss the elite to some degree as deserving what they get, but because there is so little we can do about Trump's attacks on the elite.  We can call and write to our representatives, and we can donate to organizations like the ACLU that are carrying on the fight.

But most of what we can do is directly on behalf of ordinary people harmed by Trump.  We can take what little action there is to protect immigrants and others who are targets of his ire.  We can improve our communities.  And some of us can even run for office.  And we can remember that this, too, contributes to higher level resistance.  We may belong to organizations that the ACLU is defending in court.

And we can all remember that the key to saving democracy is for all of us to do what little we can do.

What to Expect from Trump

So, what should be expect from a Trump presidency?  It is extremely hard to say, since he tends to say wildly contradictory and inconsistent things, but I think we can expect at least three things: tariffs, anti-immigrant policies, and subversion of the federal bureaucracy.

Tariffs

This, along with immigration, has bee the mainstay of his campaign.  Trump has talked about putting a 10% tax on all imports with discussion of as much as 60% on imports from China.  More recently, he has talked about a 25% tax on imports from Canada and Mexico and general use of imports taxes as a form of coercion against any country he is angry at.  He remains as enamored of tariffs as before saying that our country was at its wealthiest when McKinley was President and tariffs were our sole form of revenue.  (Presumably by "wealthiest" he means the fastest economic growth.   I don't know if that is true, but clearly we were less wealthy then in absolute terms and even Trump would have trouble denying that).  No doubt emboldening him is the fact that he imposed tariffs in his last term and not much happened.  There was some highly localized damages to a few industries, but no real damage to the overall macroeconomy, and nothing visible to the general public.

So far he has not actually done any of that.  His latest promise is start tariffs on February 1.  I guess we will see.  It may be that the plutocrats have prevailed with him and the tariffs will be something like his healthcare plan, infrastructure, or peace plan for Ukraine -- something he always promises but never acts on.

But I hope he does act on tariffs -- the more the better, I say -- for the reasons discussed before.  Tariffs will raise prices.  That will be unpopular.  Countries that expert to us will retaliate by taxing our exports.  That will hurt our exports, which will also be unpopular.  Yes, it will hurt other countries as well as ourselves.  And some people fear that a trade war, once started, will be much harder to undo.  I am sorry  about all of that.  But I generally do want to see Trump hurt our economy -- the worse the better.  Hurting the economy will make him unpopular more quickly and more broadly than anything else.  Democracy can survive economic damage.  It has many times.  

Immigration 

This was the other big theme of Trump's campaign.  He HATES immigrants and he plans to crack down.  Compared to tariffs, the harm from anti-immigration actions will be more severe but less diffuse.  While tariffs would impose a price squeeze on the general public and reduced business on people in our export sectors, an immigration crackdown on the scale being proposed will cause massive disruption in the lives of a lot of law-abiding and productive members of the community.  It will probably cause a certain amount of harassment and profiling for a wider portion of the community.  If it gets really extreme, it can hurt our overall economy, with the results being very unequally borne.

And it is clear that this is one thing Trump takes absolutely seriously.  He has halted all asylum applications and refugee admissions.  Both Trump and Vance have made clear that they do not consider this a legitimate form of immigration, and that they believe the proper number of asylum and refugee admissions is zero.  By contrast, internal removal has only increased slightly.

It is hard to tell whether internal removals will greatly expand or remain largely unchanged and just get more publicity.  There has been an immigration raid in Bakersfield, California on scale far beyond what the community had seen before, even before Trump came into office.  There was also a highly publicized workplace raid in Newark, New Jersey.  Even Navajos are reporting harassment by ICE!

All of this can produce a backlash in various ways.  The sight of brutal and abusive immigration raids is apt to produce a humanitarian backlash.  But whether the backlash reaches low information voters is an open question.  And the MAGA faithful will no doubt be pleased.  While Hispanic/Latino voters have been increasingly moving toward Trump over the last three elections, giving Trump an estimated 42% of their vote in 2024 (47% for Latino men), I have to think that if Latinos start being regularly harassed by ICE and asked to prove citizenship, their support for Trump will presumably decline.  

But what would produce a really widespread backlash, perhaps even reaching the MAGA faithful, would be immigration raids on such a scale as to produce labor shortages.  Small farm towns have experienced serious disruption in the past as a result of workplace raids.  But so far we have seen only localized disruptions, nothing that produced a national effect.  The federal government probably does not have the resources to do enough deportations to cause a nationwide labor shortage and rising food prices.  But joined by state and local governments, and private vigilantes, it just might happen.

In short, the worse the crackdown the worse the backlash.  And the more people get hurt in ways that can never be remedied.

Subversion of the federal bureaucracy  

 This one is by far the most dangerous, in large part because it will fly under most people's radar screens.  Federal employees are not a popular group to begin with, and the assumption is widespread that the federal bureaucracy is corrupt, sclerotic, and wasteful.  Its role in maintaining the rule of law is too remote and abstract for most people to appreciate.

So far the plan to fire everyone with "policy making" responsibility and replace them with party loyalist has not gotten far.  Inevitably, replacing so many individuals will take time.  But even changes at the very top have produced some shocking events.  Paralysis of the National Institute of Health. A freeze in foreign aid.  Suspending all DEI employees and ordering them to report and any language that might sound too "woke."  And, most recently, firing 17 Inspectors General, the functionaries tasked with rooting out fraud, waste and abuse.*  Rank-and-file federal employees are uncertain and intimidated.  Imagine what will happen if all of middle management is replaced.

I consider these three things to be in order of escalating danger.  Tariffs are the least dangerous.  Mass deportation is intermediate.  And subverting the federal bureaucracy is most dangerous.  I have said it before and I will say it again.  

Furthermore, I consider it more dangerous for Trump to combine subversion of the federal bureaucracy with tariffs and/or mass deportation than for him to undertake tariffs and/or mass deportations alone.  But subverting the federal bureaucracy without the tariffs or mass deportations is the most dangerous of all.  That is the approach that follows Rule #1 from the Smart Authoritarian's playbook -- save the unpopular stuff until after you have eliminated any power centers that might stop you.  That is how democracy dies in darkness.

______________________________________________
*Though, surprisingly, not Michael Horowitz, Department of Justice Inspector General, who would be responsible for investigating any attempt by the Trump Administration to bring unjustified charges against political opponents, including the handling of Rudy Giuliani's felgercarb on Hunter Biden.

The Only Way to Defeat Trump

 

I see that JV Last and I agree that there is only way to defeat Donald Trump.  The secret is to get him on the wrong side of Rule #1 for Smart Authoritarians -- don't do anything unpopular until after you have consolidated power.

If Donald Trump successfully subdues our institutions to his will, then he can do unpopular things at will because there will be no countervening power structures to stop him.  Such is the situation in Venezuela today.  

But if he loses popularity before consolidating power, then our institutions will rediscovery their spines and start restraining him.

Trump is currently the most popular he has ever been -- either minimally under water, or slightly favorable -- and our institutions are cowering before him.  To some extent, this is normal.  Almost all Presidents enjoy a honeymoon of strong popularity and institutional sycophancy at the outset of their terms.  (The first Trump term is a notable exception).  The honeymoon has been a short-lived phase up till now and has always faded.  

But these are not ordinary circumstances.  If Trump is able to remain popular for long enough -- I do not pretend to know how long that is -- he could lock in power in ways that could change the whole dynamic.  For instance, the tech cartel adopt social media algorithms to suppress any story critical of Trump and promote anything favorable to him.  Trump's FCC can pull licenses from any radio or television station that runs adds that displease him.  Big media can understand that getting favorable regulatory decisions will depend on favorable coverage.  The IRS can strip unfriendly non-profits of their tax exempt status.  Government contracts can be made to depend on political donations.  State and local governments, and a wide range of institutions, can lose their federal funding for failing to toe the line.  Courts can be afraid to rule against him for fear that he will disregard the ruling.  Proud Boys can harass and intimidate Trump opponents, confident in a pardon even if they are criminally charged.  State and local governments that prosecute can be denied federal assistance next time a wild fire hits.  And so forth.

But this won't happen if Trump is sufficiently unpopular.  Congressional Republicans just might vote against him if what is proposes is sufficiently unpopular.  Big business will see less advantage in hitching their brand to a leader who is widely hated.  The Supreme Court will find its spine stiffened if it is confident it has public opinion on its side.  State and local governments will become increasingly willing to defy Trump if swing voters broadly swing against him.  Even the Proud Boys will start to see recruiting drop off and enthusiasm decline if Trump makes himself sufficiently unpopular.

So we need to hit early and hard to undermine Trump's popularity.  But how?

Last makes an excellent point -- popularity and unpopularity both tend to be self-reinforcing:

Do people care about the price of eggs? Well, if the president is popular and egg prices are high, then everyone assumes that the public doesn’t care about the price of eggs. And because people assume that, they don’t talk about it.

But if the price of eggs is high and the president is unpopular, then people won’t shut about how terrible it is that egg prices are off the charts.

Perhaps you remember this dynamic?

When a president is popular, nothing sticks and nothing matters. When a president is unpopular, every stupid, random thing is a catastrophe they have to answer for.

Very true!  But how do you attack this self-reinforcing dynamic?  Or, to put it differently, what matters to the American people?  What will hurt Trump's popularity?  

Well, for starters, I would say not any sort of scandal.  Scandals are perhaps the prime example of this dynamic.  If a politician is otherwise popular, no one cares about a scandal.  People being angry about a scandal is a symptom that a politician is unpopular. 

Not the price of eggs, either.  Voters know that egg prices were high before Trump came to power and are unlikely to blame him for high prices now.  And besides, the right wing media are (correctly) explaining that high prices are the result of bird flu.  

Something that makes people's lives noticeably worse would probably move the needle.  I am guessing tariffs that affect mostly clothing or electronics prices will probably not make much difference because clothing and electronics are occasional purchases and people are unlikely to notice increases in price.  On the other hand increased healthcare costs due to reduced Obamacare subsidies are the sort of thing that will affect people's regular expenses and are likely to provoke a backlash.  Other proposed budget cuts may also prove unpopular.

What about things that don't affect people's every day lives, but are likely to be unpopular on principle? Last proposes hammering on the January 6 pardons.  If the American people could forgive Trump for January 6, I would expect them also to forgive the pardons.  Still, graphic videos of violence against police together with condemnations of the pardons may move the needle some, especially among the police.  It may, for instance, make police more willing to arrest any Proud Boys and other militia types who stir up trouble -- a very important consideration!  He also proposes making hay out of Trump's pardon of Ross Ulbricht, a large-scale online drug dealer.  That also sounds likely to be unpopular, especially if accompanied by detailed descriptions of Ulbricht's crimes, which are not all that widely known.

I can think of other things to use as well, but they have to be made accessible to a typical low information voter.  A VA hiring freeze sounds like something that would be extremely unpopular.  Yes, the VA can assure people of exemptions but, as the saying goes, if you are explaining, it means you're losing.  

Talking about the National Institute of Health (NIH) communications and grants freeze is too abstract to interest most people.  Talking about cancer patients being frozen out of studies or hospitals forbidden from purchasing supplies sounds like the sort of thing that could stir public outrage.

The foreign aid freeze will no doubt be popular.  That it is cutting off treatment for AIDS overseas will probably be greeted with a shrug because the beneficiaries of the program are not American.  But maybe we can give it a try.

Of course, the problem with all of these is that they are short term.  The Trump Administration may back down under pressure and the issue may be quickly forgotten.  Proposals to end FEMA, now, sound like political suicide.

JV Last on Experts and "Elites"

 I also really want to comment on this Bulwark article on why people are so distrustful of our "elites," roughly defined as all experts.  After all, he points out, our elites have made plenty of mistakes and we have plenty of problems, but so what?  Has there ever been a time when ruling elites didn't make mistakes and our society didn't have problem?  

The answer is obvious.  Elite mistakes and problems have always been with us and always will.  Why has the distrust become so acute now?  Social media clearly plays a role, as do the attempts by some on the right to discredit any sort of expertise.  But the author argues that the real reason lies elsewhere.

His basic hypothesis is that experts have done such a good job in making things work that people have lost sight of their accomplishments and only see their failures.  

[O]ne of the (many) things our elites have done is to create an intricate web of mechanisms to prevent most people from experiencing adverse consequences from their choices. . . . .  This is what’s behind the “discrediting” of the elites: Not an actual discrediting. Just a belief that people can disregard the elites without anything too bad happening to them. They can put the orange man in the White House, or not wear a respirator, or let Russia plunder Europe, or skip vaccinations—and somehow it’ll all work out. Because consequences are a long way off.

This sounds a lot like the intellectual equivalent of Colonel Jessup's rant.  "I have neither the time or the inclination to explain myself to a man who walks and sleeps under the blanket of the security my expertise provides and then questions the manner in which I provide it.  I'd rather you just said thank you."  And, in fact, a lot of experts really do sound sort of like that.  It no doubt plays a role in many people's distrust of experts.

But something else is at work as well.  As the author comments, "If you’re an expert who got one thing wrong, it damns you. If you’re a total lunatic crank who gets one thing right, it makes makes you bulletproof."  And not only that, but true experts are considered to be part of the "elite" while crank lunatics, whatever their background, are not.

Anthony Faucci was a pharmacist's son who went to Catholic school and Cornell Medical School and worked for a government salary.  He is part of the "elite."  Elon Musk is the heir to an emerald mine, graduate of boarding schools and an Ivy League college, and the world's richest man, but there is nothing "elite" about him.  And RFK, Jr. is a member of the US's largest political dynasty, the son of a Senator and US Attorney General, nephew of a Senator and nephew of a President, Harvard graduate, and environmental lawyer who rubbed shoulders with the country's leading movers and shakers.  Apparently he is not part of the elite either.

Something similar has been said of Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson's father was an ambassador and the head of the Voice of America.  His step-mother was a senator's niece and an heiress of Swanson Foods.  Tucker went to a Swiss boarding school and even asked Hunter Biden to give his son a reference.  But, Tucker assured people, he was not part of the elite because he was right-wing and therefore shared ordinary Americans' values.

I suppose one can argue that Fauci is part of the "elite" because he is a specialist and therefore an expert, whereas Musk, Kennedy, and Carlson are not experts (at least not in the fields where they like to comment) and therefore not truly "elite."*

But I think something rather more obvious is going on here.  Fauci had an annoying  habit of telling people things they didn't want to hear.  (That COVID had to be taken seriously).  Musk, Kennedy, and Carlson, by contrast, were telling people what they wanted to hear (that COVID was no big deal and was probably a plot to control your lives).  And, after all, this is apt to be a pattern.  Experts in a field tell people the results of their expert investigation -- which is not infallible, subject to revision as more information becomes known, and frequently does not match up with what people want to hear.

Lunatic cranks, by contrast, tell people exactly what they want to hear and never change their minds about it.  Is it any wonder that the lunatic cranks are often better received?

___________________________________
*Presumably even Musk's fans would admit that he is an expert in the tech field, so he must be elite at least in the world of tech.

That Was Quite Some Interregnum!

 

One of our government's serious defects is that it has a two and a half month interregnum between a presidential election and the inauguration.  A lot can happen in two and a half months.*

A lot has certainly happened this time!  Is this one unusually active, or have I just forgotten what other ones were like?  The other obvious question is whether and to what extent the election of Donald Trump is responsible for events (good and bad) that have happened while awaiting his inauguration.  My honest belief is that not everything is about us and most of what has happened is unrelated to who is in the White House.  But let's look these events over one by one.

The stock market has been choppy, surging and then dropping:  I think this one is about Donald Trump.  He is inspiring a lot of hopes and fears.  I also do not believe that the short term gyrations of the stock market are very important.  It is the overall trend that matters.

The economy continues to boom and inflation has not fallen as much as people hoped:  I don't think this is about who is in the White House.  One thing that the prospect of a Trump Administration may be affecting is interest rates.  Interest rates do appear to be rising out of concern over tariffs, mass deportation, and budget-busting tax cuts.

Bird flu is back and is affecting dairy cattle:  Clearly the virus neither knows nor cares who is in the White House.  However, I do think MAGA in general and Trump in particular have contributed to making this worse than necessary by making any sort of public health measure politically toxic.  Without such resistance to pubic health, we could probably have handled the outbreak better.  Fortunately, there does not appear to be just risk of a pandemic among humans, just higher egg and dairy prices.  Touch a hot stove and all that.

The president of South Korea declared martial law and attempted a coup but was thwarted:  I don't think Trump is to blame for this.  Yes, the election of a US President who attempted a coup in the past may have slightly encouraged Yoon to think he could get away with it, but not everything is about us.  Internal South Korea politics were the main factor here.

Assassination of a health insurance CEO:  Trump is in no way to blame

Overthrow of the Assad government in Syria: Has nothing to do with Trump, who was as much taken by surprise as anyone else.  It is too early to even to tell whether this should be considered "credit" or "blame."  In any case, I do like Trump's advice on this -- not our business; let's stay out!

ISIS-inspired terrorist drove into a crowd of New Years revelers: Nothing to do with who is in the White House.

A deranged Trump supporter blew up a Tesla vehicle in front of a Trump hotel:  This one is just plain weird.  When someone blows up vehicle manufactured by a politician's number one financial supporter in front of a hotel owned by the politician, most people would not expect it to be a statement of support!  But apparently it was.  Anyhow, Trump is certainly not to blame for this bizarre form of self-expression.  This was primarily one man's pathology.  But the crazy precincts of the internet that Trump and Musk promote had a role in setting the direction of his pathology.

Devastating wild fires around Los Angeles: Of course, Trump is in no way to blame for the fires.  But he has been politicizing the event in the most shameful manner.  Look for the politicization to get worse once he is in office.

Israel makes a ceasefire, first with Hezbollah and then with Hamas: I think Trump deserves at least some credit here.  Quite simply, he has more pull with Netanyahu than either Biden or Harris do and is able to ask for a favor.  What would have happened if he had lost is anyone's guess.

And now TikTok:  TikTok appears to be putting pressure in Trump -- he can either get credit for saving TikTok or blame for failing to save it.**

Let us just say that the mere act of electing Trump clearly has not made problems go away!  We will see what happens once he is in office.

___________________________________________
*It used to be worse.  The inauguration did not used take place on March 4 -- approximately four months after the election.  This proved a serious problem in case of crisis.  James Buchanan's failure to respond to the secession of South Carolina encouraged a whole cascade of other secessions, and the extended inaction between the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations contributed to a serious banking crisis.
**Yes, I know that the legislation passed and TikTok went dark under Biden.  Trump has benefitted from voters having short memories.  They forgot the disaster that was his last year in office and blamed residual problems on Biden.  Well, TikTok going dark happened in the last two days of Biden being in office.  If it doesn't go back on, it won't take too long for Trump to be blamed.

Will There Be Any Civic Virtue Left?

Cassidy Huchinson, who stood up the the Trump crowd at age 25

Watching the January 6 hearings back in 2022, I was quite impressed at the level of civic virtue I saw among our governing elite in the wake of Trump's defeat.

Not one Republican election board county clerk rejected the outcome.  Not one swing state Republican legislature agreed to appoint an alternate set of electors.  Arizona Speaker Rusty Bowers
 made a powerful and heart-rending witness:

First of all, when the people — and in Arizona, I believe it — some 40-plus years earlier the legislature had established the manner of electing our officials or the electors for the presidential race. Once it was given to the people as in Bush v Gore, illustrated by the Supreme Court, it becomes a fundamental right of the people. So, as far as I was concerned, for someone to ask me in the — I would call it a paucity. There was no – no evidence being presented of any strength.

Evidence can be hearsay evidence. It's still evidence, but it's still hearsay. But strong judicial quality evidence, anything that would say to me you have a doubt, deny your oath, I will not do that. And on more than — on more than one occasion throughout all this, that has been brought up. And it is a tenet of my faith that the Constitution is divinely inspired, of my most basic foundational beliefs. And so, for me to do that because somebody just asked me to is foreign to my very being. I — I will not do it.

. . . . . . .

Well, as others in the videos have mentioned, we received, my secretaries would say, in excess of 20,000 emails and tens of thousands of voicemails and texts which saturated our offices. And we were unable to work, at least communicate, that at home, up till even recently, it is the new pattern or a pattern in our lives to worry what will happen on Saturdays because we have various groups come by and they have had video panel trucks with videos of me proclaiming me to be a pedophile and a pervert and a corrupt politician and blaring loudspeakers in my neighborhood and leaving literature both on my property, and — but arguing and threatening with neighbors and with myself.

And I don't know if I should name groups, but there was a — one gentleman that had the three bars on his chest. And he had a pistol and was threatening my neighbor. Not with the pistol, but just vocally. When I saw the gun, I knew I had to get close. And at the same time, on some of these we had a daughter who is gravely ill, who is upset by what was happening outside. And my wife that is a valiant person, very, very strong, quiet, very strong woman. So it was disturbing. It was disturbing.

That is an impressive display of civic virtue. Presumably it was replicated (perhaps in less dramatic form) in Republican legislatures across the swing states.

Georgia was the only swing state with a Republican Governor or Secretary of State, and they stood up to ferocious pressure.

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

Well, after the — after the election, my email, my cell phone was docked [sic, doxed]. And so I was getting texts all over the country. And then eventually my wife started getting the text and hers typically came in a sexualized attacks which were disgusting. You have to understand that Trish and I, we met in high school.

We've married over 40 years now. And so they started going after her I think just to probably put pressure on me. Why don't you just quit walk away. And so that happened. And then some people broke into my daughter in law's home and my son has passed and she's widow and has two kids. And so we're very concerned about her safety also.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And Mr. Secretary, why didn't you just quit and walk away?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

Because I knew that we had followed the law, we had followed the Constitution And I think sometimes moments require you to stand up and just take the shots. You're doing your job. And that's all we did. You know, we just followed the law and we followed the Constitution. And at the end of the day, President Trump came up short.

But I had to be faithful to the Constitution. And that's what I swore an oath to do.

Eric "Potty Mouth" Hershman, J-6 witness

Federal officials were equally firm.  Federal judges who were Trump appointees refused to overturn the results.  US attorneys who were Trump appointees refused to prosecute for election fraud in the absence of evidence of such fraud.  Department of Justice department heads threatened to resign en masse rather than act to undermine the election.  Mike Pence refused to leave the Capitol as the mob bayed for his blood and returned to certify the Democratic victory.  It was all very impressive.  The one place where civic virtue was notably lacking was in Congress.

I faced the 2022 midterms with great fear and trepidation, fearing not just a red wave, but that Republican candidate would refuse to concede defeat, that Republican election officials would throw out results they didn't like, that election watchers would unplug machines and commit other acts of sabotage, and that militias would show up to intimidate voters.  None of that happened.  The election went off as a completely normal election.  Voters voted without disruption.  Officials (with a few exceptions) certified the results.  Even though Democrats did better than expected, defeated Republicans (with a two exceptions) conceded, and none made a serious attempt to overturn the results.

Republicans took control of the US House of Representatives and, whatever else one may think of their tenure, Republicans did expel George Santos when he came under indictment and seriously investigated Matt Gaetz even after the Department of Justice declined to indict.

Even up to the 2024 election Republican officials showed significant civic virtue.  Republican election officials sought to assure voters that elections were honest.  When Donald Trump falsely accused the Haitian community in Springfield Ohio of eating people's pets, Republican Governor Mike DeWine went to Springfield to calm things down.  Actual displays of hate occurred, but only from a handful of outsiders.  When Hurricane Helene rained death and destruction across the South and Elon Musk promoted false stories that FEMA was not helping, the Republican governors of Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee all cooperated with the feds and sought to refute such rumors.  Even Ron DeSantis cooperated with FEMA, albeit in a more low key manner.

And following the elections Republicans who lost, even by small margins (with the exception of the North Carolina Supreme Court) conceded defeat.  Even Kari Lake refrained from contesting the results.

So it appears that as of 2024, Republican candidates not named Trump running for an office other than President are still willing to abide by election results.  As of 2024, civil virtue was not dead in this country.

But I have serious doubts that it can survive four years of sustained assault from you-know-who.

And a Closing Thought

 Is anyone really surprised that in the fight between the MAGA faithful and the plutocrats, the plutocrats are winning?

Seriously, Though . . .

 

Seriously, though, Steve Bannon really has declared war on Elon Musk, vowing to oust him from the White House without, of course, giving any explanation as to how.

I read with some interest this article, comparing their feud to the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988.  Who do you root for when two really bad guys go to war against each other?

The author says that, just as we backed Iraq because we saw them as the saner player, now we should back Bannon on the theory that he is less evil than Musk.  His argument is that at least Bannon has principles, even if they are bad ones.  "Bannon has ideological goals; Musk has personal, vaguely psychosexual desires."  Bannon is consistent.  Musk changes his mind every five minutes.  Bannon's ideas might have a non-toxic, "domesticated" version.  "Musk is just a neurodivergent Bond villain."

Well, I disagree with the assumption that Bannon is any less evil than Musk.  I think they are about equal.  I generally prefer an opportunist with no principles to someone with unrelentingly bad principles.  At least the opportunist can be rational if it is in his interests.  Someone who changes his mind every five minutes is unlikely to have the perseverance to do the sort of damage that an inflexible ideologue can do.  Bannon openly calls himself a "Leninist" and has declared his wish to burn it all down.

So if the choice is which is the bigger ideological threat, I would say Bannon.

But in their feud I would still back Bannon over Musk any day of the week for a simple reason.  Bannon is nowhere near as powerful as Musk.  

Musk's assets have been estimated at over $300 billion.  Bannon's are worth a measly $48 million.  Musk controls the algorithms of hundreds of millions of followers on social media.  Bannon influences through the 44th most popular podcast on Apple.  When Rudy Giuliani reached a $150 million settlement of the defamation case by Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, many people wondered if there was a financial backer paying them off.  Musk is an obvious suspect. We know it can't be Bannon, since the amount exceeds Bannon's entire fortune.   Musk could also afford to pay off $787 million defamation settlement by Fox News or even the $1.5 billion judgment against Alex Jones.  The amounts are pocket change to him.  Bannon can't.  Bannon can be sued for defamation if he tells a sufficiently outrageous lie on his podcast.  Under Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, Musk is immune from suit for any lies his algorithms deliberately promote.  As suggested above, Musk may very well have the wealth to neuter our defamation laws against any right-wing source by paying their judgment. 

And, of course, Musk has Trump's ear.  Bannon does not.

All of which amounts to saying I am all for Bannon's crusade to take down Musk.  I just think he is fighting with a plastic spoon against a man armed with an entire arsenal.

How Donald Trump Could Keep His Promise to End the War in Ukraine in 24 Hours

 

Barring something truly miraculous between now and noon tomorrow, it seems a safe bet that Trump will not succeed in his goal of ending the war in Ukraine before he is even inaugurated.

It seems equally unlikely that he will end the war within 24 hours of being inaugurated, as he promised on other occasions.

But so what, really.  Since facts don't matter to the MAGA faithful, Trump can simply not and say he did.  If he could claim that he built the wall, made Mexico pay for it, "took the oil" in the Middle East, and even that he saved Obamacare, why not just casually remark that he has ended the war in Ukraine and leave it at that.

And don't forget that Trump has a much stronger propaganda apparatus at hand than he did last time.  Last time he was largely dependent on Fox News and talk radio.  This time he has social media at his command and more.  Tell Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to spike any stories about the war.  Let TikTok know that spiking stories about the war is the price of readmission.  Also tell other social media companies that their willingness to spike all stories about the war is the price for avoiding anti-trust actions.  Put out the word that any TV station mentioning that the war is still going on will lose its license.  Give Jeff Bezos a similar directive for the Washington Post and Patrick Soon-Shiong a directive for the LA Times.  Threaten PBS and NPR with a loss of federal funding if they mention the war.

The New York Times may be a somewhat tougher nut to crack, but in order to avoid the appearance of a liberal bias it will doubtless feel obligated to give reports that the war is still ongoing and reports that it is over equal time.  

Threaten 50% tariffs against any foreign leader who mentions to war in a public forum that Americans are likely to hear.  

And pretty soon all mention of the war will be suppressed and low information voters will fully believe  Trump's claims that the war is over and duly give him credit.

That is certainly how I expect Trump to fight inflation, immigrant crime, etc.

An Update on Alexander Smirnov

Hat tip Emptywheel, we now know a little more about what the investigators knew about Alexander Smirnov and when they knew it.  The vetting took place in July, 2020, shortly after Smirnov made his shocking allegations.  Apparently my prior impression that Smirnov's allegations were disproven by his travel records was not entirely correct.  Special Counsel has filed a vetting of Smirnov's story with the court, which shows that the reality is somewhat more complex. 

Actually, it is far from clear what the vetting revealed because most of it is blacked out.  However, we can compare Smirnov's allegations in the FD-1023 statement to his handler, the results of the investigation, and the indictment say about the four meetings that Smirnov alleged.

First alleged meeting:  

Smirnov said that in "late 2015 or early 2016" he was introduced to Oleksandr (Alexander) Ostapenko.  The FD-1023 statement does not give Ostapenko's background other than to say that there is more information about in in a 2018 1023.  In any event, Ostapenko does not appear to have worked for Burisma.  Nor does the report say where they met, only that Smirnov and Ostapenko "traveled to Ukraine" to meet with Burisma officials.  Present were Burisma's CFO Vadym Pozharsky (Vadim Pojarskii), Mykola Zlochevsky's daughter and her husband, and a US business partner of Smirnov whose name was blacked out and who did not understand what was said because he did not speak Russian.  One gathers from this that Ostapenko is a Russian-speaking Ukrainian businessman of some type.  Smirnov alleges that Pozharsky told him that Burisma hired Hunter to "protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems," but gave no further details.*

The FBI's examination of Smirnov's passport revealed that he was in Ukraine 5/22/15 through 5/23/15; 10/10/15 through 10/12/15; and 11/30/15 through 12/6/15.  The latter two visits were both in "late 2015" and thus consistent with Smirnov's story.  The FBI said that it could be difficult to pinpoint the exact meeting and suggested asking for credit card receipts.  

The indictment states that this statement is proven false, not because of Smirnov's travel records, but because he met with Burisma officials for the first time in 2017, under the Trump administration.  The source for this appears to be "Associate 1," "a Ukrainian business consultant," presumably Ostapenko, and "Associate 2," "a American who owned a cryptocurrency business."  "Associate 2" is definitely the American identified in Smirnov's 1023 and it was apparently his travel records that disproved the first meeting.  "Associate 2" did not travel outside of North America between 2011 and 2017 and therefore could not have been at the first meeting, as Smirnov alleged.  The indictment also cites e-mails from 2017 introducing Smirnov to Burisma officials for the first time.  

Second alleged meeting:

Smirnov then alleged that he met with Ostapenko and Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky in Vienna "approximately one or two months after the aforementioned Burisma meeting in Ukraine," about the time the Joe Biden publicly called Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin corrupt and called for his removal.  Smirnov alleged that it was at this meeting that Zlochevsky said he had paid Joe and Hunter Biden each a $5 million bribe to remove Shokin.  Needless to say, this would be a serious crime, and the fact that Smirnov never reported the alleged meeting until 2020 was a major red flag.

In this case, Smirnov's travel records really did disprove the alleged meeting.  Biden publicly called for Shokin to be removed in December, 2015.  Smirnov's October, 2015 trip to Ukraine really did take place about two months earlier.  His travel records showed he went through the Vienna airport twice in October, 2016 and once in December 2016, but never in 2015.  The investigator could not rule out the possibility that Smirnov might have driven to Vienna from some other country in Europe.  

The indictment confidently says that Smirnov was not in Vienna at the time of Biden's speech.

Third alleged meeting:

Actually, the third alleged meeting was a telephone call between Smirnov, Ostapenko, and Zlochevsky, said to have taken place after Trump was elected but before he was sworn in.  No location was given.  Smirnov alleged that during the meeting Zlochevsky said the Bidens coerced him into making the payment, and that he had texts and recordings to prove it.

Since this was a phone call with no location given, the initial vetting could not check it against travel records.  The indictment says that the conversation never took place because Associate 1 (Ostapenko) never spoke to Zlochevesky, either in person or by phone.   

Fourth alleged meeting:

The fourth alleged meeting was also a phone call, this time with a location given. Smirnov said that on some unspecified date in 2019 he met with Ostapenko on matters unrelated to Burisma.  Nonetheless, some time during the meeting Ostapenko called Zlochevsky, who was then on the run and hiding in an unknown location in Europe.  During the conversation, the subject of the alleged bribe again came up and Zlochevsky said the money transfer was so well concealed that it would take ten years to trace it.  The handler apparently expressed some skepticism because he asked why Zlochevsky would make such unsolicited admissions.  Smirnov said bragging of this type was common.

The FBI was able to confirm that Smirnov really did travel to London on unrelated matters from October 7-11, 2019.  The main evidence the indictment offers against the phone call is that Ostapenko (Associate 1) never spoke to Zlochevsky.   

Emptywheel finds it interesting that Smirnov's visit to London and the alleged conversation happened about the same time Lev Parnas was arrested while heading to Vienna, apparently to meet with Zlochevsky.  She suggests that if the phone call happened, Zlochevsky may have been using Smirnov as an alternate channel to circulate dirt on Hunter Biden after his attempt to convey it to Parnas was thwarted.  That sounds most implausible to me.  In all prior dealings with Giuliani, Zlochevsky had denied any improper dealings with the Bidens.  Why would he change his story in 2019?  And why give any credence to Smirnov's allegations about the meeting, given that alleged 2019 conversation was the tail end of a whole string of fabrications?**

Named individuals

The vetting also asked what Smirnov knew about a series of Russian or Ukrainian individuals and some companies.  I recognized two of the names.  Vadym Pozharsky was the Burisma CFO and is mentioned in Smirnov's 1023.  Pozharsky really was an associate of Hunter Biden and really did send and e-mail to Hunter thanking him for introducing Pozharsky to Hunter's father.***  Karina Zlochevska was Zlochevsky's daughter and is mentioned in the 1023.  They appear to be real associates, who Smirnov met in 2017.  He appears to have taken many of the details of the initial 2017 meeting (location, people attending, American colleague who did not speak Russian) and simply moved them back in time to "late 2015 or early 2016."  

I have no idea who any of the others were. 

Interestingly, the report does not mention any response from Smirnov on either Pozharsky or Zlochevska.****  He denied any knowledge about the others, which is probably true.  He recognized that if he made anything up about about them, the FBI could spot the lie.  

Emptywheel was able to shed some light on one of the named individuals -- Michael Guralnik.   Guralnick was apparently a Ukrainian born in Soviet times, who graduated from the Soviet military academy, served ten years in the Soviet army, and later became a US citizen.  He was associated with Giuliani's attempts to dig dirt on Joe Biden and also corresponded with Lindsey Graham.  Emptywheel links a Daily  Beast article that mentions various others associated with Giuliani,  none of whom are mentioned in the FBI's vetting.

Other:

The vetting also mentions that Smirnov's first reports to the FBI on Burisma are from the spring of 2017 and there was no earlier mention.  Nor was there anything else from any other source to suggest that Joe or Hunter Biden had been bribed.  The FBI then asked how Zlochevsky communicated with the Bidens and the handler said that Smirnov did not know.  Presumably Smirnov recognized that if he named a method the FBI might investigate it and find out that he was lying.   Almost four pages are then blacked out.  

Steps not taken/recommended further investigation:

The FBI has three stages of initial inquiry:  assessment, preliminary investigation and full investigation.  (The Durham Report discusses the distinction at some length on page 24).  The vetting was an assessment, which limited the scope of investigation.  Recommendations for further investigation included interviewing Smirnov's colleague, going over Smirnov's travel records in greater detail with him, investigating Smirnov's phone, especially his exchanges with his handler, and comparing with other reports, including with other agencies.  The remainder of the report (about three pages) is blacked out.

Special counsel appears to have taken the additional steps -- interviewing Smirnov's colleague, reviewing the texts he exchanged with his hander, talking to Ostapenko, and looking at the e-mails Smirnov exchanged.  These additional measures decisively disproved Smirnov's allegations.

In short:

The initial vetting of Smirnov's report was less thorough than the investigation that led to his indictment, but enough to raise serious questions about his allegations.

Results of the initial vetting that seemed to corroborate Smirnov's report:

1. Smirnov was confirmed to know the people he mentioned in the 1023 and did not claim knowledge of people he did not know.
2. Smirnov traveled to Ukraine about the time of the alleged first meeting in Kiev.
3. Smirnov traveled to London in 2019, as alleged.

This was presumably what Scott Brady was referring to when he said that he had confirmed that Smirnov was in the places he alleged at the times he alleged.

Results of the initial vetting that undermined Smirnov's report:

1. Smirnov's earliest reports of contact with Burisma date to 2017, contradicting the claim in 1023 that he met with Zlochevsky in 2015 and 2016.
2. Smirnov was not in Vienna at the time of the alleged second meeting.

This is to say nothing of Smirnov's failure to report the foregoing until 2020!  I supposed one could say that he did not report the first two meetings because he was afraid of retaliation from Joe Biden, then Vice President.  But why didn't Smirnov report the whole business in 2017 or 2019, when Trump was in office?

Apparently the FBI decided that Smirnov was not trustworthy because nothing further happened at the time.  Special Counsel, when forced to investigate further, learned that:

1. Smirnov's e-mails exchanged in 2017 confirmed that he was meeting with Burisma officials for the first time.
2. Smirnov's American colleague was definitely not in Ukraine at the time of the first alleged meeting.
3. Ostapenko denied every speaking with Zlochevsky, either in person or by phone.
4. A month before Smirnov made the 1023 claiming that Zlochevsky had told him he had bribed Joe and Hunter Biden, Smirnov exchanged texts with his handler expressing a belief that the Bidens had been bribed and that he would have the tape proving it as soon as he met with "the guys" (presumably his Russian sources).  Nothing in these texts so much as suggested that Smirnov had any personal information on the subject.

Special Counsel recommended a four to six year sentence (the judge imposed a six year sentence).  Emptywheel considers this seriously excessive, although she is not sure why Special Counsel made the recommendation -- most likely confidence that it would not matter because Trump would issue a pardon.  In particular, she is offended that the sentencing recommendation blames Smirnov for all the time and resources he made government expend investigating his lies.  Emptywheel believes that the government could have seen through the lies with the exercise of minimal common sense, and that its waste of resources was the result of Republicans relentless pressuring it to pursue this most implausible lead.  

Congressman Jerry Nadler has asked the Inspector General to investigate the whole dubious business.  Alas, it seems a safe assumption that Donald Trump will spike the whole thing and we will never learn the real story.

_______________________________________________

*That is not, in and of itself, necessarily evidence of a crime.  I read an excellent New Yorker article pointing out that a weak country being invaded by its more powerful neighbor and heavily reliant on a powerful sponsor for its protection is not going to antagonize the powerful sponsor by investigating a company with its Vice President's son on the board of directors.

**I supposed he could have changed his story because the whole business had gone public and he wanted to change his story accordingly.

***Joe Biden denied such a meeting and his schedule did not reflect one.  However, it later appeared that Joe Biden made an unscheduled appearance at a charity dinner his son was attending and briefly spoke to Pozharsky.

****Several words are blacked out before naming those two.  Writ Media is named after the two and also does not have response.  The FBI knew that Smirnov knew Pozharsky and Zlochevska, since they are named in his 1023.  Possibly the omitted words say that the FBI is not asking about these.