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.

Shutdown Over ICE: The Policy

 

With that being said, here is the problem.  I am all for a government shutdown of Homeland Security.  Less clear -- the ask.  Is there anything at all Democrats in Congress can do that will make a difference?  

I have heard a wide range of proposals offered for how to reign in La Migra.  But that is not the problem.  There are already all sort of laws on the books constraining La Migra.  La Migra is simply ignoring the laws, confident that there will be no consequences. So sure, there is no harm in passing more laws to reign La Migra in, but I don't see what good can come of it.  There have to be some sort of consequences.

The usual form of consequences is to use to power of the purse strings -- threaten their budget.  But that won't work in this case.  The One Bloated Barbaric Bonanza gave $170 billion for border enforcement, including $75 billion to ICE to be spent over the next four years.  By contrast, proposed budget for the entire Department of Homeland Security $65 billion.  Indeed, one article I saw (can no longer find) suggested that Republicans gave such an excessive amount precisely because they expected Democrats to cut off funding and wanted to prevent such an outcome.

Kristi "ICE Barbie" Noem

Others have proposed to impeach Kristi Noem.  Again, I see no particular harm in impeaching Ice Barbie, but no benefit to it, either.  ICE Barbie is nothing but a (purportedly) pretty face on an ugly reality.  The real power behind the throne is Stephen Miller and is wholly unrealistic quota of 3,000 arrests a day, which cannot be met without blatant illegality.  And Miller is not going anywhere.  He is the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, a position not requiring Senate confirmation. (Possibly Trump feared that even this Senate might not confirm him).  Presumably White House personnel who serve at the complete discretion of the President without the need for Senate confirmation are not subject to impeachment.  And the Atlantic ran an article pouring cold water on any hopes that Miller might be fired. Not only is he a supremely competent manager (a rare thing for this team and therefore important to keep), but his colleagues generally like him and find him easy to work with.  Miller will not be facing the sort of revolt that ousted Elon Musk.

The only other way I can think of imposing consequences is to create individual civil liability for any agent violating people's rights, or, if the agent cannot be identified, the commanding officer in the field.

PS: Actually, I can think of one thing that could possibly make a difference, although I don't know if we can ever get Republicans to agree to it.  And that is to attack La Migra from the other end -- the court and prison end.  Make it much harder for the President to replace immigration judges for not following his wishes, a blatant violation of separation of powers anyhow.  And require bond so long as the detainee does not have a criminal record, has significant ties to the community, and has any plausible claim to be allowed to stay.  It won't stop ICE outrages.  But it will soften the damage they cause, if most of the people arrested can be released relatively soon.  And it will mean more witnesses running around with a story to tell. And that will create at least some degree.

PPS:  At least one of the things that is driving this is Steve Miller's quota of 3000 arrests a day, which cannot be done without complete thuggery.  Even worse, ICE agents are rewarded for their number of arrests, even if the arrestee is later cleared and released.  Maybe find some way to disallow this.  I had some thought of introducing some sort of disincentive for wrongful arrests, but that would probably just lead to more cover ups.  But at least find a way to disallow rewarding number of arrests regardless.

PPPS:  Other suggestions:  An express statement that Migra officers are subject to prosecution under state law for murder, mayhem, and perhaps a few other very serious offenses.  A ban on the Border Patrol taking part in internal enforcement.  An express statement that La Migra may not enter private areas without a judicial warrant and that an administrative warrant is not sufficient.  Hard guidelines on the use of force.  An affirmation that the public has the right to file Migra actions and protests outside of Migra facilities, perhaps with sone sort of rule about the distance they must keep and an acknowledgement that getting too close can be obstruction.

Of course, good luck getting this past the Republicans.

PPPPS: Maybe a requirement that a "Kavanaugh stop" actually follow the rules the Justice Kavanaugh suggested.  In the absence of even an administrative warrant, if a Migra officer makes a stop based solely on "reasonable suspicion," the officer must give the person being stopped a reasonable opportunity to present proof of citizenship or legal residence, and allow anyone producing such proof to leave.  Then give a list of what must be deemed proof of citizenship or legal residence.  It won't stop "papers, please," but at least it can limit that to an annoyance for actual citizens or legal residents.

Shutdown Over ICE: The Politics

 

This shutdown is different.  With the last shutdown, I thought the Democrats should cave because they were better off politically losing than winning.  While I agree with JV Last that the real issue is power, not policy, I also think the Democrats did pretty well on power in an understated sort of way. 

Trump (backed by Russ Vought) intended the shutdown as a major power grab to enact major firings of federal employees and funding of projects in a manner calculated to be punitive to Democrats.  The power grab failed and appears to have soured Republicans in general and Trump in particular on shutdowns.  Senate Republicans preserved the filibuster, against Trump's wishes, giving Democrats the opportunity to use this weapon again.  And the politics of the shutdown were good.  It brought the issue of health insurance subsidies to the public's attention and made clear that Republicans were to blame for spiking premiums.  Granted, the wins on matters of power were purely defensive, i.e., they thwarted power grabs rather than grabbing any power back.  But I do not think public opinion would have backed Democrats using shutdown to leverage a power grab.

This time is different.

This time is clearly, unambiguously about power -- specifically, the power of La Migra to terrorize blue cities into submission.  It is understood that way on all sides.  It is also something that is clear as videos of violence in the city, and not a mere abstraction.  And it is one where Democrats have no choice but to take a stand.  Their base demands it.  Their own cities could be next if ICE is not stopped.  And public opinion is generally in their favor.  Some left-leaning pollesters have even claimed that this is a 70-30 issue in the Democrats' favor.  Actually, it looks more like 50-30 against ICE, with about 20% of the population undecided.  Democrats have the opportunity to sway more people in their favor by going all out publicizing ICE outrages.  Of course, Republicans are also seeking to sway public opinion.  This is something that could to 50-50, 70-30, or maybe 60-40.  Which way it goes will be immensely important.

Timid-minded advisors warn not to go all-in on immigration or we will lose.  I suppose I have two answers to that.  One is that Congressional Democrats have an obvious response.  They can say that immigration is a side issue.  The real issue is whether masked thugs should be allowed to terrorize US cities.  

The other is that the timid-minded said much the same thing when Kilmar Abrego-Garcia and the others were sent to a torture prison in El Salvador. Don't take on Trump on immigration, they warned, voters have lost all trust of the voters on the issue.  But you know what?  Some Democrats did stand up for Abrego Garcia.  Public opinion turned hard against shipping men off to a torture prison without trial for their tattoos.  The Supreme Court ruled against it.  Trump called for the expansion of the prison (capacity, about 40,000) and discussed the possibility of sending US citizens there.  But in the end he backed down.  The plan to routinely send deportees to CECOT prison was quietly dropped and eventually the detainees were released.

And the pushback is not limited to public opinion.  Many ICE agents are reluctant to go to Minneapolis in light of the outraged reaction they are facing there.  (Weather conditions probably aren't too appealing either).  A disgruntled insider is leaking damaging documents.  Even some White House insiders are concerned about the optics.

So the politics are well aligned to do a partial government shutdown over La Migra.  The question is what to demand.

In Which I Struggle to Understand the Federal Budget Process

 

So, if the time to reign in La Migra is now, the obvious procedure is through the budget.  So now I am struggling to understand how the Federal budget works, and it is really strange.

Last year, when there was a huge fight over the government shutdown, the obvious question was, given all the fuss over passing Trump's One Badly Bungled Budget, why was Congress now having to pass more legislation to keep the government open?  

This is my best understanding.  The OBBB was a budget reconciliation bill.  Supposedly, a budget reconciliation bill can only address taxes and mandatory spending (such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc).  Discretionary spending is controlled through appropriations.  So isn't spending on immigration enforcement discretionary?  The nearest I can understand this is an article from the American Immigration Council.  The bill gave La Migra $170.7 that it must spend by the end of fiscal 2029 (September 30, 2029).  Very little guidance was given as to the details.  The breakdown was as follows:

Spending Category	Funding Amount
Construction and maintenance of border wall, CBP checkpoints, and CBP facilities	$51.6 billion
Border Patrol agents and vehicles, and Federal Law Enforcement Training Center improvements.	$7.8 billion
Border technology and vetting	$6.2 billion
Operation Stonegarden (funding to state and local law enforcement agencies to support border enforcement)	$450 million
Border processing, including for unaccompanied children, Remain in Mexico, and expedited removal	$2.1 billion
Prosecutions of noncitizens, compensating local governments for incarcerating noncitizens, combatting drug trafficking, immigration judges	$3.3 billion
Detention capacity expansion	$45 billion
Enforcement and removal, including hiring ICE agents, transportation costs, and detaining families	$29.9 billion
State immigration and border enforcement cost-reimbursement funds	$13.5 billion
DHS cost-reimbursement fund for border enforcement	$10.0 billion
DOD support for immigration and border enforcement	$1.0 billion
Total	$170.7 billion

Discretionary spending is supposed to be financed by twelve appropriations bills -- agriculture, commerce, defense, energy and water, finance (treasury), homeland security, interior and environment, social services (education, health, labor), legislative functions, VA and military construction, foreign affairs, and housing and transportation.  These bills are often lumped together in varying combinations to limit the number of votes.  The bill that ended the government shutdown gave funding for the fiscal year for three of these bills.  Those bills were agriculture, meaning that SNAP benefits will not be endangered in case of another government shutdown (hurray!); VA and military construction, meaning that in case of another shutdown VA employees will be paid and housing can be built for military families (hurray!) and legislative services, meaning that in case of another shutdown Congress will be fully funded (doesn't that figure!).  I was so ill-informed as to have thought that the defense appropriation was also paid, but I was wrong.

Five more of the appropriations bills have passed the House by wide margins and are expected to be approved by the Senate.  On January 8, the House passed combined bills funding commerce, energy and water, and interior and environment by a vote of 397-28.  On January 14, the House passed the bills funding the State Department and the Treasury Department by a slightly less overwhelming but still strong vote of 341-79.  It seems a safe assumption that both bills will overwhelmingly pass the Senate and be signed into law.

That leaves defense, social services, transportation/HUD, and Homeland Security.  Theoretically, these could be passed as a combined bill or separately.  Of these four bills, transportation and HUD sounds wholly uncontroversial.  The defense appropriations bills is clearly a must-pass in the sense that everyone agrees our military obligations have to be met and our troops have to be paid.  On the other hand, Donald Trump has created a controversy by calling for a 50% increase.  And some people want to use the bill to block funding for any invasion of Greenland.  Continuing resolution, maybe, to fund defense at current levels for a few months while we talk about it?  I really don't understand the social services bill.  The House passed a three-year extension of the Obamacare subsidies, but this is apparently separate from the one-year appropriation bill.  I don't know of any other controversies here, but obviously there is a lot that I don't know.  But what is undisputed is that the biggest controversy is over funding Homeland Security.

Look, let's state the obvious here.  I am sure that Democrats would very much like to pass suitable bills to fund transportation, defense (possibly by continuing resolution), and social services (leaving Obamacare subsidies to be decided separately) and cut off funding solely for Homeland Security.  But let's be serious.  What are the chances the Republicans would agree?  If there is going to be a partial government shutdown, they are going to want it to be as painful as possible to put pressure on Democrats to cave.  Why would they give up valuable hostages?

But suppose the Republicans are so crazy as to give up their hostages.  Instead of facing of air traffic controllers and troops not being paid, we are facing solely a cutoff in funding for Homeland Security.  That can be sustained for a long time.  But not forever.  Why?  Because Homeland Security is not limited to ICE and Border Patrol.  It also includes uncontroversial agencies, such as the Coast Guard and FEMA.  How long can the Coast Guard go unpaid before there is serious pressure to fund them?  And if a shutdown were to extend all the way into summer, FEMA would be unable to pay for disaster relief.  Sooner or later, even Homeland Security will have to be paid.  The question is, on what conditions?

Trump and Greenland

OK, so I know I am not saying anything original here, but we have a military base on Greenland.  If Trump thinks it is not big enough, he just has to ask and he can expand it.  Or if he thinks we need more bases, that can readily be negotiated with the Danes, who are a treaty ally and share our interest in keeping out the Russians and Chinese.  Or if he is interested in the rare earth minerals in Greenland, again, the Danes are happy to negotiate an agreement.

Trump is basically a man who visits a friend, sees a piece of art the friend has, and covets it.  The friend, seeing that he likes the work, offers to sell it.  But regardless of the price, he his sure the friend is ripping him off because why would the friend part with the piece of art unless he was getting the better end of the bargain.  Friend could even offer the piece of art for free out of friendship and Trump would just wonder what his angle was.  The only way Trump can be sure his friend isn't taking advantage of him is to push him aside and take the piece of art by force.

When you are a powerful enough, you can do without friends.

The Time to Reign in ICE is Now

Trump has decided to keep the old regime in Venezuela under new management and exert pressure on how to behave, rather than take a root-and-branch approach.  As he commented,  "If you ever remember a place called Iraq, where everybody was fired, every single person, the police, the generals, everybody was fired, and they ended up being ISIS."  Much as I hate the man, he has a point there.  If we were to install opposition leader Maria Machado, we would end up with a leader who cannot control the army, police, or paramilitary gangs.  There is simply no way that would end up well.

But this has rather strong implications for our situation in the United States today.  I think there can be little doubt that Trump is setting out to take control of the army, the police and paramilitary gangs (i.e., La Migra) and turn the into his own private thugs.  

The police worry me the least.  Policing in the US is extremely diffuse. Wikipedia estimates that there are about 800,000 law enforcement officers in the US, of whom about 137,000 are federal.  Some are narrow specialty groups with numerous US departments, not serious sources of power.  The Department of Justice is home to most federal police agencies, including the FBI (c. 38,000 employees); the Drug Enforcement Agency, under 10,000 employees; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; about 5,200 employees, the US Marshals, about 4,000 employees; and some prison bureaus that presumably have their hands full guarding prisoners. None of these agencies appear to have fallen under partisan control just yet, and DOJ lawyers are offering quite spirited resistance to subversion.  This does not mean that federal police cannot be subverted, just that it has not happened yet, and that it seems unlikely to be anywhere near complete before the 2026 election.  In any event, none of these really look like forces that could stage a coup.  So danger, yes, but relatively remote and our focus should be on keeping it from developing.

The army are scarier.  After all, they are powerful enough to stage a coup, or to become an instrument of occupation and oppression.  Currently they are trying to talk him out of invading Greenland, a plan they consider illegal.  Trump is now threatening a trade war over Greenland -- 10% tariffs on February 1, to increase to 25% on June 1 to continue until a deal is concluded.  This is not good, obviously, but if it means he is choosing a trade war over a shooting war -- at least for now -- then it could be worse.  It may be a sign that the generals have talked him down, at least for now.* And it is an encouraging sign that the generals just might block any attempt at a coup.  Of course, Pete Hegseth is hard at work subverting the military and he still has three more years to do it, so the danger is absolutely real.  But, again, what is needed right now is to prevention, rather than reversal.

But the "paramilitary gangs," i.e., La Migra -- ICE and Border Patrol -- are the danger right here and now.  They are terrorizing immigrant communities across the country, pepper spraying protesters, smashing windows, and beating and arresting anyone who looks too brown.  They blitzed Los Angeles and then Chicago, but were not able to subdue either city before moving on.  They are now blitzing Minneapolis with unprecedented numbers and brutality and can only be expected to get worse.  

La Migra is a danger, not at some undetermined time it the future, but right now.  Allowing them to continue unchecked does not just mean that untold numbers of people will be hurt.  It means unleashing a gang of thugs who have tasted blood and will not easily relinquish power.  People who just might stage "immigration raids" ad major Democratic events.  Or at polling places.  Or people who just might do what Trump wishes he had done last time and seize the ballot boxes.  Or even stage an outright coup.  In other words, people who just might subvert the democratic process by force and violence if they see their power is in danger, much less that they might be subject to criminal prosecution under a new administration.**  And even if La Migra is not able to keep a Democrat out of the White House, we would be faced with the prospect of a President who cannot control paramilitary gangs.

We need to do all we can to shrink and reign in this monstrosity before it gets even bigger and more powerrful.

_________________________________________

*Trump's desire to keep our naval forces surrounding Venezuela and controlling its oil flow may also be a factor.

**Unlikely, since Trump could always pardon them.

He's Baaack!

 

In August, September, and October, Donald Trump seemed to be on an unstoppable roll.  

• Trump deployed the National Guard to the streets of Washington DC.  
• La Migra* terrorized Chicago.  
• Trump planned to unleash the National Guard on Chicago and Portland and, if blocked from using the local National Guard, to call in forces from some other state.  
• Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, digital mobs pressed to fire anyone who criticized him and the FCC (briefly) forced Jimmy Kimmel of the air, and the government sought IRS and RICO actions against activist groups on the left.  
• Steve Miller announced an "all of government effort" to dismantle "Antifa."  
• Pete Hegseth summoned all generals to Washington, DC and Trump lectured them about the enemy within.  
• Paramount bought out CBS and put Bari Weiss in charge of news.  
• The DOJ indicted James Comey and Letitia James and set their eyes on Adam Schiff.  
• Trump welcomed a government shutdown to allow for more power grabs.  
• Russell Vought pledged to cut funding and personnel in a blatantly partisan manner.  
• Republican made terrifying remarks about the upcoming "No Kings" march.  
• Republicans in general and Trump in particular made hysterical warnings and threats if Zohran Mandami were elected Mayor.
• And Mike Johnson practically voted the House into permanent recess to avoid a vote on the Epstein files.  

We seemed at an irreversible tipping point into dictatorship that nothing could stop.  And then in November and December, Trump suffered a setback.

• Four Republicans broke rank to force a vote on the Epstein files and Congress voted overwhelmingly to demand their release.
• Congress returned to session following that vote.
• The government shutdown became a political millstone for Trump and did not yield any significant power grabs.
• Trump spent the shutdown, with essential federal employees going unpaid and people losing their SNAP benefits, posting about his super-expensive ballroom and remodeling of the Kennedy Center, seemingly unaware of how tone deaf that was.
• Congress passed annual funding for SNAP benefits, depriving Trump of a valuable hostage in any future shutdown.
• House Republicans passed an extension of Obamacare subsidies against Trump's wishes.
• State and local elections swung strongly toward the Democrats and Trump did not contest the results.
• Greg Bovino and his goons withdrew from Chicago, leaving the city bloody but unbowed.
• Trump quietly backed down from his National Guard deployments.
• The Supreme Court largely blocked any future plans to deploy the National Guard.**
• Marjorie Taylor Green broke with Trump.
• The Indiana legislature refused to gerrymander, despite threats from online Trump supporters.
• Mandami charmed Trump into dropping his threats.
• The rightwing influencers started fighting among themselves about the Charlie Kirk assassination in particular and antisemitism in general.
• Indictments against Comey and James were dismissed.
• The DOJ actually began investigating the investigators in the Adam Schiff case.

But it was always a mistake to see this as Trump being defeated, as opposed to suffering a setback.  And now he has once again seized momentum.

Some flew under the radar screen.

While we celebrated victory the Administration prepared a memo making clear that plans to criminalize the opposition are by no means over.  While the memo essentially declared any leftwing view to be suspect, its focus on doxing or impeding law enforcement strongly suggests that immigrant rights groups are the main targets.  

Others were more blatant.

Most obvious is the invasion of Venezuela.  The threat is now present to every leader in the Western Hemisphere -- toe our line or it might be you next.  And now Trump is seriously threatening to destroy NATO by invading Greenland.  And now he has seized Venezuelan oil and is depositing the proceeds of sale in offshore accounts to serve as his personal slush fund, beyond the reach of Congress or the courts.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has been threatened with criminal charges in an attempt to force him to lower interest rates.

Trump has started "joking" about cancelling the 2026 elections.

And if we missed an opportunity to make the assassination of Charlie Kirk our Reichstag Fire moment, well, the postman always rings twice.  The assassination of two National Guard troops by an Afghan granted asylum has been just the excuse Trump needed for further crackdown on immigration -- shutting down entry from a wide range of countries that had nothing to do with the shooting.  And Trump is starting to act like a smart authoritarian.  A smart authoritarian knows that if he wants to crack down on some ethnic minority, first he has to whip up hatred against it.  In this case, Trump called Minneapolis Somalis garbage and drew attention to a very real COVID fraud case involving Somalis.  Rightwing influencers did the rest.  One soon produced a report alleging widespread daycare fraud by Somalis in Minneapolis and set off a full-scale moral panic.  Trump, having succeeded in whipping up hatred, had his excuse for a crackdown.

La Migra is terrorizing Minneapolis on an unprecedented scale -- 2000 agents from ICE and 1000 from Border Patrol.  Operations in Los Angeles and Chicago were simply not on this scale, and operated in much larger cities.  By all accounts, Minneapolis is a city under occupation and the goal is to crush it into submission.  And, frankly, to make an example of Minneapolis.  No doubt the scale of the attack was made possible by the massive expansion of ICE with the One Bonkers Barbaric Bonanza and the severity the result of putting Border Patrol in charge.  It seems a safe assumption that future blitzes by La Migra will look much that same.  And can we face it? Despite all the increases in funding, La Migra still does not have enough forces to conquer and subjugate a country of over 300 million.  

But it doesn't have to.  All it has to do is pour in enough resources for a long enough time to fully conquer and subjugate one major US city -- in this case, Minneapolis, but any city would do.  After that, it need only threaten any future target with the same fate to produce submission.  Such was the strategy with Venezuela.  Or with Columbia University.  Just crush one target and the rest will fall into line.  This is what has to be stopped.

____________________________________________
*Referring to the combined forces of ICE and Border Patrol.
**The ruling, it should be noted, made no sense at all, since it said he could deploy the National Guard only if the Army couldn't do the job!  But at least for now, it has also blocked deployment of the Army.

Post Now or Forever Hold Your Peace

 Wow!  I let over a month go without posting!  Which goes to show the problems with waiting.  I had several such posts turning around in my head.  In particular:

• A comparison and contrast between the Epstein files and the Steel Dossier
• A post commenting that the Charlie Kirk assassination had failed to become our Reichstag Fire moment
• A post saying that Kash Patel and Dan Bongino were not as bad as I had feared
• A post on what I think the right wing wants from journalism

And who knows.  Maybe I will write those someday.  But between the invasion of Venezuela, the potential invasion of Greenland, and the crisis in Minneapolis, it seems hard to care much about the Epstein files.* And any celebration about dodging a Reichstag Fire moment or the FBI not being weaponized to the extent I feared seems premature.

Stay tuned.

__________________________________________________

*Yes, I know.  Some people say the whole thing is an attempt to distract from the Epstein files.  I don't buy it.  Yes, I know, many a dictator has sought to distract attention from his declining domestic fortunes with foreign adventures.  Invading Venezuela is par for the course.  But Trump's declining domestic fortunes are broad-based and primarily about economic issues.  Blaming it on the Epstein files is making the same mistake as with Russiagate -- looking for the one silver bullet that will slay the dictator.

Thoughts on The Sign of the Four

 

Looking at Sign of the Four, we can see some of the conventions of future mystery novels taking shape.  There is a murder.  (Not all Sherlock Holmes stories include a murder, or even a crime).  It is an early locked room mystery -- a body is found in a room with the door and windows locked.  Holmes introduces one of his best-known precepts -- eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however, improbable, is the truth.  There is an obvious suspect who is innocent, and it is up to the detective to clear his name and identify the real killer.  Holmes is able to identify the villain (not actually the killer in this case, but the prime mover) using the clues available to the reader -- in particular, Jonathan Small must be the villain because Major Sholto shot at a random wooden-legged man who turned out to be a harmless tradesman.  Presumably this mean a white tradesman, or Thaddeus would have said otherwise.  Since Small was the only English name among the four, he must be the wooden-legged man.

There are some other things that do not work so well in modern mystery conventions.  The Andaman Islander appears to exist solely as a plot device, to allow the wooden-legged man to climb a wall, and to commit the murder.  Otherwise Doyle has no interest in him.  As with the last novel, there is also an unidentified accomplice, in this case the insider who let Small know what was taking place in the Sholto household.  Holmes is reasonably sure it is the butler, Lal Rao.  I also find Small's purported fidelity to his accomplices to be implausible.  They forced him, on threat to his life, to join their conspiracy.  Why should he need their consent to cut a deal, or insist that they receive their share?  He might say that he took an oath and his oath bound him, but how binding is an oath made under duress?  Of course, one can also ask whether Small is a reliable narrator and whether his account -- either of acting under duress, or of his fidelity to his accomplices, none of whom are in sight -- is altogether truthful.

I am told by TV Tropes that in Sherlock Holmes the woman is always innocent.  That seems like a sort of sentimentality decidedly out of character for Holmes.  And, in fact, it is not universally held by his contemporaries.  Often the obvious suspect that Holmes works to clear is a woman (although, of course, in this case it was a man).  But in this novel, at least, we see an indication that the sentiment belongs to Doyle, not to Holmes.  When Watson comments on how attractive Miss Morstan is, Holmes answers: 

I assure you that the most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money, and the most repellant man of my acquaintance is a philanthropist who has spent nearly a quarter of a million upon the London poor.

So apparently Holmes recognizes at least the hypothetic possibility of a woman being the villain, even if it never comes up in any of his stories.  And when Watson announces his intention to marry her, Holmes calls her "one of the most charming young ladies I ever met" and praises her intuition in spotting the important item in her father's papers.  But he disapproves of love as biasing the judgment.

And so we see Doyle's first attempt to end the series, by marrying Watson off.  Needless to say, he failed. 

Sherlock Holmes, Sign of the Four: The Mystery

So, back to Sign of the Four.  We are moving somewhat in the direction of a modern mystery here.  Holmes is able to determine whodunnit based solely on the clues offered in the novel. It still relies on the villain to give a great many details that are not implied in the story.  And the villain has two accomplices, one of whom is killed on sight and the other is never really identified.  Doyle does not appear to be much interested in either of them; his real focus is on Jonathan Small.

Much harder to forgive -- Holmes solve the mystery in chapter six (of twelve).  Most of the remainder of the novel is taken with the attempt to hunt him down, including the 19th Century's equivalent of a high speed pursuit, and Small's account if events.

The story begins with a lovely young governess, Miss Mary Morstan, daughter of an army captain who served in Indiaa.  Her father sent her to a boarding school in Scotland after her mother died.  When she turned 17, he telegraphed her from London that he was home from the Andaman Islands, where he was in charge of a military prison, and summoning her, with great hope and excitement.  When she arrived, her father had vanished, leaving his luggage behind, and was never seen again.  His only friend in England was Major Sholto, retired from his regiment, who said he knew nothing of Captain Morstan's visit to England.  Four years later, she received a mysterious pearl of great value by mail, and continued to receive such a pearl each year. This went on for six years, and that morning she received  a letter in the same handwriting saying that she had been wrong and would receive justice, and setting a time and place to meet.  She was invited to bring friends if she was (understandably) distrustful.  Watson is most enchanted with her, and Holmes praises her judgment in bringing the letter and the envelopes that contained the pearls. 

 

Andaman Islands

While Holmes and Watson await the meeting, Holmes does some research into Major Sholto and finds that he died in 1882 and that Miss Morstan began receiving the pearls within a week of his death.  He deduces that his heir is behind the pearls and is making some sort of compensation to Mary Morstan for the loss of her father.  When Miss Morstan joins them, she brings a mysterious paper from her father's effects -- a mysterious diagram of halls, corridors, and passages, signed by "The sign of the four,—Jonathan Small, Mahomet Singh, Abdullah Khan, Dost Akbar."*

They go to the designated meeting place and are greeted by an Indian coachman, who escorts them to the house of Thaddeus Sholto, the Major's son, heavily decorated with Indian ornaments.  He explains that his father returned from India with significant money, but was fearful of some unknown danger, had his house guarded by professional boxers, and particularly feared wooden-legged men.  He once shot at a wooden-legged man who proved to be completely harmless.  In 1882 the Major received a letter that so frightened him that his health failed and his illness was proclaimed mortal.  In his final illness, the Major told his sons that he and Captain Morstan had come into a significant treasure in India.  Captain Morstan had a weak heart and got into a quarrel over division of the treasure so heated that he had a fatal heart attack.  The Major's own servant assumed that it was murder, so the Major hid the body, not seeing how he could convince anyone of is innocence.  On his deathbed, the Major wants to make it right with Captain Morstan's daughter.  He is about to reveal the location of the treasure when a mysterious fact looks through the window.  "It was a bearded, hairy face, with wild cruel eyes and an expression of concentrated malevolence."  Thaddeus and his brother, Bartholomew chase after the mysterious man, but he escapes, and by the time they return their father is dead.  Their father's room was ransacked and piece of paper left behind saying, "The sign of the four."  (Dum da dah!)  Bartholomew has now found the treasure, hidden in that attic at their father's old house, but shares his father's greed and does not want to part with it.  Thaddeus proposes that the go over to confront him.

They travel to the house and find Bartholomew locked inside the study and unresponsive.  They break down the door and find him dead, his features grossly contorted, and beside him a piece of paper with the words "The sign of the four."  (Dum da dah!).   Holmes examines the body and determines that the cause of death is a prick with a poisoned thorn. The two brother made a hole in the ceiling to bring down the treasure, but now it is missing.  Thaddeus is the obvious suspect.  

Holmes sends him off to fetch the police and starts some detective work.  The window is locked from the inside, but there are prints on the ledge -- a boot and a peg leg -- the wooden-legged man (dum da dah!).  A wooden-legged man could hardly have climbed the wall, but Holmes spots a rope lowered to help him up.  Clearly, then, he had an accomplice.  Inspecting the rope, Holmes sees blood.  The killer is a good climber, but not a sailor or his hands would be more hardened.  It is then that Holmes introduces his precept -- "[W]hen you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."  If the door and window are locked from the inside and the chimney grate is too small, they must have entered through the hole in the roof.  Which points to an inside contact who told them about the hole.  Looking in the attic, Holmes sees the prints of the accomplice -- a bare foot too small to be a man or even most women, toes splayed out in the manner of one whose feet have not been encased in shoes.  There is a trap door in the roof to the attic -- again pointing to an inside source or how could they have known.  

About this point, Detective Athelney Jones shows up and immediately concludes that Thaddeus Sholto is the killer.  The motive is a dispute over the treasure, the thorn could easily have come from the collection of Indian materials.  He dismisses the "sign of the four" note as a red herring to throw the police off track.**  Jones first postulates a quarrel between the men and Thaddeus makes off with the treasure.  Holmes points out that this would require the corpse to lock the door!  Jones recognizes the hole in the ceiling and concludes he must have used that.  Holmes gives his own description of the killer:

His name, I have every reason to believe, is Jonathan Small. He is a poorly-educated man, small, active, with his right leg off, and wearing a wooden stump which is worn away upon the inner side. His left boot has a coarse, square-toed sole, with an iron band round the heel. He is a middle-aged man, much sunburned, and has been a convict. These few indications may be of some assistance to you, coupled with the fact that there is a good deal of skin missing from the palm of his hand.

After Detective Jones has arrested Thaddeus Sholto, and after Miss Morstan has been taken home, Holmes explains his reasoning to Watson.  Small's size, shoe size, and the details of his peg leg, naturally come from Holmes' examination of his footprints, as with the previous novel.  Major Sholto so feared wooden-legged men that he shot at a white wooden-legged tradesman.  Jonathan Small was the only white name of the four.  He further reasons that Sholto and Morstan got the map from Small while they were operating a military prison.  It seemed likely that he was an inmate, and that his incarceration was the reason he had not retrieved the treasure himself.  His age is deduced from the time elapsed since that even, his sunburn from convicts being outdoors, and his general appearance from Thaddeus' description.  Holmes does not (yet) say much about the associate, except that he is small, habitually goes barefoot (toes splayed out instead of bunched together), and that he committed the murder and that Small was displeased.  Spoiler alert: Holmes will later reveal that the accomplice was a native of the Andaman Islands where Small was a convict and the two officers guards.  Aboriginal inhabitants of the islands were small, primitive (hence the bare feed), and used poison darts.

So, now Holmes has determined whodunnit, how, and why.  What does that leave?  Catching the offender.  Holmes is an expert tracker, but within human limitations, i.e., he looks at footprints and makes deductions from them.  He cannot track by smell like a dog.  Tracking by sight is not much use on the busy streets of London.  Even a dog might find the streets challenging.  However, the islander stepped in some creosote and left a trail that even a human can smell.  Holmes borrows a dog to track the smell.  This is somewhat complicated by the frequent transportation of creosote throughout London to preserve wood.  However, after some false starts, they are able to trace the offenders until they catch a boat.  He approaches the owner's wife on the pretext of wanting to hire the boat and is able to determine that the owner was, indeed, hired by the wooden-legged man and has been missing since yesterday.  He also gets a description of the boat.  The boat goes missing for a time, until Holmes deduces that Small must be concealing it by sending it in for repairs.  They trace the boat and Doyle entertains us with a high speed chase on the water, both sides frantically shoveling coal into their engines.  The primitive islander aims his blow gun at his pursuers and they shoot him in self-defense.  That is the end of him. They capture Jonathan Small and, as before, the killer gives a long back story that we could not have known from the clues.

He joined the army after a scrape with the law, made the mistake of swimming in the Nile, and had his leg bit off by a crocodile.  That would appear to be the end of his military career, so he took a job as a plantation manager in India, but was interrupted by the Sepoy Mutiny (1857, or about 30 years before the date of the novel).  He took refuge in a fortress with many halls, corridors and passages.  The emergency was so dire that despite his wooden leg, Small was given command over two Sikhs -- Mahomet Singh and Abdullah Khan.*  The two of them forced him at gunpoint to take an oath to join their conspiracy, saying that they trusted a Christian, but not a Hindu, to be bound by his oath.  A messenger was coming from a local Raj to hide his jewels in the fort.  Dost Akbar would lead him to the others and they would kill him and seize the treasure.  This was done, but they were found out and sentenced to penal servitude for life.  He ended up on the Andaman Islands, under the guard of Sholto and Morstan, both experiencing serious financial pressure.  Small offered them a one-fifth share of the treasure if they would help the four escape.  He was quite firm on this point.  His accomplices must also be freed and must have their share of the loot.  Well, as we know, the two officers double crossed him.  Small had learned some medicine from the prison doctor and used his skills to nurse a mortally sick island native back to health and escape with his help.  And, he finally says, he threw all the jewels into the river, rather than let them fall the heirs of Sholto and Morstan.

With the jewels no longer an issue, Watson can now ask Mary Morstan to marry him without looking like a gold digger.  Holmes, burned out after the exhilaration of the case, returns to his cocaine.

_______________________________________________

*Mohammed Singh?  Without claiming any special expertise, this seems like a most unlikely combination, since Mohammed is a Muslim name and Singh is a Sikh name.  It is later revealed that the team are Sikhs, which I would think would make Abdullah also an unlikely name.  But I am ready to be proven wrong.   

**An interesting inversion from the previous novel, in which the killer wrote the word "rache" (German for revenge) on the wall, to make the police falsely suspect a secret society.