When the highest ranking members of the U S. military step out and criticize the commander in chief for abusing his power and playing dictator, that spells very bad news for the Wildman in chief.
Heather Cox Richardson (below) in this well-researched piece, lays out the events of June 1 for what the were: a despicable and desperate power grad by a president who is looking and sounding more and more like Joe McCarthy every day.
This also must be awkward for the NRA, 2nd amendment crowd. The president they love is abusing his power by deploying the military against citizens who are only engaging in their Constitutionally protected rights to assemble, speak and redress government overreach. Trump's behavior is EXACTLY what the hardcore gun nuts fear ... from the left.
Can you imagine what the NRA's reaction would have been had Obama tried to pull this off? They'd be leading well-armed civilian militias into the streets to OPPOSE the U.S. military. My guess is you won't hear a peep out of them now.
Where this all leads we don't know. But we can only hope Trump will implode and lose his grip on things, and that his outrageous behavior will help some conservatives see Trump the same way we do: as a dangerous man.
Social media roiled all day as users tried to figure out who were the soldiers in Washington, D.C. wearing no identification and saying they reported to the Department of Justice. Tonight the answer came: they were riot teams from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice that oversees incarcerated people.
This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, according to Holocaust scholar Waitman Wade Beorn, who studies ethical decision making in the military, it’s a problem because soldiers are trained to defend civilians while prison guards are used to seeing civilians as their enemies, and are accustomed to using force, rather than de-escalation, to subdue them. The U.S. military, Beorn points out, does not like to be employed against Americans, and has a long tradition of that reluctance.
Their lack of name tags and insignia was also problematic. It hampers accountability-- how can you complain about the actions of an officer if you cannot identify him?-- and it blurs the lines between actual officers of the law and the men on the streets toting guns and demanding protesters answer to them. The use of unidentifiable police is common among authoritarian leaders.
And indeed, backed by Attorney General William Barr, Trump appears to be launching a bid to become an authoritarian leader himself. Law enforcement officers operating under his orders are attacking peaceful protesters and journalists, while the president is framing himself as a powerful leader in front of important Christian symbols: on Monday at St. John’s Episcopal Church, the famous “Church of Presidents” where his predecessors back to Madison worshipped, Tuesday at the Saint John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C.
He has supporters in his quest. Today, the New York Times published an op-ed by Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican, calling for “an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers.” With no evidence, he claimed that “cadres of left-wing radicals like Antifa” are “infiltrating protest marches… for their own anarchic purposes.”
On Monday, Trump announced he would call in active-duty troops to “dominate” the streets, and about 1,300 troops were brought to Washington, D.C. early this week.
But his announcement sparked a widespread and concerted push back by American military leaders today, with the Pentagon saying it has no intent to use active-duty troops in any law enforcement roles.
General Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mark T. Esper, Secretary of Defense, were both caught in Trump’s photo-op walk to St. John’s Episcopal Church Monday after National Guard officers had cleared peaceful protesters from the square in front of it with tear gas and rubber bullets. Today, they distanced themselves from the president.
Milley issued a memo to all branches of the U.S. military reminding them to honor their oaths to the Constitution, a document “founded on the essential principle that all men and women are born free and equal, and should be treated with respect and dignity. It also gives Americans the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.” Milley’s wording reflects that forty percent of the nation’s active-duty and reserve troops are people of color who aren’t keen on seeing the president empowering white supremacists.
For his part, Esper told reporters that he did not believe active-duty military should be sent to American cities, contradicting the president, who later chewed him out for it.
But Milley and Esper were not alone. Eager to distance themselves from Trump and the imposition of martial law, a wave of military leaders from the Air Force, Army, Navy spoke up today to call for justice for Black Americans and to reiterate their loyalty to the Constitution.
John Allen, a retired U.S. Marine Corps four-star general and former commander of the NATO International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, called out June 1, 2020 as the day that might well “signal the beginning of the end of the American experiment.”
“There is no precedent in modern U.S. history for a president to wield federal troops in a state or municipality over the objections of the respective governor. Right now, the last thing the country needs—and, frankly, the U.S. military needs—is the appearance of U.S. soldiers carrying out the president’s intent by descending on American citizens,” he wrote.
Allen pointed out that the dangers of “Antifa,” a loose designation for those opposing fascism, pale in comparison to “violent white supremacist groups,” who have “murdered, lynched, tortured, terrorized, oppressed, and discriminated against black Americans from the beginning of the idea of America.”
James Stavridis, the 16th Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, expressed dismay at the use of the military against peaceful protesters. Soldiers ”are not meant to be turned against their fellow citizens,” he wrote. “Our founding fathers feared the use of a standing army that could be used to further the aims of a dictator…. The idea of “boots on the ground” and “dominating the battlespace” in our American cities is anathema to America.” He invoked Tiananmen Square, where the Chinese government brutally suppressed protesters exactly 31 years ago, killing and wounding thousands, as a warning for what could happen if the military gets dragged into domestic politics.
General James Mattis, Trump’s former Secretary of Defense, wrote a scathing public condemnation of Donald Trump himself. “Angry and appalled,” by this week’s events, Mattis said Trump had ordered troops “to violate the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens,” and warned that we should use uniformed military “only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors.” “We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.”
Remembering that in World War Two the Nazi slogan was “Divide and Conquer,” Mattis noted that Trump “tries to divide us.” “We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must,” he wrote, “reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.” He concluded: “Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.”
Follow-Up To Jim Mattis' Reference To Trump As An Ignorant Dolt Who Doesn't Read
It is not just military leaders who have spoken out against Trump. As of today, all four living presidents-- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama-- have all called for racial justice and a better government.
Today, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison charged all four of the Minneapolis police officers at the scene of George Floyd’s murder. Derek Chauvin, who kneeled on Floyd’s neck, has been charged with second-degree murder. The other three officers, Thomas Lane, Tou Thao, and J. Alexander Kueng, are charged with felony aiding and abetting second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. They face maximum sentences of forty years in prison.
Trump’s reelection campaign is faltering as his poll numbers drop, and his supporters are trying desperately to turn the nation’s focus back to the idea of “Obamagate.” Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee opened hearings on the origins of the Russia investigation, interviewing Rod Rosenstein, the former Deputy Attorney General who oversaw the investigation after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself. The committee focused on the applications to the court to allow wiretapping on former Trump aide Carter Page, and while Rosenstein defended those applications, Republicans pounced on his admission that they were poorly prepared. They also attacked presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and Obama for what they said were abuses of power that rivaled those of Richard Nixon.
Trump supporters on Fox News media expressed frustration that no one seemed to be paying attention to the hearings.
Meanwhile, across the nation, protesters and city mayors are pulling down Confederate statues, a physical political ritual that is a universal herald for regime change.
——
Notes:
A crazy number of notes tonight, folks, but this is a historic week….
President Donald Trump’s call for a military response to the civil unrest gripping the US after the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died as a white police officer pressed a knee into his neck last week.
Mattis, an influential retired Marine general who resigned over Trump’s policy on Syria in 2018, accused the president of trying to divide the country. "Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try," Mattis wrote in The Atlantic. Only hours before Mattis’ comments were published, the current defense secretary, Mark T. Esper, also distanced himself from Trump, suggesting the use of the military to contain the protests was unnecessary at this time.
In a day with several high profile figures speaking out, former President Barack Obama on Wednesday urged mayors across the country to review their police department's use-of-force policies, but also struck a note of optimism. "In some ways, as tragic as these last few weeks have been, as difficult and scary and uncertain as they've been, they've also been an incredible opportunity for people to be awakened to some of these underlying trends," Obama said via livestream from his home in Washington, DC.
Since I don't have television, I don't "really" know what happened in protest cities last night, although I was greatly encouraged by multiple press reports that, increasingly, police and protestors are making common cause.
Here's what happened in Denver:
American Conservatives Demand Violence To Keep Violence Alive. Otherwise, It Withers
2 days ago - In New York, hundreds of protesters walking over the Manhattan Bridge were met by a blockade of police officers who had refused to let the group ...
2 days ago - For some cities, instituting curfews may have helped, following a weekend in which looters tore through cities, causing widespread destruction ...
Kelly defended former defense secretary Jim Mattis on Thursday over his criticism of the president's handling of nationwide protests and disputed Trump's assertion that he fired the retired general in 2018. "The president did not fire him. He did not ask for his resignation," Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, said in an interview. "The president has clearly forgotten how it actually happened or is confused. The president tweeted a very positive tweet about Jim until he started to see on Fox News their interpretation of his letter. Then he got nasty. Jim Mattis is an honorable man." Mattis tendered his resignation in 2018 after his disagreement with Trump’s decision to pull U.S. forces out of Syria.
Excerpt:"Former Defense Secretary James Mattis denounced President Donald Trump Wednesday in an statement that hammered his former boss as a threat to American democracy. Trump is needlessly dividing the country and "militarizing" America's response to the protests, Mattis wrote in a statement published by The Atlantic magazine. "Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people – does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us," he wrote. "We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort...""
***
Concerning yesterday's Real News of General Jim Mattis taking Malignant Messiah over the coals... In no uncertain terms, Mattis spotlights Trump behaviors that not only fail to uphold the constitution -- thus breaking his presidential oath -- but says in equally emphatic terms that Trump tries to tear the country apart. Ever since McConnell's bogus dismissal of impeachment charges, Trump cultists have been falsely boasting Trump's exoneration. In any event, here is a link to Mattis scathing criticism so readers can decide for themselves.
"READ: Former Defense Secretary Mattis' statement on Trump and protests"
Excerpt:"Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort." Then Mattis specifically states that Trump is using the same strategy Hitler used to defeat the United States in World War II. Excerpt: Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that "The Nazi slogan for destroying us...was 'Divide and Conquer.' Our American answer is 'In Union there is Strength.'" We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics. Cultists seem to think felonious treachery and traitorous behavior have to be preceded by open statement of guilt: "I, Donald Trump, am using Nazi tactics to divide and conquer the United States by traitorous behavior." Wake up and smell the rohypnol.
Follow-Up To Jim Mattis' Reference To Trump As An Ignorant Dolt Who Doesn't Read
Marine Corps General James Mattis' No Holds Barred Criticism Of Donald Trump:
Excerpt: "Former Defense Secretary James Mattis denounced President Donald Trump Wednesday in a statement that hammered his former boss as a threat to American democracy. Trump is needlessly dividing the country and "militarizing" America's response to the protests, Mattis wrote in a statement published by The Atlantic magazine. "Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people – does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us," he wrote. "We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort...""
***
Concerning yesterday's news of General Jim Mattis taking Malignant Messiah over the coals... In no uncertain terms, Mattis spotlights Trump behaviors that not only fail to uphold the constitution -- thus breaking his presidential oath -- but says, in equally emphatic terms, that Trump tries to tear the country apart. Ever since McConnell's bogus dismissal of impeachment charges, Trump cultists have been falsely boasting Trump's "exoneration." Here is a link to Mattis' scathing criticism in its entirety.
"READ: Former Defense Secretary Mattis' statement on Trump and protests"
Excerpt: "Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort." Then Mattis specifically states that Trump is using the same strategy Hitler used to defeat the United States in World War II. Excerpt: Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that "The Nazi slogan for destroying us...was 'Divide and Conquer.' Our American answer is 'In Union there is Strength.'" We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics. Cultists seem to think felonious treachery and traitorous behavior have to be preceded by open statement of guilt: "I, Donald Trump, am using Nazi tactics to divide and conquer the United States by traitorous behavior." Amerika, wake up and smell the rohypnol.
Follow-Up To Jim Mattis' Reference To Trump As An Ignorant Dolt Who Doesn't Read
Let's remember that by definition half of every population has double digit IQ, and so His Malignancy knows he has a dependably manipulable audience. I mean, these people take professional wrestling seriously. (And, as entertainment, professional wrestling can be great fun. But, taking it seriously?) Anyhow, Trump just has to bide his time, not doing anything "over-the-top outrageous" between now and "the homestretch," and it's not inconceivable he could win "going away!" There are these intractable issues.
"It Has Now Become Clear Exactly How Republicans Might Try To Overturn Biden's Victory In November"
My suspicion of foul play comes down to the fact that Bill Barr looks waaayyyyy happier than he should. If Barr were contemplating his prospects reasonably -- with Trump about to join "the mighty who have fallen" -- the AG would look as depressed as a guy who knows his formerly good name will become a shithouse/whorehouse in the annals of history and people will make pilgrimages to piss on his grave. But - mirabile dictu! - Barr is not at all depressed. Why... I think he looks like somebody who KNOWS Trump is going to win in November. Keep in mind that there's never been need for overt conspiracy between Trump and Putin, since Putin automatically does everything in his power to insure Trump's victory with nary a whiff of collusion and no need to read up on "The Art Of The Deal." Guaranteeing Trump's victory is the easiest, cheapest, most effective way for Vlad to overthrow the United States as global hegemon. In fact, if the social, political and cultural collapse Putin can easily arrange is sufficiently catastrophic, the United States could enter its own uniquely tailored Dark Age. But even assuming such a bleak outcome, there remains the potential good news of Blue State Secession:
Compendium Of Best Pax Posts About Blue State Secession
I digress... All that's needed to guarantee Trump's victory is an "October Surprise" that kills at least 50 people in a terror attack - a Big Bang that generates lots of gaspingly "photogenic" video. (I've speculated that blowing up the top floors of Trump Tower would be perversely "perfect.") Boom! And the dimwits rally around the flag -- which in this case means rallying around The Strong Man! -- and voilà, Trump is re-elected by a landslide. (How could Putin NOT know this?) Or, if Trump neither "knows" (nor conjecture) what Putin's got planned, he might stupidly do something to invoke the 25th Amendment, and then the replacement candidate becomes quiet, courteous, ever-so-respectable -- and demonstrably CHRISTIAN -- Mike Pence (an apostate Catholic btw). Overnight, America congratulates itself for having lived through The Trump Crisis. And on Election Day, not just the evangelical/fundamentalist wackos but a significant number of "persuadable" mainstream Christians elect a bona fide Triumphalist Divine Dominion Theocrat.
Elsewhere... It is very good news that General Mattis is speaking up. I suspect Mattis' love for the United States is so deep that he will become a featured "presence" on the campaign trail, doing everything possible to prevent the re-election of a truly satanic man who's idea of enjoyment is traitorous trashing of all that is best in The American Experiment (a phrase Mad Dog uses).
Statement By General Mattis: If He's Not Saying Trump's A Traitor, What Does "Traitor" Mean?
So, those are the skeletons in my closet. Closing the door on all those bones (and putrescent chunks of still-attached flesh), I will continue to hope that Reason prevails (as it has NOT these last four years) and that Biden-Harris enjoy a cakewalk on November 3rd. While I have your ear, let me relate one more truly outlandish prospect... Just as I count on Jim Mattis' patriotism to help "save the day," I MUST believe that Barack and Michelle will find it "impossible" to shun the single most patriotic thing they can do - which is for Michelle to accept Biden's vice-presidential offer. (Joe has already stated that the job is hers for the asking.) Well... There you have it. Pax et amore Alan PS As for your speculation concerning a possible left-wing tyrant... Joe seems singularly unsuited to play that role. For now, I've done enough speculation, although I will say Joe is definitely looking like an old man, and if something happens to him -- perhaps brought on by the rigors of the campaign -- it is not inconceivable that Bernie or Warren could take his place. Or, in the unlikely event Michelle is already "on board," she would be heir apparent --- and a formidable heir at that ... especially as America begins making amends to black people who, come November, would turn out in unprecedented numbers ... along with a new and growing cadre of white people who -- finally -- seem prepared to make The Change.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 5:17 PM Fred Owens wrote:
The old tyrant is falling. Trump's days are numbered. A new fear arises, a new tyrant. Who will be the new tyrant and how can we stop that from happening? A left wing tyrant.
Alan: What comes clear over the course of the following interview with Amherst scholar Lawrence Doublas is that functioning democracies ALWAYS depend -- existentially -- on a whole set of presuppositions that politicians will behave in a fundamentally fair way because that is how healthy, tolerant, open societies have acculturated and conditioned them.
Lawrence Douglas, the interviewee-author of "Will He Go? Trump And The Looming Election Meltdown Of 2020" frequently refers to the non-codified, unwritten foundation of "functioning government" as "the norms."
And this is true, as long as we have a healthy, tolerant, open society which perpetuates civil discourse and civil participation in the mechanisms of government.
However, since civility has collapes and civil society is no longer civil, it will probably be easier to understand this particular part of the interview if you always keep in mind the phrase "gentlemen's agreements" whenever Douglas refers to the "norms" that serve as the underlying "lubricant" of democratic government.
But I must immediately add that without the lubricant of civility -- without "gentlemen's agreements" -- government crumbles all the way down to bedrock, and in the resulting quicksand-chaos, the most pragmatic politicians are ready, willing and able to seize autocratic power.
Republican Presidential Candidate Pat Buchanan "Summarizes The Republican Philosophy"
Republican presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, the living American who has served longest as a White House senior staff adviser, observed: “The Republican philosophy might be summarized thus: To hell with principle; what matters is power, and that we have it, and that they do not.”“Where the Right Went Wrong"
"Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other." Carl Jung
Alan: What made The Tea Party so successful at "getting its way" (simultaneously paving the path to Trump's autocracy) is that Newt Gingrich and his fundamentally destructive cadres chose to be adamantly, persistently, relentlessly uncivil, so that ALL "gentlemen's agreements" were nullified - quite possibly without even realizing what they were doing. (The energy released by destruction-fission is such a "rush" that destroyers feel uplifted, even "glorified," just as soldiers in battle often experience a kind of psychotomimetic "enlightenment" arising from the unprecedented sacrifice of battle and consequent transcendence of baseline ego-centrism.)
On the surface, almost the entire population -- including congress-people themselves believed they were still "playing by the rules" and that "Tea Party conservatism" had won "fairly and squarely."
In fact, they won by trashing the presupposed norms of civility (aka "the gentlemen's agreements") that REALLY make democratic government work.
Will he go?
Imagine that it’s November 3, 2020, and Joe Biden has just been declared the winner of the presidential election by all the major networks except for Fox News. It was a close, bitter race, but Biden appears to have won with just over 280 electoral votes.
Because Election Day took place in the middle of a second wave of coronavirus infections, turnout was historically low and a huge number of votes were cast via absentee ballot. While Biden is the presumptive winner, the electoral process was bumpy, with thousands of mail-in votes in closely fought states still waiting to be counted. Trump, naturally, refuses to concede and spends election night tweeting about how “fraudulent” the vote was.
We knew this would be coming; he’s been previewing this kind of response for a while now.
There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone.....
One day goes by, then a few more, and a month later Trump is still contesting the outcome, calling it “rigged” or a “Deep State plot” or whatever. Republicans, for the most part, are falling in line behind Trump. From that point forward, we’re officially in a constitutional crisis.
This is the starting point of a new book by Amherst College law professor Lawrence Douglas called Will He Go? Trump and the Looming Election Meltdown in 2020. According to Douglas, a scenario like the one above is entirely possible, maybe even probable. And if nothing else, we’ve learned in the Trump era that we have to take the tail risks seriously. Douglas’s book is an attempt to think through how we might deal with the constitutional chaos of an undecided — and perhaps undecidable — presidential election.
I spoke to Douglas by phone about why he thinks our constitutional system isn’t prepared for what might happen in November and why he’s not worried about a stolen election so much as an election without an accepted result. “If things go a certain way,” he told me, “there’s a Chernobyl-like defect built into our system of presidential elections that really could lead to a meltdown.”
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
What worries you most about the November election?
Lawrence Douglas
To say that we’re facing a perfect storm is clichéd, but it does strike me that there are a lot of things coming together that could spell for a chaotic election.
Foremost among them is the fact that we have a president of the United States who has pretty consistently and aggressively telegraphed his intention not to concede in the face of an electoral defeat, especially if that electoral defeat is of a very narrow margin. And it looks like it probably will be a narrow margin. In all likelihood, the 2020 election is going to turn on the results in probably the three swing states that determined the results in 2016: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
The other concern is that if we do fall into an electoral crisis and we start seeing the kinds of challenges to the results that we saw back in year 2000, during Bush v. Gore, then we could really see a meltdown because our contemporary political climate is so polarized. That’s what led me to start asking,what types of federal laws do we have in place? What kind of constitutional procedures do we have in place to right the ship?
And what I found is that they just don’t exist.
Sean Illing
What does that mean, exactly? Are we racing toward a constitutional crisis?
Lawrence Douglas
In a word, yes.
What makes our situation particularly dangerous is it’s not simply the statements that come out of Trump. We’re pretty used to Trump making statements that leave us all gobsmacked at this point. What worries me is that if there are going to be any guardrails protecting us from his attacks on the electoral process, it would have to come from the Republican Party. And we’ve seen that Republican lawmakers simply are not prepared to hold this guy to account.
We saw that in the impeachment proceeding, where it was really astonishing that you have Mitt Romney as the only Republican voting in the Senate to remove the president. And it was only, what, eight years ago that Mitt Romney was the standard-bearer of the party in the national election.
It’s a pretty disturbing erosion of democratic norms.
Sean Illing
If you’re right that the Republican Party isn’t going to stand up for the rule of law, where does that leave us legally and politically?
Lawrence Douglas
If you have a president who is really pushing the argument that fraud cost him the election, he really does have the opportunity to push things to Congress. And what I mean by that is that Congress is the body that ultimately tallies Electoral College votes.
It’s not inconceivable that you have states that submit competing electoral certificates. And I won’t go into the nitty-gritty about how that happens, but it can happen. And if that happens and you have a split Congress between the Senate Republicans and the House Democrats, there is basically no way to resolve the dispute.
Sean Illing
Let’s say that happens and we enter January 2021 without a political consensus on who won the election. What then?
Lawrence Douglas
I’m not trying to be an alarmist here, but it’s possible to imagine, come January 20, that we don’t have a president. By the terms of the 20th Amendment, Trump ceases to be president at noon on January 20 and [Mike] Pence likewise ceases to be vice president.
At this point, by the terms of the presidential succession act of 1947, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, could become acting president, but only if she resigns her House seat. But what if Trump continues to insist that he has been reelected and is the rightful president? Imagine if, come January 20, Trump stages his own inauguration ceremony with Clarence Thomas issuing the oath of office.
Then we might have Nancy Pelosi and Trump both claiming to be the commander in chief. This is a world of hurt.
Sean Illing
What about the Supreme Court?
Lawrence Douglas
I think a lot of people assume the Supreme Court would step in and end things before they got too chaotic. This is more or less what happened in 2000.
But it’s very misleading to think that it was the Supreme Court that settled the 2000 election. It really wasn’t the Supreme Court in the decision Bush v. Gore that ended things — it was Al Gore. Al Gore, for the good of the country, decided to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling. I’d say it’s impossible to imagine Trump doing anything like that.
Besides, if it did intervene, I’m not sure that Congress would abide by a court ruling. Because so many experts [here and here] say the Court really doesn’t have jurisdiction to resolve an electoral dispute once it hits Congress.
Sean Illing
Let’s imagine that the election happens and Biden wins convincingly enough that the vast majority of the country, even most Republicans, accept the outcome. In that case, Trump — and a small wing of hardliners — may refuse to concede, but both parties basically accept the results.
What happens then? Would federal marshals have to go in and drag Trump out of the White House?
Lawrence Douglas
Here’s the thing: That’s not the scenario I’m worried about. If Trump loses decisively, I think his opportunities for creating mayhem will be dramatically curtailed.
What worries me is that I don’t see him losing in that fashion. I could certainly imagine him losing decisively in the popular vote, as he did in 2016, but I can’t imagine him losing that decisively in the Electoral College.And everything will turn on what happens in these swing states.
This is going to be an election that is conducted under very unusual circumstances. There are going to be potentially chaotic scenes at polling stations, and god forbid there’s a fresh outbreak of Covid-19 in the fall. Then you’re also going to have millions of people voting by mail-in.
Sean Illing
Why is that a problem?
Lawrence Douglas
Well, these mail-in ballots are not going to get counted by November 3. That gives someone like Trump space to create incredible chaos.
Imagine a swing state like Michigan. Imagine the November 3 popular vote appears to go to Trump by a small margin. So he declares that he’s won Michigan. And Michigan defines the margin of victory in the Electoral College, so he declares that he’s been reelected.
Well, as these write-in ballots and these mail-in ballots are counted in the next days, there’s this phenomenon that we’ve seen in the last several elections called the “blue shift.” It tends to be the case that mail-in ballots break Democratic. It’s typically the case that mail-in ballots come from urban areas, which are predominantly Democratic in their voting patterns.
And so in this case, it’s entirely possible that Trump is trailing once all the votes are counted. But then he says, “Those votes are bogus. They shouldn’t be counted.” And if you look at the political profile of Michigan, again, you find this kind of perfect storm brewing, because the Republicans control the statehouse in Lansing. So let’s say they all support Trump, and they all say, “Yeah, we’re going to go with the Election Day results. We’re going to give our electoral votes all to Trump.”
Then we’ve got total chaos.
Sean Illing
But the governor of Michigan is a Democrat, and my understanding is that it’s the governor, along with the secretary of state and the board of electors, who sends the electoral certificate to Congress.
Is that right?
Lawrence Douglas
That’s correct. It’s the governor who is responsible under federal law to send the electoral certificate of the state to Congress. But that is not to say that the state legislature is barred from sending its own certificate to Congress. You might say, “Well, then, isn’t the governor’s certificate the proper certificate?” and the answer is that it’s up to Congress to make that determination. And if one House accepts the governor’s certificate and the other accepts the legislature’s certificate, then we’re in a stalemate.
Sean Illing
So your main worry is not that the election will be stolen so much as we’ll be left without a result?
Lawrence Douglas
Exactly.
Sean Illing
The situation you’re describing is almost unthinkable: We have an election and there’s simply no binding result.
Lawrence Douglas
Again, I’m not trying to be an alarmist.
Sean Illing
This is pretty damn alarming, Lawrence.
Lawrence Douglas
Look, one of the main points of my book was to say, “Hello, people. If things go a certain way, there’s a Chernobyl-like defect built into our system of presidential elections that really could lead to a meltdown.”
Sean Illing
Are there any precedents for this?
Lawrence Douglas
We came very close to having something like this happen back in 1876. There was this Hayes-Tilden election, in which three separate states submitted competing electoral certificates to Congress. Congress was likewise divided between House Democrats and Senate Republicans, and they couldn’t figure anything out. It was a total stalemate. They eventually jerry-rigged a solution, but that solution only worked because Samuel Tilden, the Democratic candidate, agreed to concede.
Again, I don’t see Trump doing that.
Sean Illing
This is an astonishing hole in our Constitution. It’s another example of our reliance on norms, not laws or institutions, to keep things humming along.
Lawrence Douglas
It’s such a great point. When I was researching the book, I was asking myself, well, what does the Constitution and the federal law do in order to secure the peaceful transition of power?And one of the things that I realized is they don’t secure the peaceful succession of power. They presuppose it. They assume that it’s going to happen. So if it doesn’t happen, well, no one knows ...
Sean Illing
Now, on to another worry: Could the election be postponed?
Lawrence Douglas
No, I don’t think so. The president can’t do that, because Election Day is set by federal law. You could have Congress change the election, but that would require bicameral support and bipartisan support, and that seems highly unlikely.
Sean Illing
It feels almost pointless to ask this question, but I’ll do it anyway: Are you confident that our constitutional system can handle what’s potentially coming in November?
Lawrence Douglas
No. I have incredible respect and admiration for our constitutional system, but I’ll go back to one of the points you made, which is that the system really assumes that political actors have absorbed the norms that make the system work. But if you have a president who ignores those norms; if you have a party that ignores those norms, that continues to facilitate the rejection of those norms; and if you have a fractured media universe that rewards the president for rejecting those norms, then we’re in a very dangerous situation.
The only real way to avoid this is to make sure we don’t enter into this scenario, and the best way to do that is to ensure that he loses decisively in November. That’s the best guarantee. That’s the best way that we can secure the future of a healthy constitutional democracy.
Though the president had previously sold his border wall as a nearly impenetrable structure, his administration is hoping to find ways to shore it up against those defeating it.
Miles Davis beaten by police and arrested while having a cigarette during a set break outside the club he was performing at.
“Remembering Miles Davis and the long history of black men being brutalized simply for being black. For those don’t know the history, on August 25, 1959–eight days after the release of his “Kind of Blue" album—Miles was performing at Birdland, recording an Armed Forces Day broadcast for Voice of America. In between sets he had escorted a friend out and put her in a cab and was relaxing in front on the club having a smoke. A police officer approached him and asked him to move on. Miles pointed to the marquee, explaining to the officer that he was performing inside and that it was his name on the marquee. Still the officer persisted, not caring who he was or what he was doing. While Miles was trying to explain to the police officer that he was making a mistake when a detective, drawn by the crowd that was starting gather, blindsided him and hit him in the head a few times with a billy club, drawing blood. He was then arrested and taken into custody, and after going to the hospital to get his head stitched up was charged with felonious assault on an officer.” A Comprehensive Review Of Trump's Racism https://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-comprehensive-review-of-trumps-racism.html
The Merger Of Stupidity And Racism Merge In This GIF Is Jawdropping - And Typical
Share
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/20004597/Douglas_WillHeGo_9781538751886_HC.jpg)
