Overbooked yet again.

It's how I roll...

 

This book has jumped the queue as I've been pressing to finish Christopher's riveting new work on LLM AI technology, These Strange New Minds. Mary Anne Franks rocks. I'd hoped to finish her and Chris's books today...

Then I opened my inbox this morning when I got up.

I'd forgetten that Who Is Government was on pre-order (I am a long-time insatiable Michael Lewis FanBoy).

After Donald Trump won his first presidential election, I had one of the strangest experiences I’ve ever had as a writer. The federal government had set aside a big pot of money for the candidates of both parties to staff their presidential transition teams. Trump and Hillary Clinton had both built massive teams of people ready to enter the 15 big federal departments and hundreds of smaller federal agencies to learn whatever was happening inside. A thousand or so Obama officials were waiting for them, along with briefings that had taken them six months to prepare. But then, days after the election, Trump simply fired the 500 or so people on his transition team. “Chris, you and I are so smart that we can leave the victory party two hours early and do the transition ourselves,” he told a perplexed Chris Christie, who’d assembled the team.

Then he appointed Rick Perry as his secretary of energy. In his own presidential campaign, Perry had called for the Energy Department’s elimination—and was forced, at his Senate confirmation hearings, to acknowledge that he’d had no real idea of what went on inside the Energy Department, but now that he’d spent a few days looking into it, he really did not want to eliminate it. At that moment, it became clear that none of these people, newly in charge of the United States government, had the faintest idea what it did. (The Energy Department, among its other critical functions, manages our nuclear weapons.) And they weren’t alone! I didn’t really have any clue what went on inside the department, either. People capable of ruining panel discussions and dinner parties with their steady stream of opinions about American politics were totally flummoxed by the simplest questions about American government…

Our government—as opposed to our elected officials—has no talent for telling its own story. On top of every federal agency sit political operatives whose job is not to reveal and explain the good work happening beneath them but to prevent any of their employees from embarrassing the president. The PR wing of the federal government isn’t really allowed to play offense, just a grinding prevent defense. And the sort of people who become civil servants—the characters profiled in this book—tend not to want or seek attention.

And, finally, there is the stereotype of “the government worker.” We all have in our heads this intractable picture: The nine-to-fiver living off the taxpayer who adds no value and has no energy and somehow still subverts the public will.

You never know what effect any piece of writing will have. Writers write the words, but readers decide their meaning. My vague sense is that most readers of these stories have come away with feelings both of hope (these civic-minded people are still among us) and dread (we’re letting something precious slip away). My own ambition for The Post series and this book was that they would subvert the stereotype of the civil servant. The typecasting has always been lazy and stupid, but increasingly, it’s deadly. Even as writers grow rich proving it wrong.

Given our current Trump/MAGA/DOGE shitstorm, this stuff is all acutely timely.

 

 

OUR FABULIST-IN-CHIEF THIS MORNING, WHINING ONCE AGAIN ON HIS "TRUTH SOCIAL" ABOUT OUR JUDICIAL BRANCH.

"This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President - He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!" Trump wrote. "I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!"

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
 

Saw this author interviewed on PBS Newshour last night.

 

This book is the story of a largely under-the-radar legal movement that is weaponizing the obscure field of libel law—a campaign whose growing momentum has closely tracked the country’s increasing flirtations with authoritarianism.

At first glance, libel law might seem an unlikely venue for a battle with high stakes for American democracy…

Yeah. At first blush, his book coheres nicely with Mary Anne Franks'.

 

ERRATUM
 

Been watching daily equities markets fluctuations lately (like a lot of folks). Found this a bit interesting.

 

Trump's "Truth Social" (DJT) and Musk's TESLA. I overlaid the dark grey negativeely sloping approximate "trendline" starting on Inauguration Day. Had I the raw data, I'm guessing I could compute a linear Pearson-R of perhaps ~ 0.9. These two DOGE BFFs fully deserve each other.

____

 

UPDATE

Her book is killer.

_____

 

UPDATE: THE DAY IN STUPID

 

 

Okeee Dokeee, then.

 

Stay tuned...

_________

  

July 1st, 2024:

SCOTUS EX-POTUS IMMUNITY DAY

 

Final decision day of the current Supreme Court term. Absent a (preposterous) declaration dismissing the Special Counsel’s DC indictment outright, will the current conservative majority provide Donald Trump with a Melt-Clock “remand” off-ramp ruling sending his case back down for further lower venue proceedings, imposing an additional procedural delay that would principally serve to push the DC J6 Insurrection case out past the November 5th presidential election?

We should know shortly after 10 a.m. eastern time. Trump claims that his every act occurring during his time in office was an “official act” consequently shielded by blanket constitutional immunity from all subsequent judicial matters civil or criminal. In MedMal lingo, this would be known as permanent comprehensive “tail coverage.”

 

JULY 1 UPDATE

6-3 to remand to the DC trial court for bench-level determination (subsequently yet again appealable all the way back up to SCOTUS) of exactly what constitutes "unofficial acts" pertinent to the Trump J6 case. Essentially the Melt Clock Offramp ruling favorable to Trump.

119 page opinion (pdf). I spent the day reading all of it.

 

UPDATE

TRUMP v UNITED STATES 2024: JUSTICE BARRETT CONCURRING IN PART

…If the statute covers the alleged official conduct, the prosecution may proceed only if applying it in the circumstances poses no “‘dange[r] of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” Ante, at 14 (quoting Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 754 (1982)). On remand, the lower courts will have to apply that standard to various allegations involving the President’s official conduct. [2] Some of those allegations raise unsettled questions about the scope of Article II power, see ante, at 21–28, but others do not. For example, the indictment alleges that the President “asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing” about election fraud claims. App. 193. The President has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power.
______

[2] This analysis is unnecessary for allegations involving the President’s private conduct because the Constitution offers no protection from prosecution of acts taken in a private capacity. Ante, at 15. Sorting private from official conduct sometimes will be difficult—but not always. Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. See, e.g., App. 208. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. See post, at 27–28 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). The Constitution vests power to appoint Presidential electors in the States. Art. II, §1, cl. 2; see also Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. 578, 588–589 (2020). And while Congress has a limited role in that process, see Art. II, §1, cls. 3–4, the President has none. In short, a President has no legal authority—and thus no official capacity—to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct.

Read & re-read that passage and footnote closely. Trump has NO constitutional immunity for trying to overturn the 2020 election. It simply does not matter which of his subordinates he enlisted in his efforts. They wera all "private acts." 

UPDATE 

  

"Perhaps you think Trump is exaggerating when he calls for a military tribunal to prosecute and execute the January 6th Committee members.  Perhaps you think the idea of rounding up and punishing political opponents of Trump is some distant fantasy.

You could not be more wrong." - Rick Wilson

_____
 

OFF-TOPIC PERSONAL ERRATUM

 

July 1st is always a crappy day for me. On July 1, 1998, now 26 years distant, my elder daughter Sissy, succumbed to cancer in L.A. in the wake of 26 months of Hell. She'd just turned 30. It will always seem like last week.

_________

  

Is Donald Trump above the law? We may soon find out.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2024
CERTIORARI GRANTED
23-939 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. UNITED STATES (23A745)

     The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot.

     The case will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Tuesday, March 19, 2024. Respondent’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 8, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, April 15, 2024.

___ 

 

The "question presented"—

"Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?"

The question not at this point explicitly presented in the above, but clearly the one that matters—

"To what extent (if any) do the behaviors, incitements, and directives (express or implied) of now-former President Donald Trump relating to the 2020 Presidential election result dispute which culminated in the January 6th, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol constitute 'official acts'?"

Game on... 

Fundamental to Donald Trump’s argument on this self-serving immunity claim is that whole “chief law enforcement officer of the United States” assertion. In order to fulfill his sacred Article II Outer Perimeter obligation that he “faithfully execute the laws,” it was Officially imperative that he continually reviewed the 2020 election to verify its legitimacy (which, of course, would never be found)..

Never mind his blatant personal conflict of vested interest in the outcome. His constitutionally proper response would have been to appoint a beat-to-Quarters DefCon5 DOJ special counsel and staff (via AG Barr) to independently review the 2020 election results. It continues to irritate the stew out of me that the various national media legal pundits don’t pound on this centrally salient point.

250 days to go until the 2024 U.S. national elections, folks.

ONE VOTE FOR BLANKET INDEMNITY AT THE OUTSET?

DIFFERENT VENUE, SAME FATUOUS IMMUNITY ASSERTION

“Trump’s argument is conclusory. No evidence was presented to support it, and Trump has not explained how hiring and making payments to a personal attorney to handle personal affairs carries out a constitutional duty. Reimbursing Cohen for advancing hush money to Stephanie Clifford cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty. Falsifying business records to hide such reimbursement, and to transform the reimbursement into a business expense for Trump and income to Cohen, likewise does not relate to a presidential duty. Trump is not immune from the People’s prosecution in New York Supreme Court. His argument of immunity is not a colorable defense.”—NY State Judge Alvin Hellerstein, Trump pornstar “Stormy Daniels” hush money criminal fraud case.

 Might it help to paraphrase from Justice Roberts’ Feb 28th cert words?

NONE of the behaviors, incitements, and directives (express or implied) of Trump relating to the 2020 Presidential election result dispute which culminated in the January 6th, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol constitute any elements of “presidential duty.” In fact, they were plainly and wholly to the contrary, resulting in destructively violent mayhem, injuries, and deaths—leaving a black civic moral stain glaringly unworthy of the honorable self-governing republic we claim to be.

__________