Trump’s attempted coup to overturn the 2020 election using
the DOJ is the subject of this post and it comes from
this MSNBC report with a short video (5:30 minutes) and this headline
from the NBC Think’s main page:
Chuck Rosenberg:
“Why
Trump's January DOJ election meeting failed to subvert justice”
The story of what Trump tried to do is crucially important.
So is the story of the people who stopped him.
Rosenberg’s background and
introduction to the excellent analysis: Subverting Justice – a catchy name for the report issued October 7 by the DEM majority staff of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, regarding a deplorable attempt by Donald J. Trump to overturn the results of the 2020
presidential election.
The interim report —
based on persuasive documents and testimony — finds: “That in attempting to
enlist the DOJ for personal and political purposes in an effort to maintain his
hold on the White House, Trump grossly abused the power of the presidency.”
A more accurate (but decidedly less dramatic) title, then,
might be: “Ineffectually and Ineptly
Attempting to Subvert Justice.”
The story of what Trump tried to do is crucially important. So is the story
of why he failed. That story, we all now know, includes the principled pushback
of senior DOJ officials, who told Trump in a contentious meeting just days
before the January 6 Capitol riot that they would resign en masse if he
continued with his attempt to overturn the 2020 election results.
Rosenberg’s
background and events in his own words:
“I grew up professionally in the Department of Justice,
privileged to have served in the field, and at headquarters as a federal
prosecutor, on the staff of senior DOJ and FBI leaders, as a United States
attorney, and in two of its law enforcement agencies — the DEA and the FBI. We
were never perfect — no institution with human beings ever is — but we were
good at what we did: Seek and provide
justice.”
“The goal, as one of my
colleagues eloquently put it, was to do the right thing in the right way for
the right reason, every time.”
“You also need to know a bit about the structure of the DOJ to
understand the context of the January 3 meeting. The DOJ’s political layer, by
design, is extraordinarily thin. There are, for instance, 93 United States
Attorney’s Offices throughout the country. Some are large, and some are small.
What they all have in common, however, is — at most — one political appointee.
The balance of the roster in every office is comprised of career men and women
who work for presidents and attorneys general of both parties, faithful to the
law and to their oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United
States.”
“Similarly, more than 35,000 people work for the FBI, but
only one — the director — is politically appointed. I have found, too, that
political appointees often adapt their behavior to the norms of the DOJ (not
the other way around), though many political appointees come from the
department’s career ranks, and already know, embrace and breathe its apolitical
ethos. That is a fundamental strength of the DOJ, and it means that legally,
ethically, practically and culturally, its personnel typically behave in
commendable and predictable ways.”
“As the Senate’s
report notes: The norm that law enforcement must be free from political
interference is so critical and so uniformly acknowledged in our system of
government that the U.S. State Department regularly cites the politicization of
a government’s prosecutorial power as grounds for determining that a foreign
power is an authoritarian state.”
“This concept of apolitical integrity is bipartisan and
collectively supported. Trump’s crass and fumbling attempts to undermine
democracy aside, our norms held.”
“Reading the report, I was unsurprised by the former
president’s disgraceful behavior. But I was also unsurprised by the behavior of
DOJ senior leadership, including much of its political leadership. According to
the report, these individuals stood up to the president, in word and deed,
pushed back on his craven attempts to turn the department’s prodigious
authorities to his personal and political advantage, and threatened to quit if
he continued down this foolish and reckless path. Their principled stand prevailed.”
“But, this stand was not universal. One senior DOJ leader, Jeffrey Clark, seemed eager to do Trump’s
bidding — rule of law be damned — and he came uncomfortably close to
getting himself installed as the acting AG. Fortunately, he failed.”
“Other purported villains make cameos from the White House
and from elsewhere in government. There is a lot of shameful behavior described
in the report and good reason for anyone who cares about the rule of law to be
genuinely concerned about a narrow escape from utter and undemocratic chaos.”
“But the report is also about public servants who acted
admirably in this sordid episode — including from the senior ranks of the DOJ and
from White House Counsel’s Office — who honored their oath, advocated for the
rule of law, and managed to contain a reckless and foolish president attempting
to put his political self-interest above the interests of the nation.
Admittedly, some of these individuals could have come forward sooner, perhaps
during the second impeachment, to tell us what they knew. But we can leave that
criticism aside for now.”
“Trump — despite the title of the report — did not
ultimately subvert justice here, though he certainly tried. Trump did not
manage to overturn the valid results of a valid election. Joe Biden is
president. Trump failed because justice — a concept that seems utterly to elude
him — is stronger and better and sturdier and smarter than he is. Let us hope
it always stays that way.”
My 2 Cents: Excellent Chuck Rosenberg analysis and very good
rundown by Ari Melber on his show at MSNBC called “The Beat” and in the video link
above.
My question and that
for the nation that lingers is simple: When will Trump be held accountable that
is being charged, prosecuted for his many serious crimes, tired, convicted, and
found guilty and get a very long prison sentence?
Just that simple – but boy
does he stall and let’s make sure that those on his trail are making a rock solid case
that he cannot squirm out of — but, we have to wait and see and that's the hard part, too.
In my opinion, Donald J. Trump fits this definition to a tee - he is: “A Clear and
Present Danger.”
The clear and present
danger test originated in Schenck v. the
United States (1919). The
test says that the printed or spoken word may not be the subject of previous
restraint or subsequent punishment unless its expression creates a clear and
present danger of bringing about a substantial evil.
Requirements.
The clear and present
danger test features two independent conditions: First, the speech must impose
a threat that a substantive evil might follow, and Second, the threat is a
real, imminent threat. The court (ruled 9-0 against Schenck) had
to identify and quantify both the nature of the threatened evil and the
imminence of the perceived danger.
Scope of the Test. The rule has been applied — with very
mixed results — in cases involving the following:
(Note: I believe Trump and January 6 fit #2, #6, and #7 below):
1. Criminal prosecutions for
opposition to war
2. Statutes penalizing the
advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force or violence
3. Attacks on courts or judges or contempt proceedings
against lawyers
4. Picketing
5. Regulation of prison inmates' access to
newspapers, periodicals, and so forth
6. Incitement to commit crimes
7. Breach
of the peace or disorderly conduct
The rule has been held not applicable to cases involving:
2. Libel cases
3. Statutes regulating the conduct of labor union affairs
4. Statutes governing the use of school property
for non-school purposes
5. Demonstrations in an inappropriate place,
such as before a courthouse
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment