In Blog No. 219, I observed that “Other presidents have criticized judicial decisions they disagreed with, but previous presidents have not singled out individual courts and judges for attack.” Mike Dorf has reminded me of an instance that I had forgotten. In 1996, a Clinton spokesman expressed sharp criticism of a federal judge, Harold Baer Jr., following a ruling in a drug case. (In the ruling, the judge had suppressed evidence of 80 pounds of drugs on the ground that the drugs had been seized without probable cause.) Quite so, and I appreciated the reminder. I note, though, that Clinton’s criticism was only one of many directed at Judge Baer (a Clinton appointee) from both Republicans and Democrats. And the New York Times later reported that “after protests from officials in the Justice Department and lawyers’ groups, the White House backtracked and asserted the independence of the Federal judiciary.” Clinton’s criticism of the judiciary was unfortunate but uncharacteristic, while Trump’s are all too frequent.
On Wednesday morning, Trump stormed out of a scheduled meeting on infrastructure with Senator Chuck Schumer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders before the meeting could even begin. His excuse for the tantrum was that he could not negotiate with Democrats while they were investigating him. In fairness to Trump, it was arguably a breach of decorum for Pelosi to have publicly accused Trump of a cover-up an hour before the meeting. Nevertheless, it became clear that Trump’s tantrum was pre-meditated. The day before before the meeting, he had sent a letter insisting Congress would have to pass his North American trade deal before he would agree to pursue infrastructure. Then, after leaving the aborted meeting, Trump proceeded to the Rose Garden to speak to the media, bitterly complaining once again about the Mueller probe and the investigations it had spawned—as cameras captured a printed poster with talking points about the Mueller investigation taped to the president’s lectern, and hand-written notes including “Dems have no achomlishments [sic].”
Trump’s petulant suggestion that he could not deal with Congress while being investigated was a familiar descent to the level of third grade or below (“I’m taking my toys and going home”). Trump, however, will quickly find that there are matters, such as raising the debt ceiling, on which he must have the cooperation of both parties and both Houses on Capitol Hill. It may also be recalled that during the height of the Watergate investigation, Richard Nixon was able to cooperate with Congress in passing major legislation including the Endangered Species Act and the Legal Services Corporation Act.
Trump’s Rose Garden rage could only have been intensified had he known that a federal judge in New York that afternoon would reject his attempt to block the subpoena by House Committees for Deutsche Bank records of Trump financial transactions. The ruling will doubtless be appealed, but that particular “Witch Hunt” appears to be highly promising.
According to eye witness administrative staff there was no tantrum. He was sending a message to Nancy. “Do not make accusations of coverup without facts included. “Tantrums, outrage, anger” are fake news’ emotional terms to continue Presidential harassment. His message was loud and clear: legislate the Mexico and Canada agreement and give Border Patrol aid to the border crisis. One million projected immigrants this year is not “an imagined crisis” as Nancy proclaimed.
It looks like the Barr Report will be the half missing from the Mueller Report which I read. The Mueller Report was supposed to investigate Russian Interference United States Presidential Election. Somehow only one candidate was investigated. Put the two reports together and we will have a fair picture.
It was a tantrum. Trump apparently did not raise his voice, and despite Trump’s claim that he had been accused of “screaming and yelling”, no one had said he did. But walking out abruptly from an important, scheduled meeting, before the meeting has even begun, can fairly be described as a tantrum. And what could be more unpresidential than lining up your subordinates on camera to have them testify that you behaved calmly. “Was I calm?” got the answer “Yes,sir.”? Anyone responding “Well, not exactly,” would surely have been out the White House door in minutes. Actually, there was something more unpresidential, and it didn’t take Trump long to find it: tweeting a video of Speaker Pelosi doctored to make her appear stumbling in her speech. See the account in the New York Times .https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/us/politics/pelosi-doctored-video.html.
The “Barr Report” is showing every sign of being a REAL “witch hunt” but, unlike the Mueller investigation, the Barr probe is not likely to find any actual witches.
I agree with Bill that it is difficult to know how best to counteract the lunacy that besets us. The lunacy is compounded by its volume and magnitude — we have, thank goodness, never have seen anything like this until now. Trump sees himself as larger than life and has a malevolent streak against anyone he perceives to be in his way or not sufficiently fawning. How can it be explained that approximately 40 percent of the electorate still supports him? I sometimes think that these folks need to be made to understand that if they personally knew of anyone like Trump at their work or in their neighborhood, they would stay as far away from the person as possible. Since it seems highly improbable we are going to get rid of him via impeachment, I hope some social psychologists are working on appropriate messages for the next election to convey the danger Trump presents.
The distasteful and damaging circus that describes much of the antics that emanate from Trump and his entourage daily can be difficult for serious, clear thinking people to know how best to respond to. Trump calling himself “a VERY stable genius”, and then calling on a handful of staff members to comment on how stable his behavior is! Trump saying that “Nancy Pelosi has changed, is obviously disturbed, just look at her”, and then a post appears of a slowed down video of Pelosi speaking, with speech that obviously does sound quite slurred! Trump saying that one can’t deal with legislation and investigation at the same time! Do we need to have the ability to multi-task be a basic requirement for the presidency, along with willingness to release one’s recent tax returns. Trump criticizing and attacking virtually anyone who dares oppose his actions or desires, yet responds as if he is above criticism himself, becoming outraged, complaining of being victimized! All laughable, outlandish, but he’s our president, a destructive embarrassment. And perplexing for anyone who cares, whether Nancy Pelosi or any of us, to know how best to counteract. Glad Rino’s are among those doing what they can.
Right on, Bill. And let’s fight like hell to see he’s defeated for re-election. I’m talking about public speaking, knocking on doors, working the telephones, driving folks to the polls, joining in demonstrations, etc. The whole shebang to take him down. And why not ask people like Mitt Romney to challenge Trump for the GOP nomination?
You reference “third-graders and below.”
My grandson, who is in the first grade, delights in calling Trump “Donald Duck” (while laughing at his own joke), and sums-him-up as a “cheater,” a big crime in first-grader world.
Obviously, my grandson has no grasp of the threat Trump poses to our constitutional democracy…but his generation will be forced to cope with the results unless we current-grown-ups collectively stand-up to Trump now.
Your blog is one way to do this…just wish it had wider circulation.
Agreed. Doug’s commentary on public affairs is terrific. Wish he would take a shot at becoming a syndicated columnist for a major newspaper like the Los Angeles Times or popular online pub like Politico, Slate or any number of others.
I don’t think any public official — including lawmakers, presidents and judges — should be immune from criticism.
Sometimes criticism of judges is ill-founded, as, for example, when former Chief Justice Earl Warren was vilified for his opinion fin Brown v. Board of Education. On the other hand, who could defend the Supreme Court’s decision condoning internment camps for all Japanese American citizens during the second World War?
The problem, it seems to me, is that the level of public discourse in the United States has become thoughtless and mean-spirited.
That being said, Trump is a special case. His paranoid behavior and constant efforts to subvert our Constitution must be ridiculed and condemned so we never see the likes of him again in the presidency.
My thoughts on the serios flaws in our Constitution – beginning with the near impossibility of impeaching an incompetent and/or corrupt chief executive — will come another time.
Comments are closed.