Trump's Mobilization for War Against the Rule of Law

Many Trump supporters say they voted for Trump because they wanted him to "blow up the system." They believed that part of that agenda would be punishing "those people" - blacks, Hispanics, gays, non-Christians, and non-whites generally - so that they could regain the privilege they saw themselves losing.  Never mind that some of their lost privilege tied directly to their own bad choices and lack of initiative and personal responsibility.  Never factored into the mix was the reality that Trump wanted to destroy the legal system and the checks and balances written into the United States Constitution and make himself above the rule of law.  One need only look to Nazi Germany, Chile under Pinocet, or Putin's Russia to see where that will lead.  A piece in New York Magazine looks at Trump's coming attempt to destroy the rule of law:

The legal conflict between Donald Trump and Special Counsel Robert Mueller is escalating rapidly. New reports in the Washington Post and New York Times are clear signals that Trump is contemplating steps — firing Mueller or issuing mass pardons — that would seem to go beyond the pale. Except: Trump’s entire career is beyond the pale and, in his time on the political stage, the unthinkable has become thinkable with regularity.

Trump’s actions are best understood in the context of the overwhelming likelihood he, his family members, and at least some of his associates are guilty of serious crimes. The investigation might not produce proof of criminal collusion with Russia’s illegal hacking of Democratic emails. (Though reasonable grounds for suspicion already exists in abundance.)

Where Mueller seems to be creating special pain for Trump is in his investigation of financial links between Russia, Trump, and other members of the president’s inner circle. . . . Trump is “especially disturbed” that Mueller will access his tax returns. Trump’s lawyers have stated explicitly what Trump hinted at in the interview: He regards an expanding of the probe as a red line that might cause him to fire Mueller. . . . . They are specifically holding up Trump’s financial dealings with Russians as out of bounds: “They’re talking about real estate transactions in Palm Beach several years ago,” Sekulow tells the Post. “In our view, this is far outside the scope of a legitimate investigation.”

The Palm Beach transaction is a source of longtime suspicion. Trump purchased a property for $41 million and then, after improving it, sold it just two years later to a Russian oligarch for more than twice as much. This is a completely natural area for investigation. If the Kremlin wanted to finance Trump, overpaying for a property would be an obvious way to do so.

Why has Trump adamantly refused to disclose his tax returns, even at a significant cost to himself? And why does he appear to be so terrified at Mueller looking under these rocks? The simplest explanation is that he is probably hiding something deeply incriminating.

Trump has shown himself immune to widespread warnings that certain steps are simply not done. His hiding of tax returns, firing of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (who was investigating Russian financial crimes when he was let go), and ousting of FBI director James Comey were all steps that would seem to immolate his career. Ordering the Department of Justice to fire Mueller, or pardoning the targets of his investigations, would be an open announcement that Trump considers his financial ties to the Russian underworld and state to be beyond any legal accountability. The ominous threats emanating from the White House are that of an administration mobilizing for war against the rule of law.

Of course, once the rule of law is dead, many Trump supporters could well find themselves losing rights along with the people they view as "those people."  Trump's only real concern is for himself and to a lesser extent his family.  The rest of us - including those stupid and/or bigoted enough to have voted for Trump - simply do not matter.

North Carolina Rep. Jones introduces bill to limit president's war powers

North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones is often a good foot soldier for the GOP and conservative elements within the Party. However, on occasion, Jones will buck the desires of the powers that be to do what he thinks is right, much like Virginia's Senator John Warner. Would that there were more such members of the GOP. This article from the New Bern, North Carolina Sun Journal (http://www.newbernsj.com/news/bill_37205___article.html/war_jones.html) describes one such situation where Jones is doing what's right a head os the Party and/or the Chimperator's wishes. I am certain that Emperor Palpatine Cheney will NOT like the bill. Here are some highlights:

WASHINGTON — Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina has introduced a bill to prevent the use of U.S. military force in war without the consent of Congress. The bipartisan legislation would amend the United States War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was passed in response to the extended Vietnam War. Jones submitted the bill Sept. 25 and announced it Thursday at a press conference with three of five co-sponsors. One of them, Rep. Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, a Democrat, is a member of the House subcommittee on foreign affairs which will first hear the bill. Also present were Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, both Republicans. The other co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii and and Rep. Robert Brady of Pennsylvania, both Democrats.

The bill would prevent U.S. involvement in another long war without congressional approval. But Jones said it was not drafted in response to last week’s “World War III” comment by President George Bush or to new numbers released this week by the Congressional Budget Office putting the cost of the Iraq War through 2008 at $610 billion and predicting a cost through 2017 of as much as $2.4 trillion. “This has nothing to do with Iraq,” said Jones, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and was one of the first Republican congressmen to oppose the war in Iraq. “This has to do with the Constitution and it has to do with the future,” said Jones. “From what I have seen Congress has not met its constitutional duty regarding oversight.” Jones said he is also concerned about the long deployments of overtaxed military forces and families.

Jones said the framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to decentralize U.S. war powers with those checks. “Throughout American history, this balance too often has been ignored,” he said. “Since U.S. involvement in Korea, presidents of both parties have used military force abroad without the consent of Congress.” The bill specifically prohibits presidential entry into future hostilities without congressional action except to repel and retaliate for an attack on the U.S. or U.S. troops, or to protect and evacuate U.S. citizens. It would strengthen requirements for presidential reporting to Congress to keep members better informed, improve congressional oversight, and tie the purse strings of operations initiated without compliance.

Virginia Sloan, president of The Constitution Project, a nonpartisan organization focused on solving constitutional issues, said it would be “a significant step toward restoring the checks and balances established in the Constitution.”