This Level of Corruption Is
Unprecedented in the Modern History of the Presidency
And it's threatening our democracy.
Mar 12, 2017
The important part
about dealing with epidemics is to deal with them early. Just like the fire department
would really rather come into a building when there was smoke coming out of one
window instead of when there are flames coming out of every window, because
it's a lot easier to control the fire early on, it's much easier to control an
epidemic early on.
—Dr. Don Francis, AIDS researcher, 2006.
It's almost as though the entire
bureaucratic immune system of the government is reacting to an invading virus.
The worst thing any of us can do is assume that the ascent of El
Caudillo del Mar-A-Lago was not the sui
generis event that it clearly was, and that he, himself, is not the
sui
generis occupant of the White House that he clearly is, and that he
has not surrounded himself with dubious quacks and hacks that are sui
generis in their approach to government as they clearly are.
There is a level of intellectual—and,
perhaps, literal—corruption that is unprecedented in the modern history of the
presidency and that is a genuine and unique threat to democratic institutions
that are the objects of destructive contempt. The man ran on chaos. He won on
chaos. And now he's governing on chaos. The checks and balances and safety
valves of the Constitution—the things that, well, constitute—the immune system
of this self-governing republic are facing a threat that is as different as it
is lethal.
The man ran on chaos. He won on chaos. And
now he's governing on chaos.
The latest manifestation of this phenomenon
is the sudden firing of U.S. Attorneys all over the country—specifically, those
appointed by the previous administration. It is true that every president can
do what this president did, and that most have. But the people who said all
through the campaign that the rules changed with the elevation of Donald Trump
cannot say that the rules are back now that he's president. In addition, what
he did on Friday was precipitous in the extreme and so much so that it seems to
have been improvised on the spot, and that it might have been prompted by a
virulent paranoia at the White House about "deep-state" saboteurs, a
feeling encouraged by the hardbar caucus in Congress and pimped heavily by the
conservative media auxiliaries.
By contrast, in 2009, the newly elected Barack Obama put his U.S. Attorneys in place, but he didn't fire all of the incumbent ones all at once without having the faintest idea who their replacements might be. And this was in the wake of the naked politicization of the DOJ during the Bush Administration. From
"I expect that we'll have an announcement in the next couple of weeks with regard to our first batch of U.S attorneys," Holder said Thursday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing which stretched out over most of the day due to breaks for members' votes. "One of the things that we didn't want to do was to disrupt the continuity of the offices and pull people out of positions where we thought there might be a danger that that might have on the continuity—the effectiveness of the offices. But...elections matter—it is our intention to have the U.S. Attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as they can." Holder's comments begin to resolve questions in the legal community about whether the new administration would hesitate to replace the chief prosecutors en masse because of the intense controversy that surrounded President George W. Bush's unusual mid-term replacement of nine U.S. attorneys in late 2006. In addition, legal sources said some Bush appointees were looking to burrow in, in part to avoid a grim economic climate for private-sector legal jobs.
But, as we are relentlessly told by people
who are whistling past a considerable graveyard, Donald Trump is different. He
certainly is. Already, there are serious questions about his violations of the
Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, about how and where he got his money, about
how seriously we should take his claim to have divorced himself from his
business interests, and about the precise relationship he has with kleptocrats
the world over, especially in Russia. In that context, his decision all at once
to decapitate the Justice Department at the local level takes on a more
sinister character.
And then there's the case of Preet Bhahara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the scourge of the money power in New York City, which definitely includes the current president* of the United States. The man was the swamp-drainer supreme. The situation with Bharhara already is stranger than usual. In the first place, a week ago, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III had asked Bhahara to stay on. Also, Bhahara has a number of investigations that may or may not hit too close to home at the White House, including one involving Fox News. And, as has become customary with this administration, the whole matter was handled with the delicacy of a monkey trying to fuck a football. From
Within the Justice Department, some are questioning whether a recent phone call from Trump to Bharara may have contributed to the decision to remove the Obama holdovers, according to a person familiar with the matter. On Thursday, a White House aide called and left a message for Bharara, saying the president wanted to speak with him, though the prospective topic of discussion was unclear. Bharara consulted his staff and determined that it would probably be a violation of Justice Department protocols for him to speak directly to the president, this person said. That protocol exists in order to prevent political interference—or the appearance of political interference — with Justice Department work.
He's shaking up Washington! He's exploding
political norms! He's also lighting his own pants on fire. By forcing the
administration to fire him, Bharara managed to maneuver the World's Greatest
Dealmaker into elevating Bharara's profile even higher, and to draw the
spotlight down on what Bhahara's investigations, past and present. He also set up
Bhahara as a free radical in our politics; the defrocked U.S. Attorney already is
talking about his "absolute independence," which ought to
freeze the bowels of a lot of people with plans for the future. If, one day,
we're all talking about Senator Preet Bhahara, then the current president* will
get a big assist.
He's shaking up Washington! He's exploding
political norms! He's also lighting his own pants on fire.
There's a kind of momentum building inside
and outside the government right now. For a long time, I thought the
Republicans in Congress could hold out against the encroaching chaos long
enough to pass their wish list, which the president* would sign, because that
beats working and he doesn't know anything. But the way they've botched
health-care makes the congressional majorities look as though they've both been
hit in the head with a hammer. (The mischief out in the states, however, is
still ongoing, and as strong as ever.)
It's possible that too many things are
coming from too many directions for that strategy to work any more. The way
you'll know if that situation reaches a tipping point will be if the various
legislative intelligence committees of the Congress looking into the Russia
business give up the job either to a special prosecutor or to some sort of
blue-ribbon 9/11-type commission. You want chaos? That will be chaos, and the
patient may flat-line.
No comments:
Post a Comment