Plain talk about Trump from the business world

Some excerpts from "Trump Vs. The Rule Of Law" by Matt Levine in Bloomberg Businessweek, Feb. 6.   It shows that the business world is concerned, not just with his removing regulations and making credit easier, but also in more fundamental things like Trump's seeming contempt for the Rule of Law and the danger of his unchecked power.

*     *     *     *     *

"The problem is bigger than some disagreements over policy priorities.  The most troubling aspect of Trump's immigration order may be that it covered U.S. lawful permanent residents,  that is, green card holders who'd spent years building lives in the U.S. . .

"The upshot is that U.S. lawful permanent residents . . . are no longer protected by that law.  They can be deported at the whim of the president, or his advisers, or a border agent -- or they can be spared by a two-sentence statement from the secretary of Homeland Security.  There are no guarantees that the courts can protect them.  The nation of laws they immigrated to is gone, replaced by a nation of arbitrary rule.

"If the president can, without consulting the courts or Congress, banish U.S. lawful permanent residents, then he can do anything.  If there's no rule of law for some people, there's no rule of law for anyone.

"Business leaders are waking up to that reality.  Many grouse in private about the impact of Trump's actions but are afraid to speak out publicly.  'They are scared out of their minds about being attacked,' wrote Andrew Ross Sorkin in the New York Times, "and what that's going to do for their business.'

"When the president can damage your business with a tweet -- and will, if you disagree with him publicly -- then dissent is more difficult. . . . 

"The reason the U.S. is a good place to do business is that, for the past two centuries, it's built a firm foundation on the rule of law.   President Trump undid that in a weekend.  That's bad for business."

*     *     *     *     *

This is not a wild-eyed, paranoid, liberal opinion.   This is a mainstream voice in a moderately conservative business magazine.

Ralp;h 

Betsy DeVos confirmed 51 to 50

The highly controversial billionaire, school choice zealot Betsy DeVos has been confirmed as Trump's Education Secretary.   Two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins joined the 49 Democrats to tie the vote at 50 to 50.   Vice President, acting as head of the senate, broke the tie making it 51 to 50.

Clearly unqualified and embarrassingly uninformed as to laws governing education, DeVos will nevertheless take her place in the Trump cabinet.   Although federal regulations do have a significant effect on public education, in fact the federal government contributes only about 6% of the overall educational budget of local schools.    State and local taxes provide the rest.

Ralph

Trump not welcome to address U.K. Parliament

The United Kingdom's Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has voiced strong opposition to President Trump speaking before Parliament.    On her recent U.S. visit, Prime Minister Theresa May invited him to visit;  but no date has been set.

Bercow said:  “I would not wish to issue an invitation to President Trump to speak. . . .  An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right.  It is an earned honor. . . .  I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons.”   His speech was loudly applauded by other members of Parliament.

Powerful experts warn court on Trump's travel ban

Here are some of the national security experts who have signed an amicus brief in the case against Trump's immigration ban:

Former Secretaries of State Madeline Albright and John Kerry;  former head of Homeland Security, Janet Nepolitano;  former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former CIA officials Avril Haines, Michael Morell and John McLaughlin;   former Sec. of Defense and former head of the CIA Leon Panetta;  and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

Their brief is a forceful case that undercuts the lead argument presented by the Trump Justice Department.   They state:  “We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer. . . .In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds.”

They further state that Trump's order “could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It will aid [the Islamic State’s] propaganda effort and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam.

“It will hinder relationships with the very communities that law enforcement professionals need to address the threat. It will have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact on the lives and jobs of American citizens and residents. And apart from all of these concerns, the Order offends our nation’s laws and values.”

Several of these national security officials served in the Obama administration up until shortly before the Trump administration took over on Jan. 20th;  the brief includes this:  

“We know of no interagency process underway before January 20, 2017 to change current vetting procedures, and the repeated need for the Administration to clarify confusion after the Order issued suggest that that Order received little, if any advance scrutiny by the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security or the Intelligence Community."

Law professor Steven Vladeck, who submitted his own brief against the travel ban, wrote that "it's just not the case that 'many very bad dangerous people' were 'pouring into our country' prior to Trump's order.   "If anything, it's the Executive Order itself, and not preexisting immigration laws and policies, that poses a threat to our national security."

In other amicus briefs, almost 100 tech CEO's have mounted legal opposition to the ban, stating that it will be damaging to the U.S. economy.  Signed by Apple, Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, and Microsoft, their brief emphasized that the executive order makes it more difficult for them to "recruit, hire, and retain the world's best employees. . . .  American workers and the economy will suffer as as result."

A hearing on the government's request for reinstitution of the ban will be held today, Tuesday;  and a decision is expected by Friday.   For Judge Robarts, who was obviously skeptical of the government's claims -- pointing out that there had been zero arrests of terrorists from these countries in the U.S. since 9/11 -- this strong argument from these experienced national security professionals should be persuasive.

The Trump-Department of Justice argument is that the president has the power to make decisions about immigration and national security issues.   The counter to that is:  (1) that the Bill of Rights trumps that power.  This ban essentially applies a religious test to be allowed into our country, even though the order does not mention Muslims.   But, as shown in yesterday's blog, there is ample evidence that was Trump's motivation.  And (2) the Trump Department of Justice has failed to show any compelling reason why that right should be abrogated.  This brief from the former national security officials is the evidence needed to bolster that lack of evidence.

Ralph

Bernie Sanders says Trump is "a fraud."

Sen. Bernie Sanders said to Jake Tapper on CNN: 

"“This guy ran for president of the United States saying, ‘I’m going to take on Wall Street. These guys are getting away with murder.'   And then, suddenly, he appoints all these billionaires. His major financial adviser comes from Goldman Sachs. And now he is going to dismantle legislation that protects consumers. . .  

"This is a guy who ran for president saying, ‘I’m . . . not going to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  And then he appoints all of these guys who are precisely going to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. . . .  I have to say this, Jake. And I don’t mean to be disrespectful . . . [but] this guy is a fraud."

Apparently in Trump's lexicon, there are two meanings to "take on."    We naively thought he meant "take them on in a fight."   But he "took them on" as members of his cabinet.

Ralph

Appeals Court says No to Trump. What if he defies?

The Justice Department appealed Judge Robart's order that put a nationwide hold on Trump's Muslim ban, asking the court to immediately restore Trump's immigration order.    The Appeals Court said No.

There's one more step, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court.   If they split 4 to 4, then the Appeals Court decision stands -- and that would be the end of the judicial line for Trump, at least as far as immediate restoration of the ban.   It could of course go to a trial, which would be a lengthy process.

Beyond a trial court's consideration of the legality of Trump's ban, Trump has probably poisoned his own case on the issue of context and motivation for the ban.   First, he cannot show that these seven countries are the source of previous terrorist activity in the U.S.   And they've said nothing publicly about having intelligence of plots or plans for future attacks.

There is video footage of Rudy Giuliani saying that Trump wanted "a Muslim ban" and asked him to help devise a way to make it legal.  Big-mouth Rudy spilled the beans (or is he getting revenge on Trump for not appointing him AG?).   Playing that video would be devastating in a courtroom where you're trying to prove it is not "a Muslim ban."  In addition, there are multiple videos from the campaign with Trump himself proclaiming that he would put in a Muslim ban.

Add to that pile of incriminating evidence are Trump's tweets since becoming president in which he denounces Judge Robarts as "this so-called judge" and refers to his "ridiculous" decision.   It shows a disturbing lack of respect for the judiciary and the rule of law.  

So the ultimate question becomes:   What if Trump then decides to defy the court order?   Unquestionably, this would be a constitutional crisis.    How is that handled?

Apparently the only recourse is impeachment, unless some member of his close inner circle (perhaps Ivanka and Jared) could persuade him to resign.    Remaining adamant in refusing to obey a court order would constitute an impeachable offense.

It would be up to the House to bring the indictment, which is what impeachment is;  then the Senate would hold a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.   The Senate vote would determines whether he is removed from office.   

My guess is that it won't come to impeachment;  that, if Trump ever comes to believe that impeachment and conviction are inevitable, he will resign.   Then it should be relatively easy to come up with face-saving rationalizations for a resignation, such as:    the restrictions on his ability to be involved in his business are endangering the survival of the Trump Organization.

Remember, of course, that I have always been wrong on every prediction I've made about Donald Trump.  If he believes that he could be impeached by the House but then acquitted by the Senate, as was Bill Clinton, Trump might relish the fight, thinking he would win -- and he might.

Ralph

Inside White House-Cabinet battle on border order

The Departments of Homeland Security and State are following the Seattle judge's order that put a nationwide hold on President Trump's immigration and refugee ban.   A furious Trump sent out this tweet:   "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"

So we have Cabinet Secretaries pushing back against the president's unconstitutional wishes,  Trump doesn't have much of an argument to force them to disobey a court order, rather than the constitutional process of appeal.   It will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court.   So far, all but one of the judicial decisions have put a delay on implementation. but this is the first 0ne to apply nationwide, which makes it more significant.

But there's also another aspect of the conflict brewing in this new administration that Josh Rogin wrote the following about for the Washington Post.  It's titled "Inside the White House-Cabinet Battle Over Trump's Immigration Order," and it essentially points at the showdown looming already between Steve Bannon and the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security.

One has to wonder:   who is leaking this stuff?   Rogin attributed it to "two administration officials."  My guess is that they're not Trump-Bannon fans.

*     *     *     *     *

"On the evening of Saturday, Jan. 28, as airport protests raged over President Trump’s executive order on immigration, the man charged with implementing the order, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly, had a plan. He would issue a waiver for lawful permanent residents, a.k.a. green-card holders . . . .

"White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon wanted to stop Kelly in his tracks.  Bannon paid a personal and unscheduled visit to Kelly’s Department of Homeland Security office to deliver an order: Don’t issue the waiver. Kelly, according to two administration officials familiar with the confrontation, refused to comply with Bannon’s instruction. That was the beginning of a weekend of negotiations among senior Trump administration staffers that led, on Sunday, to a decision by Trump to temporarily freeze the issuance of executive orders.

"The confrontation between Bannon and Kelly pitted a political operator against a military disciplinarian. Respectfully but firmly, the retired general and longtime Marine told Bannon that despite his high position in the White House and close relationship with Trump, the former Breitbart chief was not in Kelly’s chain of command, two administration officials said. If the president wanted Kelly to back off from issuing the waiver, Kelly would have to hear it from the president directly, he told Bannon. . . ."

[Trump did not call to tell Kelly to back off.  Instead, there was a high level, 2 am conference call with the national security team, the White House Counsel, and Secs. Kelly, Mattis and Tillerson.]  Rogin writes further:

"One White House official and one administration official told me that Kelly, Mattis and Tillerson presented a united front and complained about the process that led to the issuance of the immigration executive order, focusing on their near-complete lack of consultation . . . .

"Bannon and Miller pushed back, defending the White House’s actions and explaining that the process and substance of the order had been kept to a close circle because the Trump administration had not yet installed its own officials in key government roles and other officials were still getting settled into place.

"Flynn, according to the White House official, partially sided with the Cabinet officials, arguing that they should be included in the process, even if the White House ultimately decided not to adopt their recommendations. . . . 

"Later on Sunday, a larger senior staff meeting was convened with White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, senior adviser Jared Kushner and Trump himself, where all tried to make sense of the process and chart a path forward.

"The president made a decision at that meeting that . . . all other executive orders would be held up until a process was established that included the input of key officials outside the White House. . . . [i.e., the Cabinet secretaries and their staff]

"The weekend’s events were the first major dust-up between the White House political leadership and the powerful figures Trump has appointed to head the national security bureaucracies. The Cabinet members stood up for themselves and their agencies and successfully pushed for a policy tweak that the administration later embraced in a memorandum to “clarify” the executive order.

"The Cabinet members also demonstrated that they had something to offer the White House besides their policy input; they are the most credible spokespeople for controversial White House policies in the eyes of the public. . . .  White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters at the daily briefing that 'there was proper coordination . . .  between the White House and the DHS.

"If the White House is now serious about working with the Cabinet, that’s a positive sign and means that this series of events had a constructive impact on policymaking. But there’s a good chance that this won’t be the last time Kelly, Mattis and Tillerson will have to confront Bannon and Miller. Score their first battle as a tie."

*     *     *     *     *

I agree, it's very good for Bannon to get his wings clipped this soon and, by implication, Trump too.  But they are not going to just roll over this easily.   There will be more battles.   The other advantage is that it clarifies where the problem clearly lies.   Bannon plays into Trump's worst instincts, urges him on to rash action -- and now there are at least a few adults to say "not so fast."   Maybe in the future it will happen before, rather than after, implementation.

Ralph

PS:   After this was written last night, it was reported that the White House had strongly challenged the veracity of Rogin's reporting, saying that there was no such confrontation between Bannon and Kelly, that Rogin had not sought to verify the facts with the White House.  The Post did append an editor's note to the published article, admitting some errors but reiterating that there was a conflict between the two about the green card orders.

Frankly, I'm much more inclined to believe the original story.   This sounds to me like vehement push-back from a beleagured White House and bullying demands from Bannon to change the narrative.  I'm sure we'll hear more about it.