Trump claims he can do whatever he wants with the Justice Department

In an impromptu, sit-down interview with the New York Times' Michael Schmidt at his Mar-a-Lago Grill Room during lunch hour, President Donald Trump made one of the most alarming statements of his presidency.

“I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department, . . .  He added -- perhaps because this was said in the context of the Mueller investigation -- ". . . But for purposes of hopefully thinking I’m going to be treated fairly, I’ve stayed uninvolved with this particular matter.” [referring to the Russian interference in our election].

Of course, he's right in a sense.   He has hiring and firing powers of the Attorney General who is the cabinet member in charge of the Justice Department and is the chief law enforcement officer in our federal government.  And Trump is his boss.

But by long-standing custom and agreement -- at least since Nixon's Watergate -- it is considered appropriate and only right that the president give the Justice Department a wide berth of independence.   The president must remain uninvolved in all investigations;  and it would be unthinkable for him to interfere when he himself might be under scrutiny.  That could be obstruction of justice -- a high crime.

The remedy, of course, if he violates that unwritten agreement egregiously, would be impeachment, which the Constitution grants to Congress as the remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors" by the president.

But such a bald-faced and untempered statement is pure Donald Trump:    boldly assert his power -- and never mind the niceties of protocol, tradition, or plain political good sense.

Let's see how his lawyers and handlers walk this one back.   Will John Dowd claim that he wrote it for Trump?   Will Jay Sekulow go on tv and claim that we didn't hear what we heard?   Will Ty Cobb try to spin it as really being a means of cooperating with Mueller?  Will Kellyanne Conway invent a new form of verbal contortion -- as she parodies SNL's Kate McKinnon doing a parody of her own verbal gymnasticw?   Will Gen. Kelly just shrug and mutter, "I can't control what the president says."?

Ralph

Election results: one down, one to go.

Alabama:  State election officials met on Thursday afternoon and promptly certified the election of Democrat Doug Jones as United States Senator to replace the acting senator Luther Strange, who was appointed to temporarily fill the seat left vacant when Jeff Sessions became Attorney General in the Trump Administration.   Jones will be sworn in Jan. 3rd, narrowing the Republican majority to 51-49.

The official count gave Jones a 21,924 vote advantage over Roy Moore, who had refused to concede defeat and even filed a last-ditch, legal challenge, claiming a variety of accusations of "widespread voter fraud" that he said should be investigated before the certification.

According to a CNN report by Chris Cillizza, "Moore's primary complaint seemed to revolve around increased black turnout in the election. Why that would be somehow fraudulent wasn't detailed in the complaint. And John Merrill, Alabama's secretary of state, dismissed a number of the specific issues raised by Moore as either misleading or simply false.  A judge denied Moore's delay request Thursday morning. And then came the official certification," signed by the governor, the attorney general, and the secretary of state.

But it was not for lack of Moore's trying a Hail Mary pass. Besides the "too many blacks voting" charge,  the complaint wanted an investigation of the cars with out of state licence plates at polling places.  And a vague statement that "voter fraud experts" from across the country say this was a fraudulent election.

No one denies -- nor is it illegal -- that the Democratic National Party helped the Jones campaign in its ground game of getting out the vote.   Hence the increased black voting and the out of state car licenses.   Other charges seems to stem from nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors and articles in Breitbart News.

It's over now -- although Moore may not think so.   To him, this was a crusade in which he "stood up for God and the Constitution."   How can you lose?   Even if you once molested some teen age girls?    Moore seems to think that he had a divine right to win this election.

But he did lose, fair and square.  It is now official.   Alabama has a Democratic senator, at least for the four years remaining in the Sessions term,

==========

Virginia:   The election in Virginia for governor and members of their legislative bodies has been over for almost eight weeks, but the control of the House of Delegates is still undecided.

Republicans had had an easy majority that gave them long-standing control of the House, but they also came under the Democratic wave that elected a Democratic governor, despite Trump's having campaigned for the Republican candidate, the popular Ed Gillespie.   And a whole slew of Democrats flipped seats to blue in the House of Delegates.

Why the long delay?  First, a number of the races were so close that recounts were required.  When they were finally completed -- except for two -- that majority had dwindled down -- not just to one seat -- but to a single contested vote in one district that will decide which party controls the House.

If that single vote is read one way, Democrat's gain control.   If it is read the other way, the 94th district vote will be tied at 11,608 to 11,608 -- because the ballot would be discarded, not counted for the other side.   If that is the result, the law specifies a method of resolution:  the name of each candidate will be placed in a film canister (remember those from 35 mm film?) and one canister will be drawn blindly from a container.   Note that this is the way of deciding a tie in a district vote -- not in an overall tie to see who controls the House.  If the House has an equal number of delegates, they have to share power and administration.

Here's how it came to this.  The voting method is by paper ballot.  Voters use a pencil to fill in a circle next to the candidate's name.  On the ballot in question, the voter had filled in the circle by both names -- a Republican and a Democrat -- and then had drawn a single line through the filled-in circle next to the Democrat's name.

In the initial count, the Democrat lost in this district by 10 votes.    A routine recount then declared the Democrat won by one vote -- with that contested vote being the crucial deciding vote.  If the vote was invalid and not counted, the Democrat wins by one vote.   If it is counted, the vote is tied and will be decided by a drawing, as described above. 

A three judge panel was asked to rule on the contested vote.   They deliberated for two hours and finally ruled that it should be counted for the Republican -- the one without the line drawn through.   They were also influenced by the fact that this voter chose Republican candidates in other statewide races.   Democrats say this is wrong, because it is an improperly marked ballot and should be discarded.   They are considering further legal options for appeal.

I agree that the judges made a wrong decision.  A ballot marked like this, by most voting regulations, would be considered invalid.   And the argument about the voter choosing Republicans in other races ignores that Roy Moore is not just another Republican.    There was widespread split -- just look at the fact that he lost in a deeply Republican state.   That indicates that many people split their vote -- for other Republicans but against Moore.

That's where it stands.    If this doesn't make Virginia complicated enough, there's another district with a problem.   In the 28th district, where the Republican leads by 82 votes, Democrats are calling for a new election because at least 147 ballots were given out to the wrong districts.

So, Virginia, stay tuned.   With an 82 vote lead, this other district is unlikely to flip, even if they do vote again.   But in the 94th, if the Democrat wins, it means the House of Delegates will have an equal number of Republicans and Democrats and will have to work out some power-sharing arrangement.

Someone said -- and it's true -- democracy is messy.

Ralph

Dec. 28th. The world is sort of on track

With regard to the news I usually write about -- politics, civil rights and social justice issues -- there's not been much news these past few days.

There are two election stories hanging out there that I will write later today and have up for tomorrow AM.   One is about Roy Moore making a last minute challenge, a claim of "voter fraud" in the Alabama senate race.    That will be resolved one way or another this afternoon when the election commission meets to certify the election.

And the control of the Virginia House of Delegates is still not settled.   It's an amazing story of recounts, tied results, complicated by one single, potentially tie-breaking decision as to whether that particular ballot is valid.   Check back after midnight for the latest on these two stories.

Ralph

PS:   Enjoy the holiday.    Has Donald Trump really decreased his tweeting?   Or is the media reporting it less?   Or has it lost its capacity to incite?    Like the old country music song title:  "Does the Spearmint lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight?"   I never actually heard the song but have remembered the title for some 50 years.

Holiday

ShrinkRap will be taking a holiday.    Check back on December 28th.

And to each -- according to your own special way of being with those you love and celebrating the mysteries and faiths of this life -- my best wishes for peace throughout the world.

Ralph

Sally Yates: "Who Are We As a Country?"

Sally Q. Yates first came to public awareness when Obama's Attorney General Loretta Lynch resigned as the Obama administration's term came to an end.   Yates was a career justice department attorney who was highly regarded both by her professional colleagues and by the administration within which she served.   She was the natural one to serve in the acting AG role until the new president's appointee was confirmed.

But Salley Yates soon collided with President Trump.   When she let him know that she would not defend in court his travel ban, he fired her and appointed another acting AG who said he would defend the executive order.

Sally Yates then testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2017 about her warning the White House attorney, Don McGahn, about Flynn's vulnerability to being compromised by the Russians because he had lied and they knew it.    Salley Yates was a stunning witness, because of her clarity, her preciseness, and her earnest devotion to the rule of law.   She seemed integrity personified.

She has now written an essay, published on December 19, 2017 in USA Today titled:  "Who Are We As A Country?   Time to Decide?"   It is a must-read, so I take the opportunity to reprint it here.

*     *     *     *     *

"Over the course of our nation’s history, we have faced inflection points — times when we had to decide who we are as a country and what we stand for. Now is such a time. Beyond policy disagreements and partisan gamesmanship, there is something much more fundamental hanging in the balance. Will we remain faithful to our country’s core values?

"Our founding documents set forth the values that make us who we are, or at least who we aspire to be. I say aspire to be because we haven’t always lived up to our founding ideals — even at the time of our founding. When the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all men are created equal, hundreds of thousands of African Americans were being enslaved by their fellow Americans.

"Not so long ago, all across the Jim Crow South, our country’s definition was defiled by lynchings, the systematic disenfranchisement of African-American voters, and the burning of freedom riders’ buses. And still today, we have yet to realize fully our nation’s promise of equal justice.

"But while we have too often fallen short, we have remained dedicated to our defining principles in our resolve to form a more perfect union. These principles have remained if not fully who we are, at least who we seek to be.

"Despite our differences, we as Americans have long held a shared vision of what our country means and what values we expect our leaders to embrace. Today, our continued commitment to these unifying principles is needed more than ever.

What are the values that unite us? You don’t have to look much further than the Preamble to our Constitution, just 52 words, to find them: 

“We the people of the United States” (we are a democratic republic, not a dictatorship) “in order to form a more perfect union” (we are a work in progress dedicated to a noble pursuit) “establish justice” (we revere justice as the cornerstone of our democracy) “insure domestic tranquility” (we prize unity and peace, not divisiveness and discord), “provide for the common defense” (we should never give any foreign adversary reason to question our solidarity) “promote the general welfare” (we care about one another; compassion and decency matter) “and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (we have a responsibility to protect not just our own generation, but future ones as well).

"Our forefathers packed a lot into that single sentence. Our Bill of Rights is similarly succinct in guaranteeing individual liberties — rights that we have come to take for granted but without vigilance can erode and slip away, such as freedom of speech (our right to protest and be heard); freedom of religion (the essential separation between how one worships and the power of the state); and freedom of the press (a democratic institution essential to informing the public and holding our leaders accountable).

"Our shared values include another essential principle, and that’s the rule of law — the promise that the law applies equally to everyone, that no person is above it, and that all are entitled to its protection. This concept of equal protection recognizes that our country’s strength comes from honoring, not weaponizing, the diversity that springs from being a nation of Native Americans and immigrants of different races, religions and nationalities.

"The rule of law depends not only on things that are written down, but also on important traditions and norms, such as apolitical law enforcement. That’s why Democratic and Republican administrations alike, at least since Watergate, have honored that the rule of law requires a strict separation between the Justice Department and the White House on criminal cases and investigations. This wall of separation is what ensures the public can have confidence that the criminal process is not being used as a sword to go after one’s political enemies or as a shield to protect those in power. It’s what separates us from an autocracy.

"And there is something else that separates us from an autocracy, and that’s truth. There is such a thing as objective truth. We can debate policies and issues, and we should. But those debates must be based on common facts rather than raw appeals to emotion and fear through polarizing rhetoric and fabrications.

"Not only is there such a thing as objective truth, failing to tell the truth matters. We can’t control whether our public servants lie to us. But we can control whether we hold them accountable for those lies or whether, in either a state of exhaustion or to protect our own political objectives, we look the other way and normalize an indifference to truth.

"We are not living in ordinary times, and it is not enough for us to admire our nation’s core values from afar. Our country’s history is littered with individuals and factions who have tried to exploit our imperfections, but it is more powerfully marked by those whose vigilance toward a more perfect union has prevailed.

"So stand up. Speak out. Our country needs all of us to raise our collective voices in support of our democratic ideals and institutions. That is what we stand for. That is who we are. And with a shared commitment to our founding principles, that is who we will remain."

*     *     *     *     *

How does "Sally Yates for President" sound?
Ralph