The next hearing of the January 6 Committee will be on Thursday, June 21 at 8:00 pm EDT (midnight UTC). The livestream can be viewed here.
The Committee had originally expected to wrap things up and issue its report in September but has extended its work because new information keeps coming in.
He's been convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress.
Yes, one for ignoring a subpœna to produce documents and another for ignoring a subpœna to appear for an interview by the Committee. The statutory penalty is from thirty days to one year in prison.
He faces up to two years in jail and up to $200,000 (£167,000) in fines.
I'm guess the calculus is that defying the subpœna for documents was a separate crime from defying the subpœna for testimony, meaning the sentences would (typically) be served consecutively rather than concurrently.
Bannon's lawyers raised objections to the jury having access to the January 6th hearings despite the Judge ordering the jurors not to watch anything related to January 6th. The judge denied the objection. This will likely be the grounds for appeal.
Apparently Trump's MAGA Rally in Arizona did not go so well. First, when he complained about being the most persecuted man in American history, he was met with stone silence. Then when he endorsed Eli Crane for the House of Representatives, he was booed. He was so befuddled by the response, he asked, "But you still like me, right?" Eli Crane is the least liked candidate in the Arizona primary. At best, he is being called a carpetbagger--one who is running for an office in a district he has never lived in. Story here--link to the stone silence reaction of crowd here.
I'm no expert on this, but the Sydney Morning Herald has this warning in today's Opinion Piece on the likelihood of a second Trump election and a possible demise of democracy in the US and consequences for Australia and Europe.
I'm no expert on this, but the Sydney Morning Herald has this warning in today's Opinion Piece on the likelihood of a second Trump election and a possible demise of democracy in the US and consequences for Australia and Europe.
Many observers had observed that American democracy (such even as it is) is hanging by a thread. I myself wonder if we will even have a United States in 8 years if the thugs win in 2024.
I'm no expert on this, but the Sydney Morning Herald has this warning in today's Opinion Piece on the likelihood of a second Trump election and a possible demise of democracy in the US and consequences for Australia and Europe.
An interesting piece, but makes a couple of mis-statements. The first one is this:
So wilful rejection of electoral reality is now compulsory in Trumpworld.
The use of the word "Trumpworld" implies that Donald Trump is the problem, rather than a symptom of the authoritarianism that has taken root within the Republican party. It may be terrifying to note that one of America's two major political parties is now, at a minimum, fascist-curious, but obscuring that fact with cute euphemisms does no one any favors and may actually be counterproductive. If Ron DeSantis implements Trump's policies after a 2024 presidential victory I don't think anyone should be reassured because it's now "DeSantisworld". Just say "the Republican party". It'll be clearer and less confusing.
Then there's this:
Unlike a Westminster democracy, the American system reserves the uppermost echelon of the public service for political appointees. In Australia, a mere handful of senior officials will be replaced by an incoming government. The entire bureaucracy is supposed to be professionally apolitical.
In the US, about 4000 of the most senior public servants are political appointees and all of them typically are replaced by an incoming administration, a time-honoured turnover.
Part of this may be the difference in size and scope between the Australian government and the U.S. executive branch, but some of it is using the difference between the U.S. and a Westminster-style system to over-state the case. For example, who counts as a "senior official"? In the U.S. you'd usually point to cabinet secretaries and their immediate subordinates, who typically do get changed out when a new administration comes in. Under a Westminster-style system the cabinet counts as "an incoming government" rather than "senior officials", so that artificially deflates the count of "senior officials" replaced. (Using a quick look at Wikipedia shows that the current Australian cabinet is more than four handfuls of people just by itself.)
American Democracy has always hung by a thread, when you think about it.
Well, "always" elides a lot there. In a lot of places in the U.S. democracy per se is only about as old as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Add in a few years to implement the act and actually get people registered to vote and in a lot of places in the U.S. democracy is only about half a century old. The current tilt towards authoritarianism and away from democracy is the result of a lot of American not liking democracy once they're finally exposed to it.
An interesting piece, but makes a couple of mis-statements. The first one is this:
So wilful rejection of electoral reality is now compulsory in Trumpworld.
The use of the word "Trumpworld" implies that Donald Trump is the problem, rather than a symptom of the authoritarianism that has taken root within the Republican party. It may be terrifying to note that one of America's two major political parties is now, at a minimum, fascist-curious, but obscuring that fact with cute euphemisms does no one any favors and may actually be counterproductive. If Ron DeSantis implements Trump's policies after a 2024 presidential victory I don't think anyone should be reassured because it's now "DeSantisworld". Just say "the Republican party". It'll be clearer and less confusing.
Then there's this:
Unlike a Westminster democracy, the American system reserves the uppermost echelon of the public service for political appointees. In Australia, a mere handful of senior officials will be replaced by an incoming government. The entire bureaucracy is supposed to be professionally apolitical.
In the US, about 4000 of the most senior public servants are political appointees and all of them typically are replaced by an incoming administration, a time-honoured turnover.
Part of this may be the difference in size and scope between the Australian government and the U.S. executive branch, but some of it is using the difference between the U.S. and a Westminster-style system to over-state the case. For example, who counts as a "senior official"? In the U.S. you'd usually point to cabinet secretaries and their immediate subordinates, who typically do get changed out when a new administration comes in. Under a Westminster-style system the cabinet counts as "an incoming government" rather than "senior officials", so that artificially deflates the count of "senior officials" replaced. (Using a quick look at Wikipedia shows that the current Australian cabinet is more than four handfuls of people just by itself.)
I also note that the writer quotes a trumpite as saying that Trump favours a "non-interventionist foreign policy", and seems to leave it to the reader to conclude that this would be a bad thing.
Later, the writer complains that Trump won't defend "the free world", won't provide "mutual assistance in case of war", and goes on for a few paragraphs about how, despite his notorious sinophobia, Trump would probably side with China's interests against Australia's.
So, I'm getting a pretty strong vibe that, for this writer, a good POTUS would be at least partly characterized by a readiness to send the gunboats across the Pacific to take on the dictators Canberra doesn't like.
I also note that the writer quotes a trumpite as saying that Trump favours a "non-interventionist foreign policy", and seems to leave it to the reader to conclude that this would be a bad thing.
I'm guessing by "non-interventionist" they may have meant "might renege on treaty obligations", but that seems a very narrow and misleading definition of the term.
I also note that the writer quotes a trumpite as saying that Trump favours a "non-interventionist foreign policy", and seems to leave it to the reader to conclude that this would be a bad thing.
Well, technically, it was an American trumpite who used the term to describe Trump's policies, and the Australian seemed to be accepting that characterization, but disapprovingly. For the writer, I think it basically boils down to "Australia currently gets certain benefits from the US-Oz alliance, Trump might stop providing those particular benefits, therefore Trump is evil." IOW, yeah, he's worried Trump might tear up the treaties.
That's assuming a lot. First you have to assume Trump will not be indicted by then. Second you overlook the fact his crowds are getting smaller. In Arizona, is complaint about a stolen election fell on deaf ears--I think that's because the Republican financed recount gave more votes to Biden. And he got booed for endorsing a QAnon hack. Even Fox News has cut back on the coverage of Mr. Trump.
That's assuming a lot. First you have to assume Trump will not be indicted by then. Second you overlook the fact his crowds are getting smaller. In Arizona, is complaint about a stolen election fell on deaf ears -- I think that's because the Republican financed recount gave more votes to Biden. And he got booed for endorsing a QAnon hack. Even Fox News has cut back on the coverage of Mr. Trump.
It’s déjà vu all over again. In defiance of an explicit congressional request and the law, text messages to and from three top Trump-era officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from early January 2021 are missing, according to an internal agency record obtained by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) and congressional sources.
In late February 2022, the department’s management division informed DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari’s office in writing that text messages sent or received by then-Acting Secretary Chad Wolf, then-Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli, and Acting Under Secretary for Management Randolph D. “Tex” Alles cannot be found. The records show Cuffari’s office was told that government phones used by those top DHS leaders might also be inaccessible.
Cuffari’s office has kept Congress in the dark about the lost DHS leadership texts for more than five months. Four congressional committees had long before asked for all January 6-related federal records from relevant agencies, including DHS, in a letter dated January 16, 2021, ten days after the attack on the Capitol.
It’s unclear if Cuffari has told DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, even though there is a legal mandate requiring his office to do so “whenever the Inspector General becomes aware of particularly serious or flagrant problems, abuses, or deficiencies relating to the administration of programs and operations.” The inspector general's office and DHS did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
So that's a multi-month failure to either 1) find out what happened to those missing texts or 2) notify Congress that key evidence had apparently vaporized.
Considering that some Congressional Democrats wanted IG Cuffari off this case before these latest revelations, I'm not seeing a bright future at the DHS for him. My question is why any high-level Trump appointees are still in place at the various security-related U.S. agencies.
Unlike a Westminster democracy, the American system reserves the uppermost echelon of the public service for political appointees. In Australia, a mere handful of senior officials will be replaced by an incoming government. The entire bureaucracy is supposed to be professionally apolitical.
In the US, about 4000 of the most senior public servants are political appointees and all of them typically are replaced by an incoming administration, a time-honoured turnover.
Part of this may be the difference in size and scope between the Australian government and the U.S. executive branch, but some of it is using the difference between the U.S. and a Westminster-style system to over-state the case. For example, who counts as a "senior official"? In the U.S. you'd usually point to cabinet secretaries and their immediate subordinates, who typically do get changed out when a new administration comes in. Under a Westminster-style system the cabinet counts as "an incoming government" rather than "senior officials", so that artificially deflates the count of "senior officials" replaced. (Using a quick look at Wikipedia shows that the current Australian cabinet is more than four handfuls of people just by itself.)
I'm no expert on this, but the Sydney Morning Herald has this warning in today's Opinion Piece on the likelihood of a second Trump election and a possible demise of democracy in the US and consequences for Australia and Europe.
Actually the SMH was describing a widely known difference between Westminster and US systems, but this one is on the executive side. It is partly based on differences in how the legislatures and executive interact in both systems along with a large dose of historic inertia. It goes back to the 19th Century.
First, the American system imposes fixed elections on the presidency with no possibility of a replacement by election until the best scheduled date. The Executive, that is The President is also independent of the legislature through these elections. Likewise Congress does not contain any member of the Executive and cannot dismiss any member of the executive except by oeachmemt, which is rare.
The US system also has three Legislative veto points (House, Senate, President) white Westminster systems are converging on one (the House). Legislative gridlock of the kind the US system sees as normal gave led to constitutional crises in both the UK and Australia and ways exist to bypass the upper house where it exists in the UK, Australia and Canada. Westminster prefers to solve impasses through resignations and elections with uncertain timing.
The upshot of all that is that the US Civil Service is dependent on the President who is not responsible, that is cannot be dismissed quickly on policy grounds by Congeess and is often at odds with Congress.
Andrew Jackson added two additional things to this mix: the political veto and the spoils system. His veto of the Second Bank of the United States was the first veto on purely policy grounds. Previous presidents were very uncomfortable challenging Congress in this way. Jackson established that the Presidency was coequal and not junior to Congress. He solidified Presidential control through the Spoils System whereby most civil servants were appointed for being loyal partisans (for the President) rather than on merit by the bureaucracy itself.
Westminster systems, OTIH had to kearn to cope with unstable governments, especially during the 19th Century and ministers who could resign at any time and be replaced with a new ministry. They did this by professionalizing and making every position but the Minister a non-partisan appointment from inside the Civil Service.
Case in point. Stand the US Departmemt of Justice next to the Canadian Departmemt of Justice. In Canada there is a partisan Minister of Justice and a professional public servant called the Deputy Minister or Deputy Head. Every professional Public Servant reports to the Deputy Head snd cannot be dismissed individually by the Minister or Prime Minister. Sir Humphrey Appleby of 'Yes Minister' fame was equivalent to a Deputy Minister.
Change of government means change of minister but nobody else changes job.
At the US Department.of Justice things work differently. Under US practice positions appointable with the Advice and Consent of the Senate are partisan and turn over with the new administration. These positions are openly and clearly partisan. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Department_of_Justice_appointments_by_Joe_Biden. The equivalent in Canada is having the Director-General of a departmental branch in charge of a programme and everything above it (3 ececutive levels) be partisan, short term appointments where they are expected to be non-partisan career professionals here.
The danger the SMH points out is the he US appointments aren't immediate and openly partisan appointees occupy roles with much more direct operational control in the
US system than is orbited or customary in Westminster Systems.
Every system has its flaws, Westminster isn't perfect but the SMH is just pointing to a particular risk in the US institutional structure.
Fixed quoting code (I hope). BroJames, Purgatory Host
That's assuming a lot. First you have to assume Trump will not be indicted by then. Second you overlook the fact his crowds are getting smaller. In Arizona, is complaint about a stolen election fell on deaf ears--I think that's because the Republican financed recount gave more votes to Biden. And he got booed for endorsing a QAnon hack. Even Fox News has cut back on the coverage of Mr. Trump.
And that's assuming - by me - that we're in 2023.
It's now 27 months. I do love how shallow people are though. That's the hope. 27 months is a long time in politics, But as @Crœsos said, the 'fascist-curious' - what a great phrase - win regardless of which evil moron is their candidate.
The upshot of all that is that the US Civil Service is dependent on the President who is not responsible, that is cannot be dismissed quickly on policy grounds by Congeess and is often at odds with Congress.
Andrew Jackson added two additional things to this mix: the political veto and the spoils system. His veto of the Second Bank of the United States was the first veto on purely policy grounds. Previous presidents were very uncomfortable challenging Congress in this way. Jackson established that the Presidency was coequal and not junior to Congress. He solidified Presidential control through the Spoils System whereby most civil servants were appointed for being loyal partisans (for the President) rather than on merit by the bureaucracy itself.
I'm skeptical of using any history that ends in 1837 (when Andrew Jackson left the White House) as a comprehensive guide to current American practice. At the very least some mention of the Pendleton Act (which demolished a lot of the spoils system) and its later refinements would seem relevant for current context.
The Pendleton Act is not relevant because it doesn't cover the relevant portions of the US Civil Service, the executive level. Per the Plum Book, via Wikipedia, the US has 4000 political appointees, including Deputy, Associate and Assistance Department Secretaries.
This is why I included reference to Joe Biden's appointments at the DOJ, which illustrate typical American practice. In Westminster systems, only the Secretary would change.
The FBI has executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago (no source - it's all over Twitter, with screenshots of Trump's post on TruthSocial or whatever his social media platform is). With any luck in a fit of rage he'll tell us what they took, which will give us an idea of what the Justice Dept is looking at him for.
This is a big fucking deal. A federal judge has to sign off on a federal search warrant. It would take a boatload of evidence of probably cause to get one to sign off on a search warrant for a former president. Like, a very big boatload.
Edit: And it's now on CNN and AP.
(Fun fact: 48 years ago today Nixon announced his resignation.)
It's extraordinary. I don't think a former president has ever had his home searched by the FBI. This is a big step toward an indictment.
Apparently what they took was the boxes of documents Trump wrongly removed from the White House when he moved out instead of turning them over to the National Archives. So goodness knows what's in that treasure trove.
I don't think any former President has had his house searched by the FBI (or other police force) though John Tyler (president 1841-45) joined the Confederate government (he died in 1862 so didn't see the defeat). Vice presidents during and after their terms have had a broader range of run ins with the law or grey areas from Aaron Burr who was tried for treason (he was acquitted). John Breckinridge who became Secretary of War for the Confederacy; he fled the country after its defeat though later returned after an amnesty. Spiro Agnew resigned and pleaded no contest to a charge of tax evasion to avoid a prison sentence.
Note who knows what the FBI was doing during J Edgar Hoover's time.
This is pure speculation. I think it had to do with the fact that Trump had been known to take highly secret documents to Mar-A-Logo when he left the office or president. He was supposed to have returned them, but I am betting the National Archives determined some of the documents were still missing.
But there could be other evidence they were after.
The Washington Post is reporting that the search is related to a Justice Dept investigation of Trump's possible mishandling of classified documents. Various legal analysts are saying that the DOJ wouldn't go after Trump for that alone - that doesn't generally lead them to charge someone with a crime. So it looks like the documents themselves may be evidence of some other crime.
As you say, speculation. We don't know what they think Trump did. But a federal judge, the US Attorney General, and the FBI director all had to be on board for this to happen. They had to think they there is evidence Trump committed a crime. And they had to be willing to bear the personal burden of being in the sights of right-wing assholes. We can't blame some lunatic fringe if anything happens to one of these people - there are elected Republicans demanding to know who the judge is, and their seditious followers are talking about being locked and loaded.
The Washington Post is reporting that the search is related to a Justice Dept investigation of Trump's possible mishandling of classified documents. Various legal analysts are saying that the DOJ wouldn't go after Trump for that alone - that doesn't generally lead them to charge someone with a crime. So it looks like the documents themselves may be evidence of some other crime.
A couple of points on this. Federal judges have a reputation for being very strict in issuing warrants, unlike state judges. In order to obtain a warrant the DoJ had to demonstrate that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime was present at a specified location right now. Trump left the White House nineteen months ago. A little while back he returned fifteen boxes of classified documents he "forgot" he'd slipped in his pocket on the way out the door. (Truthful hyperbole.) In order to get this warrant, assuming it was legitimately issued, the feds would have to demonstrate that there was probable cause to believe that there were additional documents at Mar-A-Lago and that they were on site right now. This implies some kind of "eyes" inside to confirm things, perhaps a tipster.
This is pure speculation. I think it had to do with the fact that Trump had been known to take highly secret documents to Mar-A-Logo when he left the office or president. He was supposed to have returned them, but I am betting the National Archives determined some of the documents were still missing.
But there could be other evidence they were after.
Most of the "on background" comments about this incident indicate that the warrant relates to Trump's illegal retention of classified documents. That's not the kind of thing, in and of itself, that the FBI typically pursues with a no knock warrant on the residence of a former president. On the other hand things like selling classified documents or otherwise passing them on to third parties does usually get the FBI's urgent attention. One of the FBI's assigned tasks is domestic counter-intelligence operations, after all.
I'm surprised he hasn't been locked up yet, but I guess the legal processes are extremely complex and long-drawn-out.
This may have been mentioned before on this very long thread, but is the man technically sane ? His view of reality seems very distorted, and at odds with pretty well everyone else's...or certainly so, reading some of the news reports on this side of the Pond.
Technically “sane” means able to comprehend the nature and quality of your act - e.g. knowing this is a box of documents not a neon purple cane toad. Whether you think you have the right to take it, ought to be able to take it, believe a conspiracy is a foot to deprive you of your rights etc Doesn’t relate to sanity in a legal sense. (Or that is the case in the U.K., and I think most places that use the concept.)
What is in a sense more disturbing is the thought that there are so many people willing for Trump (or one of his minions) to stand again for POTUS in 2024.
What is in a sense more disturbing is the thought that there are so many people willing for Trump (or one of his minions) to stand again for POTUS in 2024.
Some people just want to watch the world burn. They're even willing to set it on fire so long as they think those people will burn along with them.
So nothing can stop him then. Biden's doing far better than he sounds, but hasn't a chance in hell of winning a second term at what, 82, regardless if he miraculously starts to sound better. And Harris has -zero chance of a first term.
It's extraordinary. I don't think a former president has ever had his home searched by the FBI. This is a big step toward an indictment.
Apparently what they took was the boxes of documents Trump wrongly removed from the White House when he moved out instead of turning them over to the National Archives. So goodness knows what's in that treasure trove.
My understanding was that those had already been returned some months ago. So now they're looking for more, plus goodness knows what else. The warrant would have specified...
Most of the "on background" comments about this incident indicate that the warrant relates to Trump's illegal retention of classified documents. That's not the kind of thing, in and of itself, that the FBI typically pursues with a no knock warrant on the residence of a former president. On the other hand things like selling classified documents or otherwise passing them on to third parties does usually get the FBI's urgent attention. One of the FBI's assigned tasks is domestic counter-intelligence operations, after all.
This is what I'm betting on. He is hard up for money, of course. What would be more natural to him?
Poll results I've seen have this dropping. Personally I suspect we've passed the point where the major movers and shakers of the Republican Party would even consider him as a candidate again--because there are too many who see themselves as a likely successor, and have more than enough to um, "retire" him from consideration in their own favor. But nobody's likely to say so publicly just yes, because why offend the yahoos in the base early?
§2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
I've bold underlined the interesting bit.
A few caveats here. First, we don't know for sure what the substance of the warrant was. We just have a lot of internet rumors that it relates to official, potentially classified documents. Second, we don't know for sure Donald Trump is the criminal in this case. Warrants have to specify where criminal evidence can be found, not who the suspected criminal is. Third, even assuming the first two points are in the direction we're all apparently thinking, federal trials can take a while and might not be resolved by November 2024.
Comments
The Committee had originally expected to wrap things up and issue its report in September but has extended its work because new information keeps coming in.
Yes, one for ignoring a subpœna to produce documents and another for ignoring a subpœna to appear for an interview by the Committee. The statutory penalty is from thirty days to one year in prison.
I'm guess the calculus is that defying the subpœna for documents was a separate crime from defying the subpœna for testimony, meaning the sentences would (typically) be served consecutively rather than concurrently.
He already got one, though it was for a different set of crimes entirely.
Many observers had observed that American democracy (such even as it is) is hanging by a thread. I myself wonder if we will even have a United States in 8 years if the thugs win in 2024.
An interesting piece, but makes a couple of mis-statements. The first one is this:
The use of the word "Trumpworld" implies that Donald Trump is the problem, rather than a symptom of the authoritarianism that has taken root within the Republican party. It may be terrifying to note that one of America's two major political parties is now, at a minimum, fascist-curious, but obscuring that fact with cute euphemisms does no one any favors and may actually be counterproductive. If Ron DeSantis implements Trump's policies after a 2024 presidential victory I don't think anyone should be reassured because it's now "DeSantisworld". Just say "the Republican party". It'll be clearer and less confusing.
Then there's this:
Part of this may be the difference in size and scope between the Australian government and the U.S. executive branch, but some of it is using the difference between the U.S. and a Westminster-style system to over-state the case. For example, who counts as a "senior official"? In the U.S. you'd usually point to cabinet secretaries and their immediate subordinates, who typically do get changed out when a new administration comes in. Under a Westminster-style system the cabinet counts as "an incoming government" rather than "senior officials", so that artificially deflates the count of "senior officials" replaced. (Using a quick look at Wikipedia shows that the current Australian cabinet is more than four handfuls of people just by itself.)
Well, "always" elides a lot there. In a lot of places in the U.S. democracy per se is only about as old as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Add in a few years to implement the act and actually get people registered to vote and in a lot of places in the U.S. democracy is only about half a century old. The current tilt towards authoritarianism and away from democracy is the result of a lot of American not liking democracy once they're finally exposed to it.
I also note that the writer quotes a trumpite as saying that Trump favours a "non-interventionist foreign policy", and seems to leave it to the reader to conclude that this would be a bad thing.
Later, the writer complains that Trump won't defend "the free world", won't provide "mutual assistance in case of war", and goes on for a few paragraphs about how, despite his notorious sinophobia, Trump would probably side with China's interests against Australia's.
So, I'm getting a pretty strong vibe that, for this writer, a good POTUS would be at least partly characterized by a readiness to send the gunboats across the Pacific to take on the dictators Canberra doesn't like.
I'm not sure "non-interventionist" is the accurate way to describe someone who dramatically escalated U.S. drone warfare, advocated painting Chinese flags on U.S. fighters and using them to bomb Russia, and thought about starting a war with Mexico. Or does "non-interventionist" mean something different in Australia?
I'm guessing by "non-interventionist" they may have meant "might renege on treaty obligations", but that seems a very narrow and misleading definition of the term.
Well, technically, it was an American trumpite who used the term to describe Trump's policies, and the Australian seemed to be accepting that characterization, but disapprovingly. For the writer, I think it basically boils down to "Australia currently gets certain benefits from the US-Oz alliance, Trump might stop providing those particular benefits, therefore Trump is evil." IOW, yeah, he's worried Trump might tear up the treaties.
That's assuming a lot. First you have to assume Trump will not be indicted by then. Second you overlook the fact his crowds are getting smaller. In Arizona, is complaint about a stolen election fell on deaf ears--I think that's because the Republican financed recount gave more votes to Biden. And he got booed for endorsing a QAnon hack. Even Fox News has cut back on the coverage of Mr. Trump.
True, but the coverage Fox "News" does give him is just as sycophantic as ever.
So that's a multi-month failure to either 1) find out what happened to those missing texts or 2) notify Congress that key evidence had apparently vaporized.
Considering that some Congressional Democrats wanted IG Cuffari off this case before these latest revelations, I'm not seeing a bright future at the DHS for him. My question is why any high-level Trump appointees are still in place at the various security-related U.S. agencies.
Actually the SMH was describing a widely known difference between Westminster and US systems, but this one is on the executive side. It is partly based on differences in how the legislatures and executive interact in both systems along with a large dose of historic inertia. It goes back to the 19th Century.
First, the American system imposes fixed elections on the presidency with no possibility of a replacement by election until the best scheduled date. The Executive, that is The President is also independent of the legislature through these elections. Likewise Congress does not contain any member of the Executive and cannot dismiss any member of the executive except by oeachmemt, which is rare.
The US system also has three Legislative veto points (House, Senate, President) white Westminster systems are converging on one (the House). Legislative gridlock of the kind the US system sees as normal gave led to constitutional crises in both the UK and Australia and ways exist to bypass the upper house where it exists in the UK, Australia and Canada. Westminster prefers to solve impasses through resignations and elections with uncertain timing.
The upshot of all that is that the US Civil Service is dependent on the President who is not responsible, that is cannot be dismissed quickly on policy grounds by Congeess and is often at odds with Congress.
Andrew Jackson added two additional things to this mix: the political veto and the spoils system. His veto of the Second Bank of the United States was the first veto on purely policy grounds. Previous presidents were very uncomfortable challenging Congress in this way. Jackson established that the Presidency was coequal and not junior to Congress. He solidified Presidential control through the Spoils System whereby most civil servants were appointed for being loyal partisans (for the President) rather than on merit by the bureaucracy itself.
Westminster systems, OTIH had to kearn to cope with unstable governments, especially during the 19th Century and ministers who could resign at any time and be replaced with a new ministry. They did this by professionalizing and making every position but the Minister a non-partisan appointment from inside the Civil Service.
Case in point. Stand the US Departmemt of Justice next to the Canadian Departmemt of Justice. In Canada there is a partisan Minister of Justice and a professional public servant called the Deputy Minister or Deputy Head. Every professional Public Servant reports to the Deputy Head snd cannot be dismissed individually by the Minister or Prime Minister. Sir Humphrey Appleby of 'Yes Minister' fame was equivalent to a Deputy Minister.
Change of government means change of minister but nobody else changes job.
At the US Department.of Justice things work differently. Under US practice positions appointable with the Advice and Consent of the Senate are partisan and turn over with the new administration. These positions are openly and clearly partisan. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Department_of_Justice_appointments_by_Joe_Biden. The equivalent in Canada is having the Director-General of a departmental branch in charge of a programme and everything above it (3 ececutive levels) be partisan, short term appointments where they are expected to be non-partisan career professionals here.
The danger the SMH points out is the he US appointments aren't immediate and openly partisan appointees occupy roles with much more direct operational control in the
US system than is orbited or customary in Westminster Systems.
Every system has its flaws, Westminster isn't perfect but the SMH is just pointing to a particular risk in the US institutional structure.
Fixed quoting code (I hope). BroJames, Purgatory Host
And that's assuming - by me - that we're in 2023.
It's now 27 months. I do love how shallow people are though. That's the hope. 27 months is a long time in politics, But as @Crœsos said, the 'fascist-curious' - what a great phrase - win regardless of which evil moron is their candidate.
I'm skeptical of using any history that ends in 1837 (when Andrew Jackson left the White House) as a comprehensive guide to current American practice. At the very least some mention of the Pendleton Act (which demolished a lot of the spoils system) and its later refinements would seem relevant for current context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_United_States
This is why I included reference to Joe Biden's appointments at the DOJ, which illustrate typical American practice. In Westminster systems, only the Secretary would change.
This is a big fucking deal. A federal judge has to sign off on a federal search warrant. It would take a boatload of evidence of probably cause to get one to sign off on a search warrant for a former president. Like, a very big boatload.
Edit: And it's now on CNN and AP.
(Fun fact: 48 years ago today Nixon announced his resignation.)
Apparently what they took was the boxes of documents Trump wrongly removed from the White House when he moved out instead of turning them over to the National Archives. So goodness knows what's in that treasure trove.
Note who knows what the FBI was doing during J Edgar Hoover's time.
But there could be other evidence they were after.
As you say, speculation. We don't know what they think Trump did. But a federal judge, the US Attorney General, and the FBI director all had to be on board for this to happen. They had to think they there is evidence Trump committed a crime. And they had to be willing to bear the personal burden of being in the sights of right-wing assholes. We can't blame some lunatic fringe if anything happens to one of these people - there are elected Republicans demanding to know who the judge is, and their seditious followers are talking about being locked and loaded.
Being in federal prison would certainly help.
Be it noted that I am not wishing him dead, but I'm sure you see what I mean.
A couple of points on this. Federal judges have a reputation for being very strict in issuing warrants, unlike state judges. In order to obtain a warrant the DoJ had to demonstrate that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime was present at a specified location right now. Trump left the White House nineteen months ago. A little while back he returned fifteen boxes of classified documents he "forgot" he'd slipped in his pocket on the way out the door. (Truthful hyperbole.) In order to get this warrant, assuming it was legitimately issued, the feds would have to demonstrate that there was probable cause to believe that there were additional documents at Mar-A-Lago and that they were on site right now. This implies some kind of "eyes" inside to confirm things, perhaps a tipster.
Most of the "on background" comments about this incident indicate that the warrant relates to Trump's illegal retention of classified documents. That's not the kind of thing, in and of itself, that the FBI typically pursues with a no knock warrant on the residence of a former president. On the other hand things like selling classified documents or otherwise passing them on to third parties does usually get the FBI's urgent attention. One of the FBI's assigned tasks is domestic counter-intelligence operations, after all.
This may have been mentioned before on this very long thread, but is the man technically sane ? His view of reality seems very distorted, and at odds with pretty well everyone else's...or certainly so, reading some of the news reports on this side of the Pond.
Thanks @Doublethink - I hope no-one was offended by my question.
I guess it's true that Trump does indeed comprehend the nature and quality of his acts, although I think that may be cold comfort...
Being in federal prison, with all the poor treatment and lack of access to healthcare that entails, would likely hasten such an event.
What is in a sense more disturbing is the thought that there are so many people willing for Trump (or one of his minions) to stand again for POTUS in 2024.
Some people just want to watch the world burn. They're even willing to set it on fire so long as they think those people will burn along with them.
My understanding was that those had already been returned some months ago. So now they're looking for more, plus goodness knows what else. The warrant would have specified...
Marc Elias points out a very interesting portion of 18 U.S. Code § 2071 that relates to Records and Reports.
I've bold underlined the interesting bit.
A few caveats here. First, we don't know for sure what the substance of the warrant was. We just have a lot of internet rumors that it relates to official, potentially classified documents. Second, we don't know for sure Donald Trump is the criminal in this case. Warrants have to specify where criminal evidence can be found, not who the suspected criminal is. Third, even assuming the first two points are in the direction we're all apparently thinking, federal trials can take a while and might not be resolved by November 2024.