maandag 27 mei 2019

Trump's wrecking ball assaults American government. Luckily, it is strongly built













Trump's wrecking ball assaults American government. Luckily, it is strongly built.


The president swings wildly but the people will stay true: the way to beat him is to defend the institutions he would smash
Donald Trump speaks in Florida.
 ‘In order to get what he wants, Trump rides roughshod over how we decide. He is the great destroyer.’ Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

A
mericans have sharply different views about what government should do, whether on abortion, guns, immigration or any number of hot-button issues. But we broadly agree about how government should go about resolving our differences.



This distinction – between what we disagree about and how we settle those disagreements – is crucial. As long as we continue to agree on the how, the processes and institutions of governance, we can accept what is decided even if we’re unhappy about it.
To state it another way, Americans don’t always like what government does but they overwhelmingly support the American system of government. They want to improve it, not destroy it.
Enter Donald Trump, who has turned this how-what distinction on its head. In order to get what he wants, Trump rides roughshod over how we decide. He is the great destroyer.








His directive to his lapdog attorney general, William Barr, to find evidence of “treason” against specific people who investigated him threatens the neutrality of our entire system of justice, as does Barr’s assertion of “no limit” on the president’s authority to direct law enforcement investigations, including those he’s personally interested in.
Trump’s blanket refusal to comply with House subpoenas and investigationsflies in the face of how Congress is supposed to oversee the executive branch.
Trump’s 2016 campaign aides’ eagerness to get dirt on his opponent from Russia, and Trump’s efforts to suppress evidence about those dealings, undermine how the American electoral system is supposed to run.
Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to justify using funds to build his wall that Congress refused to appropriate, obliterates how spending decisions are supposed to be made.








Trump’s angry references to “Obama judges” who rule against him calls into question the independence and legitimacy of the judiciary.
Trump’s hints at violence if he doesn’t get his way – such as his March insinuation that “I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough – until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad” – threatens the democratic foundations of our society.
Taken as a whole, these attacks on our basic agreement about how to resolve our disagreements constitute the most profound challenge to our system of government since Richard Nixon went rogue.
Thankfully, most Americans oppose them. Even with record low unemployment, Trump’s approval ratings remain in the cellar. About 35%, Trump’s hardcore base, continue to stick by him, but independents and even some Republicans are deserting him in droves.
Although impeachment is the appropriate remedy for a president who assaults our system of government, most of the public opposes this move as well. I think that’s because in these especially perilous times, impeachment threatens to pull the system further apart, possibly to the breaking point.
Importantly, the courts are stepping up.
On Monday, Judge Amit Mehta ruled against Trump, saying “lawmakers should get documents they have subpoenaed”.
On Wednesday, Judge Edgardo Ramos refused to block subpoenas from the House financial services and intelligence committees for Trump records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One.
On Friday, Judge Haywood Gilliam granted a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s use of $1bn from the Department of Defense for building his wall.
These decisions are significant not just because they are victories for House Democrats, but because they confirm that the American system of government is still working, Trump notwithstanding.







Richard Nixon approaches the foul line.
Pinterest
 Richard Nixon approaches the foul line. Photograph: Bettmann/Bettmann Archive

He may yet succeed in running out the clock – dragging out appeals through election day. But every court decision that adds legitimacy to the processes and institutions Trump has been attacking makes him look more like the dangerous wrecking ball he is.






Over the past several months I have heard some on the left talk about meeting fire with fire, if and when Democrats regain the White House and Senate.
To counteract Trump’s (and let’s not forget Mitch McConnell’s) malfeasance, they want to alter the system in ways that favor their side – expanding the number of supreme court justices, for example, or eliminating the Senate filibuster, or dividing California into three states, each with its own two senators. And so on.
This would be a mistake. Americans want to preserve our agreement over how to resolve our disagreements, and are witnessing the threat Trump and the Republicans present to it.
The Democratic party should dedicate itself to protecting that agreement. This is the hallmark of a true governing party. Trump and the Republicans, by contrast, are digging themselves ever more deeply into a hole from which they may never emerge.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/26/trump-wrecking-ball-american-government#comment-129467132

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Comments :



1516
"Trump's wrecking ball assaults American
 government. Luckily, it is strongly built"


1. Both Trump and the GOP had been set up to do - what they have been employing and plotting during this electoral term - by their main financial backers, such as the Koch Brothers, Robert Mercer, Sheldon Adelson and the NRA, to mention just a few of the more influential super-PAC players.
2. So one of the more urgent things to do, in order to restore some credibility in US government and the entire electoral and democratic system it has been based on, is to drastically change the laws on political electoral funding.

3. Since the only persons that are legitimately and judiciously allowed to take on this particular job are the very politicians that are dependent on those very Super PAC-men that I mentioned earlier, this process will be very difficult to elevate into the right legislative position.

4. But since politicians do get elected by the electorate, it ultimately has to be the electorate that has to be convinced, that they have to elect politicians, that are not puppets on a string of the aforementioned powerful special interest entities.

5. However - to stay within this centrally important context - only recently another determining factor has entered the political-electoral arena : Electioneering firms, like Cambridge Analytica - that by the way, paradoxically do use to work for the national government (Pentagon / CIA / NATO) as well (*) - which are most literally brainwashing the electorate by way of the social media (more effectively anyway, then they did by way of the traditional outlets such as newspapers and TV networks).

6. Brainwashing the electorate by individual micro-targeting via the social media, and by doing so, they are not necessarily trying all the time to persuade the electorate to vote in favour of a certain party and/or a certain candidate.

7. In stead many voters - most certainly in the 2016 scenario of the micro-targeted Democratic electorate - are being seduced (mostly on a subconscious level), NOT to vote (at all) for their favourite candidate or ditto party, as a consequence of personalised messages (advertisement) that do negatively frame the party and candidates of their choice. 

8. Because these highly sophisticated electioneering firms seem to be rather closely associated with all-mighty institutional powerhouses (read : the political-military-industrial complex), it will be hard to throw them out entirely of the election process.

9. In such a doomsday scenario, it will be hard to break through the circle of fatal political destination and remove those factors, that are destroying our democratic institutions at the very core : especially the existential faculty of Human Free Choice.

10. The most devastating development however, that has already been established by the political powerhouses in today USA in general and by Trump in particular, is preparing the political centre ground for the entrance of right-extremist ideology.

11. In this way for example, the precious Universal Principle of Human Rights (such as Human Equality) seems to be abandoned by more and more USA citizens and gradually but certainly replaced by the racist notion of white-supremacism, in close relation to extremist nationalism.

12. I do really wonder whether an effective counter-culture will be organised in time, in order to fundamentally change the toxic course that USA politics had been inclined to take lately.

13. In this respect, I do sincerely hope, that the environmental movement - in principale based on the universal Will to Survive as a species - will be the right vehicle, that might overcome the threat of the manipulative powers of the extreme-right, that are represented by Trump et al.

14. I personally am not convinced by the fact - introduced by Reich as an encouraging factor of the supposed solidness of the USA democratic institutions - that a few judges recently might have decided to temporarily stand in the way of the evidently autocratic ruler Trump and his (mainly) right-extremist GOP political base.

15. I am - apart from the fact, that the Supreme Court might decide in the last resort and the SC has been coloured GOP Red after the latest ultra-conservative political appointees by the Trump Administration - not convinced at all of his conclusion, not in the least because our contemporaneous (bottom-up) democratic tradition has only been a accepted social political format for a hundred years or so, contrary to the feudal system of top-down politics, that has been around for millennia already.

(*)  This highly peculiar connection between electioneering firms like Cambridge Analytica - and in particular the fact, that those firms are also frequently hired by USA security services in order to influence foreign elections with soft-ware (contrary to regime change by USA military hardware) - has been structurally under-reported in the left leaning media, critical towards the way the extreme-right Super-PAC contributors have been organizing (and manipulating) the 2016 USA presidential and Congress elections.  

One simply has to ask the question, what (national and/or international) entities - apart from the alleged collusion between the Trump Campaign and Putin's Russia - have been responsible for exactly the falsification of exactly what portion of the 2016 USA voting process. 

In order to develop any meaningful notion on that question, one first has to deliberate on the question, of WHO (and/or what country / nation(s)) would have a political interest, in installing Trump in the White House and providing a majority for him in the two houses of USA Congress. 

The Identity and political agenda of both Trump affiliated Super-PAC-men Robert Mercer (an individual, that has collected considerable wealth through the same methodes (AI algorithms) and Sheldon Adelson might give us a pointed indication of where to look for the answer on that question I would suggest.    

Mercer by the way, has been a registered co-owner of the electioneering firm Cambridge Analytica at the time of the USA 2016 elections.
N.B. The USA electoral system has already been corrupted for ages by a constant stream of gerrymandering and excluding specific (mostly democratically orientated African-Americans) voter categories, such as (ex-) prisoners.


In general there are still a few fundamentally important, additional questions to be answered for, on the subject of exactly who has (what entities have) been manipulating the 2016 USA elections and for what reason  / motive. 

a.   Why did the USA security community allow (evidently politically partisan driven individuals like) Mercer et al, to use electioneering firms like Cambridge Analytica, to covertly manipulate the 2016 presidential and Congress elections.

b.    If not for the possibility scenario of course, that at least part of the USA security services has been complicit with this operation, because the electioneering firm Cambridge Analytica (by means of its (London based) mother company SCL) had been a proven and effective tool, which above all, has been an integral part of the electioneering (by software) division, applied by the very same security services. 

c.  Why did the USA security services allow Trump to manipulate the 2016 election process, while they had been fully aware of the Trumponian - Russian connection, at least on a business level, (also) involving members of the Russian Mafia, who at the same time had been well-connected to the Kremlin.    


d.  Why did - to go back in time even further - the USA national security services allow then foreign secretary Clinton to use a private mail-server in order to digitally communicate governmental information (even partly concerning security services-related information, that could have been compromised by hostile third parties, such as Russia, China and other candidates).

e.  Why did the then director of the FBI, Comey, intervene in the 2016 presidential election process, by announcing just a few weeks before the election-date - against all conventional protocol - the reopening of the FBI investigation into "the Clinton emails".  



zondag 26 mei 2019

US efforts to jail Assange for espionage are a grave threat to a free media





D
o you remember the Collateral Murder video – the one that showed US air crew in Apache helicopters killing people as though playing computer games, laughing at the dead after slaughtering a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for the Reuters news agency? Do you remember how the US military had lied about what happened in that incident in July 2007 – first claiming that all the dead were insurgents, and then that the helicopters were responding to an active firefight? Neither claim was true. Do you recall that Reuters had spent three years unsuccessfully trying to obtain the video?

Was it in the public interest that the world should have eventually seen the raw footage of what happened? You bet. Was it acutely embarrassing for the US military and government? Of course. Was the act of revelation espionage or journalism? You know the answer.
We have two people to thank for us knowing the truth about how those Reuters employees died, along with 10 others who ended up in the crosshairs of the laughing pilots that day: Chelsea Manning, who leaked it, and Julian Assange, who published it. But the price of their actions has been considerable. Manning spent seven years in jail for her part in releasing that video, along with a huge amount of other classified material she was able to access as an intelligence analyst in the US army. Assange has been indicted on 17 new counts of violating the Espionage Act, with the prospect that he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
As editor of the Guardian, I worked with Assange when we jointly (along with newspapers in the US and Europe) published other material Manning had leaked. Vanity Fair called the resultant stories “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years… they have changed the way people think about how the world is run”. The stories were, indeed, significant – but the relationship with Assange was fraught. We fell out, as most people eventually do with Assange. I found him mercurial, untrustworthy and dislikable: he wasn’t keen on me, either. All the collaborating editors disapproved of him releasing unredacted material from the Manning trove in September 2011. Nevertheless, I find the Trump administration’s use of the Espionage Act against him profoundly disturbing.
The Espionage Act was a panic measure enacted by Congress to clamp down on dissent or “sedition” when the US entered the First World War in 1917. In the subsequent 102 years it has never been used to prosecute a media organisation for publishing or disseminating unlawfully disclosed classified information. Nobody prosecuted under the act is permitted to offer a public interest defence.
Whatever Assange got up to in 2010-11, it was not espionage. Nor is he a US citizen. The criminal acts this Australian maverick allegedly committed all happened outside the US. As Joel Simon, director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, has observed: “Under this rubric, anyone anywhere in the world who publishes information that the US government deems to be classified could be prosecuted for espionage.”
Imagine the precedent if the Trump administration gets away with this. Israel and India have extensive nuclear weapons programmes – each protected by ferocious domestic official secrets acts. Think of the outcry if the Netanyahu or Modi governments attempted to extradite a British or US journalist to face life in jail for writing true things about their nuclear arsenals.
Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg in 2010
Pinterest
 Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg in 2010. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock

The new indictment against Assange falls into three parts – each of them attempting to criminalise things journalists regularly do as they receive and publish true information given to them by sources or whistleblowers. Assange is accused of trying to persuade a source to disclose yet more secret information. Most reporters would do the same. Then he is charged with behaviour that, on the face of it, looks like a reporter seeking to help a source protect her identity. If that’s indeed what Assange was doing, good for him. Finally, he is accused of repeatedly publishing material that “could harm the national security of the US”.
Whenever you read about journalists harming national security, massive alarm bells should start ringing. Think no further than Richard Nixon trying to prosecute the Pentagon Papers whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, for harming national security in 1971. Ellsberg, an intelligence analyst, found that the Vietnam war had been prosecuted on the basis of a web of lies and thought the public deserved to know. To Nixon, Ellsberg’s commitment to the truth was treason. He reached for the Espionage Act.
Today Ellsberg is celebrated as a principled whistleblower – but he came close to being jailed for his courage. That the New York Times was free to publish the leaked papers was down to judges. Murray Gurfein, a federal judge, refused an injunction, saying: “The security of the nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.” Gurfein’s ringing judgment was subsequently endorsed by the supreme court.
We need judges to defend free speech, because governments rarely do. When Theresa May was home secretary in 2015, the Law Commission was asked to review the British laws around official secrecy. In 2017, it recommended reforms that could see journalists prosecuted for simply holding secret material, never mind publishing it. The Commission also sought to deny reporters the ability to advance a public interest defence and suggested jail sentences of up to 14 years. Oh, and it suggested that the “public interest” when it came to national security should be defined by the government of the day. Leave it to Richard Nixon or Donald Trump.
Much may depend on the UK supreme court, which – subject to the home secretary’s deliberations – could well end up deciding this extradition request. Assange is a problematic figure in many ways. But the attempt to lock him up under the Espionage Act is a deeply troubling move that should serve as a wake-up call to all journalists. You may not like Assange, but you’re next.
Alan Rusbridger, a former editor of the Guardian, is now principal of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford