President Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, and Steve Bannon, his senior advisor who also sits on the National Security Council, have proposed to the President a massive change in the way that American law enforcement agencies are organized, according to Breitbart News, which first broke the story.
The President is considering merging the country’s police departments, which have traditionally been under the control of local jurisdictions such as cities and towns, with state Highway Patrols and county Sheriffs’ Departments, into a single, unified domestic security agency. The new force would be housed within the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, part of the Department of Homeland Security.
The combined force, to be called the Head Office for Security (HOS), would report directly to Homeland Security director John F. Kelly, but its operational head would be Henry Hammler, 57, a longtime aide to Bannon when the latter was head of Breitbart News. Hammler, a former poultry farmer and Army major, served in a non-combat capacity in the 1983 invasion of Grenada under former President Ronald Reagan.
According to sources, the HOS would be divided into two sections: an administrative wing and a financial wing. The proposed head of the administrative wing is said to be Richard Heydrich, a nephew of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher currently on trial for taking over Federal land. Leading the financial wing would be Dr. Julius W. Streicher, most recently a senior vice president for political affairs at Goldman Sachs.
An insider, who did not want to be named, told Breitbart that Flynn and Bannon proposed the change in order to streamline the nation’s multi-layered security apparatus, to allow President Trump “greater flexibility in determining how to deal with threats to national security, both foreign and domestic.” Since taking office, Trump is known to have complained about how complicated law enforcement in the U.S. is, with dozens of competing agencies, ranging from town constables to National Guards to the Central Intelligence Agency. According to the source, “He [Trump] wants to be able to give an order and have it apply anywhere and everywhere, instantly, without getting hung up in the bureaucracy.”
The idea of merging local and state police forces with federal security forces, without judicial enforcement, has generally been shunned in democracies, although it is standard practice in countries such as Zimbabwe and North Korea. In the West, the last time such forces were joined into a single entity, under the supreme authority of a leader, was in 1939, in Germany, when Adolf Hitler merged all law enforcement agencies into his Head Office for Reich Security.
The source said that at a recent meeting of the National Security Council, where the idea was discussed, Trump insisted that the new HOS would not be anything like Hitler’s Nazi regime. “That’s stupid,” Trump was reported to have replied when unidentified members of the N.S.C. questioned him about it. “This is nothing like the Nazis. Hitler was insane—although I do respect his ability to bring Germany together. Our new Head Office for Security will be completely different, that I can tell you.”
The changes would have to be approved by Congress. According to Breitbart, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, when asked about the proposed changes, said he was not familiar with the plan. “I haven’t seen details yet. But President Trump is in the best position to determine how best to protect the people of the United States from harm, and if that’s something he feels is in the national interest, I’m sure that patriots in the House and Senate will be open to it.”
Trump is said to be anticipating fast approval of the new HOS and has even begun thinking about a new look for its officers. The source said that Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who has run her own fashion company, is designing a uniform for high rankers. “Ivanka loves black for sheer elegance, but she’s concerned that all-black might be too severe,” the source said, adding, “She wants hints of color, but she doesn’t want it to look frivolous.”
This blog has obtained an exclusive sketch of Ivanka’s design, below. Kellyanne Conway, President Trump’s senior counsel, told me that the cross-like figure on the hat “is not a religious reference. Don’t be so dramatic. It’s a ‘T’. For ‘Trump.’”
I know a lot of liberals who are depressed these days, and I feel it’s part of my job to boost their morale and let them know that this is not the time to give up. It’s the time to resist.
People don’t know what to do. They feel so overwhelmed, so powerless. “What can I do?” they wonder. I tell them: “Do whatever you can, however small. Write a letter to the editor. Write your congressperson. Donate money to some campaign. Post on Facebook, on twitter, on Instagram. But don’t descend into lassitude. Fight back!”
It’s true that none of us can stop this catastrophe. The liar will take take office on Jan. 21; the thugs and psychotics he’s appointed will assume power in their various departments. So, yes, individually, we are weak. But collectively we can be a force. It’s not clear yet what organizational thing we can rally around. But the election was only six weeks ago. We were caught by surprise. Naturally, it’s going to take some time to get our bearings and figure out, collectively, what to do. In the meantime, do small things. “The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.”
For example, someone told me yesterday that Macys carries Ivanka Trump’s line of shoes, which I hadn’t known. So, you want to do something, but you don’t know what? Start by contacting Macys corporate and tell them if they don’t drop this product, you’ll stop shopping at Macys. Here’s the link to their investor relations department. It’s a simple online form with a comment section. What do you think Macys will do if ten thousand customers say they’ll never buy again at Macys unless the store drops those shoes? I guarantee you, they’ll be gone in a month. (And, by the way, this will also send a clear signal to Trump.)
That’s how democracy works. Boycotts are effective. Will it stop Trump from trying to push through his nasty agenda if Macys stops selling Ivanka’s shoes? No. But 65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton, and many, perhaps most of them are pissed off at what’s happening—the way Putin manipulated this election, the disgusting campaign Trump ran, with his lies and insults, the white supremacy, the hatred. That’s 65 million people who can be an army, if we pool our resources and energies. So my message is, never give up! Don’t submit to fear and depression! Find your anger and mobilize it. Anger can eat away at you like a cancer, or you can use it in a positive way, to motivate yourself and find the energy to act. This resistance is just getting started, believe me. Liberals, Democrats, humanitarians and people of goodwill across this nation—and the world—are gathering their strength, coming together to fight this catastrophe. We can win—but only if we keep our eyes on the prize.
So, peace, my readers and friends. In the spirit of the holiday season, I wish the best to you and yours. Then, let’s get on with defeating Trumpism. We can do it—and we will!
What is the Hatch Act? It is a 1939 law named after a lifelong Democrat, Carl Hatch, who was U.S. Senator from New Mexico for sixteen years before being elevated to the Federal bench by President Truman. Hatch, who was chairman of the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, was bothered by partisan political activity by Federal government employees, Democratic and Republican, in the election process. The Act named after him forbade such employees from engaging in such activities.
The Act’s key wording is contained in the U.S. Code Section 7323: “a [government] employee may not use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” A sub-section of the Act (B II) specifically identifies employees of “the Federal Bureau of Investigation” as being subject to the Hatch Act.
The penalty for violating the Hatch Act is this: “An employee or individual who violates…this title shall be removed from his position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual.”
We come now to the case of James Comey, the current FBI director, who this past week “sent Congress a brief, inscrutable, election-shaking letter about emails that may or may not be new or relevant to the previously concluded investigation in Hillary Clinton’s private email server.” Comey, who we must infer clearly understood the bombshell nature of his letter, which came little more than a week before the election, tried to defend himself by claiming he was obligated to inform the Congress as soon as he learned that new information pertaining to the emails had become available. The problem with this explanation, it now appears, is twofold: (1) Comey “knew nothing about the substance of the emails,” which suggests a distasteful rush to judgment (they could have been cookie recipes), and (2) the emails were neither sent to Hillary Clinton, nor were from her, but instead were found on the computer of Anthony Weiner (and I assume you all know who he is). So “breathtakingly rash and irresponsible” was this decision by Comey, says the New York Times, that even the conservative Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley, sent Comey a letter stating, “Your disclosure is not fair to Congress, the American People, or Secretary Clinton.”
When is the last time you heard a senior Republican elected official complain that something wasn’t “fair” to Hillary Clinton? The answer is Never, which means that what Comey did is pretty egregious.
Who is James Comey? We know he is a Republican. He was appointed a Deputy Attorney-General by President George W. Bush. He temporarily left government, to make some serious money, by going to work as General Counsel for Lockheed Martin, but was subsequently (2010) appointed FBI director by President Obama. Why would a liberal Democratic President appoint a career Republican, and one with close ties to the military-industrial complex, to head up the FBI? The best answer seems to be that Obama—already the target of a declaration of war by the Republican Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell—realized he would never get the Senate to confirm a Democrat as FBI director. The move also reinforced the notion, which Obama was keen to advance, that Obama was a bipartisan President, anxious to work with a Republican Party that clearly was as hostile to him as any political party has ever been towards any sitting President.
It is obviously impossible to know what Comey’s true motive was in writing that notorious letter to Congress. His claim that he was simply keeping them informed about new information might be true; it might equally well, and more plausibly, be totally bogus. He might have done it deliberately to tilt the election to Trump (and Trump may well be elected because of Comey’s action). Short of a confession by Comey, which isn’t very likely, we’ll never know, which means that it cannot be determined if he actually violated the Hatch Act. It seems likely that he did. That his behavior “influence[d]…[and] interfer[ed] with or affect[ed] the result of an election” cannot seriously be denied, by even the most ardent Republican.
Which leaves us—where? Should Hillary Clinton be elected President, Comey’s days at the FBI are likely numbered: she will have the power to fire him, and should. Should Trump be elected, no doubt he will sing Comey’s praises, but Trump’s advisors will tell him he’ll have to let Comey go sooner or later (his actual term doesn’t end until 2020), because of the widespread perception that Comey enabled Trump. But it may turn out that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump will have to deal with Comey. Yesterday, the conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens, urged Comey “to do the right thing” and “resign” now. By sending that nefarious letter to Congress, Stephens writes, Comey “lost the trust of his political masters, his congressional overseers and the American public.” That’s coming from a Republican, mind you, not a Hillary supporter.
Well, whatever Comey does, he will eventually land back into the military-industrial complex, make many more millions of dollars, and try to avoid dining out at Washington’s toniest restaurants, where no doubt many of his former friends will no longer be pleased to run into him.
I spent part of yesterday watching yet another Republican-led House of Representatives investigation into “Hillary Clinton’s emails,” and believe me, you know that old saying about “more boring than watching paint dry”?
Yup, that’s how nothing this circus was.
Repubs know they’re digging a dry well, just as the holes they dug on Benghazi and everything else anti-Hillary have been dry. There’s no there there, because nearly everybody understands exactly what it was that Hillary did, which was simply to do what most of us do: she had two different email accounts, one for State Department business and more for her personal stuff, and she occasionally sent or received emails on one account that more properly should have been sent or received via the other.
Ooohh, terrible! A crime against humanity, rendering Hillary Rodham Clinton clearly unfit to be President.
Well, that’s ridiculous. This entire ordeal has been stressful and embarrassing to her; the tension it’s put her under probably contributed to her current mild bout of pneumonia. But a reason not to vote for her? Only in the minds of people who wouldn’t vote for her under any circumstance, and would vote for the Republican candidate if his name were Elmer Fudd instead of Donald Trump.
So desperate are these Republicans to find anything against Hillary that at yesterday’s hearing one of them, Jason Chaffetz, from Utah, chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, handed a subpoena to the FBI’s assistant director during the hearing, demanding “the full [Clinton email] file with no redactions of personal identifiable information.”
This was a virtually unprecedented act—two, actually: to subpoena a sworn witness in the middle of a Congressional investigation, and demanding moreover every email, on any topic whatsoever—her health, private conversations with her husband, to her daughter, to foreign leaders, to President Obama, whatever.
Keep in mind, this is the same Jason Chaffetz who was not content with the fact that the F.B.I. already found nothing lawfully wrong with what Clinton did—“she did not lie or break the law,” FBI director Comey testified. So the top investigative body of the United States of America stated conclusively that Hillary Clinton is innocent of the charges to which Republicans have subjected her, but Chaffetz and his Republican cronies will not rest until they find something, anything to use against her. “The FBI has concluded their portion,” Chaffetz conceded, but “the FBI…has not looked at other things that she did potentially…”.
“That she did potentially…” Think about this statement. Imagine you’ve been indicted and tried for some major criminal offense. After a lengthy hearing, the F.B.I—the frigging Federal Bureau of Investigation—finds you innocent of every charge your prosecutor could dream up. Just when you think you’re a free woman, you hear the damned prosecutor stand up and demand to the Judge that this hearing is not over. Why not? Because you have done something wrong “potentially.”
In an alternate universe, perhaps. But wait, there’s more. Let’s say that, in your trial, it was shown clearly and conclusively that you did nothing wrong—you broke no existing law. But what if what you did should have been against the law, at least in the eyes of your prosecutor? Then that prosecutor continues to hound the Court, to demand that you, the alleged perp, be found guilty anyway, even though you’re innocent of all charges, because…well, because your prosecutor doesn’t like you.
Sound Orwellian? It is—unless your name is Jason Chaffetz. Even though Hillary broke no law, “the law probably needs to be updated or they’re not properly applying the law, and that’s why we need to explore this,” he told Fox News (where else?), and continued to insist, like a delirious mental patient, “She broke the law.”
Okay, so according to the FBI she broke no laws. Chaffetz is unable to cite any law on the books that she did break. But, in his fevered mind, he wants reality changed so that she did break a law. This is how biased, how intemperate and, quite frankly, how insane this Republican party has gotten due to its hatred of Hillary Clinton. She broke no law…Repubs wish she had broken a law so they could nail her…and because they run the Congress, they will never, ever let her off the hook, but will continue to harass her, forever if need be, because…well, because they can.
This is the definition of a witch hunt. And this Chaffetz–the Utah Mormon who has been been called “a grandstanding charlatan,” who led the attack against Planned Parenthood, who oversees the Secret Service through his committee chairmanship yet never revealed that he had applied to the Service and been rejected until this was outed and he was forced to, explaining, “I haven’t looked at that in more than a decade. It’s not something that’s entered my mind…seriously, this was like 10 minutes, 12 years ago,” as if that were an adequate explanation for not telling the truth about something so important—this Chaffetz, who boasts on his website of his “core conservative principles of accountability,” is the perfect witch hunter to lead it.
It is a staple of American politics for candidates to be vague about certain of their positions. Republicans and Democrats alike have thrown up obscuring smokescreens around issues that make them uncomfortable since the founding of the Republic.
For example, in late 19th century post-Reconstruction America, one of the burning issues was Civil Service reform. For decades Presidents had rewarded their supporters by giving them, and their friends, plush political appointments to high office—for example, as local Postmasters. This ensured party loyalty, but it smacked of corruption, offending good-government types who wanted such appointments to be based on merit. A long succession of Republican Presidents, starting with Grant and going right up to McKinley, avoided making decisions. The Republican Party liked the patronage system; Democrats wanted reform, and it was popular with the people, but Dems were never strong enough to push it through. So every time the issue of Civil Service reform came up, Republicans dodged it with talk that sounded meaningful, but was actually devoid of substance.
Democrats could play the same game. One of the most famous examples of the 20th century was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s artful dodging of the issue of becoming involved in World War II. He personally thought the U.S. should fight on the side of our allies, Britain and France, against the menace Hitler and Mussolini clearly posed. But so ardent was isolationist feeling in this country that F.D.R. had to be vague about his future intentions. For example, in a Boston speech, in 1940, he said something that was misleading, at best: “To you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
He knew it was not a true statement, knew that war for American boys was inevitable. The word “foreign” was his hedge. If America were attacked—and Roosevelt was sure it eventually would be—then any ensuing war would not be “foreign” but defensive. And that’s exactly how things played out after the December, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.
So we should never be surprised when a politician hedges or backtracks or “flip-flops,” to use the current jargon. However, there are minor hedges and major hedges, and a politician who backtracks on the major promise of his political rise, the one that secured him the presidential nomination, is one whose honesty and intellectual ability ought to be subject to the closest scrutiny.
Which brings us to today’s topic, which is, of course, Donald Trump’s bizarre meandering around the topic of deporting undocumented immigrants. His fundamental promise, on announcing for office, was that he would deport the estimated 11 million Mexicans living here more or less illegally. Nearly a year ago, for instance, he told Americans he would build “a deportation force” the same way he built “an unbelievable company worth billions and billions of dollars.”
Most thinking people understood from the beginning that Trump was lying. Nobody expected him to create some kind of uniformed Internal Security Deportation Squad, which would knock on doors in the middle of the night, seize parents from their screaming children, pack them up into black vans and dump them at gunpoint on the Mexican border. Nobody, that is, except his credulous and largely uneducated supporters, who piled all their resentments in life on the backs of farm workers, hotel maids, gardeners and kitchen line cooks.
Trump ran toward the extreme in the primaries and now is making a mad dash back towards the center, in order to win the general by appealing to less-crazy voters. Still, he can now be seen jettisoning his central campaign promise: as yesterday’s Washington Post reports, “Trump won’t say definitively whether he backs mass deportation.”
Well, naturally he won’t say it “definitively” because he knows he can’t mass-deport people. He knows it will never happen, just as he has known from the beginning. Truth, such as it is, has never mattered to the Trump campaign.
WashPo’s reporter described Trump’s problem accurately: “On the one hand, [Trump supporters] say no amnesty, no legalization, and everyone out. On the other, they don’t have the nerve to say they are going to kick out grandmothers and little children, college students and hard-working adults who have been here most of their lives.” The end result is a chaotic mishmash of meaninglessness.
It would be one thing for Trump to equivocate on less emotional issues, such as how he would renegotiate trade deals. The devil is in the details on things like that: he could get away with obfuscation. But for him to back away from the central guarantee he made to his supporters is really unprecedented in modern Presidential elections. It is as if Obama, running on a promise of expanding healthcare for all Americans, were suddenly, on the eve of the election, to announce that maybe that’s not such a good idea after all.
Trump’s image managers, such as the P.R. spin artist Kellyanne Conway, will try to avoid having to answer hard questions, but I figure a relentless Press will force her to address her candidate’s inconsistencies. “How can he back-pedal on deportation?” reporters will ask her. Here’s how she’ll answer: First, she’ll tell them they’ll have to ask the candidate himself, since she doesn’t write policy (LOL). When they insist, she’ll explain that, actually, the retreat on deportation is a sign of Trump’s growing political sophistication. “His position on this issue, as on many issues, is constantly evolving,” she’ll aver, adding, for good measure, “just as you’d want him to. We want our candidates for public office to continue to learn as situations change, don’t we?” And then she’ll stick it to Hillary Clinton. “Unlike Secretary Clinton, whose secret emails about Benghazi show that some people never change their basic dishonesty and untrustworthiness.”
And that’s the way to take an embarrassing situation, turn it around with reverse spin, and hope American voters are dumb enough to buy it.