Mostly Monday Reads: devaient essayer

John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

The first English Translation of Alexander de Tocqueville’s”De La Démocratie en Amérique”  (Democracy in America )was translated into English by Henry Reeves in 1835. It was Reeves who translated a section of the work that coined the phrase “the great experiment”. for Tocqueville’s phrase “devaient essayer,” which better translates into something more like “would attempt to build”.  It seems apt that confusion about what our country is and was about is not something novel.  JJ texted me David Dayen’s latest at The American Prospect earlier today. DDay explains in his compelling long-form essay, “America Is Not a Democracy. The movement to save democracy from threats is too quick to overlook the problems that have been present since the founding.”

The question has been, what did we do to arrive at this situation today?  Many historical events- notably the Civil War and the Whiskey Rebellion- were violent rebellions. Many are more recent and just don’t get play in modern history books. I’ve always thought that Donald Trump and the worst of his advisors have always found ways and, indeed, are now finding better ways to exploit the loopholes that were opened in the Constitution. The document has obvious nods to slaveholders and wealthy white men in its construction and details.  It may not have been kingdom and aristocracy based on birth, but it certainly gave a few classes of individuals more democracy than others.  Have a good conversation with the survivors of all of the Indian Wars and Slavery, and you’ll see it still rocks our form of government.

Trump is a more than worthy subject of concern for anyone hoping for democracy in 2025. Last time he was president, he actively resisted the peaceful transfer of power, a hallmark of despots the world over. To the extent he and his authoritarian-friendly advisers learned anything from the first term, it was how to neutralize obstacles to expanding power. His musing about being a “dictator on day one” is really not loose talk. The plans emanating from Team Trump to destroy the civil service, hire government lawyers to rubber-stamp unconstitutional actions and prosecute personal enemies, and even deploy troops on American soil are truly alarming.

But something troubles me about that term, “threat to democracy.” It has become a catchall phrase for resistance to conservative extremism, and specifically Trump. Yet the deficiencies in American democracy go back to the very founding, and the long arc of history hasn’t come close to correcting all of them. The larger crisis we now face is not solely attributable to an individual with malign intent for our government; it’s more about the system of government itself.

Exactly what part of democracy are we trying to save? Is it our democratic legislature, gerrymandered and malapportioned beyond recognition, with supermajority thresholds that deny rule even by that corrupted majority? Is it our democratic presidency, which Trump legally took over after losing the popular vote in 2016, and George W. Bush in the same fashion 16 years earlier? Is it our democratic judiciary, morphed into a super-legislature and habitually twisting the Constitution to advantage those with power, money, and influence?

Are we worried about a democracy that can be so easily purchased, where corporate lobbyists either win whatever they want on Capitol Hill, or win by regulatory change or international trade treaty whatever they don’t? Has this government, where the most important modification of our democracy’s original sin, the second-class citizenship of Black people, is now being steadily reversed by state legislatures and the courts, earned our support? Is there despair over losing something that has produced unequal opportunity, unequal justice, and the conversion of economic power into political power? Where can we find this democracy we need to fight to preserve?

No democracy perfectly distills the will of the people. But America is uniquely terrible at achieving democratic outcomes. It’s worth focusing our energies to repair that, because the alternative really is too grim to contemplate. But there are only a few options here. We can defend “democracy” as an amorphous concept that this country has almost never lived up to. We can uncover escape hatches, short-term circumventions of the rules, either to disqualify Trump and the threat he represents, or to take action on policy challenges. We know the names of these band-aids: budget reconciliation, the Electoral Count Reform Act, the 14th Amendment.

But we don’t deserve to live as political Houdini figures, trying constantly to work our way out of shackles imposed on us by our own system of government. If a political movement is going to style itself as the savior of democracy, it should also speak plainly about the myriad deficiencies in our democracy, and what it would actually take to fix them.

Spend some time with it if you can. I did this morning. Here are some other reads to put into that framework.  Phillip Bump writes about what’s going on at the Texas Border. It’s a horrifying event that will not reflect well on our future history.

Interest from the political right in policing the border is itself a long-established pattern. In 2006, after incidents involving self-appointed, right-wing border patrols had attracted national news attention, the Congressional Research Service compiled a report noting that vigilante efforts to confront border crossers extended back more than a century. The report also noted that such organized efforts, when not in violation of state or federal laws, had the right to exist.

In another social media post on Saturday, Trump exaggerated the danger posed by immigrants to the United States, 45 percent of whom in December were families or children traveling alone.

“Today we have a catastrophe waiting to happen. It is the WORST BORDER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD,” he wrote. He added: “There is now a 100% chance that there will be MAJOR TERROR ATTACKS IN THE USA. CLOSE THE BORDER!”

This is the mix in play at the moment: Trumpian rhetoric, antagonism to federal law enforcement and armed individuals taking matters into their own hands, particularly at the border.

BB and I have both written about this situation last week.  My MagRat Governor is one of those sending our Guard to interfere with the Federal Agents there.  Greg Sargent updates us on how Trump and MAGA Republicans are trying to tank a border deal so Trump can make political hay from it.

The concerning words there are “ethnonationalist savagery.”  This is from his new home at The New Republic. “GOP Senator Reveals the Sick Truth About the Trump-MAGA Border Scam. It’s not just that a deal might help Biden. It’s that a compromise bill now could prevent Trump and Stephen Miller from doing a much harsher bill later.”

Republican Senator James Lankford, who is leading negotiations over a border security bill, is discovering to his great shock that Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans are not operating entirely in good faith. Lankford went on the Sunday shows and appeared to admit that they are trying to kill his bill to deny President Biden a bipartisan victory.

That triggered a flurry of social media excitement. But his appearances revealed something deeper about this whole affair: Trump and MAGA Republicans can’t allow this bill to pass, not just for crass political reasons, but because it might succeed on the substance, denying them an opening to pass hideously onerous restrictions later.

Lankford’s first reveal came on Fox News Sunday, when he was asked why on Earth he’d act on the border if it might help Biden (on Fox, this is not a negative, just a statement of the obvious). Lankford noted that Republicans themselves demanded that funding for Ukraine and Israel be tied to border policy changes, and said he is merely trying to deliver what they asked for.

“Now, it’s interesting, a few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, ‘Just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because it’s a presidential election year,’” Lankford said, alluding to the open declaration from some Republicans that any compromise will deny Trump a weapon against Biden.

That alone is revealing enough. But it gets more interesting when viewed alongside what Lankford said on CBS’s Face the Nation. Anchor Margaret Brennan aired video of Trump urging Republicans to sink the deal, declaring: “I’d rather have no bill than a bad bill.”

Judd LeGum calls it the “Second Insurrection.”

Access to Shelby Park is important to federal authorities because it is used as a “staging area for policing and interdiction operations along the Rio Grande.” This includes the use of a boat ramp in the park to access the Rio Grande.

Texas’ seizure of Shelby Park and refusal to allow federal officials access have created an extremely dangerous situation. On January 12, three migrants — a woman and two children — drowned in the Rio Grande near the park. When Border Patrol agents went to Shelby Park to address the situation and help other migrants in distress, guardsmen from the Texas National Guard refused to let them enter, saying “they had been ordered not to allow Border Patrol access to the park.”

The legal battle between Texas and the federal government over Shelby Park began when Texas sued the federal government for cutting and removing some of the razor wire it installed along the Rio Grande. Border Patrol argued that the razor wire was putting its agents and migrants legally entitled to claim asylum at risk. Texas argued that the federal government was illegally destroying its property. The state eventually won an injunction from the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, prohibiting the federal government from disturbing Texas’ razor wire. The federal government, however, appealed to the Supreme Court. On January 22, in a brief order, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government and lifted the injunction.

Texas’ response to the Supreme Court order has been alarming. Abbott issued a statement stating that “[t]he federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States.” Compact theory was championed by John C. Calhoun, one of the staunchest defenders of slavery. It essentially views states as “independent sovereigns” that are free to reject federal authority. It was used to justify the “nullification” of federal laws and, ultimately, secession from the union by Southern states.

The bill these folks want is nothing short of sending the “savages” to hell if need be.  Meanwhile, while learning about the rule of law, Trump’s performances continue to be off-the-wall.  This is from The Daily Beast.  “Trump Throw Tantrum Over Court Monitor’s Financial Bombshell. ‘JAVERT LIKE QUEST’. A lawyer for the Trumps slammed Judge Barbara S. Jones in a court filing Monday morning, vehemently denying Trump lied about a missing $48 million loan.”  Who would think we’d get a Les Mis reference from the Trump Lawyer Camp?

Now that the retired federal judge babysitting the Trump Organization has uncovered potential tax fraud at the company, the Trumps responded over the weekend by tasking their own accountant as a monitor that monitors the court monitor.

In an indignant court filing Monday morning, a lawyer for the Trumps for the first time launched an all-out attack on Judge Barbara S. Jones—calling her latest report on the family company an absolute lie, a cheap attempt to justify her government-mandated job, and a last-minute ploy to bolster the New York Attorney General’s bank fraud case that just wrapped up.

“Further oversight is unwarranted and will only unjustly enrich the monitor as she engages in some ‘Javert’ like quest,” he wrote, making a reference to the fictional French law enforcement officer in Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, who’s defined by his obsessive pursuit and lack of empathy.

The Trumps also complained about the $2.6 million they’ve had to pay Jones to do her job, dismissing her findings wholesale.

“That the monitor seeks to now perpetuate this folly is beyond the pale,” wrote Clifford S. Robert, who represents the Trump family.

The counterpunch comes just days after Jones revealed a bombshell about former President Donald Trump’s finances. In the run-up to the AG’s trial against the Trumps for lying about real estate values, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur F. Engoron ordered that a court monitor watch over the sprawling family company to ensure it doesn’t shift or hide assets ahead of a potentially huge judgment that could cripple the business empire. Since then, Jones has issued nearly half a dozen reports indicating that, for the most part, all is well.

That is, until Friday, when she updated Engoron with a report that, as The Daily Beast first reported, suggested Trump lied for years about a supposed personal loan he made to one of his own companies—sleight of hand that may have allowed him to dodge taxes on nearly $50 million in income.

“When I inquired about this loan, I was informed that there are no loan agreements that memorialize the loan, but that it was a loan that was believed to be between Donald J. Trump, individually, and Chicago Unit Acquisition for $48 million,” she wrote.

E Jean’s $83 million was the center of discussion at Good Morning America Today.  She will also appear on the Rachel Maddow Show tonight.  She appeared on GMA with her fantastic lawyer, Robbie Kaplan.  This is from The Guardian. “E Jean Carroll aims to give defamation money ‘to something Trump hates’. Former Elle columnist tells Good Morning America: ‘If it’ll cause him pain for me to give money to certain things, that’s my intent’.”  Irony is not dead.

E Jean Carroll intends to spend the $83m awarded to her in her defamation trial against Donald Trump on something the former president “hates”, she revealed just days after the judgment.

On Friday, the jury in Carroll’s case decided that she should receive $18.3m in compensatory damages and $65m punitive retribution in the case pitting her against Trump. Of the $18.3m, Trump was told to pay Carroll $11m to fund a reputational repair campaign and $7.3m for the emotional harm caused by statements he made against her in 2019.

Carroll and her legal team did not speak to reporters as they left court but broke their public silence on Monday in an interview with Good Morning America.

Alongside her lawyer Roberta Kaplan, Carroll told host George Stephanopoulos that Friday’s win had left her overcome with “elation”.

“It filled me up … It was almost painful,” she said, adding: “Today, I’m very happy.

Stephanopoulos asked her to give the public an idea as to how she planned to spend the millions of dollars she’s won, and Carroll provided a clear outline.

“I’d like to give the money to something Donald Trump hates,” Carroll said. “If it’ll cause him pain for me to give money to certain things, that’s my intent.”

Carroll also said that she would perhaps explore giving to “a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump”.

Trump went on his Truth Social platform to decry Friday’s decision as “absolutely ridiculous” and said he would be filing an appeal.

“Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon,” Trump’s Truth Social post said in part. “THIS IS NOT AMERICA!”

Pointing to Trump’s combative response, Stephanopoulos asked Carroll’s attorney whether or not their side expected to collect the money awarded to them. Kaplan said that she was “pretty confident”.

“We might not get it right away. But one way or the other, he owns a lot of real estate. It can be sold. We will collect the judgment,” Kaplan said.

In the weeks leading up to the trial, Carroll revealed that she wasn’t sleeping or eating in anticipation of facing the former president.

There are a few things to like about this new “normal,” although most of it sucks eggs.  The Justice Department is detaining a former IRS contractor for leaking the Tax Records of Trump and other toxic Billionaires. This is from NBC News. “Ex-IRS contractor sentenced to 5 years in prison for leaking Trump tax records. Charles Littlejohn had pleaded guilty to leaking thousands of tax records, including for Trump and billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk.”   I don’t suppose this could be considered whistle-blowing.

The former Internal Revenue Service contractor who leaked the tax records of former President Donald Trump to The New York Times as well as the tax records of billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk to ProPublica was sentenced Monday to five years in prison.

Charles Littlejohn pleaded guilty in October, and prosecutors sought the statutory maximum of five years in federal prison, saying that he “abused his position by unlawfully disclosing thousands of Americans’ federal tax returns and other private financial information to multiple news organizations.” Prosecutors said that Littlejohn “weaponized his access to unmasked taxpayer data to further his own personal, political agenda, believing that he was above the law.”

Littlejohn was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes at a hearing at the federal courthouse in Washington. He will also have to pay a $5,000 fine.

“You can be an outstanding person and commit bad acts,” Reyes said. “What you did in targeting the sitting president of the United States was an attack on our constitutional democracy,” she added.

Reyes compared Littlejohn’s actions to other recent attacks and threats against elected officials as well as to Jan. 6 defendants she has recently sentenced. She described his actions as a deliberate, complex, multiyear criminal scheme, but said she believed he “sincerely felt a moral imperative” to act as he did.

Littlejohn’s attorney argued that he had committed the offense “out of a deep, moral belief that the American people had a right to know the information and sharing it was the only way to effect change” and that he believed he was right at the time.

I imagine if we compare the trial of this man to Trump, we’d get a huge contrast in what it’s like to be treated like a criminal.  But just about any other criminal in the system will be treated less humanely than the former guy.  They’d have shot him by now if he was black.  Are rights applied differently real rights in a real democracy?  Asking for a friend.

Well, this is getting long, and I need to eat some lunch.  I hope y’all have a good week!

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?