Mural by Lithuanian artist Mindaugas Bonanu, Vilnius.
Been doin' a lot of readin' the last few hours. Politics. Haven't written much on Disco Donald and the Lowlifes, coupla guerrilla attacks, 'bout all. Mainly Golden State recently, 'bout all...They play tonight btw...
Started one post titled, Mitt Romney for President, honest injun I did. Started another, untitled, on Trump's speech today. It was that that led to all the readin' and to this post.
Trump made a speech today in San Diego, hard by the Mexican border. Was some violence between the Lowlifes and the Righteous but the headlines were of what the Wall Street Journal said were twelve of the fifty-eight minutes he devoted to the federal lawsuit against Trump University (or "university," sic, even the quotation marks, per the Washington Post) now scheduled for trial November 28. This is as full an extent on the subject as I was able to find (no transcript) as of a few hours ago:
"The trial is going to take place sometime in November. There should be no trial. This should have been dismissed on summary judgment easily. Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel. And he is not doing the right thing, and I figure what the hell, why not talk about it for two minutes.
“The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great, I think that’s fine. You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs, OK?
“I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself. I’m telling you, this court system, judges in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge Curiel. Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace, OK? But we’ll come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I’m president and I come back to do a civil case? Where everybody likes it. OK. This is called life, folks.”
The American federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel is, like, American, not Mexican, all sixty-two of his years spent in America, where he was born, in East Chicago, Indiana. 'Murican place, Indiana. Right smack dab in the middle of America is Indiana. Judge Curiel was Chief of the Narcotics Enforcement Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California in which capacity he prosecuted Mexican drug cases. Among others. Some American drug cases too. Maybe some Lithuanian I don't know probably not but anybody regardless of nationality accused of violating American narcotics laws in the Southern District of California.
"This man must be stopped," was the first of my cogitations on Trump this morning after reading that. It's a thought I have had before. There was no "by lawful means" addendum to my thought but that is only because we think in shorthand, I did not think, and have never thought, he must be stopped "by an means necessary" or other shorthand for, "including assassination." I do not think that and never have.
What I thought, have written previously, and re-write now, is that Trump and the Lowlifes should be arrested whenever they lawfully can be. I thought Trump had committed the crime of incitement to riot with his earlier prediction of riots in Cleveland were he to be denied the Republican nomination. He was not arrested then.
So many of Trump's statements skirt so closely to violations of the law that I have to stop and think, and sometimes, as in the incitement case, actually look up the law. Trump doesn't care about the law. Can't waterboard, against the law. Trump said he'd waterboard "and a lot worse." Generals said, "we would refuse to obey that order." Trump said, "Oh they would obey my order," I'll tell ya that right now. Trump buddy Dr. Ben Carson thought it was an open question whether presidents have to obey Supreme Court decisions! I had to stop and think about this one about Judge Curiel because if I, a lawyer, said publicly what Trump said about a judge, any judge, but especially one in which I am a party to the litigation, my ass would be grass with the Bar prosecutors. A lawyer is prohibited from publicly criticizing a judge, even or especially in a political campaign, it is considered an attack on the independence of the judiciary and the judicial canon of ethics prohibits a judge from responding.
But Trump, of course, is not a lawyer so the Bar police have no jurisdiction over him. Still, I have never heard a celebrity, and here one running for control of the executive branch of the same government, so attack a member of the judicial branch, who is presiding over his case!
I thought, "Judges can issue 'gag' orders" and I'm pretty sure those can apply to parties not just the lawyers appearing before them, maybe Judge Curiel will do that? I don't know, I don't know if freedom of speech would protect Trump, running for president, from attacking a federal judge in a pending case to which Trump is the defendant, which case is a political issue in the campaign. Writing that out I don't think the First Amendment provides a safe haven for attacking a federal judge but I bet Judge Curiel doesn't issue a gag order!
I think Judge Curiel would be very reluctant to issue a gag order against Trump for concern of getting dragged into politics.The same as police and prosecutors quickly ruled Trump out as a suspect of investigation for inciting that punch in North Carolina. And that is where I don't know if law enforcement is doing the right thing. Trump broke the law in the incitement case in my opinion but he is also threatening the rule of law with other statements and actions.
If publicly attacking a federal judge in a speech where you are a party before that judge is a violation of law and the miscreant is not held accountable then he has gotten away with violating the law.
If Judge Curiel could issue a gag order, violation of which is punishable by contempt of court for future violations, against Donald Trump and does not, where he would issue a gag order were the miscreant not running for president then Donald Trump is above the law.
What of the racist, false nature of Trump's attack on Judge Curiel today? Is that a crime? I don't know, I didn't research it.
I completely understand the predicament that law enforcement is in with Trump, this is a matter of first impression for all of us. I do however hope that law enforcement is mindful of the flip side of "caution" in matters of first impression and that is that there is no controlling precedent in matters of first impression. Caution is not precedent. We have in Donald J. Trump a threat to the rule of law and to democracy itself. Caution is not the correct mindset. He must be stopped-by any legal means available.
I completely understand the predicament that law enforcement is in with Trump, this is a matter of first impression for all of us. I do however hope that law enforcement is mindful of the flip side of "caution" in matters of first impression and that is that there is no controlling precedent in matters of first impression. Caution is not precedent. We have in Donald J. Trump a threat to the rule of law and to democracy itself. Caution is not the correct mindset. He must be stopped-by any legal means available.
Those cogitations led me to think this: "I do not trust the American people here." I don't trust the American people to stop Trump by defeating him at the ballot box. He has won the Republican nomination. The most recent polls show him tied with or with a slight lead over Hillary Clinton. Hitler ultimately became dictator of Germany via the ballot box-with less popular support than Trump currently has! I read today that others, former Massachusetts governor William Weld, Robert Kagan, have drawn the same parallels to Nazi Germany. It was these parallels that led me to conclude that writing, whether you're an idiot blogger or William Weld or Robert Kagan, is not enough, that "With Nazis baseball bats work best" and to participate in the first political protest of my adult life on May 1, which predictably ended in comic farce. Comically farcical protests don't work. Neither do sometimes violent protests.
Somebody, maybe Kagan, drew other parallels to Russia and Putin, the recent election in Austria where a far right candidate lost (by .3%) to the recent rise in popularity of other nationalistic, fascistic candidates in Europe.
I next landed on some of Russ Douthat's writing which led to the aborted "Mitt Romney for President" post. Douthat is, I believe, a Republican. I started out this political season where Douthat is today: I vowed, in print no less, to sit this election out, so distasteful did I find the choice between Hillary Clinton and any of the dirty dozen of Republicans then running. Douthat's phrasing, with italics in original, now, on May 19, was:
Douthat went on to opine that he really didn't think Trump was likely to become president, really thought Clinton would defeat him, but that a Trump victory was not "impossible," that is all the chalk, and Douthat went on to make the case for a Mitt Romney third party run. I once wrote that if Romney ran I would vote for him over Clinton/any of the dirty dozen. As I read Douthat's column I thought, "I'd vote for Romney now" and wrote the "Mitt Romney for President" post. As I continued reading it dawned on me, "If I would vote for Mitt Romney now, Romney running as a third party candidate would not doom Trump" and then the epiphany of the day dawned on me: Douthat's question is not the question of the day!" "Is it a good thing" to have Clinton and Trump to choose from was never the question, Clinton vs a hazy one of the dirty dozen has resolved into Clinton OR Trump and if you're still asking yourself that question, go back to Germany, 1938.
I ended the day's reading and cogitation with reconsideration of the issue of violence against Trump and the Lowlifes. I do not condemn the violence today by anti-Trump protesters. It is justified in my view. I sincerely would be aghast if there were not violent protests against Trump. My heart and soul are with them and it is not out of the question that my fists will be as well. Which view easily leads to the question, "Would it be a good idea for Donald Trump to be assassinated?" No. Punched? Yes. Short of murder or great bodily harm (broken nose doesn't count; broken head does.) he must be stopped.
