Trump's Revenge Tour Continues

 By Mildred Robertson

Trump says he's firing Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, citing his administration’s allegations of mortgage fraud against her. Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, responded by saying that Trump has no authority to fire her and she would continue to carry out her duties. Wealthy businessman Bill Pulte, who is Trump’s Federal Housing Finance Agency Director, alleged that Cook had committed mortgage fraud. While she has not been formally prosecuted or charged, Trump made the bold, and possibly unconstitutional, decision to try to fire Cook.

And this is not a
one-off. Pulte has alleged mortgage fraud against California Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both of whom have been strong Trump adversaries. Schiff was a member of the House Select Committee charged with investigating the January 6^th attack on the United States Capitol. James successfully prosecuted Trump and his sons Eric and Don Jr., which resulted in limits on their ability to do business in New York City. A court this week dismissed the massive monetary penalty she won in this case, but the limits on their ability to do business in New York currently remain in effect.

The decision to go after Cook is likely fueled by Trump’s desire to control the Federal Reserve. To date, his primary target at the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, appears to be more difficult to take down. Powell heads a seven-member board that serves 14-year terms.  The board is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They oversee the Federal Reserve and help set monetary policy.

Trump has come into conflict with the board because he wants interest rates down now. He has attempted to strong-arm Federal Reserve Chair Powell into lowering the rates for months now. Powell has yet to comply.  

That’s where Pulte comes in. Trump's feeble attempt to fire Powell seems stymied by  the fact that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 states that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors can only be removed by the president “for cause.” Trump tried unsuccessfully to base dismissal for cause against Powell on cost overruns on the central bank’s $2.5 billion headquarters renovation.  Having failed at that, alleging fraud against Cook, the only African American woman on the board, may allow him to achieve his desired results.

As Trump continues his revenge tour, Cook, along with James and Schiff, all deny wrongdoing, stating that the prosecutions are politically motivated. This is not hard to believe, in that Trump has vowed that his second term would be one of retribution against all who have opposed him.

California's Gavin Newsome Armed for the Fight

 By Mildred Robertson

Texas Democrats made a bold move to flee the state, denying Republicans the quorum they need to bring legislation to the floor. Already highly gerrymandered, Texas Republicans plan to pass legislation that could create as many as five new pro-Republican districts, thereby strengthening the Republican stronghold on the U.S. Congress.  

In an unprecedented show of solidarity, Texas Democrats’ weeklong quorum break has stymied the Republican majority while facing threats to either arrest them and bring them back to the chamber or declare their seats vacant due to the quorum bust. The Republicans, however, are no less aligned as they doggedly move forward to pass legislation that will guarantee continued Republican dominance in Texas and the United States Congress.

Democrats' valiant but ill-fated attempt to stop the Texas Republicans raised national awareness of the cost to democracy if Republicans are allowed to pick their voters by drawing voting districts where they are predetermined to win. Their efforts have resulted in new strategies by Democrat-run states to counter Texas’s move to redraw maps mid-decade to steal Democratic-leaning seats and maintain congressional leadership.

Most Democrats are inclined to follow political precedent, regardless of the lawless or unethical actions of the GOP.  Common thought implies that Democrats consistently bring a knife to a gun fight when dealing with Republican lawlessness. This is evidenced by the Democratic majority's hesitance to expand the Supreme Court when they were in power, although Republicans packed it with right-wingers.

Under Mitch McConnell’s leadership, the House stymied President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland eight months before an election, arguing voters should decide which presidential candidate should pick the next justice. He made an about-face when Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed during the final days of the first Trump administration, hastening the seating of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett days before the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost to Joe Biden.

Several options were available to Democrats. Obama could have made an interim appointment to the Supreme Court, or the Democrats, who controlled Congress during Biden’s administration, could have expanded the court. Democrats chose to go with precedent. Democrats, it appears, choose to play fair, even when their opponents don’t. They generally stand unarmed against the Republicans' ruthless pursuit of power.

But California Gov. Gavin Newsom laid down the knife and picked up a gun. His nuclear strategy involves states under Democratic control drawing maps to create additional safe districts in their respective states to counteract the Republican power grab.

Good for him.

While his tactics are being compared to the Republican power grab, they are not the same. First, Newsome plans to put this proposed change on the California ballot. That means that California’s redistricting would be sanctioned by its constituents. Furthermore, the redrawn maps would only go into effect if triggered by a Republican state attempting to redraw maps that disenfranchise voters and impact the makeup of Congress.  

Having said that...it's a terrible policy. but Democrats are left with few choices.  Knife, or gun? Under the circumstances, Newsome and other Democratic-dominated states are doing the best they can with a bad situation. It is like the strategy of mutual assured destruction and nuclear annihilation. Don't drop the bomb, and nobody will die.

Trump's Misuse of the Presidential Pardon

 By Mildred Robertson

The power to pardon offers a president the opportunity to apply justice, mercy, and promote the public welfare to those who have fallen from favor with the general society. When granted to a worthy recipient, a presidential pardon can help individuals regain their lives and become productive citizens.  It removes roadblocks to acquiring gainful employment, reinstates voting rights, and reestablishes the individual as a productive member of society.

There certainly are situations where mercy is required.  It appears that most Americans approve of presidents commuting prison sentences for those extraordinary cases where continued incarceration seems unjust. There are cases where individuals were wrongly convicted. Some convictions are the outcome of prejudiced juries or prosecutors who have pursued convictions zealously despite evidence of innocence. Even some convicts have been exonerated by evidence arising from new technologies. In some instances, the sentence does not match the crime. Humans run our justice system, and sometimes we make mistakes.

A presidential pardon can be a mechanism to help bring fairness and mercy to the system.  However, there must be parameters. Our current president appears to use his pardon power to insulate himself from wrongdoing. Criminals ranging from disgraced Congressman George Santos to infamous individuals such as Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs and Ghislaine Maxwell have sought pardons from President Trump. It appears his pardons are based upon personal relationships rather than the stipulations of the Constitution regarding presidential commutations. While the Constitution grants the President the authority to grant clemency, the presidential pardon power is not boundless, as Trump claims.  The Constitution outlines several limitations. Donald Trump's use of his pardon power exceeds the constraints found in the Constitution.

Sean 'Diddy' Combs is alleged to have sought a presidential pardon

First and foremost, the president is bound to faithfully execute the laws as prescribed by the Constitution, which requires that pardons serve the public’s interest, not for “self-dealing, self-protection, or other bad faith personal reasons. Pardons cannot be used as a form of bribery. It cannot be used to hinder a criminal investigation or to persuade a witness to withhold incriminating evidence or offer false testimony. It is not a means of self-protection for the president.
Trump’s pardon of all who participated in the January 6^th assault on the Capitol, a clearly treasonous act, flies in the face of the Constitution. Many of the pardoned individuals have been involved in criminal activities following Trump’s pardoning, some of whom have landed back in jail. Trump’s possible pardon of convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell smacks of self-dealing. It is a fact that his name is included in the Epstein files, and Maxwell may have incriminating evidence that ties Trump to the more salacious aspects of the case. While he attacks immigrants, accusing them of being rapists and murderers, he offers Maxwell sympathy and well wishes. 

While we wrestle with this unorthodox administration, we must examine the liberties Trump takes with his presidential powers. There are many reasons for the presidential pardon to exist. Using it to place oneself above the law is not among them.