How Do House Dems Stop Trumpies' Stonewalling? Jailing Is One Option - But Impeachment Is Another

One of the imbecilic cartoons circulating in the mainstream media that would have witless citizens believe impeachment is a frenzy or "fever" instead of a necessity with the criminal in the WH.

"In 2019, The Democrats confront the weakest president in modern history with a stronger case for impeachment than the one against Nixon."-  Former Clinton Senior Adviser Sidney Blumenthal, on 'All In', May 16.

"Contrary to Barr's portrayal, Mueller's report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific action and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment."  GOP Rep. Justin Amash

It's now become something of a joke piece- but shouldn't-  that House Democrats have one huge weapon left in their  oversight enforcement arsenal: sending the sergeant-at -arms to arrest anyone who flouts their subpoenas. Indeed, when Nancy Pelosi brought the subject up,  i.e. that she had the sergeant-at arms "ready with handcuffs", Trump's Toady AG Bill Barr "chuckled and walked away".  That shouldn't be nor should it be the stuff of late night jokes. In truth, not only Barr but Mnuchin, McGahn and anyone else who blown off subpoenas ought to be put "on ice" in the congressional jail.  (Or any jail - even Leavenworth if no specially designated holds are available in D.C.)

"But wait! That's unreal! That's too much!BWAAAAHAAA'"

Uh, no.  The Reeps and Trump right now have our "constitution on fire" in the words of one commentator, and our nation's future as a Republic is on the line. If you don't think the GOP will not pull out every weapon to protect the traitor Trump then you're not paying attention. And if they pull out every weapon to defend Trump as he mocks the rule of law, the Dems must pull out every weapon they have, bar none.  As NY Times columnist Charles Blow put it in a recent column: "The Democrats need to stop bringing letter openers to a gun fight."

Right now, the GOP Trumpies and Dotard himself are laughing all the way to court with dozens of court challenges to subpoenas as they have Dems locked in "process fights".  All they need to do is run out the clock and the Dems will lose, and waste time as they fight in the courts to try to get the traitors to respect House -issued subpoenas.  My take, and many more now, is for Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler and other House committee chairs to invoke the 1934 concept of "inherent contempt" and toss the asses of these stonewallers directly into the Capitol jail - marched there at gunpoint if need be.

No more laughing jokes, no more late night banter or talking heads (like Chris Matthews last week) opining "that's crazy".  No it's not, Chris, it's the law.  Besides, the other side - now unhinged and believing it will be uncuffed - is going full mad dog demagogue-Dictator on us.    As reported in Saturday's WSJ  ('Barr Could Spark Rule Change', p. A4),  Barr is already well underway with his counter investigation of the Russia investigation.  As he told the WSJ in an interview, echoing Josef Goebbels in his most atrocious propaganda snippets:

"Government  power was used to spy on American  citizens"

Referring to the surveillance of Carter Page and other members of the then Trump campaign, and which is total balderdash.  Barr here is totally enmeshed in the Devin Nunes playbook that it was Hillary, Christopher Steele and the FBI  who are the real culprits.  A meme long since slaughtered as specious but which the Trump traitors - including Barr - are now attempting to use to invert justice on its head, like Hitler did with the Enabling Act.

Why are they doing this? Because they can and the other side has shown no inclination to use any "nuclear" options - such as locking the fuckers up in the Capitol jail based on inherent contempt.

Worse, the mad dog himself- Trump - is now going full out Hitler  (taking his cue from his toady AG) by declaring all those who investigated him had "committed treason", e.g. (ibid.)

"My campaign was conclusively spied upon. ...TREASON means long jail sentences and this was TREASON!"

 - when he is and remains the only true traitor to this country, who has repeatedly violated his oath of office as revealed in the Mueller report, e.g.

www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

As Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe elegantly summed up in an interview 2 weeks ago:

"What we have here is a situation where the Mueller report shows without any doubt that a hostile foreign power attacked the United States in this (2016) election  That Donald Trump welcomed that attack, benefited from it and then - the last couple of years - tried to cover it up every possible way.  That was with ten instances of felonious obstruction of justice."

Combine all the above with the fact Trump's toady attorney (Consovoy)  is trying to make the case - in expedited court hearings - that even congressional oversight in Watergate was questionable, and you will finally grasp we are in a genuine constitutional crisis. Not just on the verge of one. And how the House Dems meet it, whether in crouched position or head-on, will largely determine our future.

Take "inherent contempt" which now many talking heads are going to have to go back to school, or whatever texts on government they have, to review.  But it is essential they do before trying to explicate the full range of lawful alternatives available to stop the stonewalling and flouting of congressional subpoenas.

Legal expert Lisa Davis, speaking 6 days ago on 'Last Word' pointed out:

"Those powers go back almost two centuries actually. There is a lot of congressional power there but it's just that in this statutory era congress has not had to use them. That's because it's gotten the needed cooperation from  presidents and different administrations and been able to get referrals from the Justice Department.

Here, you have Trump and his lawyers, and interestingly the White House Counsel and his private counsel are all singing the same tune with this argument that congress does not have these powers to investigate the president or to seek these documents. That is in defiance of black letter law. These are settled rules that have been settled for many many years.

And as you pointed out, the inherent contempt powers (such as jailing) have rarely been used because it's been rarely necessary to be used....

This in many ways is like the David Frost-Nixon interview when Nixon infamously said 'if the president does it it must be legal'.  So  that's where we are. So even though there's no physical fire it's as if the Constitution's on fire and the Article I powers are being blotted out by these guys."

Which cannot be allowed to go on, so the Dems must now go "full nuclear", imposing not just fines on these scofflaws but jail time - long jail time under the inherent contempt clause. If it means  Barr, Mnuchin et al being frog marched out to the Capitol jail in cuffs so be it. That's what it's come to, but these fuckers have brought it on themselves, let's get that straight.

As one other House rep said in response to Davis: "It's just extraordinary we have come to this."  But we have and now is the time for Dems to grasp their Article I powers are being scuttled so it's time to lock and load.  


Of course, the Democrats' failure to act decisively and aggressively has only emboldened the criminal even more - and at the same time made the House Dems appear neutered- or political eunuchs. Meanwhile, the Murdoch-owned reactionary media has had a field day twisting facts when they've not making mock sport at the prospect of locking any Trump scofflaw up.

In the first case one beheld Trump asslicker Dan Henninger (WSJ, May 16, p. 13, 'Jerry Nadler's Dictator') actually writing - presumably not while on opioids or MJ candy:

"The ideological divide is between a government of limited power - which in fact Mr. Trump represents, and a government with wide coercive powers, represented by Mr, Nadler."

Of course this is a joke, given it's been Trump and his accomplices who've essentially fobbed off all lawful oversight and brought us to the present precipice.  Trump is the one who's issued blanket stonewalling of all House subpoenas thereby frustrating congress' Article I oversight powers. So Henninger has it ass backwards.  Apart from which, if one reads the Constitution one sees the congress - legislative branch powers supersede the executive's.  He must oblige when oversight is implemented not refuse or block witnesses from giving testimony. As now nearly 1000 former prosecutors have concluded, if it were anyone else but Trump he'd be long since behind bars.

Then there is the mock sport on the Ds invoking inherent contempt as symbolized by the same day WSJ editorial ('Did you bring your handcuffs?), e.g.

'Did You Bring Your Handcuffs?' - WSJ - The Wall Street Journal

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/did-you-bring-your-handcuffs-11557961699

But again, this is no laughing matter. We're in the midst of the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War with Trump making every effort to adopt the power of a dictator or monarch.  Into this maelstrom long unused congressional powers are being invoked - given how the other side is dismissing subpoenas - which for any other citizen would have them locked up in a heartbeat.

But it may well be that this levity - including by the talking heads- is triggered by: 1) the fact the lock up -arrest powers haven't been exercised since 1935 (beyond most modern memory) and b) no one seems to believe there's a "real Capitol jail".

A NY Times piece, quoted Ms. Pelosi on the matter while she appeared at a live Washington Post event:

"We do have a jail in the basement of the Capitol, but if we were arresting all of the people in the administration, we would have an overcrowded jail situation.   And I’m not for that.”

Well, would you be for them burning up the constitution - which they're now effectively doing by blowing off all your House subpoenas?  Look, Nancy, you don't have to lock "all of the people in the administration", just the top scofflaws - starting with Bill Barr.  Let him cool off in the 'can' for a month or so, or until he complies with the issued subpoenas. Or stay there and rot.

The Times article went on to note:

"There is, of course, no longer a functioning jail in the Capitol. But a senior Democratic aide pointed out that the Capitol Police have holding facilities nearby that could be used if necessary, and that the sergeant-at-arms is able to use spaces inside the Capitol building."

Well, then do it for god's sake! It's either that or go with impeachment of this orange, ambulatory fungus, which would essentially break the stonewall tactic. As I'd written earlier (May 9):

"The Dems have no choice, especially if the Trumptards continue to refuse to respond to subpoenas. Thus, the only way to obtain the evidence needed is to take the crisis to the next level - of impeachment. The House Dems then become the lawful prosecutors and must be given the evidence, including the unredacted full report and all ancillary evidence.  "

The case Sidney Blumenthal made last Tuesday ('All In') for going ahead is especially cogent given Trump "is vastly overrated, and only appears to be strong because of  his bluster."  Adding, he's the lowest rated president since polls were ever taken of presidents and "has never hit 50 percent". This makes him ripe for the pickings. Former Senator and Watergate investigator Elizabeth Holtzman agrees, but adds Dems ought to hold hearings first to "educate the public".   This is something I've been repeating since the Barr summary of Mueller's report saw daylight.

The ammo to impeach has now been added to with Republican House member Justin Amash having come out bluntly against Trump - after reading the full Mueller report- something his Reepo House cohort have yet to do. Amash probably beheld exactly what Mr. Blumenthal referenced in Part II of the report, i.e. "there are obvious cases of obstruction of justice that have been documented, stronger than those brought against Richard Nixon."  Blumenthal here emphasized it is the similarities to the Nixon case that bear attention, not those to the Clinton impeachment which was based "on a contrived and insubstantial case."

Elizabeth Holtzman agreed,  then adding: "What the Democrats need to do is educate the public about these terrible facts, this obstruction of justice, witness tampering and cover up. Whether it's worse or better than Watergate doesn't matter. But the Senate in the Watergate era did an amazing job educating the public, and that hasn't happened here because all these hearings have been behind closed doors, or in a 440 page report most Americans haven't read."

Meanwhile, Justin Amash's points with regard to the Mueller report and Trump are equally compelling, e.g.:

1- Attorney General Barr deliberately misrepresented Mueller's report.

2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.

3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.

4. Few members of congress have read the report.

Points 3 and 4 are especially noteworthy given they're aimed directly at Amash's GOP cohort: on the one hand protecting their party over the country, and on the other not bothering to read the full report, opting for Barr's crib note version instead.

What we now know is that the situation has reached crisis point and the House Dems need to act or be turned into laughing stocks or impotent clowns. The clock is ticking and will reveal whether in fact the Democrats have the testicular fortitude to bring Uzis and anti-aircraft cannon to this  political "gunfight" or stick with their letter openers - as Charles Blow fears. 

See also:

Republicans

At Last, One Honorable Republican

by P.M. Carpenter | May 20, 2019 - 5:45am | permalink

And:

Impeachment

Why Are Democrats So Scared of Impeachment?

by Bill Blum | May 21, 2019 - 6:23am | permalink

And:

Thom Hartmann

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Donald Trump

How Our Republic Could Die in the Age of Trump — in a Stunning Parallel to the Fall of Rome

And:

• Fox's Napolitano says Trump violated the Constitution three times in the past week

And:

• Michael Flynn's sentencing documents show obstruction from both Trump and Congress 

Dem House "Burying The Other Russia Story?" - There is NONE! And Why The CIA Gets More Restive With Each Trump Passing Day

The clueless imp, Devin Nunes, who led the Reeptard House down an endless conspiracy rabbit hole - which the WSJ editors now want resumed.

Once again, barely a week ago,, The Wall Street Journal disclosed the dichotomy between its regular reporting of news, and its FOXian Op-ed page.  This time in its editorial 'Burying the Other  Russia Story' (Nov. 10-11, p. A12), claiming:

"Adam Schiff will shut down the probe that found FBI abuses"

Of course, no such previous probe had a scintilla of validity. It was all invented and propelled by the odious little Reeptard imp, Devin Nunes. As I noted in a previous post on how the classless Trump toady leaked classified info, e.g

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/03/devin-nunes-leaks-classified-info.html

"Nunes by his feckless and reckless actions confirmed once and for all what many of us already believed: he is merely a Trump toady doing his master's work. After all, this turkey  served on Trump’s national security transition team, so why would he not seek to do all possible to cover for his Fuhrer?"


With the release of a redacted Democratic memorandum in February, we beheld just how deeply Nunes had sacrificed his honor, patriotism and veracity in the service of the Dotard traitor.  That memo, even with redaction, boldly countered Nunes'  claims that top F.B.I. and Justice Department officials had "abused their powers in spying on Carter Page" - the former Trump campaign aide.  Hence, we know who the real liars are:  Nunes and Trump -  the two traitors who have attempted to blow distracting smoke onto the Mueller probe. And now with Trump's appointment of Whitaker to knee cap the investigation, it's clear to even the Densan portion of the populace. 

It's certainly clear to the CIA, which agency's operatives are becoming ever more restive and alarmed - according to former JFK assassination researcher, Jefferson Morley, e.g.
What Happens When The Intelligence Community Decides That Trump Is Too Dangerous To Be President?

As Morley notes:

"At the halfway point in Trump’s first term, these formers see themselves as a bulwark of an endangered democracy. The president and his supporters see a cabal of “deep state” radicals out to overturn the will of the people. With the appointment of Matthew Whitaker, an unqualified political operative, as Attorney General, Brennan said a “constitutional crisis” is fast approaching. The clash between a willfully ignorant commander in chief and a politicized intelligence community seems sure to deepen."

Adding:

"The problem with Trump in the eyes of these CIA formers is almost pre-political. The president’s policy decisions matter less than his contempt for intelligence and the system that collects it.....

CIA operatives could trust both neoconservative George W. Bush and internationalist Barack Obama with that arsenal because they believed, whatever their politics, both presidents were rational actors. With Trump, they can have no such confidence.

Trump’s contempt for the intelligence profession, weaponized in his “deep state” conspiracy theories, has agency personnel feeling professionally vulnerable, perhaps for the first time. An irrational chief executive has shattered their apolitical pretensions and forced them to re-examine what their core beliefs require....

If there’s one thing to be learned from talking to former CIA personnel, it’s the sense that the CIA system—powerful, stealthy, and dangerous—is blinking red about the latest news of an authoritarian leader in an unstable nation."

What does "blinking red" mean?  Well, we will soon find out, but I'd wager it's nothing salutary. I am also fairly certain that the agency's operatives have had it with the cockeyed conspiracy crappola being spewed out by the Right's Trump-protecting trolls  -including the Wall Street Journal's Op-ed page.  They have to be because they know this produces a feedback loop that gets back to Trump who then expands his grievance set and acrimony at the intelligence community and "deep state"  - as the Right's denizens in Reddit, 4Chan, Info wars etc. cheer more loudly.

Previously, I'd cited and quoted the assorted efforts of pro-Dotard mudslingers Kimberley Strassel, and Holman Jenkins, in their concerted efforts to take the public's eyes off the Mueller probe and onto the specious faux conspiracy involving the FBI, Christopher Steele, and Fusion GPS.  All of their codswallop, including assorted WSJ editorials that I've skewered, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/02/wsj-editorial-again-spouts-balderdash.html

have essentially centered around one theme.  Briefly, the pseudo conspiracy as claimed in the recent WSJ  offering was that:

"Hillary Clinton and the DNC hired Fusion GPS which hired an intelligence gun for hire - Christopher Steele, to write a 'dossier' on Donald Trump on Trump's supposed links to Russia. Steele fed that document to the FBI, even as he secretly alerted the media to the FBI probe that  Team Clinton had helped to initiate. Fusion, the oppo research firm, was also supplying its dossier to senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie worked for Fusion."

In other words, on this patchwork of incidentals the Rabid Right has crafted a whole cloth nutso conspiracy that rivals the one fantasized in the book , "Alien World Order",  which has Reptilian aliens taking over our politicos and government - which will soon institute a slave nation.   Now, let's catch our breath and examine the facts as we know them  - at least as the the sane contingent knows them:

1- FUSION was actually started by a group of Wall Street Journal reporters - notably investigative reporter Glenn R. Simpson.   The takeaway here is if the WSJ wants to go look for exotic political conspiracies it needs to start in its own back yard.

2- In 2015, Fusion began investigating Trump under a contract with the Washington Free Beacon - a conservative website supported by GOP mega-donor Paul Singer.  Singer, like many old guard GOP donors  didn't trust the Queens' grifter  and real estate con man - and certainly not as President of the United States.  So they wanted to learn as much as they could about a craven, narcissistic criminal who'd potentially  occupy the nation's highest seat of power - including access to the nuclear codes.

3-  Subsequently, after Trump won the Repub primary the material was handed off to the Clinton campaign. This was NOT unlawful as the WSJ tries to portray - or at least suggest - but in the full mold of regular oppo research on a political opponent. Especially one who on at least one occasion blabbed openly:

"I will tell you this, Russia if you're listening, I hope that you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. You will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens."

4-  Christopher Steele, about whom I've written before, was no mere intel "gun for hire".  According to one Financial Times account (Feb. 16) , Steele was the "UK intelligence expert on Russia".  James Nixey, the head of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program, informed the AP that sections of the dossier document created by Steele "read exactly as reports from the secret services".  

 The dossier itself is actually several memos, based on conversations with Russian sources, that were written between June and December of 2016.
The dossier is a frequent target of  the WSJ- FOX- Dotard Axis which seeks to heap incessant   derision upon it. But the probe into the Trump campaign originally was sparked by a separate matter that Steele never wrote about — a tip from an Australian diplomat that a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, appeared to know Russia had obtained damaging emails on the Democrats. (Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents.).

5-  As for Bruce Ohr, about whom the WSJ nabobs paint such a sinister picture, he's been a subject of "endless fascination for the Right" according to one WaPo piece by Glenn Kessler. In truth he was a medium level DOJ paper pusher and reader of material who lost his job in 2017  after DOJ learned of his contacts with Steele. (Steele, for his part, was desperate to get his dossier into into proper channels lest anything untoward befall him - and recall he did go into hiding at one point. This is also why he contacted the media because he didn't believe the FBI was acting expeditiously enough.)

As for the WSJ's claims of "unmasking" i.e. of Carter Page and other Trump campaign associates, this is done as a matter of course whenever any American has contact with hostile foreign agents - as Page did.  How do we KNOW this? We have foreign intercepts of meetings of Trump cronies, e.g. Carter Page, with Russian  (GRU) agents.  It was these intercepts and related documents - including  FISA warrants- that Devin Nunes threatened to release to expose a supposed "FBI-DOJ conspiracy"..   In fact the latter's involvement were called for given the U.S. had to enter the picture with its own FISA warrants, surveillance, etc.  after foreign  intercepts were received from the UK, Germany, the Netherlands. Not to do so would have violated agreements with foreign intel sources, assets.   I am sure the WSJ cognoscenti know this too, if they are worth anything.  So they also have to know  their whole insipid "other Russia story"  involving the FBI and DOJ, Hillary, Fusions GPS etc.  is just that, nonsense.  

Meanwhile, Mueller's July indictment revealed for the first time that a team of Russian Military Intelligence hackers- members of the GRU-  initiated their disruption efforts as early as March, 2016,  or 8 months before the election, and targeting 300 people. This was also around the same time Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos  learned from an Aussie diplomat the Russians possessed "dirt" on Clinton.

Mueller released the indictment one day before Trump's planned secret sit down with Putin, obviously as a warning shot over Trump's bow, to behave himself. Or else.  According to the indictment:

"On or about July 27, 2016, the conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts on a domain hosted by a third party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. They also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton campaign. '

Most interesting, this happened on the very same day Traitor Trump appeared in front of the media cameras and pleaded with Russia to hack Hillary's email.

Former FBI agent Cliff Watts has observed:

“Without the Russian influence effort, I believe Trump would not have even been within striking distance of Clinton on Election Day.” 

That is the inconvenient truth the Trump lapdogs and conspiracy- addled Right media stooges like FOX and the WSJ editors won’t admit.  But maybe in time we can at least get them to concede the "lady justice" effort now focused on Trump, his nefarious Russkie associates and campaign is not "one sided justice."  Yuh think?

As for Trump, he'd better hope to hell the CIA's "blinking red alarm" doesn't go to Defcon 1. 

Update-  Nov. 23: As I expected,  the Reeptardos -  given a pathetic lame duck session of barely 20 days-   have decided to try to pursue the bogus investigation into the FBI- Hillary- Steele "plot"  described in this post. Peter King, bloviating this morning on MSNBC, insisted to Kristin Welker it was "essential" the House Judiciary Committee (still under GOP  control until January) investigate and subpoena James Comey and "why he did what he did".  See e.g.

• James Comey's lawyer says they'll resist House Republican's subpoena and his statement is a doozy

 As former prosecutor Joyce Vance subsequently noted, this is nonsense given Comey and other GOP targets already had agreed to make themselves available for open hearings - which the GOOPs passed on.  So in the end, this is all a contrived, political stunt based on last minute grandstanding before they lose power early next year.

It is the proverbial "storm in a teacup" and these lame brains are merely trying a last ditch effort to  invoke a false narrative to distract from Mueller's investigation. (Which could also end in the same 20 day period yielding conclusions on DJT that no Reeptard wants.)  Good for James Comey for vowing to fight any closed door hearings of the soon to be interred GOP House Judiciary Committee.

See also:
'Mueller Is About To Pounce': Trump Officials And Allies Reportedly Fear The Worst As The President's Mood Darkens

And:

Barry Lando

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (1)

Human Rights | Peace & Justice

Trump’s Enablers: Appalling Parallels

The D.O.J. - One Step Closer To Being Like The Nazi Reich Justice System?

"To a frightening degree the masses themselves....showed a suicidal frenzy in breaking with their customary ideals, connections, parties, leaders. They looked on in silence as their political world fell into ruins, and tacitly acknowledged that a new, uncertain, but bold edifice was growing up. This was no sudden general flocking to National Socialism, but a cynical lack of resistance.." - Konrad Heiden, The Fuehrer, 1944,  p. 468.

For those who missed my Sunday update of the May 17th  post let me re-reference the key part here, as it is germane to the content of the current post:

As per a NY Times front page article ('Trump Demands Inquiry Into Whether Justice Dept. Infiltrated or Surveilled His Campaign') Trump tweeted earlier today:

"I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes,  and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”

This is a confirmation not only of Trump's obstruction of justice ("on steroids" as I put it- by using an investigation to stop an investigation - of him)  but also of Trump's declaration in 2017, in a NY Times interview:

"I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department"

Making clear in no uncertain terms that he is a despot, much like Adolf Hitler (when he took over the German Judiciary - which I will get to) and hence telegraphing that he doesn't believe in any independent judiciary. Now, while it is true that the Department of Justice is included in the Executive Branch of government, it is also true that laws passed since Watergate establish the D.O.J. as an independent entity within that branch. It cannot be otherwise, else the executive can manipulate the judiciary and defile the rule of law - as Hitler did. Trump's Sunday tweet and his earlier declaration disclose he is not of any different mindset from Hitler.

As many of us know, in the film 'Judgement at Nuremberg' the defendants standing trial  were all members of the German Judiciary who had been co-opted by Hitler and made to act on behalf of the deformed laws of the Third Reich.  As the Wikipedia entry for the film notes:

"The film centers on a military tribunal led by Chief Trial Judge Dan Haywood (Tracy), before which four German judges and prosecutors (as compared to 16 defendants in the actual Judges' Trial) stand accused of crimes against humanity for their involvement in atrocities committed under the Nazi regime. The film deals with non-combatant war crimes against a civilian population, the Holocaust, and examines the post-World War II geopolitical complexity of the actual Nuremberg Trials."

In the film, the judges on trial for their crimes against humanity argue strenuously that they were only "following the law" as it pertained to the Third Reich. But as the prosecutors made clear, this law was a deformation of the actual rule of proper law, based on a foundational grasp of morality.

This elicits the question: What happend that changed the proper German law to the debased form?  To answer that one can do no better than to get hold of the superb book, The Fuehrer (1944) by then German journalist Konrad Heiden.  We learn for example (p. 566) that the first step the Nazis made was to convert the existing judiciary into their own handmaidens.  This was done by "enlisting all the officials entrusted with the administration of justice - including the judges- into the National Socialist organization, e.g. The National Socialist Jurists"  which Hans Frank (Hitler's favorite lawyer) had founded.

Effectively then, the initial judiciary of the Weimar Republic became Nazi judges, i.e. National Socialist jurists, if they succumbed to the change and agreed to it. (One of the prosecutor's witnesses in the film was challenged by the defendants' lawyer how he could act so morally superior when he never refused to join the Nazi Jurists).   Heiden, for his part, observed (p. 567) "at least for a time some German judges tried to oppose the rape of the law by the National Socialists"  - for example declaring part of their mission was to "protect the weak". To which Herr Frank responded contemptuously (ibid.): "yes, previous justice did protect the weak and created a morality for slaves."

Ultimately, all this rhetoric and manipulation was to create the deviant judicial path by which Hitler could flout all the original laws and thereby destroy the rule of law in Germany. For example, Hans Frank echoed Hitler when he said (ibid.): "Law should not protect the weakling but make the strong even stronger."  This echoes Hitler's words (p. 257):

"If Germany should get a million children each year and eliminate seven to eight hundred thousand  of the weakest, in the end the result would be an increase in power."

The key point made by Heiden regarding the  Nazis' assault on German justice was:

"The German judges' backbone was broken down when the Government broke down the security of their existence."

This meant that the original tenure for life was abolished. In Heiden's words (ibid.):

"The privilege, designed to ensure the independence of the courts, was eliminated by the National Socialists."

This is important to note in order to make the analogous comparison to what is now happening here in this time, in the U.S. - under Trump.  While the judicial authorities of the DOJ lack lifetime tenure - there is still the expectation that they will exercise their authority independent of the executive and not become its political pawns.  As law professor Paul Butler put it on 'All In' last night: "If Trump can get away with ordering documents, or an investigation for an FBI source, he can do it for anyone, even a sitting Senator."

Further, this should not ne a left-right issue, but of decent citizens supporting an independence of the DOJ from the executive.  It is emphatically not a case of the left trying to grab control of the DOJ against Trump! (Though FOX's brainwashed minions might believe this.)

Carrying on with  the rough analogy, did Rosenstein give Trump what he wanted? In one way, yes, and in other, no. In the former, Rod Rosenstein went through the motions and just tossed Dotard a bone by agreeing (in a way) by having Trump's twitter frets turned over to the Inspector General for parsing.  This would be roughly like the Weimar judges agreeing (in a way) to do Hans Frank's bidding but not joining the National Socialist Jurists.  Rosenstein absolutely did not give Trump what he really wanted - which was for Rosenstein to resign so Trump could them appoint a new deputy AG - as his personal puppet- to then fire Mueller. 

As former assistant Watergate special prosecutor Jill Wine -Banks put it on 'The Last Word' last night:

"I think Rod Rosenstein   played this exactly right. It's not an ideal world, because in an ideal world the president would not be demanding this.  In the ideal world the answer would be 'we only do this if there is probable cause and there is no probable cause here.'  In this case, we have to play chess with the president - who doesn't know how to play chess- and the fact that Rod Rosenstein is still the deputy attorney general is still a good thing.

I am still outraged the president is asking for this, and I don't believe the president or his base will like the answer when it comes out."

Which latter point makes it even more of an atrocity that The Wall Street Journal yesterday (p. A1) openly published the identity of the FBI source who acted as an informant on the de facto Russian agents, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos et al.  All this while also defending the rights of traitors like Devin Nunes to get their paws on further documents related to the FBI source (see editorial p. A16,) and eliding the Snowden affair with this.(To remind readers, Snowden never disclosed actual source names, but rather the extraordinary utilities, e.g. XKeyscore,  MUSCULAR, PRISM etc. that the NSA used to grab citizens' data without their knowledge and in violation of the 4th amendment.)

On the other hand, David Frum diverged  from Wine-Banks take, pointing out:

"Rachel (Maddow) said a very good thing, you respond to the lizard brain, you treat this as a confrontation with a dangerous predator. And you show it what you have. And maybe we're into constitutional crisis territory..  But this slow moving dissolution of normal expectations - maybe crisis is the wrong word - is a corrosion and a corruption,  We're all worse off than we were. At some point, someone is going to have to fight, and maybe today was that day."

I tend to concur with this - in the sense I believe we're at a critical inflection point- not too different in kind from when the Weimar jurists had to make the choice to become National Socialist, aka Nazi, jurists, or be rebuked and lose their positions. Once that 'Rubicon' was crossed - as Heiden notes - and the principle of equality was violated, then "homicide was no longer homicide and murder no longer murder."  In other words, when sanctioned by Hitler or the state, radical differences in kind emerged, and no punishments necessary if committed for the Reich.   This difference was punctuated when amnesty was declared for previous Nationalist Socialist murderers, e.g. who slaughtered trade unionists, Marxists, others.  Thus, the five murderers of Potempa were summarily released from prison, no questions asked.

Perhaps then, Jill Wine-Banks response to Frum is most germane here:

"David definitely made a very compelling case. This is something that concerned me since the election, And I think we saw in Hitler's day - people don't like that analogy - but he didn't change everything all at once, he ate away at the fabric of the society. A little at a time.  First it was one thing, then another extension, then another. So David's point is that's what we're seeing, one step at a time."

The key difference, as Ms. Wine-Banks noted, is that even if Rosenstein is fired - Mueller as well - the DOJ staff  plausibly remain and can continue their work. But up to now we don't know if that will happen or not. (During Watergate, after the 'Saturday Night Massacre', public outcry spared the staff of Archibald Cox) So far, history's negative drumbeat marches on, and no one seems willing or able to turn back the Trump Despot Tide. If we don't, one way or other, we shall rue what transpires even as we cogitate on George Santayana's words: "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."