We know he won't feel bound by any ethics codes nor by any promises or pledges he signs. The only point in trying to get him to sign anything is to at least have something on paper to present in court to hold him accountable later and we know the courts of this land will not hold him accountable, and we know he is unlikely to be in fit c…
We know he won't feel bound by any ethics codes nor by any promises or pledges he signs. The only point in trying to get him to sign anything is to at least have something on paper to present in court to hold him accountable later and we know the courts of this land will not hold him accountable, and we know he is unlikely to be in fit condition in four more years to be held mentally accountable for anything.
Now, "The team also missed several deadlines for signing agreements that are required in order for them to participate in national security meetings and to gain access to federal agencies" holds a bit more promise if those responsible for holding those national security meetings and heading those federal agencies would hold the line and say "sorry, we're still waiting on those agreements". Even if that were to happen however, it would only delay his access until he just replaces them with people who will say "ethics agreements? Who needs any fecking ethics agreements? Come on in, our casa your casa, our national insecurity meetings your meetings".
Without enforcement no "teeth" amount to a pile of broken dentures. I haven't read the agreements but if they don't specify consequences dealt out by people other than those he'll put in place, they aren't worth the paper they're written on. Once during a move, I had put down a rather nice knife I was using only to turn around and find it vanished. I knew which of the movers had been in the room and I knew which pocket it was in, but short of violence there was no way to prove it. He looked me right in the face, grinning, and said he hadn't seen it. I stood there while it really penetrated how much we all rely on the social contracts and expectations that govern daily life. Eventually, he was not the one who left with something that day - I did. I left with a bone deep understanding that when it's all stripped away, if someone can look you in the eye and lie, and there is no physical power of enforcement available or acceptable to you, they can do almost anything. The power of being a sociopath is chilling.
Spilled milk in this country is going to drown us all. During these last four years we should have been working on developing some form of enforcement that is independent of our three branches but can be brought to bear upon any one branch by order of the other two such that each branch conducts it's own business according to the limits set out for it and abides by those limits. We have hired security for shopping centers and banks, sheriffs and police to govern us in our towns and cities and on our highways. We have national guard. We have various specific enforcement groups for things like the border, for parks, for airports. But when we consider the very highest layers of our government there is suddenly a gaping void where enforcement ceases. When the SCOTUS decides to pop out inexplicable decisions in violation of precedent or without any explanations at all, or a justice refuses to recuse in a flagrant abuse of common morality, and the court refuses to devise ethics guidelines then produces something weak and worthless, or even then clearly violates even that, what can be done? I've heard repeatedly that their power is in the public's perception of their legitimacy, but I think their power is in their functional sociopathy. If the public concludes, to the last person, that the SCOTUS is no longer legitimate, then what? Who will go in and make Clarence Thomas sit out a case? Who will announce a decision they made violates the Constitution and declare no law enforcement shall enforce it? All of our law enforcement is aimed at the less powerful or the individual or at most at corporation level business violations. Where is the law enforcement for governmental systems?
Apparently it was always assumed that those in power would be honorable. We now know that the majority of the electorate no longer has "honorable" in their lexicon. My earnest hope is that with so many power seekers in one place, that place with become a snake pit wherein they spend their time going after one another. This would buy time for the midterms.
Ah! Another tactic - lobbing bait into the pit. Midas Touch was engaging in that one when they did ads suggesting someone was whispering about Trump inside his inner circle.
The Epstein tapes say Trump himself regularly engaged in pitting his advisors and sycophants against each other, saying this one said you're not so great at doing this, I like A but B tells me bad things about them, then to B that A says bad things about them. He liked to keep them stirred up in ways that must have been productive to him (or it just amused him?) and kept them from forming alliances so he was always at the center keeping them off balance.
Writing this it sounds like chaos benefits Trump, and it probably does, but you're right that keeping it off rhythm might slow down their efficiency.
We know he won't feel bound by any ethics codes nor by any promises or pledges he signs. The only point in trying to get him to sign anything is to at least have something on paper to present in court to hold him accountable later and we know the courts of this land will not hold him accountable, and we know he is unlikely to be in fit condition in four more years to be held mentally accountable for anything.
Now, "The team also missed several deadlines for signing agreements that are required in order for them to participate in national security meetings and to gain access to federal agencies" holds a bit more promise if those responsible for holding those national security meetings and heading those federal agencies would hold the line and say "sorry, we're still waiting on those agreements". Even if that were to happen however, it would only delay his access until he just replaces them with people who will say "ethics agreements? Who needs any fecking ethics agreements? Come on in, our casa your casa, our national insecurity meetings your meetings".
Without enforcement no "teeth" amount to a pile of broken dentures. I haven't read the agreements but if they don't specify consequences dealt out by people other than those he'll put in place, they aren't worth the paper they're written on. Once during a move, I had put down a rather nice knife I was using only to turn around and find it vanished. I knew which of the movers had been in the room and I knew which pocket it was in, but short of violence there was no way to prove it. He looked me right in the face, grinning, and said he hadn't seen it. I stood there while it really penetrated how much we all rely on the social contracts and expectations that govern daily life. Eventually, he was not the one who left with something that day - I did. I left with a bone deep understanding that when it's all stripped away, if someone can look you in the eye and lie, and there is no physical power of enforcement available or acceptable to you, they can do almost anything. The power of being a sociopath is chilling.
Spilled milk in this country is going to drown us all. During these last four years we should have been working on developing some form of enforcement that is independent of our three branches but can be brought to bear upon any one branch by order of the other two such that each branch conducts it's own business according to the limits set out for it and abides by those limits. We have hired security for shopping centers and banks, sheriffs and police to govern us in our towns and cities and on our highways. We have national guard. We have various specific enforcement groups for things like the border, for parks, for airports. But when we consider the very highest layers of our government there is suddenly a gaping void where enforcement ceases. When the SCOTUS decides to pop out inexplicable decisions in violation of precedent or without any explanations at all, or a justice refuses to recuse in a flagrant abuse of common morality, and the court refuses to devise ethics guidelines then produces something weak and worthless, or even then clearly violates even that, what can be done? I've heard repeatedly that their power is in the public's perception of their legitimacy, but I think their power is in their functional sociopathy. If the public concludes, to the last person, that the SCOTUS is no longer legitimate, then what? Who will go in and make Clarence Thomas sit out a case? Who will announce a decision they made violates the Constitution and declare no law enforcement shall enforce it? All of our law enforcement is aimed at the less powerful or the individual or at most at corporation level business violations. Where is the law enforcement for governmental systems?
Apparently it was always assumed that those in power would be honorable. We now know that the majority of the electorate no longer has "honorable" in their lexicon. My earnest hope is that with so many power seekers in one place, that place with become a snake pit wherein they spend their time going after one another. This would buy time for the midterms.
Ah! Another tactic - lobbing bait into the pit. Midas Touch was engaging in that one when they did ads suggesting someone was whispering about Trump inside his inner circle.
The Epstein tapes say Trump himself regularly engaged in pitting his advisors and sycophants against each other, saying this one said you're not so great at doing this, I like A but B tells me bad things about them, then to B that A says bad things about them. He liked to keep them stirred up in ways that must have been productive to him (or it just amused him?) and kept them from forming alliances so he was always at the center keeping them off balance.
Writing this it sounds like chaos benefits Trump, and it probably does, but you're right that keeping it off rhythm might slow down their efficiency.