THE LAST CHAPTER?

Barr now says that it was Trump, not Barr, who fired Berman. The White House then confirmed that. 

But Barr then made a significant concession: Berman would not be succeeded by the NJ US Attorney, as Barr originally announced. Instead, Barr now assured Berman that his deputy, Audrey Strauss, would head the office until a successor is confirmed by the Senate.

Strauss is a highly regarded professional and earns praise not only from Berman but from the NJ US Atty as well. Berman said under those circumstances, he would be happy to go, and did.

Strauss is likely to head the office well past the election. Unless Graham reverses his position, Clayton is toast in the Senate. He may even be toast without the NY Senators' veto.

What caused this eruption from the White House?

I don't have a clue. Hope it's big!

A bientot.

..............................

 As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want a notice of each new posting,

 send me an email and I will add you to the notice list.  mlondon34@gmail.com

FRIDAY NIGHT MASSACRE?

That's what the press is calling the Barr v Berman clash that hit the media Saturday morning.

It's complicated, so I will note the key ingredients:

In March, 2017, President Trump fired SDNY US Attorney Preet Bharara, and Berman was appointed as interim US Attorney.

The appointment was seen as a political take-over of the "Sovereign" District of New York. Berman was a Republican campaign contributor, was on the Trump transition team, and most damning, had been a law partner of Rudy Giuliani. In a  break with tradition, Berman was interviewed by the President himself.

Democratic Senators vowed to resist his confirmation, and Trump never did send his name to the Senate.

Four months later, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon, sent a letter to the 40 SDNY judges, referring to the Judiciary  Law proviso that if an interim US Attorney is not confirmed in 120 days, the judges of the district could appoint one. Which is what they did at their next meeting: they unanimously appointed Berman.

Berman must have been a great disappointment to Trump's demand of loyalty to Trump as opposed to loyalty to the Constitution. When the SDNY began a criminal investigation of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, Trump and his acolyte Giuliani attacked the prosecutors as "storm troopers" who were engaged in a "witch hunt." Not only that, the indictment of Cohen alleged he was assisted in the crime of campaign fraud by "Individual 1", i.e., Donald Trump! It appears that Berman, like Sessions, had committed the cardinal sin: HE HAD RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE INVESTIGATION.

The SDNY thereafter indicted Giuliani helpers Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, and reportedly is pursuing a criminal investigation of Giuliani. Bolton's new book also reveals Trump's frustration with the SDNY because it indicted a Turkish company that Trump assured Erdogan would be protected. Bolton says Trump has vowed the clean out the prosecutors in the SDNY because they are "Obama people" and "not my people."

And most of Trump's business headquarters are in the SDNY, and the list of criminal investigation opportunities there is a long one. 

Finally, what tipped the balance? Why now? What's going on in the leakproof SDNY that has driven Trump over the edge?

Bottom line, Berman has turned out to be a Constitutional loyalist, rather than a Trump loyalist, and Trump has decided he must go.  But how?

For some reason, Trump did not want the stain on his hands, so he set his pet bulldog to the task.

At nine o'clock Friday night, Barr issued a statement saying Berman had done a great job and  was "stepping down.''

At 11 o'clock Friday night, Berman issued a statement saying, in effect, "Who me? I wasn't appointed by you, Asshole, I was appointed by the judges of the Southern District, and until a successor is appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, I'm going to work every day doing my job."

The press has referred to this as a Friday night massacre because of the unusual manner and timing of the effort to get rid of Berman. Friday night is the preferred time to announce events the government wishes to downplay in the press. And the plan to do this on the night of the great Tulsa Rally would have put the item on page 16. Except the rally got postponed a day because of Juneteenth, and here we are on page one of the NYT.

The new designee to head the office will be Jay Clayton, currently head of the SEC. He is a mergers and acquisition lawyer from Sullivan & Cromwell, has represented the likes of Deutche Bank and investment banks. He was never a prosecutor, and as far as I can tell, has never tried a case or even seen the inside of a courtroom.

Barr announced that Clayton's name will be sent to the Senate by the President.  But as of today, it does not appear Clayton can be confirmed. Both NY Senators oppose the nomination, and Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said he will abide by the Senate's "Blue Slip" rule and give the NY senators an effective veto.

Barr says that until Clayton is confirmed, the office will he headed by the current US Attorney for New Jersey -- Jared Kushner's home state.

Berman's apparent argument is "there is but one chair behind the desk in the US Attorney's office in Foley Square, and I'll be sitting it until this mess is cleared up."

So what happens now? What's the law? Some things are clear, some are not. There appears to be little doubt that Barr cannot fire Berman, and Barr cannot appoint a US Attorney to sit on Berman's lap.

Can the President fire Berman? Probably. Maybe. A statute that appears to give him that power is part of a section of the code that deals with US Attorneys confirmed by the Senate. But does it apply to US Attorneys appointed by the court? A 1979 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion says "yes," but that opinion ain't the law, and history suggests that office's opinions are sometimes nothing but cover for the wishes of the Attorney General. (See my blog of 29 May 2019) https://londonsbh.blogspot.com/search?q=OLC

In any event, no COURT, as far as I can tell, has ever dealt with this precise issue of statutory construction.

This just in: Barr just sent a letter to Berman saying:

"Because you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the President to remove you as of today, and he has done so."

But when asked about that by the press, the President reportedly said:

"Attorney General Barr is working on that. That's his department, not my department."...."But we have a very capable attorney general. So that's really up to him. I'm not involved."

What a mess.

Now what happens? 

If this matter is litigated, what court? Will all SDNY judges who voted to appoint Berman need to recuse themselves? What about SDNY judges who were appointed after that vote? Will it go straight to the Circuit Court? Will Barr make the first strike and sue in the D.C. District Court? Or New Jersey? Oklahoma? 

I need a drink.  What am I going to blog about when Biden is President?

A bientot.

.................................

As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want a notice

 of each new posting, send me an email and I will add you to the notice list. 

 mlondon34@gmail.com

If you want to read more about the corrupt OLC opinion cited above, ck out my memoir "The Client Decides" on KIndle or available at Amazon.

BOLTON JUDGE READ MY BLOG?

Brief follow up, cause I gotta move on to other legal stuff.

Yesterday, June 19, District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled on the government's motion to enjoin the distribution of Bolton's tell-all memoir, scheduled to be distributed to the public on June 23.

In my blog of June 18, I predicted:

1. The government's motion for an injunction would be denied: as a result of substantial pre-publication releases, "The horse has left barn,"

And,

2. Based upon the holding of a 1980 Supreme Court case entitled Snepp, the restrictions on publication in Bolton's employment agreement were enforceable. As a result, Bolton could lose all book profits if he is found to have gone forward with publication without completing the required pre-publication government review of the manuscript.

In his decision of June 19, Judge Lamberth denied the government's application for an injunction, because:

1. Even though it appears that Bolton "likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information," an injunction is no longer an appropriate remedy because as a result of substantial pre-publication distribution, the judge wrote, "The horse has left the barn,"

But,

2. Citing Snepp, Lamberth ruled the restrictions on publication in Bolton's employment agreement were enforceable by the government, and Bolton may well lose all income earned by his book.

Those are the highlights. Even at this preliminary stage of the litigation, Lamberth's 10-page opinion castigated Bolton. He basically accused him putting his personal profit motive before his duty to protect the national interest.

Likely result: we get the book, Bolton gets squat.

Love it.

A bientot!

......................................

As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want a notice of each new posting, send me an email and I will add you to the notice list.  mlondon34@gmail.com

JOHN BOLTON AND STORMY DANIELS: THEIR STORY

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton and porn star Stormy Daniels have much in common. Both signed Non-Disclosure Agreements with Donald Trump, and despite that incumbrance, both are working to cash in on their association with The Donald.

Stormy is ahead on points: She did it for money ($130,000, paid by candidate Trump via his then-attorney Michael Cohen,) she has told her story, and is a hot ticket on the strip-club circuit. 

Bolton has also received money,($2,000,000 advance from his publisher) but Trump's current law firm, the United States Department of Justice, is suing to silence Bolton and seize his loot.

Watch out for a deluge of so-called First Amendment Specialists' opinions on the Bolton matter. Here's the skinny:

Daniels is home free. Trump still denies her story, but he says he ain't gonna sue to stop her from repeating her claim. (And besides, methinks his base thinks more of him for committing adultery with a porn star!)

Bolton, on the other hand, has written a book that clearly embarrasses the President, who is seething. Pre-publication leaks include, most prominently, a report of a Trump-Bolton conversation in which Trump confesses he was in fact guilty of the charge in the bill of impeachment, i.e., he did use the threat of withholding military aid to Ukraine unless they helped him find dirt on Biden. And there is lots more, some of which is set out below.

Now that's good dirt.

The Issues in the Bolton case?

A stew:

Fact issues:

Trump claims the book contains classified information. Bolton says he submitted the book for clearance, engaged in an iterative negotiation with the assigned government representative, made changes she asked for, and she then confirmed the book no longer contained classified information. But the DOJ complaint alleges there remained a second level of review required for clearance, and Bolton never completed it.

Trump says the book contains lots of classified information because "Every conversation I have in the White House is classified!" That Trump quote is directly on point with a line from Justice Brennan's prescient concurring opinion in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case:

"When everything is classified, nothing is classified and the system becomes one that is manipulated by those intent on self-protection and self-promotion."

Bingo.

Legal issues:

Bolton's major legal argument, is that the government's effort to enjoin publication of his book is a prior restraint on speech that violates his First Amendment rights. The overwhelming judicial view, most prominently applied in the Pentagon Papers case, is that a government effort to enjoin speech is unacceptable unless the government can allege and prove the speech presents a "grave and irreparable danger" to the United States. 

So heavy is the burden the government bears to meet that test, the Court-enunciated examples of speech that would qualify for prior restraint are but three in number:

In time of war, the speech in question would:

i) reveal the timing of departure of troop ships, or

ii) reveal the number and location of troops in the field, or

iii) obstruct the government's efforts to recruit an army.

In no way does the government complaint against Bolton meet that test. Not even close.

But Trump has another arrow in his quiver. The Pentagon Papers case, was about  a naked government claim of harm to national interests. But this complaint alleges that Bolton signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement that bars him from revealing confidential and classified information, during and after his employment, and requires pre-publication government clearance of any discussion of events connected to his employment.  Claiming a breach of that agreement, the government seeks not only an injunction against publication, but the impressment of a constructive trust upon any money Bolton receives from his book.

Now that is interesting. The First Amendment does not bar abridgement of all speech. There are lots exceptions not mentioned in the Constitution: criminal conspiracy, child porn, threats, false advertising, FTC cease and desist orders, and lots more.

Is the government contract also an exception to the First Amendment ban on abridgment of speech? Does the First Amendment bar a prior restraint arising of a court order granting specific performance of a contractual promise not to speak?

In other words could Trump have enjoined Stormy Daniels from speaking? In fact, before Trump relented, an arbitration did just that!

First Amendment lawyers would be quick to point out a major distinction between the Stormy and Bolton contracts. Stormy made her promise to a civilian, who could sue to enforce the promise. But the restraint on Bolton was created by a government contract. It was the government's contract that restricted speech and that arguably was an illegal prior restraint on speech. Does that make a difference?

Apparently not. Consider the matter of CIA officer Frank Snepp, who wrote a book about his experiences on behalf of the Agency in Vietnam. But Snepp did not seek or get government pre-clearance of publication, as was required by his employment contract. The Supreme Court in 1980, by a vote of 6-3,  i) enjoined Snepp from further contract violations, (i.e., further unapproved speech), and ii) impressed a constructive trust on his book earnings. The ruling did not depend on any classified information being in the book.

So the 1971 Pentagon Papers case may not save Bolton.

Bolton's best argument against a prior restraint may well be that the horse has left the barn. The book has already been distributed to journalists as part of pre-publication date (June 23) publicity, and Bolton himself is on the talk-show circuit. The press has already published highlights. So we already know not only about the President's confession re the Ukraine issue that was the subject of the impeachment charges, we know that Trump also sought the China Premier's  help with Trump's reelection, that Trump was so uninformed he asked if Finland was part of Russia, that Trump did not know if the Britain had the bomb, that during the negotiations with North Korea, Pompeo told Bolton that Trump "was full of shit," that Trump regularly obstructed justice to help foreign leaders he liked, and lots more.

The book has been printed, bound, and shipped to bookstores and Amazon, where it is the number one best-seller, but not yet shipped to customers.

But even if the government loses its effort to enjoin sale of the book, Bolton may not be in the clear. The second prong of the Snepp decision may puncture Bolton's balloon. If the government wins its argument that Bolton published without fully complying with his contract obligations to get government clearance prior to publication, the court can still impress a constructive trust on all Bolton's proceeds from the book.

And that, my friends, is my idea of a happy ending. Let us not forget that Bolton is despicable. He knew this president was unfit, but for personal  financial gain -- he wanted to hype his book, but didn't want to reveal his secrets so far in advance of the publication date-- he rejected any notion of patriotism and refused to testify in the House impeachment inquiry. (But today, while plugging his book, Bolton has the chutzpah to criticize the House for not including his revelations in its Bill of Impeachment!)

So the result to be wished for is:

i) The court denies Trump's motion for a preliminary injunction, the book is distributed, and the public learns all the details of Trump's incompetence and perfidy, and

ii) Because Bolton violated his contract, the government imposes a constructive trust on his earnings.

Bottom line:  we get the goods on Trump, and Bolton gets nothing but a whopping lawyer's bill.

Nice, huh?

A bientot.

................................................

As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want a notice of each new posting, send me an email and I will add you to the notice list.  mlondon34@gmail.com

And if you want to read about a more typical Trump litigation, i.e. one in which Trump is all bluster and is forced to pay his adversary's legal bill (c'est moi), check out my memoir "The Client Decides" on Kindle, or Amazon books.

TWO VOICES, TWO TRUTHS

I am out of words. So today I borrow from two people whose words moved me when I read them this morning. I apologize for length of this post, but I suggest these two essays are a treasure worth your time and attention; you need not read both in one sitting:

Sacred Ground

Copyright © Rabbi Robert L. Wolkoff

Email:rabbi@bnaitikvah.org

For years, I have tried. I have tried to avoid using the bima of this sacred institution for partisan politics. For years, I have tried to avoid direct attacks on the character of our president—our president—and have tried to focus instead on the policies of the administration. For years, I have tried to be balanced, acknowledging those policy choices that are worthy of serious consideration, if not applause—like policies concerning Israel, and policies supporting religious freedom, which I consider to be the bedrock core of American democracy and American exceptionalism; all the while trying, admittedly with limited success, but still trying, to ignore the many thousands of lies and the incendiary, undignified tweets.

I have tried. But when I saw the president unleashing uniformed police to use tear gas, pepper spray, concussion grenades, and raw physical violence to disperse peaceful protestors from a church, in order to stand on that sacred ground and raise a Bible in his hand for a perverse photo op—a photo op!—when I saw that, I had had enough. 

Mr. Trump, standing on sacred ground, with a Bible in your hand, you came into my wheelhouse, and I will do what little I can to make you pay the price. 

That Bible, Mr. Trump, besides containing the prohibition of adultery, about which you should know a great deal, also contains the prohibition of murder—like the murder of George Floyd, and Eric Garner, and Ahmaud Arbery and so many other black people—nearly one a day for every day of your administration. And almost the first thing we learn in the Bible is something that you clearly do not understand—that we are all—all—created in G-d’s image.

And that is a principle that you not only don’t understand, but that you actively attempt to subvert, while leading the most divisive administration in my lifetime. 

What the Bible that you held in your hand does not contain, Mr. Trump, is a single word on race. But you have made race-baiting the core of your administration. 

We all know, Mr. Trump, that not all your supporters wave the confederate flag. But we also all know that all who wave the confederate flag are your supporters.

Why is that? And what have you done about it? I’ll tell you why, and I’ll tell you what you have done. You’ve understood that violent bigotry is at the core of the identity of the white underclass in this country. From your position of high privilege, you have chosen to inflame that bigotry, rather than to address the suffering and insecurity that caused it. You would rather use your dog-whistles about the 2nd Amendment to intensify the politics of resentment and paranoia, than offer anything constructive to enhance the social and educational status of the pathetic souls who, G-d help them, look to you for leadership. 

At a time when our country desperately needs the voice of calm, empathic leadership, you instead have chosen the course of the schoolyard bully, making ever uglier threats. You couldn’t get your military parade through the streets of Washington DC. Now you want to have the military parading in every city in America.

In your inaugural speech, you spoke of “American carnage.” And throughout your term in office, you have done everything you possibly could to cause and exacerbate it. 

“You have to dominate, if you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time,” you told America’s governors. Otherwise “you’re going to look like a bunch of jerks. You have to dominate.” And if they don’t, you ranted, “I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.” 

As if tear gas, rubber bullets, and attacking reporters—while you desecrate a church—would ever solve any problem.

At this point, I have absolutely zero expectation that you could ever find the qualities necessary to actually address the problem, much less solve it—qualities like empathy, understanding, the ability to listen, allowing victims to define their own pain, seeking order and harmony rather than chaos and power. Instead, I expect you to make matters worse, hoping that you, after you have torn down as much as you could, that you alone would be left standing in the rubble and thereby remain in power. 

And what of our country and its principles you must sacrifice to accomplish this is, of course, of no concern to you at all. 

You have taught us, Mr. Trump, to expect the worst of you, and you have met our expectations. 

But know this, Mr. Trump. At this point, the battle lines have been drawn. You wanted them, now you’ve got them. For the longest time, people have disguised the contempt in which they hold you so that they could lower their capital gains taxes, enhance their stock portfolios, or get the judges they want so they can protect their privilege— class privilege and, yes, white privilege. 

There’s no excuse for that any more. Right now, our nation is engaged in a battle for its soul, a battle—and this is the crucial part—a battle against fascism. 

Yes, that is the word, and we must not be afraid to call things by their proper name. The glorification of force, the lust for state dominance, the celebration of oligarchy, the subversion of truth—for G-d’s sake, what else are we supposed to call it if not fascism? 

Know this: once you beat peaceful American citizens, sullied the sacred ground of a church, and held up a Bible while perverting everything in it, you unleashed forces that in your crassness you can’t possibly comprehend.

I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. Nevertheless, I’ll put it in story form in the hopes that someone close to you will be able to comprehend it. 

During WWII, Jews from Norway were being deported by ship to their deaths in the camps. As their ship passed by the port of Gothenburg, the Bishop of that city stood in the Cathedral and declared, “If we stay silent, the stones of the church will cry out.” The stones of that church courtyard in our nation’s capital, Mr. Trump, are crying out right now, because we have been silent too long. And the walls of this synagogue are crying out too, and the walls of every religious institution in our nation that understands the meaning of desecration, and is revolted by it. 

Mr. Trump, you have called the demonstrators “terrorists.” But what’s truly terrifying is the thought that the man who sits in the office of the President of the United States of America could have such profound disregard for the principles, the sacred principles, on which this country was founded. 

In the portion of that Bible that we are reading this week, it talks about the chiefs of the tribes of Israel, who—without tear gas and stun grenades—came into the sacred precincts of the tabernacle to offer their sacrifices. They were called nesi’im, from the Hebrew word for “lifting up.” That’s what leaders are meant to do. Lift us up

You tear us down.

You shame us. 

And we will be silent no longer.

........

Dana Milbank 

Columnist

June 10, 2020 at 7:15 p.m. AST

President Trump’s planned address to the nation on race, American Urban Radio’s April Ryan reports, is being written by none other than Stephen Miller, a Trump aide and aficionado of white nationalism.

This is bound to raise a fuhrer. What next? Paul Manafort drafting a presidential address on business ethics?

But Miller can stand down. Trump has already given his remarks on race — many times, in fact. Here they are, entirely in Trump’s own words, excerpted:

"I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks. Oh, look at my African American over here. Look at him.

Nobody has ever done for the black community what President Trump has done. My Admin has done more for the Black Community than any President since Abraham Lincoln. George [Floyd] is looking down right now and saying this is a great thing that is happening for our country. A great day for him.

Diamond and Silk, you’re so, so great. Thank you, Kanye, thank you. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.

Think of this: Blacks for Trump, Black Voices for Trump, African Americans for Trump. Call it whatever the hell you want. I have a group of African American guys and gals, by the way, that follow me around, and they think I pay them and I don’t.

A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market. If I were starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black, because I believe they do have an actual advantage. Sadly, because President Obama has done such a poor job as president, you won’t see another black president for generations!

To the African American community, I say what the hell do you have to lose? You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. Fifty-eight percent of your youth is unemployed. Last in crime, last in this, last in homeownership, last in the economy, lowest wages. Our inner cities are a disaster. You get shot walking to the store. They have no education, they have no jobs.

Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now”?

Why is so much money sent to the Elijah Cummings district when it is considered the worst run and most dangerous anywhere in the United States? No human being would want to live there. A disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested).

So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came?

Why do we need more Haitians? Why are we having people from all these shithole countries come here? We should have more people from places like Norway.

An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that @BarackObama’s birth certificate is a fraud. His grandmother in Kenya said, “Oh, no, he was born in Kenya.” A lot of people do not think it was an authentic certificate.

You ever see Maxine Waters? A low-IQ individual.

LeBron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made LeBron look smart, which isn’t easy to do.

What has happened to the respect for authority, the fear of retribution by the courts, society and the police? Let our politicians give back our police department’s power to keep us safe. Unshackle them from the constant chant of “police brutality.” BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY AND BRING BACK OUR POLICE!

You also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park, from Robert E. Lee to another name. Robert E. Lee was a great general. They’re trying to take away our culture. A Great American Heritage.

I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching. I am the least racist person that you’ve ever encountered. I don’t have a Racist bone in my body!"

A bientot.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: A TALE OF DEADLY PHOTO-OPS

I. 

In 1988, Michael Dukakis was the Democratic candidate for president. His adversary was George "Poppy" Bush. In a planned Dukakis photo op, the top half of the 5'8" candidate was shown facing the camera standing in the hatch of an Abrams tank. Dukakis was wearing a tank commander's helmet that looked four sizes too big for him. The image was deadly. It brought to mind Alfred E. Newman, the "What, me worry?" icon of Mad Magazine.

The photo made a laughing stock of Dukakis, and it immediately became a major piece of Republican campaign material. A poll reported 25% of the population thought less of the candidate after seeing the photograph. Dukakis was swamped in the election.

II.

In another ill-conceived photo-op, in 2003, President George "Dubya" Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, off the coast of California.

Everything about that trip was a campaign lie:

i) The White House explained Bush had been flown to the carrier aboard a Navy jet because that was the only way to get the president there. But the carrier was only 30 miles off the coast, well within helicopter range.

ii) The president did not pilot the plane, but was nevertheless wearing a flight suit in his posed pictures with the crew.  

iii) Above the president's head in the background was a huge banner hanging from the carrier's superstructure, reading "Mission Accomplished." The White House insisted it was crafted and hung there by the Navy, but press inquiries ultimately revealed it was crafted and hung by the White House.

iv) The banner was prominent in the composition of the video and stills of the flight-suited president giving a speech from the carrier's deck. Indeed, It served as the caption of the president's address in which he trumpeted the success of his invasion of Iraq: he told the American public that under his leadership, we had "reached the end of major combat operations in Iraq."

Yet in the years to follow, our armed forces suffered 34,364 dead and wounded in Iraq, and the "Mission Accomplished" banner became a millstone around Bush's neck.

The entire episode was a permanent stain on the Bush escutcheon. In the 2004 election versus John Kerry, the president squeaked by with 16 electoral college votes to spare.

III.

I have often used this space to predict Trump will be defeated in November. My rationale was not based on specific polls, or detailed analysis. It was, and is, my opinion that given the razor-thin margin of his 2016 victory, it would not take much to beat Trump in 2020, because Trump would for-sure say or do stuff to pick off his own voters. It wouldn't take many.

And now we will see in the coming months, an outpouring of Democratic campaign materials repeatedly showing how Trump had reassured the American public that covid-19 was a Democratic "hoax," that it will "miraculously disappear" in April, and a dozen similar statements demonstrating his total lack of leadership in the face of the pandemic that has killed more than 100,000 Americans.

But the coup de grace, I suggest, will be the shot of Trump standing in front of the boarded-up St. John's Church, awkwardly holding up a bible. The media will be flooded with reminders of use of military force against peaceful demonstrators in order to clear a path so the president could walk to the church for that photo op. The iconic picture of a mute Trump holding up the bible will bring to mind D.C. Episcopal Bishop Marriann Budde's harsh denunciation of Trump's "incendiary" conduct in the "charade" of using a bible and her church as a backdrop for his divisive photo-op. 

And let us not forget the scathing comments on Mr. Trump's unfitness for office offered up by his former Secretary of Defense and Chief of Staff, both distinguished generals.

Add to that Trump's out of touch, tone-deaf statements yesterday that "George is looking down right now saying this is a great thing that's happening for our country." While Trump was talking about a decline in unemployment figures, (but which actually showed an increase in black unemployment) his stunning comment that "This is a great day for George Floyd" was fairly described by Joe Biden as "despicable."

Carry on, Mr. President, mission accomplished.

A bientot.

....................................

As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want a notice of each new posting, send me an email and I will add you to the notice list.  mlondon34@gmail.com