OPINION - Shields and Brooks 09/25/2020

 "Shields and Brooks on Ginsburg’s legacy, Trump’s election rhetoric" PBS NewsHour 09/25/2020 Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the battle over filling her Supreme Court seat, President Trump’s continuing rhetoric about the integrity of voting by mail and concerns over election confusion or dissent.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  It feels like a world away since we last heard the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  A lot has happened.

But that is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you on this Friday night.

Not much to ask you about, Mark.

But why don't we start with not only Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who I had planned to begin with, but now we have learned in the last hour or so, our colleague Yamiche Alcindor confirmed that the President does plan to name the appellate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next nominee to the court.

I guess I'm asking you to wrap it together.  Early reaction to Barrett, but also final thoughts about Justice Ginsburg, whom we have seen honored this week.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Honored, indeed, in a wonderful send-off.

I was just, quite frankly, amazed and touched by how much she had touched women in this country.  I mean, I knew she was a folk hero and a rock star, but the real emotion that her passing generated.

In a marvelous way, she probably meant more as a litigator than she did as a jurist, not to offend anybody.  But she was the person who pleaded those cases before — and won them before the Supreme Court, especially on expanding the 14th Amendment, which was written after the Civil War, to extend not simply the — against racial discrimination, but gender discrimination.

And she won five of the six cases.  She changed America in the process.  And she gave us a marvelous example of how to reach across partisan divide.  Her friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia should be an example for all of us in Washington.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, she did come to the court with a legacy already.

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, it's amazing to me first that she's the first woman to lie in state.  That is mind-boggling in 2022, that this is the first time that has happened.

She — judges, when they go and go to before their confirmation hearings, they all say their personal feelings won't affect how they judge; it's the legal automatons.  I think that's never true.  It was certainly not true with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

She comes from a neighborhood and a culture I know very well, the Flatbush in Brooklyn, the Jewish immigrant culture there.  And when you grew up in that culture, A) you have a strong preference for the underdog.  You have a strong love of America.  She said one of her heroines was Emma Lazarus, the author of the poem on the Statue of Liberty.

[B]You have a reverential respect for law.  And I think she carried those values, not being unfaithful to being a judge, to the judicial system, but carry those values.  And I think she's admired because of those values.

Amy Coney Barrett also has values.  She's a conservative.  She is well-regarded.  When she was Supreme Court clerk to Antonin Scalia, all of the clerks, regardless of party affiliation, admired her.  When she was on the Notre Dame Law faculty, all of the faculty members, regardless of party ideology, admired her, that, personally, she seems — I have never met her.

She seems reputed to be a wonderful person.  But she has a conservative record.  She was a law professor for a long time and wrote a lot of articles, some of which were controversial and, in her 2017 confirmation hearings, were brought up.

I think it'll be hard to mount personal attacks, given what we know now.  But there will be some conservative attacks.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Mark, she does come with a record, as David say.  It's a conservative record.

Mark Shields:  She does, Judy.

She — you could say, if you're a conservative, she's probably not going to be John Roberts.  She is a true-blue and committed conservative.

But I would point out, as David laid out sort of the political land mines for Democrats, she has admirable personal credentials, the mother of seven, two adopted children.  She brought a Down syndrome pregnancy to birth, a child, is raising it, and was endorsed by both, not only the conservative members of the law faculty at Notre Dame, but all the liberals as well.

I think it's a potential land mine for both sides.  To the degree that abortion becomes the centerpiece issue, it's going to be a problem for Republicans among suburban women.  To the degree that it becomes an issue and the Democrats go on the offensive against Amy Coney Barrett, then Joe Biden's hopes of reaching out across to blue-collar white voters who had flirted with Trump in the past, maybe former Democrats, becomes a problem.

And I think if, in fact, there is any sort of a mean personal attack mounted against her, it will only — it will only hurt the Democrats.

So, I think it's very, very delicate politically for both sides.

Judy Woodruff:  Let's talk about that and the process.

David, we look back.  There's never been, in an election year, someone nominated to the Supreme Court in 230 years of the republic this close to an election.  The closest we could find was, what, 1892.  It was four months before the election.

We're now within weeks, even days, by the time there'd be a vote.  What does that say about where we are, Republicans and Democrats, and what we should look forward to in the next several weeks?

David Brooks:  Well, in a platonic, ideal world, I think Presidents should be able to nominate justices until Inauguration Day.  You're elected to a four-year term, not a three-and-a-half-year term.

So I think, in an ideal world, Trump is right.  You should be able to nominate somebody.

The problem is with Merrick Garland.  Once the Republicans set a standard, to then shred the standard so quickly shows a complete sign of opportunism, a complete sign that we're not a nation of laws and precedents, that we're just a ruthless power grab.

And so, in this case, I think it's an error.

As for the process, I think it favors the Democrats, frankly.  I think it would not favor the Democrats if they go after, as Mark said, Barrett personally, or if they go after her faith, that she's a member of a Christian community people have praised.  And some people have said that's a kind of cult.

I have been reading their magazine, "Vine & Branches."  It's a very good magazine, very intelligent magazine.  They seem to be a completely mainstream, charismatic Christian community.  And I don't find anything creepy about it at all.

But I think it's going to be an advantage for a Democrat, because I don't think it's going to be abortion as the main issue, as it normally is in the Supreme Court.  I think it's going to be health care.

I think the Democrats are smart enough not to go after her faith.  They're smart enough to say, health care is a real issue.  People are concerned about losing Obamacare.  And this could tip the balance in the court, so that Obamacare comes under threat.

And I think that's a very strong argument that Democrats can make, and it puts one of their best issues at the top of the agenda.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, it does look like Democrats are focusing on health care.

How does that shift what's going on?  And just, if you would, address the speed of this.

Mark Shields:  Well, health, health care, Judy, workers' rights, immigrant rights, women's rights, consumer rights, I think they have to expand it, no question about it.  And it is legitimate.

I mean, the Affordable Care Act faces extinction in the Supreme Court on the 10th of November.  There were 20 million people added under the Affordable Care Act who got health insurance during Barack Obama's last six years in office, while that — while it was in effect.

During Donald Trump's time in office, 2.8 million Americans have lost their health insurance.  And that number will be increased dramatically with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act that goes with it, and all the empty promises that Republicans have made about a health care act.

I would simply point out that, since Richard Nixon in 1969, there has never been a Republican health care plan offered by any President or any Congress.

John Boehner, the speaker of the House said:  In 25 years, I have never seen a Republican health care plan.  I have worked on health care, and there has never been one.

And that is the reality.  And I think it has to be central to the debate.  So I think — and Democrats would do well on that issue.

And what you — we saw today was that a Washington Post/ABC poll, by a margin of 3-2, over — close to 60 percent believe that the decision, naming of Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Ginsburg ought to be done by the next President, the one who is elected in November.

And so I think the Democrats have that on their side.

The only thing worse than a liar, said Tennessee Williams, is a liar who's a hypocrite.  And that's exactly where Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Republican — the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and too many of his colleagues stand tonight.

Judy Woodruff:  David, I do want to ask you both about what President Trump has been saying, raising questions about the legitimacy of the results if he's not the winner, casting doubt about mail-in ballots, virtually every day talking about that.

And you just heard the interview that William Brangham did with Bart Gellman.

Are we — should Americans be worried, as we are almost — we're just, what, a little more than five weeks from this Election Day?

David Brooks:  Yes, I was in a call, a conference call, with a bunch of scholars and political observers yesterday, and we all said, how scared are you, from one to five?  And we were pretty much at 4.5.  Some people were at nine and 10.

I have never been more pessimistic about where this country is than I am right now, I mean, in my whole life.  We have had a bad few years with the social fabric fraying.  We have had a President ripping us to top from the — ripping us apart from the top.

The Supreme Court fight maximizes the sense that people have on both sides of the other side is completely illegitimate and not playing by the rules.  And then we walk into an election night, as Barton Gellman said, where all sorts of bad things could happen.

And I think he makes the core point.  I mean, the two moments that I think I'm most afraid about is, one, election night, when we're sitting there and it looks like Trump is ahead, and what that psychology does to the country, and then the crucial distinction that he makes, which is, it's not that Trump is going to lose and refuse to go.

It's that the results could be genuinely unclear, and then we start monkeying with the electors, especially in states like Arizona and Florida, where you have a Republican governor, Republican state legislator.  A lot of key states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, you have got a Republican legislator, Democratic governor.

There's all sorts of mayhem.

And one of the things we have learned is that our system depends on the goodwill of the players involved.  And if that goodwill isn't there, then the spiral of accusation and animosity and enmity — I don't think we're going to see physical violence, but we will see a level of psychological violence that we just haven't seen since 1865.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, less than a minute.

Words of reassurance for the American people or not?

Mark Shields:  Reassurance, Judy, I mean, let's just hope the example of Al Gore in 2000, who won the popular vote and said, this is a time when partisanship must yield for patriotism.

Donald Trump, this is not a new song for him.  He lost by 2,868,686 votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016.  And what was his explanation?  Three to five million illegal undocumented immigrants voted.  That's the only reason he didn't win the popular vote.

So he appointed a commission to examine all those.  There were no examples, Judy.  There were no examples of fraud.  They came up with nothing.

This is a total fraud.  And we will find out, I mean, what this man is made of.  Is there a scintilla of patriotism in his soul?  Will he abide by the judgment, as John McCain did so gallantly in 2008, in saying, I called Senator Obama, who was my opponent, and is now my President?

That's the example.  And I stand with David.  I'm concerned deeply.  And I just hope an aroused country and citizenry will not tolerate that kind of behavior, as well as Republicans.

I'm looking, they are — hoping not that they're an invertebrate, that there is some beat of a soul still left in the party of Abraham Lincoln.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, time for reflection for all of us and for as much transparency as possible in covering this election.

Mark Shields, David Brooks, we thank you.

 

 

VOTE 2020 - Trump Voting Intimidation?

"Trump’s suggestion of deploying law enforcement officials to monitor polls raises specter of voting intimidation" by Rosalind S. Helderman, Josh Dawsey, Matt Zapotosky - The Washington Post 8/21/2020

More than 30 years ago, a Republican Party program that dispatched off-duty police officers to patrol polling places in heavily Black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey triggered accusations of voter intimidation, resulting in a federal agreement that restricted for decades how the national GOP could observe voting.

Now, two years after those limits were lifted, President Trump has revived the idea of using law enforcement officers to patrol polling places, invoking tactics historically used to scare voters of color.

In an interview Thursday with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump described law enforcement officers as part of a phalanx of authorities he hopes will monitor voting in November.

“We’re going to have everything,” the President said.  “We’re going to have sheriffs, and we’re going to have law enforcement, and we’re going to hopefully have U.S. attorneys and we’re going to have everybody, and attorney generals.  But it’s very hard.”

Trump’s remarks are part of a pattern of comments in which he has suggested he is willing to take actions to impede how people cast their ballots this fall.  He has repeatedly sought to undermine confidence in the November vote, making false claims about the integrity of mail-in balloting and raising the specter of widespread electoral fraud.  Earlier this month, he floated the idea of withholding election money from states and refusing funding for the U.S. Postal Service so as to curtail the use of voting by mail.

The President has limited authority to order law enforcement to patrol polling places.  Sheriff’s deputies and police officers are commanded at the local level, and a federal law bars U.S. government officials from sending “armed men” to the vicinity of polling places.

But civil rights advocates said they feared Trump’s words could inspire local officials to act on his behalf.  And they said even the threat of encountering police officers at the polls could be frightening to some voters, particularly in communities of color where residents are distrustful of the police.

“This is just such an old, dirty voter suppression tactic,” said Kristen Clarke, who leads the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.  “There is no doubt that this is about instilling fear and depressing participation in communities of color.”

Clarke said her group was researching how the President’s comments could be used in lawsuits intended to protect the vote.

Attorney Marc Elias, who is leading the Democratic Party’s voting litigation efforts, said he will rush to court if he sees any evidence of the actions Trump described.

“The reason why the Republican Party was under a consent decree for 40 years was for precisely this kind of behavior in 1981,” he said.  “It would be unfortunate if, having come out from under that consent decree, they now try to repeat those tactics.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on Trump’s remarks.

Mike Reed, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said that law enforcement officers are not part of the RNC’s new poll-watching program.  “Our program consists of volunteers and attorneys,” he said.

Other Republican officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal strategy said they were unaware of plans to deploy law enforcement officers to polling places, adding that the President’s comments were inaccurate and unhelpful to the party’s efforts to expand its poll-watching program through appropriate and legal measures.

Matthew Morgan, general counsel for Trump’s reelection campaign, said in a statement that “Republicans will be ready to make sure the polls are being run correctly, securely, and transparently as we work to deliver the free and fair election Americans deserve.”

The Voting Rights Act outlaws the intimidation or coercion of voters, a provision adopted to combat long-standing tactics that were used in the Jim Crow South to prevent Black people from participating in elections.  The tactics included deploying sheriff’s deputies and police officers to the polls.

Accusations of voter intimidation continued long past the end of Jim Crow.  Black voters in Florida complained about police traffic stops on Election Day as recently as 2000, according to a report on the 2000 Presidential election by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.  In 2010, advocates accused North Carolina police of voter suppression after they set up traffic checkpoints between primarily Black apartment complexes and polling locations.

The RNC came under scrutiny for allegedly violating the Voting Rights Act in New Jersey’s 1981 gubernatorial race, when the party was accused of creating a “National Ballot Security Task Force” made up of off-duty deputy sheriffs and local police officers who wore armbands and patrolled the polls in largely Black and Latino neighborhoods.  Some allegedly displayed their firearms.  Official-looking signs were posted at some precincts warning that voter fraud is a crime and that the task force was watching.

After the Democratic Party sued, the RNC entered into a federal consent decree in 1982 in which it admitted no wrongdoing but promised it would not take efforts to suppress the minority vote and would allow courts to review and approve future ballot security efforts.

In practice, that meant that for decades, the RNC largely ceded poll-watching activities to a candidate’s campaign operations.

In 2016, the Democratic Party alleged that the RNC had violated the consent decree by supporting the Trump campaign’s ballot security efforts.

But a federal judge ruled in 2018 that the Democrats had not proved that the agreement had been violated, allowing the consent decree to expire.

As a result, the RNC this year will be able to conduct poll-watching activities without restrictions for the first time in decades.

In response, party officials have said they hope to recruit at least 30,000 poll watchers in 15 battleground states, part of a program that will also deploy lawyers around the country to fight Democrats in court over election laws and ballots.

Justin Riemer, the RNC’s chief counsel, said volunteers will be trained on local rules and on looking for potential voting problems or fraud.  At times, he said, the ballot watchers may confront issues directly with poll workers or may call their problems in to a team of election lawyers back at state headquarters.  He said volunteers also will be trained to observe local officials as they count mail-in votes.

Some GOP poll watchers will be stationed in communities that have traditionally seen long lines or other voting day problems, which Riemer acknowledged would be likely to include some Democratic-leaning urban polling sites with many voters of color.

“Where do you see those lines wrapped around the block on Election Day?” he said.  “Those are the kinds of places we are going to be.  There is usually something wrong.”

Riemer said other poll watchers would focus on GOP-leaning areas, where they can monitor who has not yet voted as the day progresses to help the party better target its get-out-the-vote efforts.

RNC officials say they have developed training programs for poll watchers, though they declined to provide details or copies of the materials.

The consent decree significantly hampered the party’s political activities for years, Riemer said, and, as a result, the RNC plans to be extremely careful not to run afoul of laws against intimidation.

“People here are so vigilant that we are not put under another consent decree,” he said.  “Our volunteers will be beaten over the head that they need to be compliant with all applicable laws, and they need to be respectful and courteous when they are engaging in their operations.”

He added: “They are not there to stop people from voting.  We want people to vote.  If they don’t believe us, they don’t believe us.  That’s the God’s honest truth.”

Such assertions are viewed with skepticism by voting rights activists, particularly since the RNC has amplified Trump’s unfounded claims that voting by mail could lead to rampant fraud.

Many activists think long lines are driven in part by GOP-backed efforts to limit early voting or reduce the number of polling sites.

They also note that Republicans have said that they are open to recruiting former military service members and law enforcement officers as poll watchers — a proposal not far removed from the President’s suggestion to send sheriffs to the polls.

“We would be foolish not to be vigilant,” said Vanita Gupta, the former head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, noting the country’s history of voter intimidation and the President’s misleading rhetoric.

Gupta, who is President of the nonprofit Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said she expected that Trump would threaten to deploy law enforcement officials to the polls.

“The danger is whether the threat alone or the posturing dissuades voters,” she said.  “That’s where voters really need to be empowered and educated — the best way to fight back is to do the opposite and register and vote.”

Still, she noted that the country has “long-standing laws” prohibiting law enforcement intimidation of voters.  Several states have their own statutes severely restricting police activity near polls.

But in the current fraught political atmosphere, the President’s call for a robust poll-watching effort could lead to unpredictable results.

Earlier this year, a conservative organization called True the Vote was recruiting former members of the military to go to polling places, according to Ed Hiner, a retired Navy SEAL who said he started the group’s “Continue to Serve” program.

Hiner said in an interview that he used the email lists from veterans associations to invite 2 million former military personnel to participate.  He said he thought the program would be a bipartisan effort that would pair Democratic and Republican veterans to encourage voting, and stopped working with the group this summer after realizing how partisan the issues related to voting have become.

A representative of True the Vote, which alleges on its website that “radicalized leftist organizations are hard at work exploiting the weaknesses of our elector process,” did not respond to questions about the program’s status.

According to guidelines distributed by the Justice Department, the states — rather than the federal government — are to ensure the voting process is conducted fairly.  The guidelines instruct federal prosecutors to minimize their public presence around elections, even if they suspect crimes, such as voter fraud, are occurring.

In a 2017 election crimes guide, the department stated that prosecutors and the FBI need approval before they can take any action that requires “intrusion by federal investigators into the area immediately surrounding an open polling place.”

Because federal law also does not allow federal officials to station “armed men” in the vicinity of polling places, the Justice Department has determined that this means a U.S. attorney cannot order FBI agents or U.S. marshals to the polls.

The Justice Department does, however, deploy unarmed, specially trained observers and poll monitors — though the number of those people has declined because of a 2013 Supreme Court decision limiting the federal government’s role inside polling places on Election Day.

“Law enforcement’s first obligation around elections is to do no harm,” Elias said.  “So there is an appropriate role of law enforcement to ensure other people’s conduct isn’t preventing people from voting.  It is not to engage in conduct themselves that could prevent people from voting.”

Correction:  An earlier version of this story misstated how many years it has been since the Republican Party was accused of voter intimidation in New Jersey.  It was more than 30 years ago, not nearly 30 years ago.  This story has been updated.

AMERICA - Becoming a Police State

COMMENT:  No matter what Americans have a Constitutional Right to non-violent protest.  Trump Administration has, in affect, treated ALL protesters as criminals peaceful or not.  Constitutional law enforcement would ONLY target those persons engaging in harmful violence against persons or committing actual statuary crimes like looting.  This is Trump turning America into a Police State.

"Trump’s deployment of federal agents to quell Portland protests draws local ire" PBS NewsHour 7/20/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As U.S. protests continue over police violence and racism, some of them have been met with a federal response.  One such place is Portland, Oregon -- where local officials believe the presence of federal agents is doing more harm than good.  But President Trump has defended his decision to deploy them, calling the protesters, who have been mostly peaceful, “anarchists.”  John Yang reports.

"Oregon governor says ‘Trump troops’ in Portland are escalating tensions, not easing them" PBS NewsHour 7/20/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Kate Brown is governor of Oregon, where ongoing protests over race and police violence have attracted federal attention.  Some agents deployed to Portland have refused to identify themselves to protesters, and their tactics have drawn criticism -- and even provoked a lawsuit.  Gov. Brown joins John Yang to discuss her concerns about lack of communication and what she considers “political theater.”

"Trump says he’ll send federal agents to more cities — even though they don’t want them" PBS NewsHour 7/23/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump is sending federal law enforcement into cities he claims are being overrun by violence -- even as local officials tell him the officers are not needed or welcome.  Many of the agents are dressed in military-style gear that obscures their identity, and their treatment of peaceful protesters has drawn criticism and sparked backlash.  Yamiche Alcindor reports.

"Trump’s deployment of federal forces to U.S. cities akin to ‘invasion,’ Ridge says" PBS NewsHour 7/23/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The divide between President Trump and local leaders in places where he has deployed federal agents is widening.  This week, 15 mayors asked Trump to withdraw federal forces from their cities, citing “fundamental constitutional protections.”  Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, First Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why he disavows Trump's action.

"Portland police and feds are ‘responding to largely peaceful protests with violence’" PBS NewsHour 7/26/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd continue to gain momentum in Portland, Oregon, where protesters have clashed with the police sparking another wave of demonstrations against systemic racism and police brutality across the country.  Jonathan Levinson of Oregon Public Broadcasting joins Hari Sreenivasan for the latest from Portland.

OUTRAGE - Police Brutality and Trump Police State

"Death of George Floyd drives protests across the U.S. — and beyond" PBS NewsHour 6/1/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Cities across the U.S. are bracing for unrest as protests continue.  Outrage over police killings of black victims, most recently that of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police on Memorial Day, has fueled demonstrations, and in some cases, destruction.  In response, President Trump called for stricter policing, telling governors they must “dominate” protesters.  Yamiche Alcindor reports.

"A sheriff and a former mayor on hearing protesters while maintaining peace" PBS NewsHour 6/1/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Peaceful protests around the U.S. continue Monday night, but there will likely also be charged confrontations and more looting and destruction.  How can law enforcement defuse these fraught situations and minimize violence while acknowledging protesters’ voices?  Judy Woodruff talks to Sheriff Christopher Swanson of Genesee County, Michigan, and Michael Nutter former mayor of Philadelphia.

"Roxane Gay, Anna Deavere Smith, and Tay Anderson on the protests’ hope and despair" PBS NewsHour 6/1/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For analysis of the deeper systemic issues that are underlying the country’s civic unrest, Judy Woodruff talks to Roxane Gay a noted essayist and author whose work frequently addresses issues of race, identity and privilege; Anna Deavere Smith, award-winning playwright and actor; and Tay Anderson, a Denver school board member and activist who has been leading protests in that city.

"Minneapolis’ long history of policing black and white communities differently" PBS NewsHour 6/1/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The problems with criminal justice in Minnesota’s Twin Cities extend beyond the George Floyd case.  Of the 100 largest metro areas in the country, Minneapolis’ income gap between black and white families is the second largest, at nearly $50,000, and the city has a long history of discriminatory housing practices.  Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro reports on the context behind this crisis.

"A week into protests, political divide over the right response widens" PBS NewsHour 6/2/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The U.S. has now experienced a full week of protests over police treatment of black Americans.  The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis has triggered widespread demonstrations, curfews and thousands of arrests.  National Guard troops have been called up in states across the country.  And President Trump’s rhetoric urging increased use of force is prompting more disagreement.  Amna Nawaz reports.

"Protests near White House grow, a day after police cleared people for Trump photo op" PBS NewsHour 6/2/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has caused new controversy for his handling of a protest near the White House Monday night.  Police began clearing people out from a peaceful demonstration in Lafayette Square before the citywide curfew took effect, firing gas with no apparent provocation.  Trump then walked to St. John’s Episcopal Church for a photograph.  Yamiche Alcindor joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

"Thune says peaceful protests should be allowed to continue" PBS NewsHour 6/2/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With protests taking place in cities across the country, how should the federal government respond?  Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota joins Judy Woodruff to discuss President Trump’s rhetoric about the use of force, whether a peaceful protest near the White House Monday should have been interrupted as it was, the role of Congress in addressing racial unrest and federal pandemic aid.

"Bishop Budde on Trump’s ‘inflammatory’ rhetoric and how he can help the nation heal" PBS NewsHour 6/2/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde leads the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, D.C.  That includes St. John's Church, across from the White House, which was partially burned during Sunday's unrest and the site of President Trump's Monday night photo op.  Budde joins Judy Woodruff to discuss Trump's "extremely inflammatory" remarks and federal law enforcement's violent confrontation with protesters.

"What happens when police officers see protesters as ‘the enemy’" PBS NewsHour 6/2/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former senior military officials are criticizing Secretary of Defense Mark Esper for participating in a controversial photo op with President Trump, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley for walking through D.C. in his battle-dress uniform.  Nick Schifrin talks to John Yang, and then discusses the increasing militarization of police with Radley Balko, author of “Rise of the Warrior Cop.”

"Charges against police added, upgraded in Floyd case as protests continue" PBS NewsHour 6/3/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As protests over the death of George Floyd continue in cities nationwide, there were major developments Wednesday in the legal response to the case.  Derek Chauvin, the officer who pressed his knee into Floyd’s neck, is now charged with second-degree murder, while three other officers are accused of aiding and abetting a murder.  Lisa Desjardins reports.

"Amid protests and pandemic, this South Carolina mayor sees ‘collective pain’ emerge" PBS NewsHour 6/3/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Columbia, South Carolina’s capital, is among the many U.S. cities seeing protests and curfews over the past week.  Mayor Stephen Benjamin is the city’s first African American mayor, and he joins Judy Woodruff to discuss how he sees “collective pain” emerging during this tumultuous period, what his constituents are asking for and his fears about controlling the spread of COVID-19 amid protests.

"What’s behind racial disparities in American policing — and how to solve them" PBS NewsHour 6/3/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Widespread protests over George Floyd’s death and the treatment of black Americans by police more broadly have dominated the U.S. in recent days.  For analysis of the issues at the heart of the unrest, Amna Nawaz talks to Art Acevedo, Houston’s chief of police; Tracey Meares, professor and founder of the Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School; and Samuel Sinyangwe of the group Campaign Zero.

"The critical role white parents play in shaping racism — and eradicating it" PBS NewsHour 6/3/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Structural racism is now sharing the American cultural spotlight with COVID-19.  While solutions to racial disparities in police treatment, health care and education will likely require policy changes, some experts say decisions at the family and individual levels matter just as much.  Special correspondent Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks to Margaret Hagerman of Mississippi State University.

Clarification:  This report stated that the majority of Americans who have died of COVID-19 have been identified as African American.  The CDC reports that more white Americans have died of coronavirus, but race/ethnicity was available for only 42.3 percent of those tracked.  A recent study by the nonpartisan APM Research Lab shows that the latest overall COVID-19 mortality rate for black Americans is 2.4 times as high as the rate for whites and 2.2 times as high as the rate for Asians and Latinos.  A second national study by the AIDS research group amfAR found that half of all COVID-19 cases and nearly 60 percent of deaths due to the disease were in counties that are disproportionately black.

"Mourners remember George Floyd as Trump’s talk of using troops at protests draws pushback" PBS NewsHour 6/4/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Formal mourning began Thursday for George Floyd, the Minneapolis man whose death has touched off a torrent of national outrage.  While overnight protests were largely peaceful, President Trump is now facing a torrent of criticism over his talk of using the military to quell unrest.  John Yang reports.

"New York protesters say they want change from ‘daily fear’" PBS NewsHour 6/4/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In New York City, protesters were largely peaceful on Wednesday, but as nighttime fell, police in riot gear moved in to enforce a curfew -- sometimes by force.  The NewsHour’s Daniel Bush talks with Judy Woodruff about what protesters there are saying about why they are out in the streets and how leaders there are approaching the demonstrations.

"‘Armed forces exist to protect’ U.S., not police communities, retired general says" PBS NewsHour 6/4/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump's talk of using military force on people protesting police brutality against black Americans has generated a backlash among a number of former senior military officers.  Nick Schifrin gets perspective from retired Army Gen. Carter Ham on why these officials, as well as some who are currently serving, are wary of sending active-duty troops into the United States.

"How Newark’s protest preparations have helped maintain calm" PBS NewsHour 6/6/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It has been more than 50 years since deadly riots in Newark, New Jersey broke out.  But protests taking place there this past week over George Floyd's death have been mostly peaceful.  Newark Mayor Ras Baraka joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss what the city has done to prepare for interactions between police and demonstrators, and how that's helped maintain relative calm.

"New York protests continue despite rain, pandemic and curfew" PBS NewsHour 6/6/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The threat of a pandemic did not keep New Yorkers home as protesters across the city took to the streets chanting “Black Lives Matter” calling for several police reforms.  Largely peaceful, several demonstrators defied the city’s 8 P.M. curfew.  Protests continued Saturday.  NewsHour Weekend’s Christopher Booker reports on what protesters would like to see changed.

"San Francisco may stop hiring cops with records of misconduct" PBS NewsHour 6/7/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The demand to reform police departments is causing some local governments to look at new regulations and laws.  In San Francisco, the board of supervisors is considering a resolution introduced last week that would urge the civil service commission there to prohibit hiring officers with a history of serious misconduct.  San Francisco Supervisor Shamann Walton joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.

A FRIGHTENED LITTLE MAN - Trump Tear-Gas Protesters

"Inside the push to tear-gas protesters ahead of a Trump photo op" by Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey, Rebecca Tan - The Washington Post 6/1/2020

President Trump began mulling a visit to St. John’s Episcopal Church on Monday morning, after spending the night devouring cable news coverage of protests across the country, including in front of the White House.

The historic church had been damaged by fire, and Trump was eager to show that the nation’s capital — and especially his own downtown swath of it — was under control.

There was just one problem: the throngs of protesters, who on Monday had again assembled peacefully in Lafayette Square across from the White House to protest the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died in police custody in Minneapolis.

And so — shortly before the President addressed the nation from the Rose Garden at 6:43 p.m. Monday and roughly a half-hour before the District’s 7 p.m. curfew went into effect — authorities fired flash-bang shells, gas and rubber bullets into the crowd, clearing a path for Trump to visit the church immediately after his remarks.

The split screen as Trump began speaking was dark and foreboding — an angry leader proclaiming himself “an ally of all peaceful protesters” alongside smoke-filled mayhem and pandemonium as protesters raced for safety.

Before Trump vows to end ‘lawlessness,’ federal officers confront protesters outside White House.

The evening’s events were the product of a President who favors brute strength and fears looking weak, yet finds himself reeling from a duo of crises — a deadly pandemic that has left more than 100,000 Americans dead and racial unrest that has led to protests and riots across the nation.

He has also been consumed by his faltering poll numbers against former vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President.

When Trump had returned safely to the White House less than an hour later, the verdict seemed clear: The President had staged an elaborate photo op, using a Bible awkwardly held aloft as a prop and a historic church that has long welcomed Presidents and their families as a backdrop.

In the process, protesters had been tear gassed and attacked, and Trump had taken a raging conflagration and doused it with accelerant.

“We long ago lost sight of normal, but this was a singularly immoral act,” said Brendan Buck, a longtime former Hill aide who is now a Republican operative.  “The President used force against American citizens, not to protect property, but to soothe his own insecurities.  We will all move on to the next outrage, but this was a true abuse of power and should not be forgotten.”

Trump’s decision to speak to the nation from the Rose Garden and to visit the church came together earlier in the day, said one senior White House official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.  The President was upset about news coverage of him briefly retreating to the White House bunker Friday evening amid protests, and he repeatedly wondered why anyone would have disclosed those details to the news media, two officials said.

He was also frustrated by coverage this weekend of his call with the Floyd family, which he believed was positive — Trump called it “a very good call,” an official said — but was portrayed negatively.

Finally, Trump was angry at cable news footage from Sunday evening, showing protests and riots near the White House, a White House official said.  He spent much of Monday discussing with his team how to demonstrate the streets in Washington were under control and that there would not be riotous scenes in the coming days, the official said.

Inside the West Wing, aides were torn on the proposed spectacle.  One official argued it was necessary, allowing Trump to demonstrate that he was not hunkered down and was out of the White House, as well as standing with evangelical voters by visiting the church.  But two others worried it could backfire.

“It was just to win the news cycle,” one Trump adviser said.  “I’m not sure that things are any better for us tomorrow.”

Jason Miller, a former senior adviser on Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign, defended the President’s decision.  He said Trump was elected in part on law-and-order themes, which he needs to continue to hammer, while simultaneously talking to black supporters about some of his initiatives, such as criminal justice reform.

“You’re going to have to go and knock some of the bad guys around a little bit,” Miller said.  “Once they get tear gassed or pepper sprayed, they don't want it to happen again.”

He added that Trump had been reminded by allies that he was elected as a “get-things-done President.”

“He’s not the hand-holder or consoler in chief,” Miller said.  “He was elected to take bold dramatic action and that’s what he did.”

The action began less than an hour before the District’s curfew, and in the moments before Trump was set to speak.  Just after 6 p.m., hundreds of protesters were gathered on H Street NW, facing Lafayette Square.  Though members of the National Guard — wielding shields that said “Military Police” — were lined up behind barricades, along with Secret Service and other law enforcement officers, the protesters remained peaceful.  Several played music, and one painted on an easel.

But shortly thereafter, Attorney General William P. Barr visited the scene, and, about 6:30 p.m., the National Guard moved just yards from the protesters, prompting some screams.  Some protesters threw water bottles, but many simply stood with their arms raised.

Then, the chaos began.

Members of the National Guard knelt briefly to put on gas masks, before suddenly charging eastward down H street, pushing protesters down toward 17th Street.  Authorities shoved protesters down with their shields, fired rubber bullets directly at them, released tear gas and set off flash-bang shells in the middle of the crowd.

Protesters began running, many still with their hands up, shouting, “Don’t shoot.” Others were vomiting, coughing and crying.

As Trump began to speak, some protesters took a knee several blocks from the White House, again yelling, “Hands up!  Don’t shoot!”  But they were never able to stay kneeling for more than a couple of minutes, because authorities kept pushing them forward, as a thick, yellow cloud of smoke hung over the crowd.

About midway through his remarks, and roughly 10 minutes before the city’s curfew was set to go into effect, the President offered a stark warning: “Our 7 o’clock curfew will be strictly enforced.  Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Trump concluded by promising that the nation’s “greatest days lie ahead,” and then said, cryptically, “And now I’m going to pay my respects to a very, very special place.  Thank you very much.”

Accompanied by a small cadre of top advisers — including his daughter Ivanka Trump, clad in dark coronavirus mask — the President then made his way over to the church.

One White house official noted the lack of any black aides.  Vice President Pence, a leading administration official to Christian voters, was also conspicuously absent from the event at the church.

Trump seemed to take in the scene and paused in front of St. John’s, turning to the cameras and holding up a black Bible in his right hand.

Asked if it was a family Bible, he said, simply, “It’s a Bible.”

Soon after the church event, the President’s top law enforcement and military officials, including the secretary of defense, attorney general and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, walked across parts of downtown Washington in an unusual show of force.

Some local officials were livid.  D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser upbraided Trump on Twitter: “I imposed a curfew at 7pm.  A full 25 minutes before the curfew & w/o provocation, federal police used munitions on peaceful protesters in front of the White House, an act that will make the job of @DCPoliceDept officers more difficult.  Shameful!  DC residents — Go home.  Be safe.”

The Right Rev. Mariann Budde, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, said she learned of the President’s visit by watching it on the news.

“I am outraged,” she said, with pauses emphasizing her anger as her voice slightly trembled.  “I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call that they would be clearing with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop, holding a Bible, one that declares that God is love and when everything he has said and done is to inflame violence.”

But Trump’s campaign team viewed the visit as a success.  By late Monday, campaign officials were already tweeting a black-and-white photo of him walking to the church with a coterie of aides in his wake.  Tim Murtaugh, the campaign’s top spokesman, posted the picture without a caption.

As the curfew descended upon the nation’s capital, the scene had calmed down significantly.  Trump returned to the White House, and the groups of hundreds of protesters began dispersing.

Helicopters could be heard overhead all over the city Monday night, and officials said the streets were far emptier than usual.

OUTRAGE - Big Brother Watching Advocates

"Feds tracked caravan advocates and others" by Kate Morrissey, San Diego Union-Tribune 3/7/2019

NOTE:  Copied from e-newspaper, so no link to article.

Dossiers were kept on 59 activists, lawyers, journalists involved at border

Documents published Wednesday indicate that the federal government has monitored a group of journalists, attorneys, advocates, and activists who interacted with a migrant caravan that arrived in Tijuana late last year.

As recently as a week ago, an attorney with Al Otro Lado, a legal services organization that has been supporting migrants in Tijuana, was stopped when trying to enter Mexico in what some believe is continued targeting of people who either worked with the caravan or covered the story of its journey to the border.

NBC7 in San Diego published leaked documents Wednesday indicating that the U.S. government has kept dossiers on a group of 59 advocates , activists, attorneys and journalists it is investigating in relation to the migrant caravan that arrived in Tijuana in November.  Many of those in the dossiers appeared in previous articles by The San Diego Union-Tribune , the Los Angeles Times, and The Intercept talking of frequent interrogations at the border or being denied entry to Mexico.

A number of people in the group began to come forward earlier this year after being interrogated repeatedly in secondary inspection when crossing north through the San Ysidro Port of Entry.  They said they were asked questions about the caravan and about the people helping it.

Others, like freelance photographer Kitra Cahana, found themselves blocked from entering Mexico.  Cahana was twice denied entry to the country when she tried to return to continue her work covering migrants.

Most, but not all, of the people interviewed by the Union-Tribune who believed they had been targeted by Customs and Border Protection for investigation had been present when some members of the caravan were trying to cross the border illegally, such as the incident on New Year’s Day when more than 100 migrants gathered on the south side of the border that resulted in U.S. officials firing tear gas.  (Officials maintain that they were responding to rocks being thrown at them, but some witnesses have disputed the order of events.)

The published documents indicate that officials placed alerts on some of the people in the group and canceled visas or SENTRI passes for others.  At least nine people in the documents appear to have red X’s over their photos, indicating that they were arrested.  Many of those nine were later deported from Mexico.

Asked about the dossiers, a Customs and Border Protection spokesman said that the arriving caravans had “added increased and new challenges to an already complicated and dangerous mission.”

“Criminal events, such as the breach of the border wall in San Diego, involving assaults on law enforcement and a risk to public safety, are routinely monitored and investigated by authorities,” the CBP official said.

“These activities could result in a more thorough review of those seeking entrance into our country.  It is protocol following these incidents to collect evidence that might be needed for future legal actions and to determine if the event was orchestrated.  CBP and our law enforcement partners evaluate these incidents, follow all leads garnered from information collected, conduct interviews and investigations, in preparation for, and often to prevent future incidents that could cause further harm to the public, our agents, and our economy.”

Exactly how much authority border officials have to search and interrogate individuals versus how much civil rights protect individuals passing through the border is still being litigated in court.

Attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union called for more oversight and accountability of the agency after learning of the dossiers.

“This is an outrageous violation of the First Amendment,” said Esha Bhandari, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.  “The government cannot use the pretext of the border to target activists critical of its policies, lawyers providing legal representation, or journalists simply doing their jobs.  We are exploring all options in response.”

Al Otro Lado attorney Erika Pinheiro’s name doesn’t appear on the documents that NBC7 published, but her colleague’s, Nicole Ramos, does.  (The news outlet blurred many of the faces and names in the dossier, but Ramos appears to be the only person identified as an attorney in the pages that were published.  Some of those in the documents do not have a role identified.)

Pinheiro was denied entry when she tried to enter Tijuana on foot from San Diego in late January because of an international alert placed on her passport, she said.  She spent about a month in the U.S. working to get a residence card to be able to return.

“All my family lives in Mexico,” Pinheiro said.  “The whole time I was out, my family was separated.  They removed me from Mexico without my kid.”

The alert was triggered again when she drove across at the San Ysidro Port of Entry a little over a week ago and took her residence card paperwork to Mexican immigration officials, she said.  One of the supervisors told her that the alert is for people who have national security or criminal issues, she said.

She had to fill out a questionnaire that asked whether she had warrants in other countries and if she’d ever been convicted of a crime.  Officials at the port of entry sent her information to Mexico City, and she was allowed into the country after waiting for about an hour.

“The last time they were much more aggressive,” Pinheiro said of her experience.  “This time they seemed generally confused.”

A Mexican immigration official confirmed that Pinheiro had to go through an “administrative process” at the port of entry because of an alert on her passport.  The official was not able to share the reason for the alert.

Pinheiro believes that the United States government placed the alert on her passport.

“It seems like the United States government is targeting anyone who provides assistance to migrants,” Pinheiro said.  “There’s a very clear pattern of that.”

Nora Phillips, legal director of Al Otro Lado, was also denied entry to Mexico in January because of a flag on her passport.

Al Otro Lado is part of several lawsuits against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

The State Department and the Department of Justice referred the Union-Tribune to Mexican immigration officials for comment on Pinheiro’s case.

The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the record.

Days before Pinheiro’s second incident at the border, attorneys included a request for information about the alert on Pinheiro’s passport as part of the discovery process in a case alleging that the federal government is illegally turning away asylum seekers.  Court documents related to the attorney’s request in the case are sealed.

A statement from organizations involved in the case said that attorneys had filed for expedited discovery to determine whether the alerts on the two Al Otro Lado attorneys’ passports were in retaliation for the lawsuit and Al Otro Lado’s advocacy on behalf of asylum seekers.  It points out that the work that Pinheiro and other Al Otro Lado attorneys do, including representing clients in the lawsuits against the U.S. government, requires them to be able to travel to Mexico.

Though Pinheiro has been able to return to Mexico, she worries that she will be denied entry from any other country because of the alert on her passport.

Her work requires her to travel to Central America frequently as she’s among those who have been on the ground supporting deported parents of separated families.  Just this week Al Otro Lado supported 29 deported parents on a journey back to the U.S. border in Calexico to ask to be reunited with their children.

DEMOCRACY - Presidential Power

A very dumb question.....

"Is expanding Presidential power inherently bad for democracy?" PBS NewsHour 2/18/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The fallout from President Trump’s national emergency declaration over immigration is sparking questions about the scope of executive power.  For analysis, Judy Woodruff talks to Andrew Rudalevige, professor of government at Bowdoin College and author of “The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate,” and Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Rice University.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  On this President's Day holiday, we're taking a look at Presidential powers and how they have changed over time.

We're joined now by two Presidential historians Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Rice University and author of several books on the presidency.  And Andrew Rudalevige, he's professor of government at Bowdoin College and the author of "The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate."

And welcome to both of you.

Andrew Rudalevige, let me start with you.

How much more powerful is the American presidency today than it was either in the earliest days of this country or even 150 years ago?

Andrew Rudalevige, professor of government:  Well, infinitely more powerful than at the time of the Constitutional Convention.

If you think of the very title President, that comes from the word presider.  There was no idea, I think, that the President would be the main decider, as George W. Bush styled himself.

The real growth is in the 20th and now the 21st century.  You have the great expansiveness of the scope and size of government.  Most of that's in the executive branch, and so the President has more means, many more staff, many more people to help him carry out his preferences.

And you also have, over time, the delegation of great amounts of power to the President by Congress, including things that are specifically delegated to the Congress by the Constitution, trade power, for example.

In other areas, Presidents have sort of pushed hard to try to take over the war power, for example.  And Congress on the whole has been pretty supine about that.

So it's a great growth of power in fits and starts, but, certainly compared, to the founding, a much more powerful office than was anticipated.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Douglas Brinkley, is this mainly because Presidents have been grabbing for more power, or is it because Congress has ceded it, or is it a combination?

Douglas Brinkley, professor of history:  Combination.

I mean, I think it's important to think about when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1861.  He had a very good reason to, the Civil War.  Then you have the emancipation of slaves under Lincoln.

And Theodore Roosevelt is really the beginning of this.  It used to be called the executive mansion.  He named it the White House.  And from 1901 to 1909, T.R.  used a lot of executive orders, some like going into Panama without Congress.  He went to the Grand Canyon and said, save it.  Congress didn't want it as a National Park.

There was zinc, asbestos, and copper there, and so he declared it a National Monument and as a way station on using executive power, until eventually Congress would take it as a National Park.

Following T.R., you see Franklin D. Roosevelt using executive power all the time, sometimes in positive ways that look well in history, like when he save Jackson Hole, Wyoming, with a national — as a national monument in the middle of World War II, but then, alas, the Japanese internment camps, which was upheld by the courts, that he was allowed to do that kind of roundup of American citizens.

And just — it's an increasing of Presidential power, to the degree now that Presidents, so matter who they are, have a 40 or 50 percent approval rating, and Congress is often at 15, 20 percent approval rating.  We are a country of Presidential power.

Judy Woodruff:  Andrew Rudalevige, is it that the American people have watched this happen over time and have just felt, OK, this is just inevitable, it's just going to get — we're going to have a more powerful presidency?

Andrew Rudalevige:  Well, there are good and bad reasons for a powerful presidency.

The government, the role of the United States are much bigger in the world and domestically than they had been prior to the 20th century.  So you have some questions of executive efficiency.  It's not always terrible when Congress delegates power to the President.

On the other hand, especially since, I would say, the 1960s, changes in nominating procedures mean there's a lot more focus on the individual.  Presidents have to promise a lot more individually, and then they are under pressure to live up to those promises.

The gap between the expectations of the presidency and the actual power is somewhat large.  I think Presidents on the whole cannot carry out their promises to the degree that they think they can running for office.

President Trump's emergency declaration is a pretty good example of that, frankly.  But, yes, people tend to support Presidents acting dramatically.  And, to that degree, Presidents will continue to do so.

Judy Woodruff:  And what President Trump has done, Douglas Brinkley, is one the reasons I wanted to talk to the two of you, because people are — some are referring to it as an unprecedented move, an overreach.

But we really wanted to put it in context and look at how this has — how Presidents' desire and determination to take more power under themselves has — it's been happening for a long time.

Douglas Brinkley:  Well, yes.

I mean, Richard Nixon created a lot of problems, I mean, abuse of power, the movement to impeach him.  And out of that grew the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which supposed to make sure you don't go to war without Congress' approval.

Well, alas, Ronald Reagan went into Grenada in 1983 without Congress' approval, and George Herbert Walker Bush went into Panama in 1989 without it.  So you get to see things get watered down.  Presidents act, and let everybody else decide what to do later.

What we're debating now in the United States concerning Donald Trump is another post-Nixon event, the National Emergencies Act of 1976.  And in that regard, we have had 59 of these since 1976, but none like what Donald Trump's doing.

He — this is a big political move by Donald Trump.  It's not going to be construed as a real emergency, in the way Harry Truman tried to grab the steel industry back in 1952 and it wasn't a real emergency, because Presidents can't seize private property.

And if he is — if the Trump administration's hell-bent on grabbing ranchlands, building fencing along private property and along environmental zones, it's just going to rain lawsuits on them, and it'll — it'll end up in the Supreme Court.

But Congress is supposed to have — Congress is supposed to have the purse.  It's supposed to run the money.  Donald Trump now is doing something unprecedented by grabbing the funding from Congress and reallocating it in his own — with his own whims.

Judy Woodruff:  Andrew Rudalevige, so, this is a — this stands apart from what other Presidents have done to take more power unto themselves?

Andrew Rudalevige:  Well, Professor Brinkley talked about the post-Watergate regime, where you had a real effort by Congress to push back on the powers of the President, not just in war powers, but intelligence oversight and covert action and the budget, impoundment of congressional funds, ethics with the creation of the independent counsel, and the National Emergencies Act, right?

All of these things were designed to rein in Presidential power.  But Presidents keep pushing, right?  They are — as I said, they have lots of incentives to keep pushing.  And so, really, what's happened is that Congress has not pushed back.

The National Emergencies Act is a great example of a law that was created to rein in Presidents, but has ended up empowering them, partly because Congress has not lived up to its own responsibilities that it wrote into the law, right, to review these emergencies every six months, to come into session to actually consider them in a serious way.

So we will see if that happens now.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 2/15/2019

"Shields and Brooks on Trump’s national emergency, Democratic platform shift" PBS NewsHour 2/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week in politics, including the President’s national emergency declaration, how congressional Republicans are reacting to it, the 2020 Presidential field and whether Democrats are pushing their platform too far to the left.

Judy Woodruff:  From that growing 2020 Presidential field, to the fight over President Trump's national emergency declaration, it's time for Shields and Brooks.

That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

We are going to talk about the mayor in just a moment, but I do want to start, David, with the President's announcement today that he didn't get enough money to beef up the border as he wanted, and, therefore, he's declaring a national emergency, so that he can spend up to $8 billion on it.

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, well, this is awful.

You know, I don't think it has anything to do with any invasion, as he claimed.  I think he lost the government shutdown, so he's giving himself a performance trophy, so he can say, I'm a winner.

I think this is more about his psyche than anything actually in the country.  And it is a complete violation of any constitutional position that any liberal or any conservative should believe in.

The Constitution clearly states that allocations and appropriations are the job of Congress.  And Congress has been ceding power time and time again.  Presidents have been grabbing it.  And this is by far the most egregious grab.

And once you walk down this line, then the constitutional order begins to fray.  And we have seen the fraying of social norms.  Now we're seeing the fraying of constitutional norms.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Mark, the President says it's entirely within his right to do this.  And he points out other Presidents have done similar things.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Not really similar things, in a sense after they have been rejected by the legislative process, immediately upon following that rejection.

I think, Judy, that you have to say a national emergency is the Great Depression, the polio epidemic, the firing on Fort Sumter, you know, or something that we can agree is an emergency.

This is a political emergency.  It's a political emergency, just as David described, not simply the stinging rebuke of Congress, but, by actual count, 200 times Donald Trump, candidate and then President, has promised that this wall, this tall, unscalable wall, will be built and paid for completely by the Mexican government.

And he obviously has not delivered on that.  I would just point out that, in 2000, Bill Clinton's last year in the White House, there were 1.6 million illegal entries stopped by the authorities at the border.  In 2017, Donald Trump's first year, there were fewer than 400,000.

I mean, this is not — it's not an invasion, as David said.  I mean, it's not an emergency, other than a political emergency.

Judy Woodruff:  And it's going to be challenged in the courts.  We were hearing some of that earlier in the program.

David, what about the fact that Republicans in Congress didn't go along, there weren't enough of them to go along with what the President wanted in terms of money, and now some of them are saying what you two are saying, that they don't like the fact that he's declaring an emergency?

David Brooks:  Yes, this was an interesting thing that, within the negotiations over the last week, the Republicans, and specifically Mitch McConnell, decided basically they were writing the White House out of the negotiations, and they sidelined them.

And so they basically — the deal McConnell said was, we're going to cut them out of the negotiations, we will give them nothing, but we give them this, that I will support this chance to have an emergency.

And that is a bad deal.  Mitch McConnell made a bad deal for the American people.  This — violating the Constitution is worse.  And so I think they should have a vote .  The Congress should assert itself, for once in a lifetime, for the sake of our country.

A few Republicans have come out and criticized the President, Ben Sasse and Marco Rubio.  But a lot have not.  Some who warned him not to do that are suddenly on board.

And so you're seeing rank open opportunism.  It was not long ago, a few years ago, we were sitting at this table, and Barack Obama did something — I thought something egregious.  And every Republican, including me, was — had their hair on fire.

And now suddenly they're fine with an even more egregious grab of White House power.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you see this political — or is it a significant division in the Republican Party?

Mark Shields:  No, it isn't, Judy.

I mean, the Republican Party needs a vertebrae transplant.  It is essentially a political invertebrate.  It has no backbone.

Mitch McConnell is terrified of a primary challenge in 2020.  And that's the power that Donald Trump wields.  Donald Trump has always, in his arsenal, the Mark Sanford experience, the former governor and congressman in South Carolina.

Donald Trump said good words about his opponent and bad words about Mark Sanford, and Mark Sanford's career came to a crashing end in the Republican primary.

And every — virtually every Republican who's up in 2020 is afraid that Donald Trump — to get on the wrong side of Donald Trump.  I don't think there's any question about it.

I think Susan Collins has said some questionable things about questioning the President.  So has Mike Lee from Utah.  It's a small group.  Lamar Alexander has.  He's retiring in 2020.  So, I don't expect any great resistance on the GOP side.