'Essence of authoritarianism': Expert warns 'Project 2025' would create a Trump 'autocracy'

[berg80]

Haha the president runs the DOJ and fbi. The president can’t be prosecuted by them

What an idiotic comment

You have conflated the OLC's highly questionable policy guideline that a sitting prez can't be prosecuted while in office with a misconception about the degree to which the prez controls the DoJ. Traditionally, the DoJ has maintain necessary independence from the President. Until Trump that is.

For those who believe in a unitary executive, DOJ/FBI independence is a constitutional solecism. On this view, Article II vests the “executive power” in the President alone, and he alone wields it. That means that the President can do what he likes with his Executive branch subordinates—hire them, fire them, ignore them, order them to act in certain ways, and the like. The presidential authority to direct and control an administration is especially clear with respect to law enforcement and national security, the story goes, since the President himself has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and is the “Commander in Chief.”

This is a nice theory. Sometimes (though not often) I wish that it were so. But the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover, but here are a few relevant ones. The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power (including in the context of the Clinton-era independent counsel statute). The FBI Director’s ten-year term—through which Congress signaled that the Director has independence from electoral politics—raises the political stakes for a President who fires an FBI Director mid-term, as President Trump learned last year. And career civil servants below these senior political appointees (like just-retired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) have extensive legal protections against presidential firing.

Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.

Every presidency since Watergate has embraced policies for preserving DOJ and FBI independence from the President in certain law enforcement and intelligence matters. These internal regulations and memoranda, and the norms they foster, acknowledge the President’s ultimate power and responsibility for law enforcement and intelligence while at the same time recognizing that in certain matters, the Executive branch needs internal divisions of authority that achieve a type of independence from presidential control. One example is the restrictions that every administration from Carter to Trump has placed on communications between DOJ (including the FBI) and the White House concerning law enforcement investigations and other matters. Another is the Special Counsel regulations that govern Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conduct and termination.

Independence and Accountability at the Department of Justice

Over the weekend some conservative commentators pushed back on my tweet-claim that President Trump has “threaten[ed] DOJ/FBI over and over in gross violation of independence

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[Libby von H]

The Heritage Foundation — a well-funded, influential far-right group in Washington, DC — has been quietly vetting tens of thousands of arch-conservative acolytes to staff up the federal government under the next Republican administration as part of its "Project 2025" presidential transition plan. One scholar of authoritarian movements around the globe is sounding the alarm over what that would mean should former President Donald Trump win a second term in the White House.

During a Saturday segment on MSNBC, New York University professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat told host Ali Velshi that Project 2025 would effectively transform American government from a meritocratic democracy to a regime resembling Vladimir Putin's Russia. She pointed to Heritage's calls to eliminate numerous government agencies that serve as checks on the executive branch as merely one example.

"The essence of authoritarianism is removing restraints on the leader and making him immune from prosecution by domesticating government," Ben-Ghiat said. "And so some of what Project 2025 proposes, like abolishing the DOJ and the FBI is designed for that end, to make it impossible to prosecute Trump and allow him to commit crimes with impunity."

More at the link below...

'Essence of authoritarianism': Expert warns 'Project 2025' would create a Trump 'autocracy'

The Heritage Foundation — a well-funded, influential far-right group in Washington, DC — has been quietly vetting tens of thousands of arch-conservative acolytes to staff up the federal government under the next Republican administration as part of its "Project 2025" presidential transition...

www.alternet.org

Sounds ominous to me! What do you think?

I think you don't even get what you are reporting. This is the woman who dispassionately described Republicans as a "party of animals" and you pretend this is all academic SO nobody is going to take your advice and hand their mind over to her.

As to Presidential transition plans, I don't know one campaign in my life that didn't have one. Even Gov Dukakis, mega-loser and liberal to his toenails had one.

And you would be one of the first chucked out of a real debate for equating these two things, which even as you yourself report them ARE NOT THE SAME

On the one hand :

calls to eliminate numerous government agencies

AND

a regime resembling Vladimir Putin's Russia

THe only way that works even ab initio is if 'any agency that has a purpose ,whatever it is, also is a check on the executive --- but that is exactly why the founders divided government so that a non-executive branch can check an executive branch !!!

 

[Dragonlady]

Haha the president runs the DOJ and fbi. The president can’t be prosecuted by them

What an idiotic comment

Well that's not true. A President can't be prosecuted while in office, but can be impeached and removed from office, and can also be prosecuted once out of office, which is happening with Trump over January 6th.

Trump has asked the Supreme Court to lift these restrictions on the Presidency so that he cannot be prosecuted for anything he does while in office. He wants "absolute immunity". And he's not going to get it.

His lawyers have openly stated that Trump is asking for the power to order Seal Team 6 to murder his opposition, and have his orders carried out with full immunity for him from any consequences.

Does that sound like the kind of power that a man like Trump would use wisely? He's already said he's execute General Milley, prosecute Liz Cheney, and all of the Democrats, and declare martial law on Day 1, breaking out the military to supress any and all oppposition or protest.

But by all means. Continue to believe that THIS is what the American people will vote for.

 

[22lcidw]

You have conflated the OLC's highly questionable policy guideline that a sitting prez can't be prosecuted while in office with a misconception about the degree to which the prez controls the DoJ. Traditionally, the DoJ has maintain necessary independence from the President. Until Trump that is.

For those who believe in a unitary executive, DOJ/FBI independence is a constitutional solecism. On this view, Article II vests the “executive power” in the President alone, and he alone wields it. That means that the President can do what he likes with his Executive branch subordinates—hire them, fire them, ignore them, order them to act in certain ways, and the like. The presidential authority to direct and control an administration is especially clear with respect to law enforcement and national security, the story goes, since the President himself has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and is the “Commander in Chief.”

This is a nice theory. Sometimes (though not often) I wish that it were so. But the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover, but here are a few relevant ones. The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power (including in the context of the Clinton-era independent counsel statute). The FBI Director’s ten-year term—through which Congress signaled that the Director has independence from electoral politics—raises the political stakes for a President who fires an FBI Director mid-term, as President Trump learned last year. And career civil servants below these senior political appointees (like just-retired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) have extensive legal protections against presidential firing.

Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.

Every presidency since Watergate has embraced policies for preserving DOJ and FBI independence from the President in certain law enforcement and intelligence matters. These internal regulations and memoranda, and the norms they foster, acknowledge the President’s ultimate power and responsibility for law enforcement and intelligence while at the same time recognizing that in certain matters, the Executive branch needs internal divisions of authority that achieve a type of independence from presidential control. One example is the restrictions that every administration from Carter to Trump has placed on communications between DOJ (including the FBI) and the White House concerning law enforcement investigations and other matters. Another is the Special Counsel regulations that govern Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conduct and termination.

Independence and Accountability at the Department of Justice

Over the weekend some conservative commentators pushed back on my tweet-claim that President Trump has “threaten[ed] DOJ/FBI over and over in gross violation of independence

www.lawfaremedia.org

If those federal agencies are coopted or loose cannons that are dangerous to any others included elected officials, it really does not matter.

 

[Dragonlady]

I think you don't even get what you are reporting. This is the woman who dispassionately described Republicans as a "party of animals" and you pretend this is all academic SO nobody is going to take your advice and hand their mind over to her.

As to Presidential transition plans, I don't know one campaign in my life that didn't have one. Even Gov Dukakis, mega-loser and liberal to his toenails had one.

And you would be one of the first chucked out of a real debate for equating these two things, which even as you yourself report them ARE NOT THE SAME

On the one hand :


AND


THe only way that works even ab initio is if 'any agency that has a purpose ,whatever it is, also is a check on the executive --- but that is exactly why the founders divided government so that a non-executive branch can check an executive branch !!!

Interesting use of words Libby. Do you think that when we consider a hyptothesis that we are "handing our minds" over to someone???? Is that what YOU do or is that what YOU think is expected of you? The language we use to express our ideas tells others a great deal about us and that phrase speaks volumes about YOU.

The biggest problem the USA faces is that conservatives have STOPPED listening to ANYONE but the people who are lying to them for money and power, in large part because one of the first lies they tell you is that everyone else is lying to you but THEM.

Anyone who says that they're the ONLY ones who will tell you the truth, is flat out lying.

 

[berg80]

I think you don't even get what you are reporting. This is the woman who dispassionately described Republicans as a "party of animals" and you pretend this is all academic SO nobody is going to take your advice and hand their mind over to her.

No one one is asking you to. Though I understand your need to undermine her as a source of expert analysis on authoritarian movements. People are only asked to listen to her words to see if they reflect what is happening.

 

[Dragonlady]

If those federal agencies are coopted or loose cannons that are dangerous to any others included elected officials, it really does not matter.

Spoken like a true apologist for a dictator. If they're not sufficiently "loyal" to elected officials, that's the first test of whether they survive.

What about their value to the PEOPLE? What about the things the PEOPLE voted for? What if the destruction of the agency harms the American PEOPLE?????

Who is more important??? The American PEOPLE, or the "elected officials" who are supposedly working for THEM?????

 

[struth]

You have conflated the OLC's highly questionable policy guideline that a sitting prez can't be prosecuted while in office with a misconception about the degree to which the prez controls the DoJ. Traditionally, the DoJ has maintain necessary independence from the President. Until Trump that is.

For those who believe in a unitary executive, DOJ/FBI independence is a constitutional solecism. On this view, Article II vests the “executive power” in the President alone, and he alone wields it. That means that the President can do what he likes with his Executive branch subordinates—hire them, fire them, ignore them, order them to act in certain ways, and the like. The presidential authority to direct and control an administration is especially clear with respect to law enforcement and national security, the story goes, since the President himself has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and is the “Commander in Chief.”

This is a nice theory. Sometimes (though not often) I wish that it were so. But the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover, but here are a few relevant ones. The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power (including in the context of the Clinton-era independent counsel statute). The FBI Director’s ten-year term—through which Congress signaled that the Director has independence from electoral politics—raises the political stakes for a President who fires an FBI Director mid-term, as President Trump learned last year. And career civil servants below these senior political appointees (like just-retired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) have extensive legal protections against presidential firing.

Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.

Every presidency since Watergate has embraced policies for preserving DOJ and FBI independence from the President in certain law enforcement and intelligence matters. These internal regulations and memoranda, and the norms they foster, acknowledge the President’s ultimate power and responsibility for law enforcement and intelligence while at the same time recognizing that in certain matters, the Executive branch needs internal divisions of authority that achieve a type of independence from presidential control. One example is the restrictions that every administration from Carter to Trump has placed on communications between DOJ (including the FBI) and the White House concerning law enforcement investigations and other matters. Another is the Special Counsel regulations that govern Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conduct and termination.

Independence and Accountability at the Department of Justice

Over the weekend some conservative commentators pushed back on my tweet-claim that President Trump has “threaten[ed] DOJ/FBI over and over in gross violation of independence

www.lawfaremedia.org

Haha. No I am not, the DOJ isn’t independent of the executive branch, never has been. It’s part of it, it’s run by the president, who has all the executive power.

 

[struth]

Well that's not true. A President can't be prosecuted while in office, but can be impeached and removed from office, and can also be prosecuted once out of office, which is happening with Trump over January 6th.

Trump has asked the Supreme Court to lift these restrictions on the Presidency so that he cannot be prosecuted for anything he does while in office. He wants "absolute immunity". And he's not going to get it.

His lawyers have openly stated that Trump is asking for the power to order Seal Team 6 to murder his opposition, and have his orders carried out with full immunity for him from any consequences.

Does that sound like the kind of power that a man like Trump would use wisely? He's already said he's execute General Milley, prosecute Liz Cheney, and all of the Democrats, and declare martial law on Day 1, breaking out the military to supress any and all oppposition or protest.

But by all means. Continue to believe that THIS is what the American people will vote for.

Of course it’s true…a president isn’t a president when not in office…

 

[berg80]

No I am not, the DOJ isn’t independent of the executive branch, never has been.

That's a straight up lie.........or reflects an ignorance of the facts. See post #41.

Every presidency since Watergate has embraced policies for preserving DOJ and FBI independence from the President in certain law enforcement and intelligence matters. These internal regulations and memoranda, and the norms they foster, acknowledge the President’s ultimate power and responsibility for law enforcement and intelligence while at the same time recognizing that in certain matters, the Executive branch needs internal divisions of authority that achieve a type of independence from presidential control. One example is the restrictions that every administration from Carter to Trump has placed on communications between DOJ (including the FBI) and the White House concerning law enforcement investigations and other matters. Another is the Special Counsel regulations that govern Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conduct and termination.

 

[Kondor3]

I've said this elsewhere in recent times on this board...

Observing American domestic politics since 2015-2016...

And seeing the rapid degeneration and take-over of the Republican Party...

I now understand 1933 Germany much better than I once did...

God Save the Republic.

 

[jknowgood]

It is pretty much christanity's attempt at turning America into their version of saudi arabia. They'll ban all freedom and ability to live ones life and force everyone to bow to their narrow fucked up belief system. It is disgusting.

You can do what you want, just leave the kids out of it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Heritage Foundation — a well-funded, influential far-right group in Washington, DC — has been quietly vetting tens of thousands of arch-conservative acolytes to staff up the federal government under the next Republican administration as part of its "Project 2025" presidential transition plan. One scholar of authoritarian movements around the globe is sounding the alarm over what that would mean should former President Donald Trump win a second term in the White House.

During a Saturday segment on MSNBC, New York University professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat told host Ali Velshi that Project 2025 would effectively transform American government from a meritocratic democracy to a regime resembling Vladimir Putin's Russia. She pointed to Heritage's calls to eliminate numerous government agencies that serve as checks on the executive branch as merely one example.

"The essence of authoritarianism is removing restraints on the leader and making him immune from prosecution by domesticating government," Ben-Ghiat said. "And so some of what Project 2025 proposes, like abolishing the DOJ and the FBI is designed for that end, to make it impossible to prosecute Trump and allow him to commit crimes with impunity."

More at the link below...

'Essence of authoritarianism': Expert warns 'Project 2025' would create a Trump 'autocracy'

The Heritage Foundation — a well-funded, influential far-right group in Washington, DC — has been quietly vetting tens of thousands of arch-conservative acolytes to staff up the federal government under the next Republican administration as part of its "Project 2025" presidential transition...

www.alternet.org

Sounds ominous to me! What do you think?

Should have been done in 2017

Every person hired or promoted by Obama should have been fired and replaced on Day One

All the Generals Obama fired should have been hired to replace all the Generals Trump should have fired

Hopefully Trump’s next term he will be a vengeful, vindictive complete douchebag

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've said this elsewhere in recent times on this board...

Observing American domestic politics since 2015-2016...

And seeing the rapid degeneration and take-over of the Republican Party...

I now understand 1933 Germany much better than I once did...

God Save the Republic.

Biden’s FBI is knocking on doors over social media posts not in alignment with Progressive Ideology

 

[j-mac]

The Heritage Foundation — a well-funded, influential far-right group in Washington, DC — has been quietly vetting tens of thousands of arch-conservative acolytes to staff up the federal government under the next Republican administration as part of its "Project 2025" presidential transition plan. One scholar of authoritarian movements around the globe is sounding the alarm over what that would mean should former President Donald Trump win a second term in the White House.

During a Saturday segment on MSNBC, New York University professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat told host Ali Velshi that Project 2025 would effectively transform American government from a meritocratic democracy to a regime resembling Vladimir Putin's Russia. She pointed to Heritage's calls to eliminate numerous government agencies that serve as checks on the executive branch as merely one example.

"The essence of authoritarianism is removing restraints on the leader and making him immune from prosecution by domesticating government," Ben-Ghiat said. "And so some of what Project 2025 proposes, like abolishing the DOJ and the FBI is designed for that end, to make it impossible to prosecute Trump and allow him to commit crimes with impunity."

More at the link below...

'Essence of authoritarianism': Expert warns 'Project 2025' would create a Trump 'autocracy'

The Heritage Foundation — a well-funded, influential far-right group in Washington, DC — has been quietly vetting tens of thousands of arch-conservative acolytes to staff up the federal government under the next Republican administration as part of its "Project 2025" presidential transition...

www.alternet.org

Sounds ominous to me! What do you think?

MSNBC, And alternet, what a joke….

 

[Mac1958]

Spoken like a true apologist for a dictator.

If he wins, they'll stop hiding it. They'll have their Pinochet.

Imagine the Alt Right in control. The Founders continue to roll over in their graves.

 

[Dragonlady]

If he wins, they'll stop hiding it. They'll have their Pinochet.

Imagine the Alt Right in control. The Founders continue to roll over in their graves.

I'm reminded that Pinochet rounded up and arrested all of the leftist lawyers, teachers, and union leaders, and then murdered them in a soccer stadium. Trump's talk of arresting Democrats and executing General Milley for the treason of refusing to obey Trump's order to shoot protesters.

Of course Trump is just joking. It's all hyperbole. The MSM is just blowing it all out of proportion.

When someone tells you who he is, believe him.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Once more you have to look at the source MSNBC that never in it's freaking history had anything positive to say about republican candidates and the alleged "expert" NYU professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat. Hardly an unbiased gang.

You are you saying that project 2025 is not real? That MSNBC is just making this shit up

 

[struth]

That's a straight up lie.........or reflects an ignorance of the facts. See post #41.

Every presidency since Watergate has embraced policies for preserving DOJ and FBI independence from the President in certain law enforcement and intelligence matters. These internal regulations and memoranda, and the norms they foster, acknowledge the President’s ultimate power and responsibility for law enforcement and intelligence while at the same time recognizing that in certain matters, the Executive branch needs internal divisions of authority that achieve a type of independence from presidential control. One example is the restrictions that every administration from Carter to Trump has placed on communications between DOJ (including the FBI) and the White House concerning law enforcement investigations and other matters. Another is the Special Counsel regulations that govern Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conduct and termination.

No it’s straight up fact, Art 2, Section 1, the power of the executive vest in a President.

What branch of govt do you think the DOJ is in???

 

[Dragonlady]

Once more you have to look at the source MSNBC that never in it's freaking history had anything positive to say about republican candidates and the alleged "expert" NYU professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat. Hardly an unbiased gang.

Half of the on-air personalities on MSNBC are disaffected Republicans who have never said a disparaging word about ANY Republican President other than Donald Trump.