They know their plan is not legal and not moral

I watched the funeral for President Jimmy Carter this morning. In all a fitting tribute to the great man. I was amused and a bit annoyed that the church officials, in their prayers, referred to him as “James” and not “Jimmy.” Carter was the one who insisted he take the oath of office beginning with “I, Jimmy Carter.” I was also annoyed that the CBS commentators took the moments of music to talk, to share their useless observations. I wanted to hear the music. Thankfully, at each musical moment they talked less and let us listen more. Seven people gave eulogies. Carter’s predecessor Gerald Ford had written one that his son Steve Ford read. Carter’s VP Walter Mondale had also written one that his son read (I didn’t catch the name). Both eulogies talked about how they became solid friends with Carter. Stuart Eizenstat, a staffer in the Carter White House said we should evaluate a presidency by how his policies and programs have lasted through time. By that measure Carter’s presidency did quite well. Rev. Andrew Young (he has his own long list of accomplishments) did a good job. I was disappointed in Biden’s eulogy – it seemed to be a lot of recycled cliches. Grandsons Joshua and Jason Carter talked about their grandfather. Jason gave the best eulogy of the bunch. Jason said his grandfather was the same in public as he was in private, demonstrating his integrity and authenticity. The hearse arrived about 20 minutes before the service and the casket was kept in it until the service started. An honor guard also stood in the cold with a wind strong enough the soldier with the presidential flag struggled to hold on to it. Yes, a fitting tribute. Oliver Willis of Daily Kos reported that Mark Zuckerberg, head of Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, announced the company will no longer use independent fact checkers. He claims he is a big defender of free speech, as is the incoming Oval Office occupant. Yeah, that’s a similar reason Musk gave to fire the moderators in what was then Twitter. And his claim about the nasty guy being a defender of free speech is laughable. Another reason for the change: Fact checkers are too politically biased. Does this confirm reality has a liberal bias? Zuckerberg said Meta would use the same idea used on X, that individuals can post corrections and then they are voted on.

But in practice, very few users see these notes, which are easily manipulated, and they are published after misinformation has been widely circulated. Meta’s announcement that it is pursuing the same model to deal with misinformation as Musk likely means that the company’s platforms will be awash with lies, bigotry, and other content that misinforms the public. ... Ditching fact checking is the most Trump-like behavior that Meta could embrace and is another sign that tech and media leaders are lining up behind the incoming administration and against an informed public.

Not surprisingly, this came after Zuck visited Mar-a-Lago and donated to the inaugural committee. I wrote after the election that the nasty guy’s base won’t turn on him, no matter how bad their lives get, because they won’t know he was the cause of their oppression. This is another reason why they won’t know. In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted a few articles describing Zuck’s change. Kev also quoted Jordi Pérez Colomé of El País in English talking to disinformation researcher Renee DiResta about the difference between “misinformation” and “propaganda.” I’ll summarize: In the case of misinformation when more accurate information is presented a person would change their mind. So most of what we’ve been calling misinformation is really propaganda. Jan Sorensen posted a cartoon on Kos about corporations cozying up to the nasty guy with the key line: “It’s almost as if capitalism doesn’t have a problem with a dark authoritarian future.” I had written that Rep. Nancy Mace had proposed a transgender bathroom ban that would affect only new Rep. Sarah McBride. The new House convened. They elected Mike Johnson as speaker again (after a couple members switched votes to him). And they adopted the rules that are to be followed for this Congress. Alix Breeden of Kos reported that Mace’s ban is not in the rules. Was Mace snubbed? Did other Republicans back away from the bathroom ban? Or are they all relying on statement Johnson said a couple months ago that there is a ban? When Johnson announced the ban it was not accompanied by any House approval. Amanda Becker of The 19th, in an article posted on Kos, wrote about how Project 2025 could get implemented. The nasty guy has already nominated to important positions several key people who were authors of the project. Likely many of them will be confirmed. One of the authors is Russell Vought, nominated to lead the Office of Management and Budget. Vought’s vision for the OMB, according to Bel Olinsky of the Center for American Progress, is “to basically change the plumbing so they can do whatever they want without any meaningful checks and balances” during Trump’s second term. Vought has said his goals are to destroy diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives (unknown whether that’s in government or across the country, likely both) and to advance Christian Nationalism. Vought sees his purpose is to ensure all policy initiatives are in sync with his goals and to stop plans veering off course. He has two ways to guide wayward policies. First, by eliminating dissent within agencies. Second by withholding money appropriated by Congress for programs he and the nasty guy don’t support. That first goal is to be accomplished by reclassifying federal employees, turning 50,000 jobs from being career jobs to being political jobs. Then firing those who aren’t loyal to the nasty guy. As for the second, yes, the Constitution says Congress controls the purse. The executive branch is to spend money in the manner Congress directs. More below. Vought’s alignment with Christian Nationalism means implementing Project 2025’s call for restricting abortion and removing policies that support LGBTQ families. He would also work to turn the FBI into a political entity to settle scores and help with deportations. Project 2025 says all its goals are to be done by executive action. No Congressional oversight needed. Here’s the “more below.” Back at the end of November Molly Redden of ProPublica, in an article posted on Kos, explained what the nasty guy and Vought plan to do. The idea is called impoundment. The name refers to a president deciding to “impound” or not spend money he deems wasteful. The nasty guy would use it to cut the vast array of government services Musk and Ramaswamy want to make disappear. Most of the examples of impoundment are cases where Congress left details up to the President. When Jefferson was president Congress said the number of gun boats to be purchased should not exceed 15 and the price should not exceed $50,000. Jefferson decided zero fit within what Congress authorized.

President Richard Nixon took impoundment to a new extreme, wielding the concept to gut billions of dollars from programs he simply opposed, such as highway improvements, water treatment, drug rehabilitation and disaster relief for farmers. He faced overwhelming pushback both from Congress and in the courts. More than a half dozen federal judges and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the appropriations bills at issue did not give Nixon the flexibility to cut individual programs. Vought and his allies argue the limits Congress placed in 1974 are unconstitutional, saying a clause in the Constitution obligating the president to “faithfully execute” the law also implies his power to forbid its enforcement.

To me that sounds like Alice in Wonderland style reasoning. “Faithfully execute” is supposed to mean carry out and enforce every detail of the law. It doesn’t mean prevent a law from being fulfilled. The Supremes confirmed my understanding back in 1838. But this will likely be the first case the nasty guy takes to the Supremes and this court is quite different from the court in 1974 or 1838.

Vought was also a top architect of the controversial Project 2025. In private remarks to a gathering of MAGA luminaries uncovered by ProPublica, Vought boasted that he was assembling a “shadow” Office of Legal Counsel so that Trump is armed on day one with the legal rationalizations to realize his agenda. “I don’t want President Trump having to lose a moment of time having fights in the Oval Office about whether something is legal or doable or moral,” Vought said.

Note that last bit. The nasty guy and Vought know what they want to do is not legal. They know what they want to do is not moral. They intend to do it anyway.