Mediaboss Marketing

Are we really stuck with this guy? It's the question being asked around the globe, because Donald Trump's first week as president has made it all too clear: Yes, heisas crazy as everyone feared.

Remember those optimistic pre-inauguration fantasies? I cherished them, too. You know: "Once he's president, I'm sure he'll realize it doesn't really make sense to withdraw from all those treaties." "Once he's president, surely he'll understand that he needs to stop tweeting out those random insults." "Once he's president, he'll have to put aside that ridiculous campaign braggadocio about building a wall along the Mexican border." And so on.

Nope. In his first week in office, Trump has made it eminently clear that he meant every loopy, appalling word and then some.

The result so far: The president of China is warning against trade wars and declaring that Beijing will take up the task of defending globalization and free trade against American protectionism. The president of Mexico has canceled a state visit to Washington, and prominent Mexican leaders say that Trump's border wall plans "could take us to a war not a trade war." Senior leaders in Trump's own party are denouncing the new president's claims of widespread voter fraud and his reported plans to reopen CIA "black sites." Oh, and the entire senior management team at the U.S. Department of State has resigned.

Meanwhile, Trump's approval ratings are lower than those of any new U.S. president in the history of polling: Just 36 percent of Americans are pleased with his performance so far. Some 80 percent of British citizens think Trump will make a "bad president," along with 77 percent of those polled in France and 78 percent in Germany.

And that's just week one.

Thus the question: Are we truly stuck with Donald Trump?

It depends. There are essentially four ways to get rid of a crummy president. First, of course, the world can just wait patiently for November 2020 to roll around, at which point, American voters will presumably have come to their senses and be prepared to throw the bum out.

But after such a catastrophic first week, four years seems like a long time to wait. This brings us to option two: impeachment. Under the U.S. Constitution, a simple majority in the House of Representatives could vote to impeach Trump for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors." If convicted by the Senate on a two-thirds vote, Trump could be removed from office and a new poll suggests that after week one, more than a third of Americans are already eager to see Trump impeached.

If impeachment seems like a fine solution to you, the good news is that Congress doesn't need evidence of actual treason or murder to move forward with an impeachment: Practically anything can be considered a "high crime or misdemeanor." (Remember, former President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.) The bad news is that Republicans control both the House and the Senate, making impeachment politically unlikely, unless and until Democrats retake Congress. And that can't happen until the elections of 2018.

Anyway, impeachments take time: months, if not longer even with an enthusiastic Congress. And when you have a lunatic controlling the nuclear codes, even a few months seems like a perilously long time to wait. How long will it take before Trump decides that "you're fired" is a phrase that should also apply to nuclear missiles? (Aimed, perhaps, at Mexico?)

In these dark days, some around the globe are finding solace in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. This previously obscure amendment states that "the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments" can declare the president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," in which case "the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

This is option three for getting rid of Trump: an appeal to Vice President Mike Pence's ambitions. Surely Pence wants to be president himself one day, right? Pence isn't exactly a political moderate he's been unremittingly hostile to gay rights, he's a climate change skeptic, etc. but, unappealing as his politics may be to many Americans, he does not appear to actually be insane. (This is the new threshold for plausibility in American politics: "not actually insane.")

Presumably, Pence is sane enough to oppose rash acts involving, say, the evisceration of all U.S. military alliances, or America's first use of nuclear weapons - and presumably, if things got bad enough, other Trump cabinet members might also be inclined to oust their boss and replace him with his vice president. Congress would have to acquiesce in a permanent 25th Amendment removal, but if Pence and half the cabinet declared Trump unfit, even a Republican-controlled Congress would likely fall in line.

The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.

The principle of civilian control of the military has been deeply internalized by the U.S. military, which prides itself on its nonpartisan professionalism. What's more, we know that a high-ranking lawbreaker with even a little subtlety can run rings around the uniformed military. During the first years of the George W. Bush administration, for instance, formal protests from the nation's senior-most military lawyers didn't stop the use of torture. When military leaders objected to tactics such as waterboarding, the Bush administration simply bypassed the military, getting the CIA and private contractors to do their dirty work.

But Trump isn't subtle or sophisticated: He sets policy through rants and late-night tweets, not through quiet hints to aides and lawyers. He's thin-skinned, erratic, and unconstrained and his unexpected, self-indulgent pronouncements are reportedly sending shivers through even his closest aides.

What would top U.S. military leaders do if given an order that struck them as not merely ill-advised, but dangerously unhinged? An order that wasn't along the lines of "Prepare a plan to invade Iraq if Congress authorizes it based on questionable intelligence," but "Prepare to invade Mexico tomorrow!" or "Start rounding up Muslim Americans and sending them to Guantnamo!" or "I'm going to teach China a lesson with nukes!"

It's impossible to say, of course. The prospect of American military leaders responding to a presidential order with open defiance is frightening but so, too, is the prospect of military obedience to an insane order. After all, military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the president. For the first time in my life, I can imagine plausible scenarios in which senior military officials might simply tell the president: "No, sir. We're not doing that," to thunderous applause from TheNew York Timeseditorial board.

Brace yourselves. One way or another, it's going to be a wild few years.

Washington Post

Rosa Brooks is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a former Pentagon official. Her next book, "How Everything Became War," will be published by Simon & Schuster in August.

Related articles:

Trump's move to fire Sally Yates isis petulant and unsettling

The danger of Steve Bannon on the National Security Council

Trump's rash overreach on immigration

Donald Trump's constant lying threatens the American experiment

How Trump's immigration crackdown will backfire

Read more:

Are we really stuck with President Donald Trump? - Chicago Tribune

About 4 months ago, an attorney representing the administration of then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence stood in front of what amounted to a judicial firing squad.

You are so out of it, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner told Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, who was tasked with defending Pences decision to block aid to Syrian refugees coming to the state.

The state government already had lost the case in Indianapolis, where a federal district judge found that targeting only Syrians, but not refugees from other countries with the potential to produce terrorists, was unconstitutionaland amounted to discrimination based on national origin.The statetried, unsuccessfully, to overturn the ruling.

During a hearing in September on the appeal,two judges seemed more than critical of the governments arguments. Posner and Judge Frank Easterbrook, both of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago, fired barbs, at times sarcastically, at Fisher who argued over and over, but not to the judges satisfaction that the governors decision was a response to FBI Director James B. Comeys testimony before Congress that there were certain gaps in intelligence about refugees coming from Syria.

You dont think there are dangerous people from Libya, from Egypt, from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, from Greece and France and Germany, which have had terrorist attacks? Posner asked.

Indianas new governor has dealt another blow to his predecessors efforts to keep Syrian refugees from coming to the state. Gov. Eric Holcomb (R), who was hand-picked by Pence to succeed him when he became vice president, said in October that he will continue to allow refugees to find a safe haven in Indiana, the Indianapolis Star reported.

[Mike Pence wants to keep Syrian refugees out of Indiana. Theyre coming anyway.]

Critics say the legal battle in Indiana over Syrian refugees and President Trumps executive order barring migrants and refugees from seven predominantly Muslim nations from coming to the country appear to have a common theme painting an entire citizenry with the same brush. Thats contrary to legal principle, said David Orentlicher, a constitutional law professor at Indiana Universitys Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

In terms of the principles of our laws, its the idea that you be judged as an individual, said Orentlicher, a Democrat and a former member of the Indiana House.You know, not because youre part of a group. To treat Syrians and Iraqis and Iranians the same is inconsistent with our principle, that we judge your guilt or innocence based on yourself, what youve done, not what others have done.

Legal experts, however, say that the legal challenge Pence faced in Indiana was fundamentally different from what his new boss is likely to encounter as a result ofthe executive action perhaps Trumps most controversial directive so far.

Pences decision in Indiana, while also controversial, brought national attention to his conservative state. In an editorial published in the Star in November 2015, Pence defended his decision, saying his highest duty and first responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of the people of our state. But his actions were far more limited than Trumps and didnot appear to be an outright ban on refugees. Rather, his administration withheld money to prevent local agencies from resettling Syrian refugees who have already gone through a federal screening process.

The Indiana case also is unlikely to serve as a blueprint for how constitutional challenges to Trumps order will play out in court, legal experts say. For one thing, federal law governs immigration and refugee issues, and state governments cant interfere.

As president, Trump has broad authorityover implementing immigration policies. The federal government has more discretion to make distinctions based on countries of origin than states do, said Richard Primus, a constitutional law professor for the University of Michigan.

President Trump signed an executive order halting all refugees from entering the U.S. for 120 days, among other provisions. Here's what the order says. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

Trumpsunprecedented executive action applies to migrants and U.S. legal residents from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.Green-card and visa holders who happened to be en route to the United Stateswhen the order was signed were detained at airports over the weekend as administration officials implemented Trumpsdirective. Confusion remains over how expansive the order is. On Sunday, Trumps chief of staff, Reince Priebus, said on NBCs Meet the Press that green-card holders are not affected, contradicting what government officials had saidearlier.

Parts of Trumps executive action had already been put on hold byfederal judges in New York, California, Virginia, Seattle and Boston.Scholars told The Washington Posts Michael Kranish and Robert Barnesthatthe Trump administration is likely to face more legal challenges, including the argument that the presidents decision discriminates based on national origin.

In Indiana, U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Prattfound that Pence discriminated by halting aid forSyrian refugeeswho had already passed screening by the federal government.She also wrote in her ruling last February that withholding funds meant to provide social services for refugees in no way directly, or even directly, promotes the safety of Indiana citizens,the Star reported.

Why all Syrian refugees? Why does Indiana have a blanket screen? Pratt asked Fisher during an earlier hearing, the Star reported.

The appeals court judges in Chicago heard the case several months after Pratts ruling. The heated exchangebetween Fisher and the two judges, Posner and Easterbrook, lasted for nearly 20 minutes.

While Fisher was arguing that discrimination is not at play, Easterbrook chuckled.

When a state makes an argument thats saying were differentiating according to whether somebody is from Syria, but that has nothing to do with national origin, all it produces is a broad smile, he said.

Fisher kept repeating one main point that Pence was relying on statements by Comey about the lack of information aboutrefugees coming from Syria, and that no similar statements were made about people from other war-torn countries.

At one point, Posner asked if Syrians are the only Muslims whom Indiana fears.

This has nothing to do with religion, Fisher explained. This has to do with whats going on in Syria.

Oh, of course it does, Posner snapped back.

Oh, I object to that, your honor, Fisher said.

Look, if you look at the attacks, the terrorist attacks on the United States, 9/11, attacks in New York, Boston, San Bernardino, theyre all by Muslims. ISIS is Muslim. Al-Qaedawas Muslim. You understand that, dont you? Posner asked.

Posner, a Ronald Reagan appointee known for his forthright remarks, asked repeatedly why Indiana singled out Syrians. And, repeatedly, Fisher answered by going back to what Comey said about Syrian refugees.

Look, I asked you whether the FBI director has said the United States is perfectly secure against foreign terrorists unless theyre from Syria, Posner said.

No, of course not, Fisher responded.

[Jihadist groups hail Trumps travel ban as a victory]

The rest of the oral argument was continuing the cycle of the same question and the same answer. After several back-and-forth jabs, Posner said, Honestly, you are so out of it.

In an opinion denying the appeal, Posner called the states casea nightmare speculation.

The governor of Indiana believes, though without evidence, that some of these people were sent to Syria by ISIS to engage in terrorism and now wish to infiltrate the United States to commit terrorist acts here, he wrote.

Posners words reflect some of the same criticisms and questions faced by the Trump administration.

That is something that worries the Supreme Court when you take this kind of action that really interferes with peoples lives, Orentlicher said. They want the policy to be well-tailored to the problem. Thats a very important consideration for the court, if it decides that there are rights that can be asserted.

None of theterrorists responsible for fatal attacks on the United Statesin the past 15 yearscame from the countries identified by Trumps order. For instance, 15 of the 19 attackers believed to have been involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were from Saudi Arabia. Others were born in Egypt, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and the United States.

Trump defended the order Saturday, saying it has nothing to do with religion and does not constitute a Muslim ban. The countries he named have been previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terrorism.

During the campaign in December 2015, Trump called for a total and complete ban on Muslims entering the country. Pence, who at that time was not yet Trumps vice presidential pick, saidin a tweet that banning Muslims is offensive and unconstitutional.

Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which sued the state, said attorneys for Indiana have asked for some time to determine whether Trumps executive orders have any effect on the case.

READ MORE:

Democrats will attempt to rescind Trumps travel ban

Unnamed White House official on implementing travel ban: It really is a massive success story.

Originally posted here:

The time Gov. Pence tried to block Syrian refugees and failed miserably - Washington Post

WASHINGTON U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and Jordan's King Abdullah on Monday discussed a range of issues from speeding up the fight against Islamic State, the crisis in Syria, and efforts to reach an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, the White House said.

Abdullah, the first Arab leader to hold talks with the new administration, also raised the issue of potential changes to the U.S. embassy in Israel, the White House said in a statement.

President Donald Trump is expected to greet Abdullah at a prayer event in Washington on Thursday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer separately told reporters in a daily briefing.

(Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; Writing by Susan Heavey; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

WASHINGTON Nationals from the seven Muslim-majority countries temporarily blocked from entering the United States by President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration may not be granted admission any time soon, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said on Tuesday.

PARIS French police searched presidential candidate Francois Fillon's office in parliament on Tuesday as an inquiry into alleged fake work by his wife threatened his campaign and party leaders began to consider a 'Plan B' without him.

BAGHDAD The next round of United Nations-based peace talks on Syria have been scheduled for February 20, British ambassador to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft said on Tuesday.

View original post here:

Pence, Jordan's Abdullah discuss Islamic State, Syria, US embassy in Israel: White House - Reuters

Newser

JK Rowling Goes Biblical on Mike Pence Newser On Sunday, Rowling retweeted a December 2015 tweet in which Mike Pence said "calls to ban Muslims from entering the US are offensive and unconstitutional," per Mashable. Rowling's commentary on Pence's tweet was a single biblical quote: "For what will ... JK Rowling slams Mike Pence with a Bible verseAOL News all 5 news articles »

More:

JK Rowling Goes Biblical on Mike Pence - Newser

WASHINGTON A little less than a mile down Massachusetts Avenue from the vice presidents residence, on the strip known as Embassy Row, is the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.

The mosque was dedicated by President Dwight Eisenhower. Its the house of worship where President George W. Bush went six days after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to declare Islam is peace and reassure Muslims in America that they should not live in fear.

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger dont represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior, Bush said.

Sunday evening, hundreds of Americans who felt that President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence had forgotten that message rallied in the dusk to remind them, marching up the hill from the mosque to Pences new home bearing candles.

They wanted to tell Muslims they are welcome, and speak out against Trumps executive order barring people from seven Muslim countries from entering the U.S.

Starting here in front of the mosque in D.C., a block over from the vice presidents residence, is very symbolic, said Shalani Malaki, an immigrant of Nigerian and Indian descent.

I wanted to come out today to stand up to the hate thats been shown by President Trump and his administration so far, said Sean Redding of D.C., who had also marched earlier near the White House as numerous other demonstrations blossomed all over the country.

I think America is a kind country, and Im feeling that today, Redding said.

Pence probably did not hear the chants of Shame! Shame! Shame! and No hate, no fear, everyone is welcome here. He might have noticed the flashing lights of the police escorts, or the horns of passing cars honking in support.

Either way, the marchers wanted to show the new administration and people who might want to come to America that immigrants are still welcome.

We are here to support all immigrants and refugees who are trying to enter our country, said Gillian Singer, a Tulane University student from Maryland who brought her parents along to protest.

Being Jewish, and seeing these kind of xenophobic, racist bans, this kind of just craziness, it worries me, it really frightens me about what this man will do, said her father, Paul Singer.

The Singers, like many others in the throng, pledged that Trump and Pence would be hearing from them again, and often.

We have to keep reminding ourselves that this isnt normal, and we need to keep fighting back, Gillian Singer said. All I have to say to Donald Trump is welcome to the next four years.

More:

Protesters March From D.C. Mosque To Mike Pence's House - Huffington Post