Sunlit7 op
Sometimes I can't quite get it when Trump says something the media will grab onto the least of it and run with it. Reminds me of a couple of weeks ago Nancy Pelosi came out of wherever she has been hiding making comments on abortion. People grabbed onto aspects of the conversation but never noticed she said conservatives who complain about abortions don't realize they benefit the most from it, or some insane thing along that line. Being that African Americans are high on the list of people seeking abortions, I was sort of blown backwards by the comment. The other day Trump was ridiculed for a statement he made during the debate with Biden on illegal immigrants taking black jobs. Nobody paid any attention to the overall statement and were consumed with exactly what is a black job.
> "His big kill on the Black people is the millions of people that he's allowed to come in through the border. They're taking Black jobs now," Trump said of Biden's immigration policies. "It could be 18, it could be 19 and even 20 million people. They’re taking Black jobs, and they’re taking Hispanic jobs, and you haven’t seen it yet, but you’re gonna see something that’s going to be the worst in our history.” <a href = "https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/trump-black-jobs-presidential-debate-online-outrage/85-df663ed2-8b9d-4d4f-bce4-a674b4506dbd">
His big kill on the black people comes off like Biden is some sort of kill joy in that department. Trump's comment that if he's not re-elected, we'll see death and destruction of the likes never seen in this country has had me quip in comments before that any build back better scenario seen in this country would see the Bronx getting the Ukraine-Gaza treatment. But I digress from getting too far off track here despite the latter half of the statement could seemingly fall along a similar line.
I often tell people that Trump loves telling people the real truth. It's often, as with the article, hidden behind a mound of distractions, like what is a black job. Nobody stops to ask what he meant by what it is we haven't seen yet that will be worst in our history. Whatever it is it will have to outpace the Revolutionary War, Civil War or 9-11 to be the worst thing in our history. Maybe another great depression? Our first nuclear hit? An overthrow of our government? Given the current global climate any of those are feasible but if you are listening to the prevailing winds, the last on the list appears to be where the winds are blowing. Later I will get into the preliminary groundwork that was being laid but will focus for a moment where those winds are starting to howl louder. You have the preliminary groundwork laid, now you need the legal precedent to be established that enforces it.
I've been saying now for months that come 2025, that some government workers still working from home are going to get pink slipped. A lot of what has been taking place the last few years is that one action proceeds into another. The pandemic was the perfect excuse to empty offices for someone else just to walk into. Where this appears to be going doesn't necessitate that an office be empty, just that in the event of a large turnover in government, it just makes it an easier transition. Trump, who likes to come off sounding like he's a racist, really isn't a racist, that's if one doesn't consider there's a racist overture wanting the cheapest labor. An example of this I give to people is when viewing photos of Trump properties of those doing menial labor, to bring me back one that doesn't show people of color. So far no one has. When it comes to paying the lowest wage for menial labor, there isn't a racist bone in Trump's body. When you are going to reduce the cost of white-collar workers, there's really no equality, equity and inclusion involved, that's just the cover. Just as these calls of political prosecutions are just the cover that will lay the legal framework that is going to allow them to legally bring the powers within the executive branches to heel and overturn of employees to those of like mindedness. The checks and balances within our government on constitutional rights will increasingly become harder to enforce. This will come to fruition under the cover of the precedent set by the supreme court under the call of political prosecutions.
To further reiterate the political prosecution calls were a deliberate set up to set in motion a supreme court precedent, one has to go back to 2017 when James Sherk, domestic policy council member under the Trump administration recommended as part of what was quoted as a laundry list of policy proposals. One of those policy proposals was a legal theory for what was termed the Constitutional option, that the president, under Article 2 had the power to dismiss any federal employee for any reason.
>Members of the Trump administration did push for more sweeping approaches to the federal civil service, however. Then-Domestic Policy Council member James Sherk recommended as part of an internal laundry list of policy proposals that officials seek legal justification for what he called the “Constitutional option,” a legal theory that the president has power through Article II to dismiss any federal employee for any reason. Last year, Sherk published a report reiterating that proposal for the America First Policy Institute. <a href = "https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2022/03/trump-threatening-return-and-expansion-schedule-f/363145/">
What one is looking for in the underlying intent to turn the Constitutional Option from a legal theory into a supreme court precedent was what the supreme court had to say about this:
>(i) The indictment alleges that as part of their conspiracy to
overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election,
Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace
their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors.
According to the indictment, Trump met with the Acting Attorney
General and other senior Justice Department and White House officials to discuss investigating purported election fraud and sending a
letter from the Department to those States regarding such fraud. The
indictment further alleges that after the Acting Attorney General resisted Trump’s requests, Trump repeatedly threatened to replace him.
>The Government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations
regarding the Justice Department involve Trump’s use of official
power. The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive
and preclusive” authority. The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate
and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime.
Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove
the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750.
The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were
shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President
of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the
alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials. Pp. 19–21.
The key words in all that are: "And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove
the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.", and "do not divest the President
of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials"
What that entails when it came to this judgement on behalf of the supreme court is the moments described when Trump sat down with officials, including Bill Barr, to discuss election fraud and requesting of Barr to send letters to states from the justice department on those allegations of fraud and Barr refused, it was well within the confines of Trump's constitutional authority to make such a request and to consider Barr's refusal to do such as being insubordinate. As such under the constitutional powers of the presidency, he had every right to not only threaten but to fire Barr for being insubordinate. The justice department has exclusive authority to decided which crimes it will investigate and prosecute but the management of the department by the executive branch requires him (the president) to have unrestricted power to remove
what he considers acts of being subordinate. That is where Sherk's Constitutional Option starts to take ground. This, under the supreme court ruling is private, protected, confidential conversations between the executive branches of government for which under a president's constitutional authority he cannot be prosecuted for. It would hinder a president's ability to fearlessly and fairly execute the duties of his office if he lived under constant fear of prosecution according to the supreme court. This immunity from prosecution for acts under a president's constitutional authority stands as long as it's not obviously and openly determined to be beyond his scope of a president's constitutional authority. Questioning a president's motives, or the questioning of those surrounding the conversation are private events, protected under constitutional authority, as such, those conversations are exempt from discovery by the courts and the public at large and provide a range of prosecutorial protected immunity to the president.
Not all acts surrounding any particular event though, are protected by immunity. Public discourse and actions on the matter, the court has determined, has to be sorted out by lower courts if those acts were performed under a president's official duties when engaging to the public, or outside the scope of an official duty when taken. But what they can't do in making such determinations, is involve any discussions or testimonies given by individuals between the executive branches of the government. So, they cannot try to collaborate as evidence between what was spoken officially as a private matter to what was spoken publicly on a matter, what was spoken publicly also has to be weighed by a court as official or not official engagement.
This becomes the underlying objective for taking an ex-president through these trials and tribulations. The open public acknowledgement, understanding of the legal precedent of what is the often-heard phrase lately, "on day one". On day one the public can witness the start of a purge of government officials from office, and the supreme court just ruled there isn't, as Michael Moore has expressed in opinion, a god damn thing you can do about it, it will be too late. Not that Michael Moore was warning of what would happen, he just knows how it was all being scripted. On day one they are going to bring the government to heel against your constitutionally protected rights by installing a government of likeminded people. This is far beyond the scope of bringing the so-called deep state down. Like Moore said there won't be anything you can do about it, you won't even be able to question it, because it all falls under the realm of the protected constitutional authority invested under the president now legally established by the supreme court. When Trump says you haven't seen it yet, but you're going to see something that's the worst in our history, he's talking about a complete overthrow of our government granted by a greater constitutional authority upon one man than bestowed upon any other man.
You have to admit it's pretty disgustingly genius to use the constitution to outsmart the constitution in an overthrow of a government. When any president walks into office they can engage in conversations where their motive(s) can't be questioned and anyone not of like mindedness to that discussion can be shown the exit door. When the dissenting supreme court justices and the media get done bellowing out every conceivable option granted under that presidential immunity of executive constitutional authority, you'll be completely indoctrinated to the latitude and longitude of your unanswerable questions.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. That just deals with the power of authorities within the executive federal branches, and your lack of power to question it thereof. Getting rid of the underlings of unlike mindedness and those beholding to nonpartisan positions is a whole different ball game. The same James Sherk mentioned above who wanted to seek legal justification for the Constitutional Option also wanted to start a new category called Schedule F that would exempt federal employees from codified job protections. The majority of civil service workers are covered under those protections. Schedule F would make any federal employee with policy and oversight positions exempt from job protections and move them into Schedule F position as at will workers who could be more easily fired. Sherk contended that moving these employees into a new Schedule F position would make them more accountable to the white house thus more accountable to the American people. In October 2020 Trump signed an executive order creating Schedule F.
> Trump created Schedule F in an October 2020 executive order. Under that order, federal workers involved in “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making and policy-advocating positions” — a vague description that would include at least tens of thousands of people — would be stripped of their civil service protections and reclassified as “at-will” appointees, meaning they could be hired or fired for any reason, or none at all. <a href = "https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-chilling-trump-plan-that-could-pave-the-way-for-authoritarianism/ar-BB1o2O5p?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2eb2f102b2184f3cb92dfc19718fad04&ei=90">
The order mandated that within one hundred twenty days of the order that agency heads compile a list of employees who'd fall within the perimeters of the new schedule F. Sherk contended it would be a small percentage of employees that would qualify to go on the list, but some agency heads stated it found it would be as high as sixty nine percent of their employees. Critics of the plan complained that such a move would force employees to bend to the will of a political party and would keep employees from speaking out for fear of losing their jobs. When Biden came into office, he rescinded Schedule F and sat into motion policies that would make it harder to try and change civil service job protections. There though is nothing that stops a future administration from abolishing those policies and putting schedule F back into motion.
Under a FOIA request by groups National Treasury Employees and American Oversight reinforced what the government accountability office review stated that schedule F lists could contain as many as sixty nine percent of some federal office employees.
>The agency that found over two-thirds of its workers could be reclassified was the very policy-focused Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Personnel Management — the executive branch’s human resource’s office, and the office that would be responsible for actually overseeing the reclassification of workers under Schedule F — had approved the reclassification of OMB jobs ranging from IT specialists and office managers to attorneys, policy analysts and economists, according to government records obtained by the National Treasury Employees Union and the watchdog group American Oversight.
The very public claim by Trump that reclassifying employees will be used to bring the deep state to heel falls flat on its face because intelligence officers are not protected by civil employee protections.
>“We will pass critical reforms making every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States,” Trump said. “The deep state must and will be brought to heel.”
The information given under the FOIA to National Treasury Employees and American Oversight was limited in its scope as to how much work had already progressed on the reclassifications. Given the heightened awareness that any future administration can rescind Biden's order and policies, they requested of the Biden administration under the FOIA all documents pertaining to Schedule F. After exhausting all avenues under the FOIA request, they moved to sue the Biden administration in court. COMPLAINT: AMERICAN OVERSIGHT V. OPM – SCHEDULE F COMMUNICATIONS AND GUIDANCE <a href = "https://www.americanoversight.org/document/complaint-american-oversight-v-opm-schedule-f-communications-and-guidance">
>But the documents provide just a glimpse at the changes Schedule F could bring.
> “We don’t know yet what we don’t know, which is why we’re going to court,” said Ron Fein, chief counsel for American Oversight, which has sued the Biden administration to release more records related to Schedule F.
They have every right to be concerned about it. Last year republicans in both the house and senate introduced legislation to make every executive branch employee at will.
>Last year,Republicans in both the House and Senate introduced legislation to make every executive branch employee “at-will.” And multiple former Republican presidential candidates expressed support for Schedule F, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who as a presidential candidate said of the so-called deep state, “We’re going to start slitting throats on day one.”
Again, intelligence officers are exempt from civil employee protections. They can already be fired at will. This isn't surprising witnessing another cover to meet an objective. We only have to look at Sherk's comments from years ago to plainly see how that objective was met, clearly both parties worked hand in hand to bring about the calls of political prosecution to achieve the point where the Constitutional Option ended up at the supreme court to go from a legal theory to a supreme court precedent. It's also wouldn't be surprising to find democrats and republicans working hand in hand again with the mention of the American First Institute mentioned above. I wrote an opinion piece two years ago that showed the Trump born institute have been working hand in hand with democrats sneaking in and out of doors in New York City. "Hooked, Lined and Sinkered: The True Underbelly Of Trump" <a href = "https://hive.blog/deepdives/@sunlit7/hooked-lined-and-sinkered-the-true-underbelly-of-trump"> On day one they fully plan to implement their America First Policies, not Americans, America.
Even when faced with the excuses that moving federal employees to at will make it easier to get rid of unproductive employees or reduce an over bloated bureaucracy fails as states that have moved to at will employment there hasn't been an increase of people fired or a reduction in state jobs. Other risk factors involved here are the loss of menial government jobs to cheap foreign labor, or importation of degreed workers willing to work for less, likely hired through temporary employment agencies alleviating the government from paying a living wage, benefits, workers compensation and unemployment funding. There has to be some significance to the repeated phrase "on day one", whether an overthrow or an overhaul, I wouldn't want to be any number of those federal employees still working from home when the call comes that you've been replaced, maybe even replaced by one of those foreign occupants living in buildings in NYC that AOC says Americans have no right to know what they are doing in there, might just be they are being trained to take over your job.
People are becoming increasingly aware of the deceit, not just by our elected officials, but among global leaders. Russian diesel fuel shipped into Europe up until last year, natural gas being supplied to some European countries, including France, German companies helping Russia to rebuild in Russian occupied cities. Jared Kushner admitting he'd been engaged with the current administration on the implementation of the Abraham Accords. Now the sham prosecution of an ex-president to accomplish an established legal precedent. Ron Fein, chief counsel for American Oversight, quote "“We don’t know yet what we don’t know" should serve as caution with this global political swing back to the right, because it definitely doesn't mean we are winning.