If there's a "Deep State", here's why they're afraid of Trump

We hear a lot about the "Deep State" that conservatives claim is opposed to President Trump. Two recent executive orders by President Trump show a reason why the deep state might be so strongly opposed to his presidency.

This article in Forbes summarizes the two executive orders and provides links to them. These executive orders instruct agencies to use formal rulemaking to guide regulations. Today too often agencies instead use informal guidance and often impose rules after the fact. Informal rulemaking is also too often used with implied threats of "investigation" if some agency guidance isn't followed. When I have talked to people subject to regulation (e.g. bankers) the major complaint about regulators is that the regulations aren't clear and often appear arbitrary.

Now let's hope these executive orders are implemented and that the next President doesn't quietly reverse them.

The Joshua Brown killing

Joshua Brown, a witness in the Amber Guyger murder trial in Texas, was killed a couple days. He was shot in the parking lot of his new apartment building. Original reports didn't make it clear whether it was a drive by shooting or if the killer(s) had stopped.

This killing is problematic in many ways. Mr. Brown had previously testified in the Amber Guyger trial. He was scheduled to testify in a civil trail against the Dallas Police Department over the Guyger murder. He was also involved in another murder trial against a man who allegedly killed one person and shot Mr. Brown in the foot outside a strip club.

A couple days after the shooting the Dallas police have made one arrest and have warrants for two other people. They claim that Mr. Brown was shot in a drug deal gone bad with the killers being three people who drove in from central Louisiana to do a deal with him. Mr. Brown got into an argument and altercation with one of the three and in the end Brown shot one and wounded one suspect while Brown was shot (not clear by which of the three suspects). Dallas police say a search of Brown's apartment resulted in a stash of drugs and cash.

What to make of all this. One thing is to apply the "48 hour rule" which says wait 48 hours (not ahard limit) after any event to see what's true or not true of often contradictory reports. That rule applies here and we're still hearing about new developments. Even so, it is clear several things will happen as this story plays out.

One is that the Dallas Police will be blamed for the whole thing. Immediately after the shooting there was strong speculation that this was a killing by police officers (or those acting for them) either in revenge for testifying against Guyger or to prevent Brown from testifying in the civil trial. The fact the Dallas Police investigated the case after requests they turn it over to somebody else won't help conspiracy theorists. It's easy to assume that the police planted the drugs in the apartment and have fabricated the charges against the three suspects to protect their own.

There will be obvious racial overtones since Joshua Brown is black. Thus there are statements about this showing the danger of being black in America. Even though the Dallas police chief is black any theories that the police are guilty of the shooting will likely also invoke Black Lives Matter and White Supremacy.

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot known about Joshua Brown (at least in the news stories so far). Nothing says he had a regular job, rather he is said to have managed "several Airbnb's". This brings up the question of how much money can be made managing an Airbnb property. It would also be a good public occupation for somebody dealing in illegal drugs, not to mention Airbnbs often being used by sex workers (so we may hear speculation that Joshua Brown was a pimp).

Still, this is all speculation. There are few facts and a lot of people trying to fit those facts into their predefined narrative.

Voting to start an impeachment inquiry

Impeachment is the big news story of the day. The House of Representatives has begun an impeachment inquiry but in a different manner as in the past. Rather than the whole House voting to begin an inquiry Speaker Nancy Pelosi, after long opposing impeachment, simply announced an inquiry.

In addition, the impeachment inquiry is about the Trump Ukraine phone call a few months ago which recently hit the news. Not about Russian collusion, obstruction of Mueller, or any of Trump's many other alleged misdeeds.

The timing and nature of the inquiry appears to say some interesting things about Democratic party politics:

First is Nancy Pelosi switching from opposing impeachment to supporting it. This happened when news reports were stating a majority of House Democrats supported impeachment. I remember a number around 150. Though not a majority of the House of Representatives this switch makes sense. If a majority of Democrats support impeachment there is a risk that those Democrats could challenge Pelosi as Speaker if she didn't start supporting impeachment.

The impeachment inquiry starting based on an announcement by Nancy Pelosi rather than a vote of the full House of Representatives (as has happened in the past) implies that support for an impeachment inquiry isn't as solid as it might be. While there are reports of 222 Democrats and a couple Republicans supporting an inquiry, enough to win a vote, it appears some of this support isn't as solid (or is not publicly as solid) as needed to win a public vote. Many Democrats in swing districts probably don't want to be on record as having voted for an impeachment inquiry. Some are likely saying they support an impeachment inquiry in relatively anonymous questions of support (to satisfy their left wing base) while not wanting to vote publicly.

Finally there are the grounds for impeachment. Several impeachment resolutions have been introduced in the House over the last 2 1/2 years. The charges in those resolutions range from Russian collusion to one that basically says "We don't like what he says". None of these resolutions or charges went anywhere.

Instead the impeachment resolution is based on a phone call between President Trump and the president of the Ukraine. In this Joe Biden's past dealings with Ukraine were mentioned, including a request that Ukraine investigate any wrongdoing by Biden or his son. Since Joe Biden is an announced candidate for president next year this has been seized on as an attempt to destroy a political opponent and an obvious "high crime or misdemeanor". Added to this are whistleblower complaints which have made a number of allegations, none of which have been substantiated (or, to be fair, investigated in many cases).

Why is it that the impeachment inquiry is being done without open votes and on the basis of a fairly recent charge which most people probably don't consider a big deal? After all, presidents negotiate with foreign leaders all the time and there are bound to be offers and conditions.

It seems today that Democrats are becoming desperate. Democrats promised to impeach President Trump since before his inauguration. They have made constant accusations of wrongdoing which have not panned out. It's now time for a new election and they are faced with the possibility that they may lose the 2020 election. It's time to hurry up and impeach, putting the onus on the Senate to try the impeachment. Democrats probably then see one the following results:

1. Senate Republicans refuse to hold an impeachment trial. This would spark a constitutional crisis and be very negative press for the Republican party.
2. President Trump resigns before the trial following the example of Richard Nixon. This is also very unlikely unless there's clear evidence of guilt and evidence a lot of Republican senators are willing to vote to convict.
3. The Senate holds a trial and acquits President Trump. This was Bill Clinton's approach. The hope here is the impeachment trial will so damage Trump he will lose reelection.
4. The Senate convicts Trump. In this case he will be out of office. This is the ultimate goal of the Democrats, something they've promised their base for 2 1/2 years.

The Democrats are playing a risky game here. Politically the United States is split in half, with one half considering Donald Trump to be the worst thing that's happened to the country and the other half strongly in favor of him. Trump's supporters might dislike some of his actions (I know of few people who like his use of Twitter) but they are in favor of many of his policies. These people have seen the obvious media bias and one sided reporting of the last few years and generally discount any negative Trump story. Trump's opponents tend to hate everything about him. They accept any negative story and discount anything positive.

If Democrats succeed in ousting President Trump or obviously cause him to lose the 2020 election based on the impeachment process they will create a large constituency, largely Hillary Clinton's "deplorables", who feel they are again being ignored by "coastal elites". These people are a prime constituency for the next charismatic candidate who challenges the "system".

If Democrats don't oust the President it isn't clear that impeachment is going to hurt him. Enough people believe that President Trump is being persecuted, especially if the charges don't pan out, that a failed impeachment might result in a backlash against Democrats at the polls.