Is that a rat we smell?
I was thinking of Rachel Brand’s departure as another humiliation for Trump, but that appears to be wrong.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/962448787380883457
Going to Walmart did seem like a squalid option, but I didn’t push it beyond that.
https://twitter.com/SRMillar3/status/962449942219341824
Oh. Duh. Of course.
The search is on for a replacement for Brand who will happily fire Mueller if asked…or else already waiting in the wings.
At length corruption, like a gen’ral flood, / So long by watchful ministers withstood., / Shall deluge all; and av’rice, creeping on, / Spread like a low-born mist, and blot the sun;
Pope’s Epistle to Allen Lord Bathurst
I don’t really follow Tribe’s logic here.
Brand’s departure doesn’t leave Rosenstein “exposed” in any sense that I can see. Brand’s willingness to disobey Trump (and that’s an open question) only matters if Rosenstein gets fired anyway.
I suppose Tribe is implicitly claiming that Brand’s (presumed) refusal to fire Mueller would somehow save Rosenstein, on the theory that Trump would be willing to order Rosenstein to fire Mueller, and to fire Rosenstein for refusing to carry out that order, but would balk at firing Brand, too. Which I don’t buy. He’s already shown with the firing of Yeats that he’s willing to fire any career DOJ people who refuse to carry out his orders. If Trump decides he’s willing to take the hit for firing Mueller, then he’ll fire as many DOJers as it takes to find one who will play Bork to his Nixon.
It’s not like Fox News would rally around Rachel Brand. They’d happily throw her under the bus just like every other conservative who has dared to stand up to Trump.
I think it’s easy for Lawrence Tribe, from his safely tenured (and well-paid) perch, to throw stones at Brand. He’s asking her to continue working in a terrible environment (at a salary that, while a lot better than the average American’s, is not better than the average person with her credentials), waiting for the day when she’s put in a very difficult position, and then get fired for it and endure public attacks and probably death threats from Trump’s supporters.
And I don’t see anything suspicious about the Walmart offer. Brand is pretty well-qualified for a GC position, and pretty well-connected to boot. The only thing that’s atypical here is that she’s leaving DOJ just months after this promotion, but that’s pretty well explained by the circus.
Well I think the basic idea is that the more people he has to fire the more risky that is for him. Like everyone else, I don’t know how real that “risk” actually is, given how abject nearly all the Republicans are being. We don’t know. Nobody knows. We’re reduced to examining entrails. Will Flake and McCain and Collins and maybe a few more stand up and say No along with the Dems? Or will they stick with the party of tax cuts for the rich? Nobody knows.
But each hurdle is a separate hurdle. Each firing is a risk. If a known Trump-slave moves into Brand’s slot, maybe that makes firing Rosenstein less risky – or maybe it doesn’t, because there is no real risk, because the Republicans will protect him no matter what he does.
But as for criticizing Brand for moving to WalMart – come on. That kind of thing is wide open to criticism, yes even by “well paid” academics [do you actually know that he’s extraordinarily well paid by the standards of the profession?] in tenured jobs. Sure, the public sector pays much less than the for-profit sector, as everyone knows, but how is that a reason not to frown on moving from one to the other?
Will McCain stand up and say No? Well, if he does he needn’t worry about repercussions from Trump.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/02/11/can-meghan-mccain-really-naive/
Obviously it’s “fair” to criticize Brand in the sense that she’s a not-terribly-prominent-but-still-a-public-figure-for-now; I’m not saying that it’s some gross breach of etiquette or invasion of privacy. But there’s something odd to me about Tribe’s implication (and yours) that there is some kind of duty to remain in public office — and if that isn’t your implication, then what is there to “frown upon”?
I don’t want to lionize all public service jobs — especially prosecutorial-type ones – the way we have exalted military, police, fire, etc. I don’t know Brand’s motivations specifically, but people often take those positions as entry routes to politics, or as a way of promoting a political agenda (one that the rest of us may or may not agree with), and as a result those jobs tend to have their nonpecuiary rewards and don’t, I think, need to be put on a pedestal or treated as a grand sacrifice. So we certainly don’t need to throw her a parade just for spending a dozen years or so in the DOJ over three administrations. But it is still public service, and I don’t think anybody is obligated to do it for one second longer than they want to, or should be judged for “only” spending over a decade in government jobs.
It’s like a teacher who decides, after years working in public schools, to take a better-paid position at a private school: perhaps it would be more noble to stay at the low-paid position, but I don’t feel comfortable judging or criticizing someone who chooses not to.
I wasn’t suggesting that Tribe is overpaid relative to his profession given his (excellent) reputation as a scholar. I’m sure he’s worth every penny and then some. I simply meant that a tenured HLS professor makes more money than even the #3 at DOJ, even without counting the side consulting/publishing gigs that professors can and do take. And I find it a little presumptuous for Tribe to suggest that someone else making less money than him shouldn’t take a better-paying job.
One thing about all this firing thing – it’s clear that Trump enjoys saying “You’re fired!”, and he may still see that as a large part of the new “role” he is playing in his new reality show. So I doubt that he would have many compunctions about firing; it’s just a question of (1) whether his staff can keep a leash on him; and (2) whether the Republicans are willing to let him destroy the government. Since so many of the Republicans have themselves stated the desire to destroy the government, I suspect there is no real downside for Trump in mouthing his favorite phrase over and over again, and I have no doubt that he assumes there will be the same sort of applause and audience share every time he says it.
And the problem is, he is probably right. His constituents are eating this up. And while his constituency is a small portion of the American public as a whole, it is large enough to throw elections to the Dems if they desert the Republican party in a huff over their treatment of Trump (real or perceived).
Screechy
Yes…I don’t disagree with any of that, I guess, and yet…because of what’s going on right now I think there is at least a moral quandary. If it’s true that her being in that job is an obstacle to Trump’s firing Mueller, then her departure could have terrible consequences. That’s not “fair” but it is the situation (if it’s true etc). It’s a bit like being of draft age in 1939 in the UK or 1941 in the US. Or it’s simply like the draft in general.
Or, you know, it’s just the very familiar tagline – Ilsa I’m no good at being noble but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Brand’s career plans=the problems of three little people.
Ophelia,
Fair enough. These are extraordinary times, and we sure could use some people willing to go (or stay) out on a limb.
Also, I just read an article that noted another scenario, where Rosenstein is forced to recuse himself due to his own involvement in the Comey firing, in which case Brand (or her replacement, or in the absence of one, the Solicitor General) is in charge of Mueller without Trump having had to do anything.
Urrggh.
The SG is pro-Trump.