For those who are interested in Cuba and Cuban affairs, I am delighted to pass along recent research and writing about both made available through the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE). The articles, essays and other work, with links, follow below.
 |
| Pix credit here |
两点论的客观依据是：一切事物都是矛盾的统一体，都包含有相互矛盾着的两个侧面，都有自己的两点;正是矛盾的两个方面既对立又统一，推动事物发展。[The objective basis of the two-point principle is that all things are a unity of contradictions, contain two contradictory aspects, and have their own two points; it is the two aspects of the contradiction that are both opposite and unified that drive the development of things.] (两点论).
A core element of the expression of the Communist Party of China's (CPC) Basic Line is expressed through the practice of coordination. Coordination, in turn, is a critical element of sound approaches to contraction and encompasses the fundamental dialectical element of the so-called “two point theory” [两点论]. In his "Economic work must coordinate several important relationships" the General Secretary put it this way: “In analyzing the situation, we must adhere to the "two-point theory", not only talk about the achievements, but also talk about the problems” [分析形势要坚持“两点论”，既把成绩讲够，也把问题说透。] (经济工作必须统筹好几对重要关系). See, Economic Dialectics Must be Coordinated! Brief Reflections on 习近平, 经济工作必须统筹好几对重要关系 [Xi Jinping, "Economic work must coordinate several important relationships"] and Marxist-Leninist Phenomenology in Socialist Modernization. And, indeed, there is much value in considering the dialectics, oppositions, and directional signals of "twoness" in contemporary Chinese Leninism. Consider the semiotic coupling of two in a recent analysis:
新华社成都3月19日电 3月17日至19日[2025]，中共中央书记处书记、公安部部长王小洪在重庆和四川调研。他强调，要认真学习贯彻习近平总书记重要讲话和全国两会精神，坚定拥护“两个确立”、坚决做到“两个维护”，更好统筹发展和安全，准确把握当前新形势新任务新要求，组织开展好深入贯彻中央八项规定精神学习教育，更加精准有力地做好防风险、保安全、护稳定、促发展各项工作，不断提升公安机关新质战斗力，为续写“两大奇迹”新篇章贡献更大公安力量。[Xinhua News Agency, Chengdu, March 19. From March 17 to 19, Wang Xiaohong, Secretary of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee and Minister of Public Security, conducted research in Chongqing and Sichuan. He stressed that we must earnestly study and implement the important speech of General Secretary Xi Jinping and the spirit of the two sessions of the National People's Congress, firmly support the "two establishments", resolutely implement the "two safeguards", better coordinate development and security, accurately grasp the current new situation, new tasks and new requirements, organize and carry out in-depth learning and education on the implementation of the spirit of the Central Eight Regulations, and do a more accurate and effective job in preventing risks, ensuring safety, maintaining stability, and promoting development. Work, continuously improve the new quality combat effectiveness of public security organs, and contribute greater public security forces to write a new chapter of the "two miracles".] (王小洪在重庆和四川调研时强调：更好统筹发展和安全 为续写“两大奇迹”新篇章贡献更大公安力量 [Wang Xiaohong stressed during his research in Chongqing and Sichuan: Better coordinate development and security to contribute greater public security forces to write a new chapter of the "two miracles"])
In the area of economic development, and within the broader goals of Socialist Modernization, the two miracles means something slightly different: rapid economic development and long term social stability: "习近平总书记在庆祝中华人民共和国成立75周年招待会上强调，中华人民共和国成立75年来，我们党团结带领全国各族人民不懈奋斗，创造了经济快速发展和社会长期稳定两大奇迹，中国发生沧海桑田的巨大变化，中华民族伟大复兴进入了不可逆转的历史进程" [General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized at the reception celebrating the 75th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China that over the past 75 years since the founding of the People's Republic of China, our party has united and led the people of all ethnic groups in the country to work tirelessly and created two miracles of rapid economic development and long-term social stability. ] (中国人民必将创造出新的更大辉煌
[The Chinese people will surely create new and greater glory]).
In the economic sphere, it is these dialectics, these binaries of contrary aspects as understood as a part of the 两点论 principle within the broader goals of Socialist Modernization, that must be coordinated under the guidance and leadership of the CPC. These include the contradictions between (1) domestic and foreign economies, each requiring their own organization of production and circulation ( 国内国际双循环); (2) state enterprises and private enterprises in the domestic and foreign circulation economies (习近平：民营经济发展前景广阔大有可为 民营企业和民营企业家大显身手正当其时 ); (3) domestic enterprises and foreign enterprises; and (4) transactions in good/services and foreign direct investment (inbound and outbound) and common prosperity (Cf. here; here).
It follows that contemporary approaches to Chinese style socialist modernization requires coordination between all of these contradictions, that is between all of these "two point" nodes. This coordination responsibility is driven by the need to ensure that socialist modernization advances its critical characteristics society-wide (new or high quality production) and that it is directed toward overcoming the challenge of the principal contradiction of China in this current stage of its historical development. All of this, in turn, is to be undertaken without deviation from the "Socialist Path."
The General Secretary has been focusing on each of these elements in recent times. Among the more recent areas of focus has been on the dialectics within the dual circulation economy policy--between state and private enterprises in China, and between foreign and domestic enterprises in and through China. The first I have already spoken to--the coordinated oppositions of domestic state owned/controlled and private enterprises within the socialist modernization umbrella. See 习近平：民营经济发展前景广阔大有可为 民营企业和民营企业家大显身手正当其时 [Xi Jinping: The development prospects of the private economy are broad and promising. It is the right time for private enterprises and private entrepreneurs to show their talents] and the Maturing of the two unwaverings [两个毫不动摇] policy
The symposium, and the discussion by the General Secretary, however one frames the political narratives around it, was important if only to add clarity to the way that the policy of the two unwaverings [两个毫不动摇 (liǎnggè háobù dòngyáo)] is now being refined after the 3rd Plenum of the 20th Party Congress and its important developments of socialist (Chinese stye) modernization and high quality production within it (See 切实落实“两个毫不动摇” 习近平这样要求 [Xi Jingping Requires the Practical Implementation of the Two Unwaverings policy] . . . It also suggests both the instrumental nature of markets, and even more the complementary-instrumental nature of the private sector. It in this this respect that one might better appreciate the reporting of the General Secretary's participation in the event: "The General Secretary's concern and support for the private economy has a long history: "I have always supported private enterprises, and I have worked in places where the private economy is relatively developed. * * * General Secretary reiterated: "The basic principles and policies of the Party and the State for the development of the private economy have been incorporated into the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. They will be consistently adhered to and implemented. They cannot and will not change.""[“我是一贯支持民营企业的，也是在民营经济比较发达的地方干过来的。” * * * 总书记再次强调：“党和国家对民营经济发展的基本方针政策，已经纳入中国特色社会主义制度体系，将一以贯之坚持和落实，不能变，也不会变。”] ( “我是一贯支持民营企业的” ["I have always supported private enterprises"]).
Pix credit here
The second, the international aspects of dual circulation was the subject of a recent set of high level meetings in Beijing. It was reported that "On the morning of March 28, President Xi Jinping met with representatives of the international business community at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. . . Xi Jinping welcomed the arrival of representatives of the international business community and expressed his appreciation for their long-term commitment to cooperation with China." [3月28日上午，国家主席习近平在北京人民大会堂会见国际工商界代表。. . . 习近平对国际工商界代表的到来表示欢迎，对他们长期致力于对华合作表示赞赏。] (习近平会见国际工商界代表 [Xi Jinping meets with representatives of the international business community]).
40余位外资企业全球董事长、首席执行官和商协会代表参加会见。美国联邦快递集团总裁芮思博、德国梅赛德斯－奔驰集团董事会主席康林松、法国赛诺菲集团首席执行官韩保罗、英国汇丰控股集团行政总裁艾桥智、日本日立制作所会长东原敏昭、韩国SK海力士社长郭鲁正、沙特阿美总裁纳瑟尔等先后发言。[More than 40 global chairmen, CEOs and business associations of foreign-invested enterprises attended the meeting. FedEx Group President Martin Reisberg, Mercedes-Benz Group Chairman Ola Källenius, Sanofi CEO Paul Han, HSBC Holdings Group CEO Tom Aiqiao, Hitachi Ltd. Chairman Toshiaki Higashihara, SK Hynix President Luzheng Guo, and Saudi Aramco President Nasser spoke successively.] (习近平会见国际工商界代表)
The General Secretary was reported to have spoken to two miracles in the sense spoken of in (中国人民必将创造出新的更大辉煌 [The Chinese people will surely create new and greater glory]), that is of rapid economic development and long term social stability. That domestic objective of development is aided in part of inbound direct foreign investment. And it is in that endeavor that the General Secretary reached out to high officials from important private (and mostly liberal democratic state based) enterprises. For the foreigners it is framed in the classic form of win-win strategies (win-win considered in its broader implications here, and here). Win win (and its unequal or multi-tracked value to consumer basis)) drives notions such as that of the now popular "common prosperity" with both internal and external dimensions.
Practice has proved that foreign-invested enterprises are important participants in China's modernization, China's reform and opening up, innovation and creation, and China's connection with the world and integration into economic globalization. In this process, foreign-invested enterprises have generally received rich returns, and enterprises have continued to grow and develop, achieving mutual benefit and win-win results, and have also forged deep friendship with the Chinese people. [实践证明，外资企业是中国式现代化的重要参与者，是中国改革开放和创新创造的重要参与者，是中国联通世界、融入经济全球化的重要参与者。在这一过程中，外资企业普遍得到丰厚回报，企业不断发展壮大，实现了互利共赢，也同中国人民结下深厚友谊。] (习近平会见国际工商界代表 )
The idea appears to be that as China has been the stabilizing force in global trade in recent times (and thus in the spirit of dialectical analysis the United States represents the forces of trade instability, then it only makes sense for stability seeking business to migrate their investment and money making potential to the stable rather than the unstable space. "习近平指出，多年来，中国一直是世界经济增长的主要贡献者和稳定锚，正在全面推进中国式现代化。对外开放是中国的基本国策" [Xi Jinping pointed out that for many years, China has been the main contributor and stabilizing anchor of world economic growth, and is comprehensively promoting China's modernization. Opening up to the outside world is China's basic national policy. ] (习近平会见国际工商界代表 ). Opening up remains as necessary to socialist modernization as it was during the Reform and Opening Up Era but in a different way. It provides an important vector for coordinating effectively the dialectics f domestic and international circulation--not just of goods and services, but also of investment. It provides a way of coordinating inbound ad outbound productivity and a conduit to outside markets. And it provides a means of end running foreign states by focusing on projections of economic objectives through private markets. Here is the win win, then,in return for contributing for to China's development along the socialist path domestically and internationally, China offers stability and markets.
这些表明，中国事业舞台大，市场前景广，政策预期稳，安全形势好，正是有利于外资企业投资兴业的一方沃土。中国过去是、现在是、将来也必然是外商理想、安全、有为的投资目的地，与中国同行就是与机遇同行，相信中国就是相信明天，投资中国就是投资未来。[These indicate that China has a large business stage, broad market prospects, stable policy expectations, and a good security situation, which is a fertile ground for foreign-funded enterprises to invest and start businesses. China has been, is, and will be an ideal, safe, and promising investment destination for foreign businessmen. Going with China means going with opportunities, believing in China means believing in tomorrow, and investing in China means investing in the future.]
It is, to a large degree, a perhaps more theoretically comprehensive Marxist Leninist version of what the United States is attempting in its America First Initiative, The differences, of course, are substantial--but not their objectives. In both cases hegemony is built through a complex interlocking system of mutual arrangements that benefit each of the parties but in different (incomparable o unequal depending on your measure taste) ways. Each is directed toward the development of the core by balancing a number of contradictions. And each requires a substantial amount of effort in coordinating dialectics, oppositions, and desire, all bent to the "good" defined by and within the current stage of historical development of each state and the ideological ideal each strives toward--one the establishment of a communist society (eventually); the other the protection and enhancement of the expectations and desires of the people as they may be expressed from generation to generation, protected by the state and driven by individuals aggregating choices in all sorts of markets. For business officials, the issue then becomes one of structural coupling--the way that they might tale advantage of home and host states. That is, that win win requires a three way mutuality between business, home and host state. It is there, rather than in the conditions of China or the United States, that instability remains a formidable obstacle. And in both cases there is substantial pressure from leaders to ensure that domestic markets and economic growth is protected.
But not a great enough obstacle to prevent hedging. As reported by the New York Times:
The meeting with Mr. Xi came four days after the China Development Forum, an annual economic and finance event attended by global executives. Tim Cook of Apple, Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group and executives from AstraZeneca, Cargill, Pfizer and FedEx, among others, were in Beijing to attend the forum along with the presidents of dozens of Chinese companies.Speaking at the forum, Mr. Källenius of Mercedes-Benz talked about how his company had invested in Chinese engineering, including $2 billion spent in China on a long-wheelbase electric car. China tapped $116 billion in foreign investment last year, down from $163 billion the preceding year and a peak of $189 billion in 2022, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce. Much of that money comes from the reinvestment of profits from existing operations. (Xi Jinping Meets Global Business Leaders Amid Trade Tensions)Yet the hedging also aligns with the dual circulation strategy now adapted to transnational investment and trade. Foreign forms may buy objects from China, and China objects from foreigners (the external closed loop of dual circulation). But investment appears bifurcated with a wall separating the Chinese investments of overseas companies (within the closed loop of domestic circulation). Ultimately that seems to be the emerging shape if win-win. (For the best face Chinese version of the win win see here).
The summary of the remarks of the General Secretary do not do justice to the original. Xi Jinping's speech was delivered ot these foreign officials on 28 March 2025: 习近平会见国际工商界代表时的讲话（全文）(2025-03-28 23:21) [Xi Jinping's speech at the meeting with representatives of the international business community (full text)].
A last but perhaps interesting point, with a nod to Henry Gao who noted the performative aspects of the visual memorialization of General Secretary's meeting with Chinese enterprise officials. Semitoically, the differences in the visual memorialization of the meeting--that was meant to deepen (optically) its normative essence were quite distinct. The distinctions, in turn, heightened the dialectical positioning of the parties of each of the meetings within a coordinated two point principle (两点论) framework.The General Secretary, as the core of the Party, instructs local business and commercial officials. That was the messaging from the images circulated of the General Secretary's meeting s with domestic enterprise operators (and reproduced above). The pictures shows business leaders dutifully taking note of the instruction being received. The General Secretary, as the core of the leadership of the State apparatus, leads and guides foreign business and commercial officials.The picture circulated shows the General Secretary as the leading force of new ideas and the emerging situation around which success and business opportunity is drawn internationally. The image is dynamic--the General Secretary is walking toward the future; business leaders from foreign places are grateful for the opportunity to follow that lead.
The text of the reporting, 习近平会见国际工商界代表 [Xi Jinping meets with representatives of the international business community] and Xi Jinping's Speech to business leaders foolow below in the original Chinese and in a crude English translation.
 |
| Pix credit here |
 |
| Pix Credit here ("Warmly Celebrate Convening of 4th NCP, 1973) |
The Representative Law is a basic law that regulates and guarantees that deputies to the National People's Congress exercise their powers, perform their duties and play their roles in accordance with the law. The current Representative Law was adopted and promulgated for implementation at the Fifth Session of the Seventh National People's Congress in 1992, and was partially amended in 2009, 2010 and 2015. The promulgation and implementation of this law has played an important role in regulating and guaranteeing that deputies perform their duties in accordance with the law, giving full play to the role of deputies and ensuring that the people are masters of their own country. In order to fully implement Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, thoroughly implement General Secretary Xi Jinping's important thoughts on upholding and improving the people's congress system, and implement the major decisions and arrangements of the Party Central Committee, it is necessary to revise and improve the Representative Law in line with the times, guarantee and promote the high-quality development of the work of deputies to the National People's Congress, and give full play to the significant advantages of the people's congress system.
代表法是规范和保障人大代表依法行使代表职权、履行代表义务、发挥代表作用的基本法律。现行代表法是1992年七届全国人大五次会议通过和公布施行的，2009年、2010年、2015年分别作了部分修改。这部法律的颁布施行，对规范和保证代表依法履行职责，充分发挥代表作用，保证人民当家作主，发挥了重要作用。全面贯彻习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想，深入贯彻习近平总书记关于坚持和完善人民代表大会制度的重要思想，贯彻落实党中央重大决策部署，有必要与时俱进修改完善代表法，保障和促进人大代表工作高质量发展，更充分地发挥人民代表大会制度的显著优势。(关于《中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会和地方各级人民代表大会代表法（修正草案）》的说明 [Explanation on the "Law of the People's Republic of China on Deputies to the National People's Congress and Local People's Congresses at All Levels (Draft Amendment)"])
Whole Process People's Democracy (全过程人民民主) provides a mechanism through which the vanguard organization of a nation, in the case of China, its Communist Party, may exercise guidance and leadership over the nation, its productive forces, and people, within an appropriate Leninist framework. In China that core Leninist framework consists of two distinct parts. The first touches on the modalities of democratic dialogue--the principles of democratic centralism. The second touches on the fundamental dialectic of Leninist democratic structures--the principle of the mass line. Together these produce the essential elements of a (Chinese) Leninist democratic system (for the Cuban variant HERE).
Together, the two principles suggest the framework for democratic expression within the Leninist lebenswelt. First democracy is practiced endogenously--within the operation of the administrative apparatus of the state, as well as within the vanguard itself. The operational characteristics of that practice are consultation of the people and the guidance and leadership of the Communist Party. Second, the people, must be organized--like the Party. That is, the dialectic between the people and the Party must be undertaken collectively. While there is one Party representing the Leninist vanguard of social forces, there are several manifestations of organizing the people--historical (United Front Parties), ethnic, occupational, religious, and the like. It is through the collectivization of the masses that it is possible to more effectively realize the promise of the mass line within organizational parameter. Third, collectivized masses must be organized. That is, the constellation of collective organizations which in the aggregate represent all of the people must be rationalized in a way that makes it possible to effectively undertake democratic consultation of the type that is conceived within this model. A significant structure for consultation is provided through the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) Fourth, the State also must be organized--like the Party and the People. That is, the manifestation of the CPC's leadership and guidance of the nation must be undertaken through an administrative apparatus that both produces and operates under law. That apparatus might be understood, in part at least, to include the People's Congress system--from the National People's Congress down to local congresses. They are the highest organs of state (as the administrative apparatus necessary to the functioning of a Chinese "Socialist" political-economic model, but they are not the supreme organs of political authority (a role reserved to the vanguard CPC). Fifth, consultation itself must be structured. That structure is also meant to reinforce the political-economic system itself, with the CPC at its core. The structure is provided by the practices of democratic centralism, which is applied both within the CPC, and among the organs and institutions through which the CPC undertakes its leadership and guidance in the administrative and political/social spheres. Sixth, the members of all collective organizations must be guided and disciplined in the performance of their duties. This applies to CPC cadres, the members of collective organizations, and the members of the peoples congresses.
It is within this framework that one might better approach recent efforts by the State and Party to review and develop the rule system for the responsibilities and training and expectations of members of the peoples congress system. This has been in development for some time; the recent focus on its terms suggests the intensity of the interest of the CPC in its fulfillment. Explanation on the "Law of the People's Republic of China on Deputies to the National People's Congress and Local People's Congresses at All Levels (Draft Amendment)" --At the Third Session of the 14th National People's Congress on March 5, 2025 (Li Hongzhong, Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress) [关于《中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会和地方各级人民代表大会代表法（修正草案）》的说明 ——2025年3月5日在第十四届全国人民代表大会第三次会议上 全国人民代表大会常务委员会副委员长 李鸿忠].
The explanation is divided into several parts:
1. The necessity and great significance of amending the Deputies Law. This is divided into three parts: (I) Amending the Representative Law is an inevitable requirement for upholding the overall leadership of the Party and unswervingly following the path of political development of socialism with Chinese characteristics; (II) Amending the Deputies Law is an important guarantee for promoting the high-quality development of the work of the National People's Congress and adhering to, improving, and operating the people's congress system; (III) Amending the Deputies Law is an objective requirement for developing full-process people's democracy and making NPC deputies and their standing committees at all levels become representative organs that always maintain close contact with the people
2. Guiding ideology, principles and working process of amending the Representative Law. This section describes the ideological core principles to be followed in the amendment work:
First, conscientiously implement the major decisions and arrangements of the Party Central Committee and the spirit of the Central People's Congress Work Conference, ensure that NPC deputies always stand firm in their political stance and fulfill their political responsibilities, ensure that the Party's leadership is fully, systematically and holistically implemented in all aspects of the performance of duties and powers by state power organs, and ensure the correct political direction of the work of deputies. Second, adhere to the people-centered approach, adhere to and develop people's democracy throughout the entire process, give full play to the role of people's congress representatives at all levels as a bridge between the Party and the state and the people, constantly enrich the content and form of state organs contacting representatives and representatives contacting the people, and give full play to the role of representatives in developing people's democracy throughout the entire process. Third, fully summarize the practical experience of people's congress representatives at all levels in performing their duties and the people's congresses and their standing committees at all levels in recent years, adhere to problem orientation, and seek truth from facts, and revise and improve those that have been proven feasible and necessary to be revised in practice; those that can be revised or not, generally do not make revisions. Fourth, follow the provisions, principles and spirit of the Constitution, and at the same time, make good connections with the National People's Congress Organization Law, Local Organization Law, National People's Congress Rules of Procedure, and Election Law, Legislation Law, Supervision Law and other laws that have been revised in recent years.
3. Main contents of the draft amendment to the Representative Law. These section describes the points of technical emphasis of greatest interest to members and those who must develop systems of member discipline. These are meant to align the principles and objectives of the peoples congress with the working styles of its members. It is divided into nine (9) sections. These are meant to tie together the framework for governance in China and the role of the peoples congresses within that framework. In a sense, one can see reflected in this section an operational model, directed toward the management of PC members, the template of whole process peoples democracy described above.
The full explanation follows below in the original Chinese and a crude English translation.
 |
| Pix Credit here Octavian Proscription Letter |
The proscription list of law firms and lawyers continues to grow--slowly by comparison to the proscription lists of the late Roman Republic and early Empire. Bit perhaps slow and steady is the marker of the difference between Roman and American approaches to things like this. For discussion about and text of prior orders see Next on the Block: President Trump Issues an Executive Order -- "Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block".
On 27 March 2025 President Trump issued his "Addressing Risks From WilmerHale Presidential Actions, Executive Orders." It follows below. And again, as in prior exercises of this sort, Section 1 (the background) provides the most interesting and provocative part of the order. And as in the other cases, the details suggest the accumulated reasons why the Trump Administration might detest the firm and at least some of its members by engaging in political actions and associating with people in office that the Administration does not like.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States. For example, WilmerHale engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race, backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders, and furthers the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote. Moreover, WilmerHale itself discriminates against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including through the use of race-based “targets.”
WilmerHale is also bent on employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice. For example, WilmerHale rewarded Robert Mueller and his colleagues — Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s “top aide” and “closest associate,” and James Quarles — by welcoming them to the firm after they wielded the power of the Federal Government to lead one of the most partisan investigations in American history. Mueller’s investigation epitomizes the weaponization of government, yet WilmerHale claimed he “embodies the highest value of our firm and profession.” Mueller’s “investigation” upended the lives of public servants in my Administration who were summoned before “prosecutors” with the effect of interfering in their ability to fulfill the mandates of my first term agenda. This weaponization of the justice system must not be rewarded, let alone condoned.
And again the issue here raises, even if the President does not, the broader issue of the nature of rule of law in a context in which some might come to believe that rule of law is the means by which politics is now undertaken, and that, as a consequence, the rules of political engagement ought to apply to the rule of law (at least in certain context--the parameters of which are so unclear it is not yet possible to even frame the question). Discussed briefly here: Academic Leadership Responds to the President Trump's Directives: Statement of Leaders of the Association of American Law Schools, "Standing Together in Support of Higher Education and the Legal Profession" and "Bar Organizations’ Statement in Support of the Rule of Law"
 |
| Pix credit here |
President Trump has been very busy in the first two months of his 2nd term. Among the President's targets has been law firms whose lawyers he intensely dislikes, and whose engagement in litigation and client representation he finds contrary to the public interest as he sees it. I have suggested both the contours and the challenges these actions raise--for everyone. See (1) Next on the Block: President Trump Issues an Executive Order -- "Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block"; (2) The
Flaming Sword of Contradiction: President Trump Issues Direction to the
Attorney General and Homeland Security: "Preventing Abuses of the Legal
System and the Federal Court "; (3) President
Trump and the Paul, Weiss Law Firm Reach a Deal--The Presidential
Directive Issued Against Them has been Withdrawn: The Outlines of a
Merchant Transactional Phenomenology and the Role of Lawyers; and (4) President Trump on "Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss" and the Relationship Between Government and Outside Counsel.
In addition, President Trump has moved in quite aggressive ways to challenge contemporary practices and expectations around the remedial power of courts, especially in equity, and the current understanding of the separation of powers, the authority of each branch within its core of authority, especially advancing a fairly extreme form of a unitary executive theory (e.g., Interview: Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Hugh Hewitt on China, Iran, Israel, Deportations, and Judicial Oversight/Interference; The Judicial Equity Power, the Lawyer, and the Legalization of Politics). Mr. Trump has also sought to challenge universities in their operations and in the ways in which they structure themselves internally. Whether or not these challenges succeed, or at least succeed in reshaping the political and institutional framework of the Republic, remains to be seen. The actions, and reaction, has a long contemporary history in the United States, with what may perhaps be the genesis of what the Trump administration believes it is advancing in the 1980s and perhaps best remembered today by the writing of then Attorney General Meese (Edwin A. Meese III, “The Law of the Constitution,” Tulane Law Review 61 (1987): 979). That position was rejected by many on the political "left" as defined at the time; an excellent example was preserved in Volume 61(5) of the Tulane Law Review (e.g. Sanford Levinson, "Could Meese Be Right This Time?", 61(5) Tulane Law Review (1987). And its sense at the time was perhaps well captured by Mark Tushnet:
There may, therefore, be a sense in which Attorney General Meese's position does promote anarchy-not, as his critics suggested, in the immediate sense of urging "every person a law unto herself," but in the indirect sense of showing that law is another form of politics. But, of course, Attorney General Meese does not believe that either. For the point of his speech is to demonstrate that the Supreme Court's decisions or, at least, those with which he disagrees are not properly regarded as "law" at all, but merely as expressions of the Justices' personal preferences. So, in the end, the problem is not so much that Meese is wrong or lawless; it is that he is hypocritical. (Mark Tushnet, The Supreme Court, The Supreme Law of the Land, and Attorney General Meese: A Comment," 61(5) Tulane Law Rev. 1017, 1025 (1987)
That paragraph may well capture the essence of the evolution of the position first captured by Attorney General Meese (for our times) into the form it takes at the start of the 2nd Administration of President Trump. Its essence may well be this: if one starts with the proposition that rule of law as practiced in this century in the United States subsumes all politics within it; that is that politics, and its normative foundations are, in essence, framed by and subject to the interpretive power of law, including the "higher law" of the constitution, then it might well be possible to embrace a presumption (rejected in the 1980s) that law is another form of politics, and that at least in that regard, the courts, like everyone else in the U.S. is a political actor--personally and institutionally. The question, then is not whether a judicial (or for that matter an administrative or legislative) decision is a product of "personal preference" or impersonal application of law (to politics) as any of these actors see it (bringing to that determination whatever conceptual cage they draw on, which is personal preference one step removed from substantive determinations). The question, then, is the allocation of the authority to "declare" and "apply" law, within that environment, and subject to this imagining of the consequences of the "triumph" of law over politics (or the rule of politics as law in the form of its sensibilities, ceremonies, and normative cognitive pathways, not anarchy in this sense but order grounded in ideologies of law with national characteristics) conceits) where the fundamental organizing principle of power allocation is fractured and built on consensus to actually work. This is suggested by the apparent belief that public litigation (at least) is strategically aimed toward political ends for which purpose the courts serve as a willing instrument, that the evolution of judicial (at least equity) remedial powers suggest a breach of the separation of powers within this law as politics within the performative space of courts, and that the universities are inculcating students with a set of normative-political values that also make them "players" in the political field. One does not have to agree with this to understand its potential reality shaping power for others. And that might prove a useful doorway for examining one's own generative cognitive cages.
If one is of a mind to embrace this way of understanding "the way things work" (ideological-cognitive baselines within the U.S. economic-political model in the current stage of historical development) then the idea of rejectionism becomes both quaint and obsolete (though still strategically useful as a discursive trope). The object under this way of "seeing things" is transformation of practice--and the sensibilities of practice (the phenomenology of a law-politics axis)--to conform to the (new) ideal of the rule of law-politics state. In a sense this might be understood as one of the (naughty?) children of realism and of strains and implications of the old critical studies movement (though of course from the perspective of the 1980s-1990s, its practitioners might be appalled at the normative turn) (Cf., Retaining Judicial Authority: A Preliminary Inquiry on the Dominion of Judges; Chroniclers in the Field of Cultural Production: Courts, Law and the Interpretive Process). But it does suggest that one of the under-considered consequences of a vigorous and increasingly comprehensive rule of law system (not just traditionally understood deep rule of law, but rule of law as the fundamental basis for ordering all aspects of social relations in a political-economic variant of liberal democracy with increasingly comprehensive tastes for managing humans and human social relations.
It is thus no wonder that, in this form, and whether the (possible) full implications are understood, that those who continue to embrace the old cognitive cages of American rule of law and its structural and interpretive hierarchies, would find substantially threatening (on a fundamental level) the transformations undertaken in an iterative action oriented sequence, to be highly threatening to evolving but established practice and its grounding premises. They are, of course, right to perceive the threat to their normative vision and established practice expectations, especially as a function of the strength of their belief in the value and legitimacy of the current state of institutional practices and expectations. The perception of threat (and its actualities) have only grown since 2021as the source of worry has increased as the threat moves from the courts to the executive branch, requiring action to protect the (lower) courts against, perhaps, both.
The response to this threat, then, has now appeared to produce something like a further evolution of an orthodox view among academic and other thought leaders in the Republic. That orthodoxy focuses on three distinct framing elements. The first is the proper approach to the narrative of events source the start of the Second Term of Mr. Trump at least with respect to the judiciary, the courts, and lawyers. The second focuses on the proper analytic lens for situating this narrative within and against an ideal of the proper relationship between lawyers, courts and the state. This requires, in turn, the production of the ideal vision of each of these critical analytics elements. The third touches on the activist response for those embedded in this orthodox narrative and analytics. And yet, from the perspective of an Administration that (whether it is conscious of this or not) rejects the fundamental ordering/rationalizing premises on which these Statements are built, none of this will make much sense. The times, it seems, has brought us to a appoint where people (and institutions) do not just talk past each other, they invest a common set of words with substantially different meanings derived from what appears to be increasing incompatible normative starting points. None of this augurs well for convergence, but appears to be the stage setting for politics in the remainder of this decade.
One variation of this narrative, discursive, and action stance has been circulated by leaders of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) in the form of a Statement, "Standing Together in Support of Higher Education and the Legal Profession," dated 25 March 2025. The text of that Statement follows below. The AALS has already produced a Statement, Statement of the Association of American Law Schools on Executive Branch Compliance with Court Orders circulated 18 February 2025. The Statement from AALS Leaders is well worth considering, not merely because it represents what may be the consensus view of a number of legal academics and others, but also for its narrative stances, analytics and action oriented pathways.
Another variation has taken the form of a short "Bar organizations’ statement in support of the rule of law," dated 26 March 2025. The text of that Statement also follows below. These also reflect the characterization of the actions of the Trump Administration that aligns with the discursive stance of the AALS Statement. In both cases, the categorical challenges of President Trump have been met with an equally categorical rejectionist front by those opposed to the President's actions. Both are grounded on substantially irreconcilable ideals and each measures the failures of the current system or the threat of challenges to that system by reference to these ideals. But those ideals are also expressed in substantially different ways. The Trump administration speaks the language of inductive phenomenology, where action accumulates into theory; bar associations and academic leaders embrace a century old impulse toward deductive ideology, where principles shape action. A meeting of the two is unlikely.
 |
| Pix credit here |
 |
| Pix credit here |
State-of-the-art end-to-end encryption (powered by the open source Signal Protocol) keeps your conversations secure. We can't read your messages or listen to your calls, and no one else can either. Privacy isn’t an optional mode — it’s just the way that Signal works. Every message, every call, every time. (Signal Web Homepage).
signal (n.) late 14c., "visible sign, indication" (a sense now obsolete), also "a supernatural act of God; a device on a banner," from Old French signal, seignal "seal, imprint, sign, mark," from Medieval Latin signale "a signal," from Late Latin signalis (adj.) "used as a signal, pertaining to a sign," from Latin signum "identifying mark, sign" (see sign (n.)). The restricted sense of "conventional or agreed-upon sign" (to commence or desist, etc.) is from 1590s. The meaning "modulation of an electric current" is from 1855, later applied to electromagnetic waves, hence the use of signal in radio (later television) broadcasting (1923). The railroad signalman is attested by 1840.
signal (adj.) "remarkable, striking, notable," 1640s, an irregular adoption (by influence of the noun) from French signalé, past participle of signaler "to distinguish, signal" (see signal (n.)). The notion is "serving as a sign."
signal (v.) 1805, "make signals to," from signal (n.). Related: Signaled; signaler; signaling. The earlier verb was signalize. (Etymonlgy online)
What I am interested in is the semiotics of signal. By signal here I mean the enterprise under the name of which communications services are offered (Signal Web Homepage). Yet THAT Signal (corp) can be disaggregated in a number of ways that help understand THE signal and signalling in contemporary social (institutional) relations. Disclosure: I have a Signal account; virtually everyone I know has or has access to a Signal account. But I am not a high State official. Nor do I occupy a position in which some sort of sophistication in the ways of statecraft, or if not that, then at least someone ensuring some reasonable measure of protection for sensitive conversations. Nor do I have any interest on either assuming such position or worrying overmuch about those who do. They are driven by their own demons, which I think are demons enough for a lifetime and which are shared with a sometimes not so grateful Nation; mine are my own.
A double scandal.
 |
| Pix credit Slate |
That, of course, was not entirely the problem that prodded scandal (though perhaps it might have on its own). Rather it was the choices made in deciding who was invited to this pop-up club (no one invited me, to my chagrin). Perhaps it is the celebrity culture that marks out times; perhaps it was carelessness; perhaps it was a strategic performative moment--who knows, one cannot get into the heads of high officials (nor might one strongly wish to decline if offered the chance to do so, Republican or democrat, they are on this level likely indistinguishable). The scandal was the invitation extended to the editor in chief of a sometimes not too friendly U.S. publication, The Atlantic, to join in (The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans).
The second was to blame the object of the scandal for the political scandal that emerged from the first scandal. These sorts of consequential scandal are not uncommon; one learns them as a toddler, and sometimes from parents, friends or trustworthy individuals who stand in and embody the great social virtues of a place and time. That reflex is always, always, a great sign of character (though the times dictate in what direction that judgment of character flows). In any case in this context, that reflex on steroids. Steroids, of course, are sometimes said to make people paranoid, and sometimes aggressive. And yet what a glorious display of the virtues of office (Trump Calls Signal Leak Fallout a ‘Witch Hunt’; The Trump administration deflects blame for the Signal leak at every turn).
President Trump told reporters on Wednesday that the fervor over the Atlantic’s article was “all a witch hunt,” suggesting that perhaps Signal was faulty, and blaming former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. for not having carried out the strike on Yemen during his administration. . .Mr. Trump has insisted that no classified information was shared among the members of the group, including the editor of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg — and that it wasn’t uncommon for members of the government to use Signal for official business.But he has also spent a lot more energy disparaging Mr. Goldberg and The Atlantic than defending his national security officials.“I happen to know the guy is a total sleazebag,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Goldberg on Tuesday, speaking to reporters from the Cabinet Room. He added: “The Atlantic is a failed magazine, does very, very poorly. Nobody gives a damn about it.” (The Trump administration deflects blame for the Signal leak at every turn)
Pix credit here
Perhaps President Trump is correct--"Nobody gives a damn about it." (Ibid.). Perhaps it might better have been put in the subjunctive case--nobody ought to give a damn about it. What the "it" is of course matters. Certainly the President appears not to have meant the use of Signal (the enterprise) to signal (communicate) about specific actions undertaken by U.S. officials. Perhaps he has forgiven his officials for the faux pas of inviting a much unbeloved journalist to the signal party. Or perhaps President Trump means that one ought to follow his guidance and leadership on what one is or ought to "give a damn" about--and he would not be the first (nor the last) official to embrace that notion.
All fair, politically interesting for a news cycle, and perhaps a warning about operations in the current era, the exploitation, consideration, and instrumentalization of which I leave to others.
But that leaves more interesting questions to ponder.
 |
| Pix (Hilary Says She is 'Sorry' for Using Private Email) |
Signal (form of communication). Signal (the enterprise) offers a signal. But what the signal communicates are signs and artifacts that are themselves inscribed on the spaces within which the virtual can operate. In this case, Signal (the enterprise) transmits text. But text itself is now understood as letters/words, but also images (emojis) and video (the virtualization of virtualizations). These are artifacts (objects) that acquire their own signification but which are meant to convey (or project) interpretation within the communities for which (or against which) it is produced and projected. Even the virtual (or especially the virtual) objectifies itself. Those objects, once projected, acquire a life of their own (hermeneutics is an old fashioned version of the efforts to convey, grasp, or deploy meaning). As objects, in markets, the issue of ownership becomes relevant. And with ownership the fundamental issue becomes clearer--control. To utilize Signal (the enterprise) requires the conveyance of communicative objects (the signal in text, etc.) to the enterprise. That conveyance produces residual rights in those projecting communicative objects within for the forms of communication (signal) purchased (Signal (the enterprise) is not a charitable organization) but also rights in Signal (the enterprise). Those rights (in Signal the enterprise) may be expropriated or utilized through law by other institutions with that power, or otherwise by those with the capacity to seize it. The form of communication, as property the object of which is conveyance (of the virtual), becomes an object that is itself no longer in the control of those who use the service precisely because they believe they remain in "control" of the objects (text, images, etc.) they produce and send off (signal via Signal).
 |
| Pix credit here |
Signal (the objects transmitted). That leaves text, emojis etc. Here the question about the distinctions between text and human becomes acute. One might see in this episode a clear example of the problem of post-modernity on the (re)construction of the self now enmeshed in two distinct dialectics. The first is among humans and in relation to the human self and the human in community. This produces the old (and perhaps in some ways increasingly obsolete) problem of the dialectics of humanity, consciousness, cognition, communication, language and meaning that has bedeviled philosophers and others especially since the 19th century. Signal (as objects transmitted) reminds one now that the self has also been digitized (the words and emojis etc.) that serve as a virtual substitution for physical communication), and the digitized self operates in community through the digitalization of communication. That produces both its own dialectics but also its own streams of understanding, consciousness etc. What is increasingly clear is that 20th century mind bases creates a crisis where it operated in 21st century spaces but is unaware (or actively denies) the realities of the dialectics between "natural" and "virtual" communication. Society has gotten better about exploiting this (the old progressive itch to use emails etc. to cancel people, etc.). But that is purely strategic and reactive. Unlearned, still, is the perception of the communication both within natural and virtual spaces and between virtual and natural spaces. One can bluster all one wants about this, but the emerging "realities" remain indifferent to that "reaction." Squaring virtual communication with and against natural ones remains a challenge of which this scandal is merely another instance. Here squaring the stances and meaning of people, things, events, in virtual collectives (the clubby clubby conversations on Signal (the enterprise) with the more traditional and formal means of communication (or even the private ones in person) becomes both more interesting and more exploitable.
 |
| Pix credit here |
Signalling. It is with signalling that one might get to the heart of the problem, and one that humans of a certain (mental) age may not yet be prepared to grasp. Here that group pf high officials appear to have been signalling all sorts of things in, through and as Signal (the enterprise). First, of course, is the traditional human predilection for signalling "in" and "out" of a collective--a critical element in hierarchically arranged social orders. One communicates social relations by acts of authoritative inclusion and exclusion. One also opens this to error--or not (we will never really know). That was probably the most potent signal transmitted through Signal (the enterprise). Second, was the more ideologically sourced signalling of trust in and operation through private enterprises for public activity. It also signals the opposite--that the state of public communication is so corrupted that one has no choice u to undertake public business through private means. The drift of both Democratic and Republican administrations has been (with greater or lesser enthusiasm) to privatize. In this case--communication. Third, but one is also signalling power and the importance and exclusive nature of the signal--that was signaled by the choice of Signal (the enterprise), more spherically the signal (means of "encrypted" communication) that Signal (the enterprise) offered. Fourth, it also signaled solidarity--these actors conformed to the habits and expectations of the social, economic, and political classes within which they operate. That says a lot about those expectations, and not necessarily in a good way. But it was necessary; and revealing, at least of the habits, assumptions and expectations of that class. The form that this communication took, also served that signalling purpose. Fifth, it was public-private communication meant perhaps to preview and construct the essence of the communication that would then be served up to the masses for their consumption and for the more effective means of managing them and their opinions (no fault here--that seems to be the essence of hierarchically arranged communication everywhere). What makes a difference is that one can now see it in gestation and follow the pathways of its virtual construction almost in real time. That presents a challenge for the traditional arrangement of "mass line" or "popular" communication (the dialectics of communication between holders of power and those who bear the burden of the consequences). Again a manifestation of the signal in its new inter connective element between virtual and natural spaces. Sixth, the management of reality moves to a more prominent role here. One used to worry about gaslighting. But the emergence of simultaneous system of intercommunication between two self reflexive spaces for cognitive structuring obsoletes that concept where one might be able to construct realities in virtual spaces that then reframe its analog version in "natural" space.
Magritte's painting--well beloved--now might usefully serve as a way of re-imagining reality--perhaps, after all, there is no pipe. . . . And that suggests a seventh, that the illusion of communicating freely remains both alluring and a trap for those who believe it. The difference now is that the layering of constraint on free expression is now a bit denser--not just within the human realms of relations, or within the signal-consequences of speaking in virtual spaces, but in the interactions between both within a wider space of virtual-natural interaction in which management and control is also an illusion. The episode brings sharply into focus the absurdity of the current situation in which a digitized variation of the natural acquires a life of its own within digitalized platforms in which they produce, consume and are consumed in the production of others. The problem here (if problem it is) is not Signal (the enterprise), or the signal (communication, objects in communication, or its flow). The problem is the obliviousness of humans to the cognitive and operational cages within which these function and their surprise when the obvious happens. What the story reveals are layers of absurdity produced by assumptions in action that both substituted for thought and that displaced the reality that it effectively masked.
One has no idea what the participants in that happy circle of important
people thought, as they, without much thought apparently, indulged in a
collective belief in the detachment of a virtual textual world of which
they were the only participants. Perhaps they thought this was
something like a private dining room in a commercial establishment that
holds itself out as protection the privacy of clients. In the natural
world that hardly ever turns out well. In the virtual world one can't
imagine any difference--except in technique. And that is the problem.
The good folks at Mr. Waltz's virtual event embedded themselves in a
double dialectic of mimetic and iterative realities. The problem was not the gross carelessness of including the representative of The Atlantic to the "party." The problem was not the need to gather together virtually to share an esprit de corps and the satisfaction of blowing up a bit of Yemen that threatened U.S. interests. The problem was perhaps the way a merchant phenomenology (of which I have written of before) was applied to the semiotics of virtual individual and collective selves within an environment that was also a "self" (Signal (the enterprise). The merchant believes in control and ownership relations--the signal cannot be owned or control. The signal can be accessed and used to produce or consume something. And, in a sense if can constitute a force that must be appeased and to which sacrifices are offered--willingly or not.
There really is only one way to conclude--with excerpts from a short story authored by Harlan Ellison, Eidolons:
I woke at three in the morning, bored out of sleep by dreams of such paralyzing mediocrity that I could not lie there and suffer my own breathing. . . I padded through the silent house. . . Then I saw it. A web. . . Something I could not bear to see in my house. It threatened me. . . Then I killed the foaming web. . . Clean the feather duster I thought. In the back yard I moved to the wall and shook it out. Then, as I returned , incredible pain assaulted me. The cactus pus pup. . .had embedded itself in the ball of my naked right foot. . . I hated the world for placing random pain in my innocent path. I lay down and hated all natural order for a brief time. Then I fell asleep. Relieved. Boredom had been killed with the billowing web. Somehow, the Universe always provides. (Harlan Ellison, "Eidolons," in Harlan Ellison's Greatest Hits 384, 397-98 (J. Michael Stracynski (ed), NY: Union Square & Co. 2024 (1986)).
 |
| Pix credit here |
 |
| Pix Credit here; Poulenc, Dialogues of the Carmelites |
We have been following the pathways of Presidential action against specified law firms in the United States. See here, here, and here. By Executive Order dated 25 March 2025, entitled Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block, the President added the law firm of Jenner and Bock to the list.
The rationale remains the same, and continues to embed some rationalizations that ought to give paise:
My Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms, that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Many firms take actions that threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles. Moreover, law firms regularly conduct this harmful activity through their powerful pro bono practices, earmarking hundreds of millions of their clients’ dollars for destructive causes, that often directly or indirectly harm their own clients. Lawyers and law firms that engage in such egregious conduct should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should such conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts.
One notes here only that conduct detrimental to the interest of the United States with legal consequences, traditionally, have been specified in law, and there is ample law applicable to negative impact where the political bodies, in their wisdom, have so provided. These should be vigorously enforced. Nonetheless, and as irritating as they might seem to Presidents (and Mr. Trump is neither the first nor will he be the last to be extremely irritated in this way), conduct detrimental to political agendas, even those of elected officials, are fair game in this Republic. And the notion of "interest of the United States" unless specified with some particularity in law has policy implications, certainly, and drives decision making hopefully, but in this Republic are political stances aligned with the political engagements of elected officials and the people, represented in principle as policy and then reduced in its specifics to law. Law, though is not inscribed in or as the body of an elected official, no matter how august. Whatever the "significance" of the risks to American interests of particular value to elected officials that do not constitute lawbreaking, those officials can do what they have done since the founding of the Republic--use the authority of their office to convince the people of the righteousness of their version of that interest. To the extent that this conduct reduces the trust of officials in these law firms, they are free to decline to hire them.To the extent that such conduct may touch on discretionary actions--such as security clearances, then officials can move to make their case that such security clearances ought to be revoked--in the ways provided by law. To the extent that officials decide to have nothing to do with them, that is fine too, but only to the extent that these do not unlawfully encroach on the rights of all lawyers for equal access to the state. If the law is inconveniently narrow to the interests the officials seek to advance, then they are free, and better positioned than most, to have them changed. If they can. With respect to the rest--they are political judgments that are measured as a function of the political line of the duly elected officials. That makes those articulations of interest important and a substantial factor in decision making, but it does not give the the weight of law. Still, that authority is something great indeed, under law, and that ought to count for something, certainly. But unless irritating conduct or political activity (even in and through courts) constitute a violation of law, it cannot serve as a basis for sanctions under law. In markets--yes; with respect to trust, yes. Thus to the extent that Mr. Trump seeks to call out Jenner and Block for conduct that Mr. Trump believes is irresponsible and not in the interests of the state as he sees it, that is his right as a political matter. And market discipline is available; but in the absence of law breaking, all one has here is politics, American stye for the 21st century.
 |
| Pix credit here |
The specific sins of Jenner and Block are then specified:
Jenner & Block LLP (Jenner) is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals, condoned partisan “lawfare,” and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States. For example, Jenner engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders. Moreover, Jenner discriminates against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including through the use of race-based “targets.”
In addition, Jenner was “thrilled” to re-hire the unethical Andrew Weissmann after his time engaging in partisan prosecution as part of Robert Mueller’s entirely unjustified investigation. Andrew Weissmann’s career has been rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power, including devastating tens of thousands of American families who worked for the now defunct Arthur Andersen LLP, only to have his unlawfully aggressive prosecution overturned by the Supreme Court. The numerous reports of Weissmann’s dishonesty, including pursuit of nonexistent crimes, bribery to foreign nationals, and overt demand that the Federal Government pursue a political agenda against me, is a concerning indictment of Jenner’s values and priorities.
There is one significant value to these actions by the President--they at least provide warning to those affected and a different kind of warning to those not yet named. It reminds one, a little of the way that the proscription list emerged in the later Roman Republic during the leadership of Sulla:
The President, apparently, has also listened. The text of the Presidential executive Order follows below.Sulla now began to make blood flow, and he filled the city with deaths without number or limit; many persons were murdered on grounds of private enmity, who had never had anything to do with Sulla, but he consented to their death to please his adherents. At last a young man, Caius Metellus, had the boldness to ask Sulla in the Senate-house, when there would be an end to these miseries, and how far he would proceed before they could hope to see them stop. "We are not deprecating," he said, "your vengeance against those whom you have determined to put out of the way, but we entreat you to relieve from uncertainty those whom you have determined to spare." Sulla replied, that he had not yet determined whom he would spare. "Tell us then," said Metellus, "whom you intend to punish." Sulla said that he would. (Plutach, Life of Sulla, ¶ 31).
Pix credit here
