Four years ago tonight, I hit send on the first Civil Discourse post. I had hoped to mark the anniversary with a lighter, or at least a shorter, post tonight. Instead, this Sunday looks like so many before it, where there has been too much at stake to step back. We focus tonight on the new lawsuit challenging Trump's White House cage fights and on Kristen Welker's remarkable refusal to let false claim after false claim go unanswered. But there's something else worth pausing on, even amid the chaos: the sense that has been building over the last few weeks that Trump's grip is loosening. His success was never inevitable. Clearly, it still isn't. Let's stay informed and keep pushing. On June 7, 1776, Virginian Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution in the Second Continental Congress, calling for independence for the American colonies.
By the spring of 1775, King George III was saying that the colonies were “in a state of open and avowed rebellion.” Many colonists were increasingly willing to discuss separation. By 1776, delegates to the Continental Congress began to realize that reconciliation with Britain was not an option. Lee’s resolution argued “that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states.” The first part of the resolution was a declaration of independence. Committees were formed to consider the proposal, and one was tasked with drafting a declaration of independence. The committee succeeded in that work, and by early July of 1776, delegates, having spoken with the people in their home states, and were ready to forge ahead. This year, we celebrate 250 years of No Kings in the United States of America. It will resonate like never before. Next Sunday is Flag Day. It’s also Donald Trump’s 80th birthday. Trump is celebrating, as we all know because he constantly promotes it, by building an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) arena on the South Lawn of the White House. It’s called, “The Claw.” I saw it recently and was gobsmacked—not in a good way.
UFC fighting is just the kind of MAGA mythology Trump likes to pursue. He’s a fan, if not of the “sport,” then of the ferocious approval he receives from fighters and spectators alike.
UFC President Dana White has reliably supported Trump through his three campaigns. This is quite a reward for his dedication. White seems confident that the exposure will be profitable for the UFC, although he claims the deal isn’t “transactional.” He’s committed to paying the $60 million construction bill and an additional $700,000 to restore the lawn when the structure comes down. As for Trump, he needs the bread and circuses energy as a diversion from the high costs his war in Iran has imposed on Americans and his lagging poll numbers. What better way to get it than cage fighting at the White House? The early indications he’s losing his hold on the country, which we’ve been discussing for the last few weeks, continue to grow. Trump posted a video on TikTok suggesting that, like the Eiffel Tower, which was originally a temporary build for the 1889 World’s Fair, his personal edifice might remain on the White House grounds long after his birthday celebration ends. But a federal judge may have something to say about that. A lawsuit, filed Saturday in federal district court for the District of Columbia by two individual plaintiffs against the National Park Service and other defendants seeks to block the cage matches on Trump’s birthday.
The plaintiffs argue that the whole scheme is illegal and amounts to self-dealing by Trump and his political allies. Some of the details they allege are shocking and should be, even to Trump loyalists in Congress. Like this: “The plan is for fighters to conduct the ceremonial weigh-ins and face-offs at the Lincoln Memorial, make pre-fight walkouts from the Oval Office, and do combat in a massive structure now under construction just steps from the Executive Residence.” The plaintiffs allege corruption and kleptocracy. The defendants will have the opportunity to respond, paragraph by paragraph. The allegations include:
The complaint suggests that although the event is a celebration of Trump’s birthday—it’s on the actual day—those involved have taken advantage of a special rule for the nation’s 250th birthday that allows events celebrating out country to avoid restrictions of using the White House grounds for sporting events and requires Congressional approval and environmental review before any structures can be built on the South Lawn. The plaintiffs argue that the planned event doesn’t meet the criteria for that carve out, however, because “[t]he event is neither ‘for the celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence’ nor, crucially, being ‘planned, organized, and executed’ by the federal government.” That, they say, means that the event itself and the structure being built for it violate the law. Readers of Civil Discourse have gotten an education in the legal doctrine of standing to sue over the last four years. We now understand that not just anyone can file a lawsuit—it must be someone who has been harmed by the conduct they are alleging is wrongful. Whether or not the plaintiffs here have standing is an issue the government will undoubtedly raise. This is the plaintiffs’ argument: “Plaintiffs are individuals who are being harmed by Defendants’ unlawful acts. Plaintiff Susan Douglas is a senior citizen activist and organizer who is suffering aesthetic, physical, expressive, and procedural harms as a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts. Plaintiff Paul Romano is a Vietnam War veteran who is suffering aesthetic, dignitary, and procedural harms as a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts.” The complaint goes on to detail how those damages to the plaintiffs manifest. It contrasts the Lincoln Memorial, “a solemn and moving homage to this nation’s greatest president, to the millions of soldiers who died to preserve the Union during the Civil War, and to the emancipation of Black Americans from slavery,” to the event that will occur in that sacred space on June 14th. Fighters will weigh in at the Memorial. The complaint explains, “because each fighter faces off with his opponent just after weighing in, the events tend to be raucous, profane, and sometimes violent affairs. For instance, just a few weeks ago, at the UFC 328 weigh in, Sean Strickland called his opponent Khamzat Chimaev a ‘son of a whore’ and a bitch.’” And, “at UFC 178, after Daniel Cormier shoved Jon Jones prior to their light heavyweight title fight, a brawl broke out and spilled into the crowd.” Sound equipment will make the UFC weigh in at the Lincoln Memorial audible all the way to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which visitors there to honor our war dead will be met with the raucous, profane spillover from the UFC event. UFC events feature prominent advertising for sponsors, and the plaintiffs allege that is to be expected here as well. “[O]ne of UFC Freedom 250’s lead branding partners is Crypto.com, the Singaporean cryptocurrency exchange. Crypto.com has announced that it will be providing the cryptocurrency equivalent of $1 million in performance bonuses to fighters. And Crypto.com’s logo has been splashed across materials promoting the event—materials that are not subtle about exploiting the White House imagery for commercial purposes,” they write, offering this photograph to explain what they mean:
As a result, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants are violating National Park Service regulations that restrict an event like this from being permitted, are violating the requirement of congressional approval for constructing a structure on the White House grounds, are violating environmental permitting standards, and are acting beyond their legal authority. They are asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment confirming they are correct about the illegality of what the government is allowing UFC to do, and enjoin further work to complete the Claw and hold the event next Sunday as planned. Unhappy birthday to you, Mr. President. Trump’s birthday party plans are now in the hands of a federal judge. A ruling and perhaps an appeal or two could materialize quickly given the timing here. The real issue arises if an injunction is in place and Trump is forced to cancel or at least postpone his plans. We’ll be back to “will he or won’t he” comply with a court order territory. That’s the constitutional crisis that this administration has been skating on the edge of since shortly after Trump returned to the Oval Office. Beyond it, the sheer scope of the wide open corruption this administration seems to be willing to engage in so Trump and his cronies can make money is breathtaking. The brazen attempt at extracting both the so-called anti-weaponization fund and Trump’s chit for absolute forgiveness for past tax sins from DOJ is now remarkable because there were not enough Republicans in the Senate willing to oppose it. There are daily indications that Trump is increasingly unwell. Joe Biden was forced out of the presidential race for far less. Trump falls asleep in meetings and spews random nonsense with little sustained effort to make it the turning point it should be in this presidency.
The media shouldn’t be letting any of this go unnoticed. It is the responsibility of people reporting the news to report this news. So it was refreshing to see NBC’s Kristen Welker do just that this morning on Meet the Press, ultimately infuriating Trump so much that he terminated the interview and walked out, in and of itself further confirmation of his mental state.
The full transcript of the interview is here. As Trump kept making false claim after false claim, about everything from January 6 defendants who pled guilty being railroaded to the old tired rigged election claims, Welker repeatedly looked him in the eye and told him there was no evidence to support what he was saying. When Trump began a diatribe claiming there was election fraud in California, calling officials there “crooked,” Welker pressed him: PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Do you know why they’re doing that? Because they’re cheating on the election. KRISTEN WELKER: There’s — What? Do you have evidence to support that? … KRISTEN WELKER: But that’s not evidence. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: And I listen. And I listen to people. And let’s see what happens. KRISTEN WELKER: But sir, that’s not evidence, and that’s how they count the votes in California-- Increasing frustrated, Trump finally turned his attack onto Welker, saying of officials in California, that “They’re crooked just like you’re crooked, your press is crooked. And Meet the Press is crooked.” He called Welker “either crooked or you’re stupid.” Trump continued, “Your elections are crooked and you’re crooked, and Meet the Press is crooked…And so is ABC and CBS and CNN…You’re a one-sided crooked network. Sorry. Let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough. Thank you, darling. Have a good time.” It was an epic meltdown; the president presenting as a poorly behaved four-year-old. It should have been all anyone, at least in the press, could talk about for the remainder of the day.
This is not a normal government struggling in good faith with difficult issues. What we are witnessing is the abuse of presidential power to turn the presidency into an opportunity for personal enrichment. There is a common thread in the news we are discussing tonight: A cage fight on the South Lawn, a president who buys stock in the company hosting his birthday party, weigh-ins at the Lincoln Memorial, a Senate too cowed to say no to any of it. And when a journalist simply asks for evidence, he calls her crooked and walks out. Two hundred and fifty years ago this summer, Richard Henry Lee stood in Philadelphia and argued that the colonies are, and of right ought to be, free. “Ought” to be doesn’t mean it happens automatically. It means we have to fight for our rights, for our freedoms. Democracy survives because people are willing to defend it. No kings. That’s what 250 years is supposed to mean. But in the week ahead we face ongoing challenges to that simple, baseline proposition that defines how our democracy is supposed to work. If this kind of in-depth analysis of lawsuits, legal proceedings, and the media is useful to you, I hope you’ll consider becoming a paid subscriber. Civil Discourse exists because readers like you make it possible, and I’m grateful for every one of you who helps support this work. We’re in this together, Joyce You're currently a free subscriber to Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment