(File image of Special Council Jack Smith)

The Production Meeting of the Writer’s Section was done, copy filed and posted and the skies beckoned with something that looked a bit like the color “blue.” The Marketing and Legal Sections were taking the long weekend to amuse themselves with good ideas about activities of personal interest, so things were relaxed. Our gang was done talking about the implications of verdicts from SCOTUS on a bunch of things. Some of the pandemonium that followed the over turn of Roe-vs-Wade is reflected in what the various states have chosen to do. We understood that was the point of the affair, from one perspective, anyway.

Others deal specifically with public policies the Government has decided are the province of the people who work for it. We used to say the people in the institutions worked for us, but we have gotten over it. What is not surprising is that three of the cases deal specifically with violation largely constructed to deal with a former senior official who was (allegedly) deposed by the same government.

Another un-surprising bit of messaging was from one of the participants. In the LawFare circus. It was from Special Counsel Jack Smith, one of the participants in the LawFare carnival sworn to bring a former Chief Executive to justice on vaguely specified crime. Or crimes. He filed a motion before the legal system shut down for the Holiday that honors the memory of those who died defending the same government which we are discussing.

Jack’s case is apparently in trouble. He is attempting to deflect the negative messaging by demanding Mr. Trump’s “condition of release” in the classified documents case be modified. He wants to take advantage of the “gag order” provisions imposed by Judge Merchant in the parallel New York “Hush Money” proceeding. This would have the practical effect of barring Mr. Trump from criticizing law enforcement. That is similar to the New York Gag order, since the point is to ban speech protesting something that was subject of a minor flurry of messaging over the past few weeks.

Recent disclosures on the FBI raid at the former President’s Mar-a-Lago estate were a bit startling. The FBI team sent to seize the papers was authorized Deadly Force in case someone stepped between the documents in boxes and the “unmarked shirts and trousers” worn by the FBI agents. We first saw the new look at the 2017 “Unite the Right” demonstrations just down the pike in Charlottesville:

(In our days of Federal service we wore clearly marked clothing to ensure it was clear who we were and that our acts were conducted in accordance with the law. Apparently the inverse protocol also applies).

Mr. Trump reacted to the news of the deadly force authorization last week by saying the government had plans to kill him.

That would be incendiary, and we do not need our Legal Section to tell us not to elaborate on the former President’s obviously hysterical remarks.

The gag order thing is an interesting evolution in the practice of New Law. Crimes can now be prosecuted without being specifically specified. The portfolio of practice is to use the existing legal system and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent of those empowered to start the suit. They use the duration of the legal process as part of the torment. As a practical matter, the system is useful to bankrupt or malign reputations in endless messaging about what they have (allegedly) done to oppose the just wishes of those in control.

We recently ran briefly through the 13 cases upon which the SCOTUS is about to issue decisions. One of them deals with agencies in the Executive branch and their unilateral ability to issues regulations without legislative oversight. There were 55 such regulations issued in the week before the Supremes announce whether that is permitted under our constitutional framework. All of the regulations will have consequences for those they are intended to affect.

Our favorite was from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since Richard M. Nixon established it, great good and significant mischief has resulted in the interest of greater good understood by highly motivated people intent on saving the world on their own terms.

Our opinions can differ. Thus, opposition should be suppressed in the public interest. They did it again just two weeks ago, possibly in anticipation of what the High Court might say about just this sort of unilateral regulatory action. The EPA announced proposed rules to reduce emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants. No big deal, right? It started back in April with “final” rules that new and existing power plants must capture nearly all carbon dioxide emissions by 2040.

That seems to be a ways down the road, but it is only sixteen years away. Don’t get us wrong, we are opposed to Doom. But now that the solution to a problem whose existence is still in some debate- is “settled” how on earth would we replace the juice we need to exist in the way we do? Wouldn’t that be part of the rule-making?

Solar and Wind have demonstrated their ability to produce useful power when the sun is shining and the wind blows. That is a great idea, but unfortunately totally inadequate to do anything but create more problems. There are answers, of course. Unfortunately, they are to questions mostly unasked. Our group is a little unusual in perspective due to the trade we followed.

We lived most of our lives safely around powerful Navy nuclear plants, though the matter of the fire onboard USS George Washington a decade ago is a reminder that safe operating procedures must always be followed.

There are small shore-based reactors that could provide continuity and efficiency in a transition to reduce a trace gas. But in addition to the five years to build one, there is an onerous permitting process that take ten. So, to deploy the first non-carbon emitting power plant we are already only a year short of the 2040 limit for shut down of everything that generates power now.

It reminds us a bit of the 2021 “Good Ideas” initiative from Congress. They appropriated $7.5 Billion to support the Administration’s desire to install tens of thousands of charging stations to power the new cars, which were another grand notion. To date, about seven have actually been constructed. That may be a little short on the requirements of a couple hundred million cars.

Unless that was the point, you know? Maybe keep people in their fifteen minute cities where the government can keep things in order.

Before you start shaking your head, we are in favor of less human impact on the climate. If indeed there is something in progress aside from the recovery from an Ice Age with a cap a mile deep over Chicago. Our argument here is that some highly motivated people have a feeling they can save the world if they just force us down the path to do so.

Our perspective is that maybe we ought to talk about how this is supposed to work, how much it is going to cost, and who exactly is supposed to pay for it. The ‘good ideas’ part?

That is the cheap end of things. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on whether the anonymous Experts at EPA can issue good ideas with the force of law this month. We will see whether they have any good ideas about it.

Copyright 2024 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com