Picking a federal prosecutor is a political process, no doubt about it

It seems the first steps have been taking toward picking a new U.S. attorney for Chicago; the Chicago Sun-Times reported that names of recommended appointees were sent recently to President Donald J. Trump for his consideration.
 

TRUMP: On verge of picking new U.S. attorney

The president gets to pick who he wants, but usually seeks the advice of the local members of Congress from the state in which the appointee will serve.

WHICH IS WHY Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., the senior-most member of the Republican portion of Illinois’ congressional delegation, took it upon himself to make recommendations – who now will be reviewed by the president’s advisors so as to make sure that Shimkus hasn’t picked a legal dud or two.

Of course, the process is complicated by partisan politics – the great headache-inducer that manages to interfere with the process of “the people’s business.”

Because the president usually defers to a state’s Senate delegation in seeking recommendations. But we in Illinois have chosen Democrats to serve as our senators.

And undermining any influence Democrats may have is kind of the whole point of this Age of Trump that we’re now in.

SHIMKUS, AN OTHERWISE obscure member of Congress from the Illinois-based suburbs of St. Louis, certainly wasn’t going to care what either Richard Durbin or Tammy Duckworth thought.

Although the realities of the political process are that Senate rules exist that would allow either Durbin or Duckworth, if not both combined, to thwart the appointment process. Not that they’ll get any say in who gets the position, but they will have the authority to totally gum up the works.

SHIMKUS: Sent names to president

Which is why, as the Sun-Times reports, the president’s staff has reached out to Durbin to indicate it understands the rules that would permit Durbin, as a Senate judiciary committee member, to have some say over an attorney serving in his home state.

Could it be that our president, who during his first four-or-so months in office has shown much contempt for the process of government, is finally catching on?

OR AT THE very least doesn’t want something as basic as appointing federal prosecutors to various districts across the nation – including northern Illinois – to become a convoluted mess?

DURBIN: Can make GOP life miserable

Because Trump is the one who made the big spectacle of terminating the employment of all the chief federal prosecutors who had been appointed by Barack Obama – thereby leaving the offices in the hands of interim staffers who aren’t expected to last for the long-term.

Even Trump realizes how incompetent he’d appear to be if he couldn’t come up with permanent replacements. The real question is how uncomfortable will Trumpites be in having to acknowledge Democratic Party control or influence of even this minor magnitude.

I’m sure that Shimkus considered it a significant advancement to his influence on Capitol Hill that HE would get to make the recommendations and would get to ignore the thoughts of senior-most officials because of politically partisan concerns.

WILL HE, AND other Republicans, consider it some sort of blow to their political partisanship that the president winds up having to contemplate what the other side, in the form of Durbin, thinks after all?

 

DUCKWORTH: Likely to have a say too

And what happens if it turns out that the recommendations picked by Shimkus wind up being found too incompetent, or unqualified, for whatever reason to warrant the president signing off and picking those individuals in his name?

I’ve always thought the only way that Trump could seriously face the threat of impeachment and removal from office (regardless of the new Morning Consult poll that shows 54 percent of people believing Trump is unfit for office and 43 percent thinking he already has committed an impeachable offense) is if he were to actually behave in a conciliatory manner toward more-progressive interests in our society. The concept of a buffoon who eagerly dumps all over non-ideologue Republicans is exactly what GOP officials who have the majority in Congress desire.

So could naming the replacement for Zachary Fardon and 45 other U.S. attorneys wind up being an act that causes Trump so much of a political headache he’ll be wondering just why he was foolish enough to ever want to be president in the first place.

  -30-

EXTRA: Is it actually a badge of honor that Fardon is out of an appointment?!?

Zachary Fardon, the man who has been U.S. attorney in Chicago for four years now, ought to be proud of himself that he soon will be out of a job.

FARDON: Likely to be better employed soon

Fardon was one of 46 U.S. attorneys located across the United States who were ordered Friday to resign their posts immediately, so that new President Donald J. Trump can have the privilege of giving their jobs to people of his own preference.

CRAIN'S CHICAGO BUSINESS reported that Fardon will be gone by Monday, and that the chief assistant, Joel Levin, will be acting U.S. attorney for the northern Illinois district until Trump, through the persona of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, can make appointments that then need the confirmation of the U.S. Senate.

It could well be autumn by the time we have a new U.S. attorney in place in Chicago, which pretty much puts everything in a holding pattern until then.

Not the most sensible course of action. But not at all surprising, considering that we now have a president capable of behaving like a raging loon and who doesn't seem the least bit concerned about the chaos he's causing for government operations.

Because, after all, he's the guy who thinks he's coming in to shake everything up! Besides, Trump will be consulting the Republican members of the Illinois congressional delegation for advice on who the new U.S. attorney shall be.

OF COURSE, TWO-thirds of the Illinois congressional delegation is Democrat -- including all the people actually from Chicago. They're all going to have their views ignored with Rep. John Shimkus of the area near St. Louis being the senior member -- unless Trump defers to Gov. Bruce Rauner, whose views certainly aren't appreciated around City Hall these days.

My guess is that Trump is interested in finding someone not at all interested in the law or criminal prosecution, but in stirring up legal nonsense. Particularly since Trump has expressed particularly interest in using Chicago as his politically partisan punching bag.

The new U.S. attorney for Chicago to be chosen by the members of the congressional delegation from outside the Chicago area will be the guy expected to carry out the political dirty work -- perhaps of prosecuting those people whom the president wants taken down a notch or two in order to bolster the presidential rhetoric.

All I know is that there'd be a whole lot of screaming and whining taking place if the situation was reversed and the Chicago-area congressmen were suddenly picking new U.S. attorneys to serve in Springfield and Marion.

BUT THIS KIND of political play ought not be surprising in this Age of Trump. Maybe the only real surprise is that it took Trump this long to get around to making such a move.

We can also hope that whomever winds up getting picked to be the head G-man in Chicago will be someone with such an intense respect for the concept of The Law that it overcomes partisan hang-ups.

In which case, that person will wind up finding themselves on Trump's list of enemies, because the new president most definitely is someone who expects to be regarded as above the law himself.

And in the end, Fardon -- whose record includes the involvement in prosecutions of former Gov. George Ryan and former 10th Ward Alderman Edward R. Vrdolyak may find himself relieved to be spared the nonsense of having to cope with the whims of such a chief executive.

  -30-

Carson: blacks are "immigrants," no wonder Trump finds him fit for Cabinet

I once knew someone who would argue against the need for Affirmative Action by saying it stigmatizes black people and creates the impression amongst everyone else that African-Americans can't possibly compete in our society.

CARSON: Fits in w/ Trump crowd

He would always cite himself as an example -- an educated black man who was working his way up through the process of trying to achieve success as a broadcaster. In fact, these days he's a person of some success working on the local radio scene in Indianapolis. He and his family, he'd say, managed to achieve success without any help!

I COULDN'T HELP but think of my old friend (whom I must confess I haven't seen personally for several years) when I learned of the nit-witted rant that Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson went on earlier this week -- the one that compared the transport of all those Africans to this continent to serve as slave labor to the travails  faced by immigrants who chose to come to this country in search of a better life.

I'm not surprised that Carson would think such thoughts. I have known of black people who resent the fact that many in our society are willing to acknowledge the hassles confronted by immigrants while refusing to acknowledge anything difficult about the travails that black people have faced in trying to find a niche in this society.

So maybe he's merely trying to boost up the situation of black people. Although I doubt his motives are that simple.

I'd be more likely to think that he's trying to drag down the circumstances of all those people whose ancestors had a relative or two (in my case, it was both of my grandfathers and my paternal grandmother) whose desire to escape whatever hellish existence they were enduring in the "old country" was so strong that they put up with having to learn how to exist in a completely different environment.

Only someone blinded by ideology would think ...

AND NOT ONLY that, but to get ahead in the strange settings. That's why it can be argued that the immigrants amongst us are usually our society's greatest strength, and that if we really wanted to become a "Third World nation," we should go ahead and impose the nativist-inspired policies that often are touted by the most intense backers of our newly-elected president.

Our nation would really become Mississippi, which certainly isn't something we ought to be striving for. If anything, we ought to be doing everything in our power to bolster that state because the jokes we make about its economic conditions really aren't funny and do go a long ways to holding us all back.

But back to Carson, who used his first major public appearance since being confirmed as HUD secretary to make such comments at a time when his boss is trying to push the Republican majority in Congress to impose hard-core changes in immigration policy to further restrict the kinds of people who can seriously consider relocating to a life in the United States.

... people in these two predicaments are similar

I know some people argue that all these foreigners coming into this country are actually harming the interests of black people by ensuring that many of them remain perpetually at the bottom ring of our society.

THESE ARE THE people who object to the argument being made that immigrants do the jobs that our citizens just won't do. They say we ought to use the black masses of unemployed to do such work.

Although I know one of my former work colleagues who is black would retort to that line of logic by saying, "We already did our time picking cotton!"

So when I hear that Carson has made such comments, I have to shake my head in dismay. Even though I realize that he probably has gone through a lifetime of having the bigots amongst us make presumptions that any success he achieved wasn't deserved.

But in making such comments, I can't help but feel that Carson is trivializing the situation not only of immigrants but also of black people. He's providing aid and comfort to those who have a racial hang-up to his success in life (he was a neurosurgeon, although his latest theories about being able to trigger presise memories in one's brain sounds more like Dr. Frankenstein at work).

HE'S HURTING HIMSELF and the circumstances of the many black people who probably could have made something successful out of their lives and made worthy contributions to our society if only they hadn't to deal with the interference of policies such as "Jim Crow" in the South and other nonsense from people who just couldn't deal with the idea of an equal playing field.

TRUMP: Filling his staff w/ such people

It's why my own Facebook account is now filled with people who felt compelled to show diagrams of slaves jammed into ship cargo holds and mockingly say those are "immigrants, traveling in steerage" or wisecracks that "Harriet Tubman must have been a very successful travel agent."

Carson is showing just how out-of-touch with reality he is, although I suspect that's probably the very reason why Donald J. Trump took him seriously and gave him a cabinet appointment. Just as I'm sure the contempt felt by many towards Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (who himself has often spoken out against affirmative action) only adds to the support felt for him by the conservative ideologues.

That kind of split may well be piece of evidence Number One on the list of reasons why we can't come together as a society.

  -30-

We in Chicago have priorities straight

The nation may have been obsessing politically Tuesday over Donald J. Trump and his first nationally-televised address to Congress and the nation, what with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., going so far as to make a fundraising pitch where she says his rhetoric will be filled with "whatever lies he spreads in his speech."

CLAYPOOL: Cutting the school year short?

But I suspect we here in the Second City had our priorities straight, being more concerned with the potential for political shenanigans that may wind up impacting the Chicago Public Schools and those young people who have little choice but to try to get themselves an education in that system.

THE FEAR IS that with the ongoing inability of Gov. Bruce Rauner and the Democratic Party-led General Assembly to put together a budget that ensures state government can function as its supposed to, the funding that the state already unreliably provides to public education programs will be tampered with.

Which led to the letter Mayor Rahm Emanuel had drafted to send to parents of public school kids, telling them that the 2016-17 school year may have to come to an abrupt end June 1. As things stand officially, the school year is supposed to run through June 20, although it could go longer if we get sudden bursts of harsh wintry weather that could force snow days to be used.

Perhaps that means we ought to be grateful that we have had a mild winter this season. I'm not aware of schools having to be closed at all this year due to snow or excess cold.

The letter was signed by schools CEO Forrest Claypool, but people are pretty sure he wouldn't have the nerve to concoct an idea like this without having the approval of Hizzoner himself.

PERSONALLY, I WONDER how this would harm the students themselves, since they're supposed to have a certain minimum amount of actual days in the classroom for a school year to "count" for something. Basically, to ensure that all students are getting certain amounts of class work, regardless of what district they're actually attending school in.

EMANUEL: The 'man' behind the 'plan?'

Could we be putting our system's students into a status where their school year would not officially count? Would we be doing the equivalent of holding them back a year because of the financial mess?

Would we be giving the crackpots of our society all the more fuel to mock anyone who comes out of the Chicago Public Schools system to think the city somehow lags behind the rest of Illinois?

The Chicago Teachers Union, which is always quick to denounce anything where there's even a tinge of being able to "Blame Emanuel!" in the works, may actually have a point this time with their criticisms.

THE CHICAGO PUBLIC Schools, they say, "is broke on purpose. Hundreds of millions of dollrs remain in TIF surplus funds -- revenuethat could plug the holes in school budgets throughout the district today."

I don't know about the merits of using tax increment district funds (which are supposed to be used to encourage businesses in specific districts to make investments in their long-term viability) for schools operations. But I'm sure we're now facing a drastic enough situation that previously-unconsidered measures need to be contemplated.

Because right now, the teachers union isn't really wrong when they say, "It is criminal that we have a mayor that would rather wait out Rauner's hostage situation (the lack of a state budget) instead of doing the right thing and providing the revenue to fully resource schools."

I'm almost surprised that Trump hasn't used this situation to make more of his Tweets from a Twit to rant about the Chicago schools being in sorry shape, just as the GOPers of the Reagan era used to like to use the "worst in America" label to lambast the Chicago Public Schools. Or maybe that would require Trump to keep more than one train of thought going at a time -- and for now, Chicago is about murder!

OF COURSE, THERE also are the confirmations of all the appointments that Trump wants to make to the federal government, and it seems there are complications with the attempt to put Todd Ricketts in as deputy Commerce secretary. CBS News reported that Ricketts, a member of the family that owns the Chicago Cubs, may have to withdraw his nomination later this week, in order to avoid the humiliation of being formally rejected by the Senate.

RICKETTS: Too many conflicts?

It seems that Ricketts' connections to AmeriTrade, which is the family's primary business interest, puts him into so many financial conflicts of interest with government that it would be impossible for him to comply with Office of Government Ethics rules.

The benefit of Ricketts not getting the appointment may well be the Cubs, since it will reduce the potential for people to take pot shots at the ball club by labelling them the preferred ball club of the Trump Administration -- a status that Chicago White Sox fans (who enjoyed the status of their team labelling former President Barack Obama their "first fan") would be more than willing to exploit.

But it also makes me wonder about all the stink we've been hearing with regards to the potential for Trump himself to have conflicts of interest because of his business ties -- do we have a system of government in which Trump is fit for 46 percent of the electorate to say he can be president, but he'd be unfit if somebody else tried to appoint him to a cabinet post?

  -30-

A Dem in Trump cabinet? Not unheard-of idea, no matter what Trump-ites say

Excuse me for not being impressed by the reports coming out of Camp Trump these days that say he’s considering putting a (wait for it) Democrat in his presidential cabinet of advisers.

GABBARD: Trump's token Democrat?

The reports I read in The Hill, a D.C.-based newspaper focusing on Congress, say that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, met Monday with Trump at his offices in New York.

SPECULATION AMONGST POLITICAL geeks is that Trump is considering Gabbard for the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Which may sound impressive (it’s the post that was held by Adlai Stevenson II during the presidency of John F. Kennedy).

But considering that many of the kind of people who made up the bulk of voters for Trump have their hang-ups about the very existence of the United Nations, this could easily be an appointment to a post that Trump won’t give the slightest thought to during his administration.

Besides, the reality is that the easiest way for a new president to make a gesture of political bipartisanship is to offer up a cabinet post to one person of the opposition political party.

It wouldn’t be something new to Trump, even though I’m fully confident that
The Donald will try to portray this as the ultimate gesture that he’s not the ideological crackpot that many people fear he will become.

SOMETHING ABOUT GUILT by association with all those people who are crackpots. Who, according to The Hill, are inclined to favor Gabbard because of her ideological stances with regards to firearms and refugees and, in particular, a willingness to be suspicious of people of the Islamic religious faith.

Besides, Gabbard was one of the people who, back during the primary, was a solid backer of Bernie Sanders’ presidential aspirations. Which Trump will spin into her opposition to Hillary Clinton ever becoming president.

Who knows? She may well wind up fitting in with Camp Trump. Or she may wind up being isolated into a position of nothingness. We’ll have to wait and see.

 

LaHOOD: The GOPer who backed Obama

I don’t think she’d be as seriously taken as Ray LaHood. Remember him?

HE WAS THE Republican picked to serve in the presidential cabinet of Barack Obama. LaHood wound up serving a few years as head of the Department of Transportation.

Obama wound up turning to his home state of Illinois when searching for someone of the GOP persuasion – LaHood was a Peoria native who had served in Congress both as a representative and also had been chief of staff to one-time House Minority Leader Robert Michel.

Of course, that made him suspicious to the hard-core ideologues who always suspected Michel of being too weak to stand up to Democrats. LaHood wound up ending his career in public service by overseeing the nation’s transportation policy – although his Congress stint is memorable for him being the guy who presided over the House of Representatives hearings that wound up impeaching then-President Bill Clinton (the Senate failed to convict him).

Not that the ideologues ever gave Obama any credit for having LaHood around. The opposition of people who think that Trump is “taking back” their country were never the type to credit Obama for anything – and are most anxious to erase his very presence from electoral politics!

NOT THAT I expect Trump’s appointment of Gabbard to run into much opposition. For now, the president-elect will have a majority to back him, and may enjoy the idea of a Democrat amongst them just to spite the bulk of Democrats. That is, if Gabbard actually gets the appointment.

I wouldn’t put it past Trump to toy with the idea of naming a Democrat to a significant post, build up hopes, then trash them! Trump is exactly the kind who will want to play with people.

 

Could the Cubs become Trump's team?

Which also is how I view the speculation that Todd Ricketts, a member of the family that initially feuded with Trump but later helped back his presidential campaign financially, met with Trump to talk about policy.

Ricketts, of course, is taking joy these days from his family ownership of the Chicago Cubs, whom whether their owners realize it or not hail from a part of Chicago that was very inclined to prefer the thought of Hillary Clinton as president – could developing too close a tie to Trump wind up hurting the ball club?

  -30-