The Grand Illusion
If the news reports are accurate, the United States used more aircraft and ships to “extract” Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela than it did on the mission to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability.
While the Trump administration insists that removing the head of state from his own country was in pursuit of a criminal, which Maduro doubtless is, attacking and kidnapping a head of state runs perilously close to an act of war, particularly when the removal required such massive forces.
Under federal law, eight bipartisan, senior members of Congress must receive prior notice of sensitive covert actions. In June 2025, the administration told Republicans, but not Democrats, in advance about the forthcoming U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. For the Venezuela operation, it appears no lawmakers were notified in advance.
Trump insists that the need for secrecy overrode existing law.
What that means is that Trump believes that he can ignore existing law any time he thinks it’s necessary, and I’m fairly certain that the framers of the Constitution didn’t have that in mind.
In addition, Hegseth is now attempting to reduce Senator Mark Kelly’s retirement pay from his service as Naval officer and to censure Senator Kelly for his statement that military officers have a duty not to obey illegal orders. Although Senator Kelly is a former Navy captain and astronaut, his statement was, first, an opinion in line with what all officers are taught, and, second, made as part of Kelly’s position as a senator.
When the Secretary of Defense attempts to punish a retired officer – and sitting Senator – because the Senator disagrees with the Administration, Hegseth’s actions are against both long-standing precedent and the U.S. Constitution, as well as a sign of the contempt both Trump and Hegseth have for the Constitution and the laws supporting it.
Equally unfortunate is the failure of Republicans in the House and Senate to oppose the continuing disregard for the Constitution and the very laws passed by Congress to rein in Presidential overreach.
What good are laws if those controlling Congress allow the administration to break them at will?
The Trump years are a tragedy, not because of what he is doing, but instead of what will be considered normal behavior for our future presidents. Our Congress is more concerned with re-election than accomplishing.
Are we seeing the beginning of the end of the US?
Is the republic going? Even now our expected leaders are dynasties.(Kennedy, Bush, Gore, Clinton, Trump??).
LEM, well said. In addition to the failure or the Republicans in the House and Senate to stand up for the rule of law and the Constitution, one must acknowledge the very real role that the current conservative majority in the SCOTUS has played in this subservience to Trump and the notion of a Unitary Executive in the White House.
Make no mistake that the SCOTUS majority will find a way to twist their arguments in a knot and hamper a Democrat is Party POTUS in the future should he/she decide to take advantage of the full breadth of power granted to the president by the court.
I’m not even sure that the SCOTUS majority even has an internally self-consitent ideology at this point if the issue before them is related to Trump.
So, the last wall in the form of the judiciary has also fallen. It’s going to be a long time to repair this, if ever. I think there is a very valid reason to pack the court under a future Democratic administration and re-litigate a few of the decisions made in the last few years by this high court.
It can be done under a ‘modernism’ rather than an ‘originalism’ theory.
We’re on a precarious point, but it can be avoided.
Come midterms we could possible impeach and remove Trump.
Come 2028 we would inform the SCOTUS that they will act right or we pack the court until they do.
For anyone who thinks that’s unreasonable, it’s been threatened in the past as well.
HEADLINES FROM NEAR FUTURE
2026
“Trump Invades Cyprus”
“Cyprus Declared To Be Narco-State”
“Natives Of Cyprus Filthy Says Trump Needs To Be Taught How To Use Soap”
2027
“Cyprus Renamed Mar-A-Lago-Mediterranean”
“Further Fracturing Of Sudan Leads To Formation Of East Sudan, Deemed Poorest Nation”
2028
“Mar-A-Lago-Mediterranean To Be Redeveloped As Lux Resort After Filthy Natives Extradited To East Sudan”
2029
“Lux Condos On Mar-A-Lago-Mediterranean Available Starting From USD$10,000,000 To The Right Types Of Good People”
2032
“President-For-Life Vance Invades Madagascar”
“Madagascar Declared To Be Narco-State”
2038
“More Than 97% Of Cyprus Natives Relocated To East Sudan In 2029 Having Died Of Disease-Hunger-Violence”
Perhaps if the Democrats can win a majority in Congress then Trump could be impeached and removed, but who would have the power of the Executive Branch afterward? It isn’t just Trump responsible for the abuses we are seeing. The next few years are going to be very long.
All, Impeachment by the House is definitely in the cards and would serve as a Trump rebuke. But there has only ever been one successful removal by the Senate after an impeachment of a high official – and that was of a sitting jurist (I think 13 to 14 house impeachments in nearly 250 years. I’m sure someone else can check this as I’m trying to recall the book on impeachment I read in 2017).
Impeachment envisioned by the founders has not worked as a practical matter given the rise of political parties early in our history (unfortunately).
Now, I’d still love to see the Dems first roll pout potential impeachment of Bondi for obstruction. She is not well loved by anyone. Perhaps set some precedent and roll from there while still legislating.
And it just goes to show how utterly short-sighted the Republicans are being.
Is there anything to stop the next Democrat president from expropriating all Trump’s assets? Turning Mar-a-Lago into a nuclear waste dump? This kind of Constitution-flouting threatens *everyone.*
(I suspect the Republicans are planning to make sure there never is another Democrat president. One way or another…)