by
Drew
Angerer/Getty
Images)
On
Thursday,
Heather
Cox
Richardson’s
“Letters
from
an
American”
had
two
interesting
tidbits. First:
In
2020,
when
Utah
senator
Mitt
Romney
voted
to
convict
Donald
Trump
on
one
of
the
charges
on
which
the
House
impeached
him,
Trump
tweeted
a
video
calling
him
a
“Democrat
secret
asset”
who
“tried
to
infiltrate
Trump’s
administration”
while
“posing
as
a
Republican.”
Romney
was
the
Republican
Party’s
2012
presidential
nominee.
Which
made
me
think: So,
my
Trump-supporting
friends,
did
you
believe
that? Is
Mitt
Romney
a
Democrat
secret
asset?
Hmmm
…
Then
there
were
the
administration’s
recent
decisions
to
have
the
military
destroy
three
Venezuelan
boats
that
may
have
been
operated
by
drug
smugglers. Of
course
the
police
have
the
right
to
arrest
drug
smugglers
(if
the
police
have
jurisdiction
and
probable
cause),
but
does
the
military
have
the
right
to
assassinate,
rather
than
arrest,
alleged
drug
smugglers
from
a
country
with
which
we
are
not
at
war?
Cox
Richardson quoted
John
Yoo,
the
Republican
author
of
the
infamous
memos
justifying
torture
in
the
administration
of
Bush
the
Younger,
on
this
issue:
John
Yoo,
the
former
deputy
assistant
attorney
general
under
President
George
W.
Bush
who
wrote
the
legal
justification
for
torture
during
the
war
on
terror,
pushed
back
on
the
extreme
powers
Trump
is
claiming
to
kill
those
he
labels
terrorists.
“There
has
to
be
a
line
between
crime
and
war,”
Yoo
said.
“We
can’t
just
consider
anything
that
harms
the
country
to
be
a
matter
for
the
military.
Because
that
could
potentially
include
every
crime.”
Which
made
me
think: So,
my
Trump-supporting
friends,
has
anyone
yet
convinced
you
that
these
assassinations
were
legal?
I
then
left
Cox
Richardson’s
leads
and
went
to Bloomberg
Law:
Three
current
[Department
of
Labor]
employees,
who
spoke
on
condition
of
anonymity,
told
Bloomberg
Law
that
colleagues
who
took
the
Department
of
Government
Efficiency’s
“Fork
in
the
Road”
offer
earlier
this
year
have
returned
as
full-time
workers,
after
collecting
their
full
pay
and
benefits
for
months
without
performing
their
job
duties.
The
agency’s
internal
website
for
processing
employee
IT
requests
also
has
a
banner
reading
“Welcoming
Back
Returning
DRP
Employees,”
according
to
a
screenshot
shared
with
Bloomberg
Law.
That’s
a
good
deal
for
the
employees: A
long
vacation,
on
the
government
payroll,
after
which
you
can
rejoin
the
government,
doing
precisely
the
same
job
that
you
had
theoretically
left.
Can
I
have
that
deal,
too?
And,
my
Trump-supporting
friends,
does
that
seem
like
government
efficiency
to
you?
I
then
left
the
easy
sources
of
news
and
ventured
out
on
my
own.
At
the
start
of
Trump’s
term,
there
were
about
700
immigration
judges
available
to
process
the
huge
backlog
of
immigration
cases
pending
to
decide
whether
folks
can
lawfully
enter
the
United
States. After
a
series
of
firings
and
forced
self-resignations,
there
are
now
about 600
judges
left to
decide
those
cases. That’s
not
nearly
enough,
so
Trump
has
decided
to
enlist
members
of
the
military’s
JAG
Corps
to
serve
as
immigration
judges. Members
of
the
JAG
Corps
don’t
necessarily
know
anything
about
immigration
law,
and
there
are legal
questions whether
members
of
the
military
can
be
used
for
civilian
purposes
(such
as
serving
as
immigration
judges).
So,
my
Trump-supporting
friends,
are
you
convinced
that
firing
qualified
immigration
judges
for
no
reason,
and
then
replacing
them
with
unqualified,
and
possibly
illegal,
military
lawyers
(who
were
presumably
doing
other
necessary
tasks
for
the
military)
is
an
intelligent
policy?
Trump
says
that
American
cities
run
by
Democratic
mayors
are
crime-ridden
hellholes. Trump’s
solution
to
this
is
to
send
in
members
of
the
National
Guard,
who
aren’t
trained
in
crime
control,
to
keep
order.
So,
my
Trump-supporting
friends,
does
it
really
make
sense
to
send
in
the
National
Guard,
on
a
temporary
deployment
at
considerable
expense,
to
serve
this
purpose,
or
would
it
make
more
sense
—
if
our
large
cities
are
truly
crime-infested
hellholes
—
for
the
federal
government
to
give
cash
grants
to
cities
to
permit
them
to
hire
and
train
more
cops?
How
about
all
the
other
ridiculous
things
that
Trump
has
asked
you
to
believe? Did
you
really
believe,
first,
that
the
rioters
on
January
6
were
members
of
antifa,
as
Trump
insisted? Did
you
then
change
your
mind
to
believe,
as
Trump
later
instructed,
that
the
rioters
were
members
of
the
FBI? Did
you
then
later
change
your
mind
again
to
believe,
as
the
fearless
leader
insisted,
that
the
rioters
had
actually
done
nothing
wrong
at
all
and
deserved
to
be
pardoned?
What
will
you
believe
tomorrow?
Did
you
really
believe,
as
Trump
insisted,
that
Trump
had
not
signed
a
note
in
the
birthday
book
for
Jeffrey
Epstein’s
50th
birthday? Did
you
believe
that
there
was
in
fact
no
birthday
book
at
all? Did
you
believe
that
the Wall
Street
Journal,
which
had
the
temerity
to
suggest
that
a
note
signed
by
Trump
existed,
should
be
sued
for
defamation?
Now
that
the
note
has
been
produced,
and
you’ve
seen
it
with
your
own
eyes,
what
are
you
thinking? Trump
still
says
it’s
not
his
signature;
do
you
believe
that?
If
so,
just
who
forged
the
note,
20
years
ago,
and
had
it
inserted
in
the
book,
and
for
what
purpose? When
Trump
changes
his
story
again,
will
you
believe
the
next
ridiculous
thing
that
he
says?
Is
there
an
outside
chance
that
you
realize
there’s
something
wrong
with
this?
Or
is
Trump
telling
you
not
to
worry?
Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].