Regarding the FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago, Trump has launched a lawsuit against the US government.

Abstract

The "deep state" of career federal workers, according to President Donald Trump, is actively working to obstruct his presidency, a complaint he frequently made. But the ones who openly defied his orders were his own presidential appointees. Political appointees are typically the most devoted defenders of a president's policy objectives, leading the charge through the several executive branch bureaucracy. The White House, Cabinet, Military, and Intelligence Community's opposition to Trump's policy orders is examined in this article. The report comes to the conclusion that the presidency has never faced this amount of opposition before.

Keywords:Current Situation,Government and Security Authorities,Vice President Pence

Current Situation

Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against the US government on Monday regarding the FBI's search of his Mar-a-Lago residence, requesting a temporary halt to the reading of materials collected until a special court official may be assigned to examine the relevant records.

The Department of Justice (DoJ) should not decide what the FBI can use as evidence on its own, according to the lawsuit, which claims that the court should appoint a special master who is typically a retired lawyer or judge. The FBI may have obtained privileged information during its search.

Additionally, the complaint "requires the government to produce a more complete receipt for property; and... requires the government to restore any material confiscated that was not within the scope of the search warrant" according to the Southern District of Florida of the United States District Court.

Background

Do many who support President Trump find hatred in speech appealing? Intolerant forms of Christianity, racism, Islamophobia, anti-immigrant attitude, and sexism have all been linked to voting for or supporting President Trump in previous studies. In order to further this body of research, we investigate whether those who are satisfied with President Trump's performance are more tolerant of the offensive language and images they encounter online. Data from a December 2017 online poll of 465 youth and young adults are used to support this.Therefore, backing for the former president is an instance of "politics of status," which is an enthymeme. Past theoretical analyses of online hatred that are based on the theories of routine behaviour, social learning, and social structure provide support for our strategy. Our main conclusion is that there is a strong correlation between support for the President and agreement with online hate speech. Additionally, we discover that a person's agreement with online extremist content is correlated with their differential position within the social structure, social connections both online and offline, and viewpoints toward norm violations.

Many people, including Donald Trump, were shocked by his victory in the 2016 presidential election (McCaskill, 2016a). People were immediately curious as to how a political neophyte was able to upset Hillary Clinton, a well regarded, knowledgeable, and well-funded Washington insider.According to the President's supporters, his victory in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin was a result of his populist appeal, while Clinton supporters contended that Trump's candidacy was supported by his willingness to spread hatred to receptive audiences, particularly White voters who saw immigration and globalisation as signs of economic decline and cultural dilution (Tavernise & Gebeloff, 2018; The Guardian, 2018).

This last argument parallels Clinton's now-famous address at a fundraiser in New York City, in which she labelled half of Trump's supporters as deplorables who were racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamophobic (Chozick, 2016). Allegations that ugly rhetoric appeals to certain of Trump's audience have followed the President around even after Clinton acknowledged that her definition was overly vague (Eversley, 2018; E. Grinberg, 2018).According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC, 2019), there were 4% more active hate groups in the US between 2016 and 2017. In a similar vein, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) discovered that hate crimes increased 17% in 2017 after reaching a 5-year high in 2016. (Barrouquere, 2018).

The increase from 2016 to 2017 ranks as the third biggest annual increase, both in percentage and raw numbers, since the FBI started compiling data on hate crimes in 1992. 2017 was the third worst year ever for hate crimes. According to the American Defense League (2019), since 1970, 2018 has been the fourth-deadliest year on record for domestic extremist killings.

The increase from 2016 to 2017 ranks as the third biggest annual increase, both in percentage and raw numbers, since the FBI started compiling data on hate crimes in 1992. 2017 was the third worst year ever for hate crimes. According to the American Defense League (2019), since 1970, 2018 has been the fourth-deadliest year on record for domestic extremist killings.

According to The American Defense League Center on Extremism Report, 2018, members of right-wing extremist movements were responsible for 71% of extremist-related fatalities in the United States between 2008 and 2017. Of the more than 50 extremist-related killings in the country in 2018, every one of them had ties to right-wing extremism (American Defense League Center on Extremism, 2019). Right-wing extremist crimes of hatred increasingly target immigrants in particular (FBI, 2018; SPLC, 2019).

Social media in particular has contributed to the rise of the militant far-right (Reitman, 2018). The prominent White-nationalist hate group Stormfront first launched online in 1995, demonstrating that White nationalists were early adopters of Internet technologies despite being portrayed in popular media as dumb luddites (Daniels, 2009).

Internet Rage and Hatred: a Crucial  Consideration

The Internet draws hate groups because it provides a readily accessible and affordable means of recruiting, proselytising, selling goods, and promoting events (Douglas, 2007). Online hatred has been made more prevalent thanks to social media. Organized online hate organisations are now vastly outnumbered by people who run hateful websites or simply post angry remarks on social media and other online platforms (Potok, 2015).

Right-wing extremism, which is currently most frequently associated with the "alt-right" movement, dominates cyberspace (Hawdon et al., 2014; The SPLC, 2017). The term "alt-right," which stands for "alternative right," is a catch-all term for a somewhat amorphous and largely unidentified movement that is primarily composed of young White men who strongly identify with their demographic and whose shared ethos rejects mainstream conservatism and embraces, implicitly or explicitly, White supremacy (National Public Radio, 2016).The alt-right, like other online right-wing extremist groups, targets racial and ethnic minorities, women, immigration, liberal philosophy, and Enlightenment ideas (especially feminists).

Strong Sympathy for President Trump

The most effective enthymemes are those that are widely known, but because the audience supplies the unspoken premises, several audiences may get radically different meanings from the same enthymeme (Jackson, 2006).This makes it possible for different speakers of the same enthymematic phrase to have different presumptions. For instance, the alt-right viewed former President Bill Clinton's tweet promoting "diversity" as evidence that he had adopted an anti-White, anti-American, and anti-male ideology because "diversity is a Commmie leftist code word," according to Mercieca. However, many saw it as evidence that he was committed to "fundamental American values" (2018).

The president's emphasis on the necessity of building a wall along the US-Mexico border exhibits a similar amount of "room for interpretation." According to Hartman et al. (2014), some regard this as a vital step to boost national security, combat economic risks to unskilled labour, or simply to punish immigrants for committing crimes.

Introduction

In a complaint, former president Donald Trump requested that a federal judge appoint a special inspector to examine the information that the FBI had taken from his Florida home as part of a criminal investigation into records that had been taken from the White House.In addition, Trump is requesting in his lawsuit that the court halt the Department of Justice from conducting a "further review of seized materials" from his Mar-a-Lago home until the so-called special master has been appointed to examine those records.The Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court received the complaint.

The "deep state" of career federal workers, according to President Donald Trump, is actively working to obstruct his presidency, a complaint he frequently made. But the ones who openly defied his orders were his own presidential appointees. Political appointees are typically the most devoted defenders of a president's policy objectives, leading the charge through the several executive branch bureaucracy. However, to a degree unheard of in the contemporary era of presidency, Trump's nominees in the White House, Cabinet, Military, and Intelligence Community refused to carry out many of the President's commands. President Trump's appointees went much beyond the customary policy conflicts that characterise every administration; instead, they engaged in slow-walking orders, refusing to follow instructions, and even outright sabotage (such as removing documents from the Resolute Desk).

In his petition, Donald Trump claims that the FBI raid on his Mar-a-Lago resort on August 8 was politically motivated. The petition also asks that the Department of Justice cease "further study of seized material" until the so-called special master is appointed to review the documents.

Government and Security Authorities

Despite having long careers, the highest ranked officers in the U.S. military services are officially presidential appointees who require Senate confirmation. Even though the highest-ranking officials are subject to the president's personal judgement, in reality, they are specialists who were chosen for their positions after going through arduous selection procedures rather than political appointees. Officers must obey all valid commands since the president is the military services' constitutionally designated commander in chief. Active-duty military officers are also prohibited from publicly engaging in political politics or opposing presidential choices due to strict professional norms and rules. The intensity of criticism and professional opposition of military officials to President Trump was therefore incredibly exceptional.

The president directly appoints top intelligence officers, including the director of the CIA and the director of national intelligence, who are assumed to reflect the president's policy preferences. Officials in the intelligence community are prohibited from openly opposing the president by rigid regulations. It is therefore rare that the highest-ranking intelligence community appointees occasionally objected.

Armed Services Administration

President Trump did not respect the standards of military leadership, despite his boasting about the military might of the United States. In several ways, he undercut the American military's independence and professionalism. Trump disparaged the military in his presidential campaign. Our military, he said, is "a disaster" and "in disarray" (Eder and Philipps 2016; Milbank 2016). Nobody is bigger or better in the military than I am, he proclaimed. They will never comprehend what I know about offence and defence, I promise (Bacevich 2017).

When he met with his secretaries of state and defence in July 2017, President Trump gave a meeting with them a glimpse into his attitude toward his most senior military leaders. The conference was held in "the Tank," the Pentagon's safest room, which is only used for the most important military decisions. Trump slammed his top civilian and military officials, saying, "You're all losers," after Tillerson and Mattis briefed him on the situation of American forces abroad. You no longer know how to succeed. With you folks, I wouldn't start a war. You're a bunch of babies and drug addicts. That was the first time a commander in chief had ever addressed his senior national security personnel in that way (Leonnig and Rucker 2020).

White nationalists waving Nazi and Confederate flags shouted "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us" at a "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017. A young woman was killed when a protestor rammed a car into a crowd during a clash with counterprotesters. President Trump claimed, "There were really good people on both sides" in a public statement following the incident (Woodward 2018, 246). Uniformed representatives of each military branch condemned the white nationalists in public statements in response to the violence. These remarkable rebukes of a president's words by the heads of the military services in office were unprecedented (Cohen and Starr 2017).

A staff member was permitted to speak before Congress regarding anticipated Russian meddling in the 2020 election, and as a result, Trump later sacked acting DNI Joseph Maguire (Walcott 2020). Trump was still angered by Defense Secretary Esper's apology for being with him when the event occurred in Lafayette Square and for his efforts to rename military installations that had been named after Confederate generals, so he tweeted his resignation soon after the 2020 election. The manner in which Trump sacked Esper angered CIA Director Gina Haspel on November 10, 2020. Trump is "acting out like a six-year-old throwing a tantrum," she said to General Mark Milley, adding that "we are on the path to a right-wing coup" (Woodward and Costa 2021).

When she announced her intention to quit in response to Mark Meadows' request to dismiss her deputy in favour of a Trump successor, he caved (Woodward and Costa 2021). General Milley and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo convinced Trump to change his mind on November 12, 2020, when he was considering launching an assault on Iran. Milley heard Haspel say, "We are going to lash out for his ego?" (Woodward & Costa 2021).

Vice President Pence

In the modern presidency, vice presidents are picked by presidential candidates (even if they are technically nominated by votes at national party conferences) and they ostensibly carry out the wishes of the president. Thus, Mike Pence defying Trump's heavy pressure to reject electoral votes from states that Trump lost when they were counted on January 6, 2021 was exceedingly exceptional (Pfiffner 2022).

In his efforts to rig the 2020 election, Trump argued that the vice president had the power to veto electoral votes sent to Congress from states that supported Biden. Pence was under intense pressure from Trump to declare him the winner or at the very least to claim that the electoral votes were in doubt. Trump said to Pence on January 5: "Mike, this is all I want you to do. Let the House make the choice. If you don't do this, I no longer want to be your friend (Woodward and Costa 2021, 228–29). "You can either go down in history as a patriot, or you can go down in history as a pussy," Trump told Pence in a phone call on January 6. Brown et al.

Pence made the decision not to break the law on behalf of President Trump after conferring with constitutional specialists and attorneys. Mike, you have no flexibility on this, said Dan Quayle, who served as Bush 41's vice president and who, on January 6, 1993, announced that Bill Clinton had won the presidency as president of the Senate. None. Zero.

Leave it alone (Woodward and Costa, 199, 228–30). On January 6, Pence released a letter in which he asserted that, "in the history of the United States, no Vice President has ever used" the authority to reject or invalidate electoral vote slates (Woodward and Costa 2021, 240). This was the immediate reason why Trump attacked Pence in front of the mob on January 6 and why the Trump-incited mob chanted "hang Mike Pence" as they marched toward the Capitol (Helderman et al. 2020).

In a speech at a campaign event on January 29, 2022, Donald Trump stated, "Mike Pence did have the right to affect the outcome.... Sadly, he didn't use that authority; he could have thrown out the results of the election! (2002) (Goodman and Cochrane). Pence responded to Trump's statement by saying,"President Trump is wrong. I had no right to void the election" (Lerer 2022).

Displacement, Taunts, and Retirements\

Resigning in protest is a time-honored technique to oppose to an administration's policies. This strategy suggests, at least on the surface, that the person is prepared to forego high status and income in order to express a strong disagreement with policy. However, on a deeper level, quitting eliminates one's future influence over public policy (Nou 2019, 378; Weisband and Frank 1975).

Despite the fact that a number of career government employees left their positions under the Trump administration (Corrigan 2018, Park 2019, and Rogin 2017), the number of high-level resignations was astronomically high. Some people remained in the Trump administration because they saw themselves as his "guardians," or as John Bolton put it, "axis of adults," to prevent him from making risky judgments (Anonymous 2017; Bolton 2020, 136, 142; Isgur 2020).

Mark Esper gave an explanation of why he did not quit before being dismissed in his autobiography. He declared, "I thought I could still control the president and his baser emotions. Whoever is coming in behind me is unknown to me, and I lacked faith that they would act as I was acting—that is, push back. I was worried that they would actually put some of these crazy ideas into practise. The higher calling was to sort of stay in there and attempt to keep things stable as she goes if you're serious about your pledge and putting the country first (Lamothe 2022).

Given how Trump treated some of his highest-ranking officials, it is understandable why his administration broke records for cabinet and Executive Office of the President turnover (EOP). The highest 65 positions in the EOP (the "A Team") have a turnover rate that is 92%, according to Kathryn Dunn Tenpas (2021). Trump had four chiefs of staff, four national security advisors, five directors of national intelligence, four press secretaries, and six communications advisors over the four years of his presidency (including acting officials).

Conclusion

In spite of President Trump's accusations about the deep state, it was his own presidential appointees in the shallow state who delayed or obstructed his stated intentions. The propensity of senior White House employees to aggressively frustrate his plans—including the director of the National Economic Council, the staff secretary, and his counsels—may have surprised everyone. His cabinet's top officials—the secretaries of state, defence, and housing.Delaying action until the president may be fully apprised of the spectrum of objections to a policy before reaching a final decision may be acceptable in the situation of inadequate vetting of policy proposals. A capable chief of staff should be handling this duty in every administration.

 The issue with Trump was that he had a tendency to decide quickly without conducting a thorough investigation, so it might have been acceptable for his appointees to delay implementing a command until it was fully staffed. The likelihood that a president will make a wise choice is increased by a deliberate policy process, regardless of the ultimate decision's soundness.If a presidential appointee strongly disagrees with the president's fully implemented decision (assuming it is morally and legally sound), the proper course of action might be to resign rather than attempt to thwart the order.

There may be a "in-emergency-break-glass" situation where an appointee actively subverts a presidential directive in rare circumstances (such as an order to commit war crimes or an unauthorised nuclear launch order) (Hayden 2018). However, this would be an issue of personal conscience in support of a greater value than the need to follow a presidential mandate. When the crisis has passed, an appointee who takes such extreme action should probably resign and publicly justify what higher principles warranted the severe measures adopted, given the gravity of subverting a president's mandate.

Reference

Bacevich, A. J. (2017). Leave it to the Generals. New Republic, 8.

Baker, P. (2017). Trump Doubles Down on Threats Against North Korea as Nuclear Tensions Escalate. New York Times, 10.

Baker, P. (2020). Robert Gates Calls to Replace Base Names from ‘Dark Side of Our History’. New York Times.

Baker, P., Haberman, M., & Karni, A. (2021). Pence Reached His Limit With Trump. It Wasn’t Pretty. New York Times.

Taylor, M. (2018). I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration. The New York Times. Available at: https://www. nytimes. com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance. html (Accessed July 10, 2021).

Oxford Analytica. (2022). Donald Trump lines up media support after FBI raid. Emerald Expert Briefings, (oxan-es).

Hawdon, J., Costello, M., Bernatzky, C., & Restifo, S. J. (2022). The enthymemes of supporting President Trump: explaining the association between structural location, supporting the president, and agreeing with online extremism. Social Science Computer Review, 40(1), 24-41.

Pfiffner, J. P. (2022). President Trump and the Shallow State: Disloyalty at the Highest Levels. Presidential Studies Quarterly.