Troll Irony and the Rule of Law

In today's world, you've "Made It" when a Troll insults your Mother

So, I’m here to announce that I’ve officially “made it” on the web— I’m being trolled!

Here’s some context on the comments I made, before I get into the comments from the “under the bridge” crowd…

In early February, I read that President Trump had revoked the security clearances of many of the people on Patel’s “enemies list”, along with others who ran afoul of the MAGA crowd.

Note that both Patel & Bondi testified under oath during their respective confirmation hearings that such a list doesn't exist- although it's published as an addendum in Patel's book… (go figure)

Three lawyers were among those who had their clearances revoked-Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, and Mark Zaid-though only Weissmann was included on that list. All three have been outspoken about the Trump administration’s current assault on the “Rule of Law.”

Zaid is well known for defending government whistleblowers, Eisen is considered an expert on government ethics, and Weissmann is the former FBI Counsel and was one of the lead prosecutors in the Mueller probe.

With all of that in mind, I posted to my social media account on another platform - where I go by my cat’s name 🐈‍⬛… (a story for another day) - I noted that it is interesting that in addition to losing their security clearances, they are also explicitly prohibited from entering federal property.

So… How do these guys go to a post office to buy stamps or renew their passports? How would they appear if they are called for federal grand jury duty? Or, how can they ever argue a federal case? All of that seems to me like a statement that Musk and Trump are afraid to face these guys in a court of law.

Eisen, in particular, has already wiped the floor with the new Department of Justice lawyers several times since the start of the Trump 2 administration.

The post got over 100,000 likes, which shocked me because I thought it was pretty banal. But there were LOTS of trolls, and you didn’t have to be a computer expert to tell most were bots.

It got me thinking: What exactly prompts the bot army? Is there a secret list of “words” that automatically launches the attacks?

I have posted far more pointed critiques in the past—and got a few nasty-grams—but not enough to be noticed. I tend to either scroll past or just block the trolls if they use foul language or are particularly threatening.

For some reason, this post prompted the worst reaction of any I have written before, which leads me to believe it might have been the use of the specific names that I cited in the post.

But beyond the bots, I wonder what kind of people spend their days attacking others in the vilest terms. Why bother? We all have posted stuff that leads others to disagree, roll their eyes, and think, “What a dummy!” But when you see thousands of responses cheering on nastygrams, we must ask, “Don’t these peeps have anything more interesting in their lives to do than to spew hatred??” And for heaven’s sake, can’t they a at least use 3^rd-grade level English grammar?

I must admit that I did respond to the author of the “You’re Mother Should Have had an Abortion” post. As an educator, I felt obligated to point out that the correct usage was “your.” Your (possessive) vs. You’re (contraction of you are) was one of my pet peeves while teaching.

The real issue here is the full-throated attack on the Rule of Law—the essence of our democracy.

As I write, the administration has launched a blatant attack on five of the most prominent law firms in the country, all because they have either argued against the administration in court, defended “enemies” such as Jack Smith, or formerly employed “enemies” such as Weissmann and Robert Mueller.

Two of the firms have caved, while the other three have sued in court and secured restraining orders against the government’s actions.

The only of the 3 branches of the US Government standing up to the Imperial Executive is…the Judicial Branch, (mostly female judges) and the lawyers (such as Eisan, Zaid, Weissmann, and Marc Elias).

The question is how long the courts will hold. What happens when the cases finally make their way to the Supreme Court, which has already granted the president almost unlimited powers when acting in his “official” role?

Will John Roberts and Amy Comey Barett break with the Trumpsters and agree with the 3 “liberal” justices that the US president is NOT a king or a dictator? Will they find that he is instead the head of one of the three co-equal branches of government?

Because as a historian, I can say that is truly the genuine “originalist” interpretation.

Stay tuned…..it’s getting interesting.