Right now we have an election season coming up with a President who is historically weak, and highly unpopular. His disapproval ratings amongst Democrats is close to 100%, and unlike in most cases, the disapproval is deep. As in, maybe half of Democrats would bother to piss on Trump to help put him out if he was on fire. Maybe.
In that context, every Democratic official and their grandma wants to run for President just to take a few shots at Trump. Unfortunately, that means that right now there are a ridiculous number of people thinking about running for President right now.
So, as we look at the 2020 polls, one thing to keep in mind is that right now - before any campaigning - is that the polls right now are mostly worthless because the people being polled mostly don't know who these people are. By way of example, I don't think I've ever seen a Kamala Harris speech, and she's my Senator.* As a result, when pollsters ask who people are supporting right now, they're pretty much going with who they know, which is why Joe Biden tops every list. Don't expect that to continue.
With that said, there are certain takeaways from the early polling which are important to consider. Namely, Bernie Sanders is probably not going to be the nominee. Remember, Bernie also has near universal name ID. Even I have seen Bernie give speeches, and I have young children. And Bernie has spent the past 2 years trying to build an apparatus for a 2020 run. If he's not polling high now, I don't think he'll take it.
The other thing to keep in mind is that right now, people aren't necessarily running for President to BE president. Most of these candidates are running for the opportunity to be on THE STAGE. And by THE STAGE, I mean the early Presidential primary debates. Being on THE STAGE at these debates is a huge deal. Each candidate gets time to be noticed on a national level. Doing reasonably well on THE STAGE can fundamentally change the course of a politician's career. Bernie Sanders, for instance, went from a political oddity to a major name through the course of the 2016 election. Ron Paul got his son elected to the Senate. Dennis Kuchinich met his wife. Rick Santorum went from laughing stock to CNN contributor. All were helped by being on THE STAGE.
So, if you are a politician looking to raise your profile from relative obscurity to major player, running for President will help you. In fact, this is probably what Barack Obama had in mind initially when he ran in 2008. That's what Bernie Sanders had in mind in 2016 (until he gained traction, thought he could win, and was backed by Russian troll farms). At the same time, if you fuck it up (as Joe Biden did in 1984 when he was stealing lines from the head of the British Labour Party), you won't be able to run for President again for awhile. (By the way, I think Elizabeth Warren may have already fucked this up with the genetic testing thing, but we'll see).
Another thing to keep in mind, which will certainly be at play here, is that certain politicians towards the end of their political lives will run for president with a certain "fuck it, let's do this" last hurrah kind of flair. Inevitably, the older politician does far better than they hoped (because last hurrah politicians are awesome, as is the book the Last Hurrah by Edwin O'Connor), but doesn't quite make it. When that politician runs again, they think they're a potential frontrunner, run a more careful campaign, and end up never getting traction. I think this will happen to both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
But that said, this will probably be an entertaining Democratic primary. We've got rising stars (Beto, Booker and Harris), politicians with interesting spouses (Sherrod Brown), firebrands (Kristen Gillibrand), last hurrah guys (Biden and Sanders), established types (Klobuchar), random billionaires (Bloomberg), and a few odd ducks (Mayor Garcetti, etc).
*Of course, I have young kids, so, unless she's on Paw Patrol, or Sophia the First, or Team Umizoomi, I'm not going to see any of that.
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Monday, December 10, 2018
Why Trump Has to Be Impeached (if he's guilty)
So over the past week, we've basically begun to see the endgame in the Russian investigation of Donald Trump. What we know is that a number (14) of Trump's campaign staff had contacts with Russia, that Russian trolls ginned up support for Trump on social media, and that hackers employed by the Russian government hacked the DNC, and provided what it found to Wikileaks, which promptly published the emails.
What we also know is that while this was ongoing, Donald Trump's personal lawyer/fixer, Michael Cohen, was paying off various women who Trump had affairs with shortly after his current wife, and First Lady, gave birth. Cohen paid off these women, and then got reimbursed by the Trump campaign, and perhaps Trump personally, in order to hide the affairs from the public during the election. And when I say, this is what we know, I say that because Trump basically admitted to the payments and the reimbursement to Cohen over Twitter.
What we also know is that the FBI began to investigate the Russian interference with the 2016 campaign as a COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE investigation, and that Donald Trump fired the Director of the FBI in an attempt to stymy the investigation. We know this because Trump admitted that this was his plan to Lester Holt on national television.
What is also known is that the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York (under the supervision of a Trump appointee, no less), has basically accused Trump of multiple felonies involving the political process. And it is generally believed that the only reason Trump is not indicted for these felonies is because he's a sitting President.
If that sounds like a lot, it's because it is. Mueller's investigation as Special Counsel has indicted more people, and gotten more convictions than any Special Counsel in modern memory. Ken Starr, who had way more independence and funding, spent almost 7 years investigating Bill Clinton, and didn't garner a single conviction. Mueller, in 18 months, has one conviction, a half dozen or so guilty pleas, and another 20 some odd indictments. This isn't even counting the stuff out of the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). And keep in mind that we haven't even reached the endgame here. Nor are we talking about the emoluments stuff (where Trump may be taking money from foreign nations for favorable treatment).
So, with the incoming Democratic majority in the House, what should the Democrats do? While some argue caution, I am of a completely different mindset - if, the House Democrats come to believe that Trump has committed felonies, particularly with regard to the charges out of the SDNY, they have to impeach him.
Now, for those of you who weren't paying attention in your civics class, removal of a President goes as follows: the House of Representatives votes for impeachment. If the majority of the House votes for impeachment, the President is "impeached." Then the issue goes up to the Senate, who must vote whether or not to remove the President from office (by a 2/3rds margin), in a form of trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
And it's this trial in the Senate that gives most pro-impeachment folk real pause. After all, since Republicans form the majority of the Senate, it would be impossible for Trump to be removed. This was similar to the issues surrounding Bill Clinton in 1998. The GOP controlled the House, but lacked the votes for removal in the Senate. Ultimately, the impeachment of Bill Clinton was seen as a Congressional overstep, and a couple of Congressmen lost their seats (namely San Diego Congressman Brian Bilbray). But that was pretty much it.
The reason for this is pretty simple - most people at the time viewed the attacks on Bill Clinton as personal attacks. Although the affair with Monica Lewinsky took place in the White House, it seemed like a consensual affair (though the disparity in power was immense and now gives a lot of us pause), and the Republicans focused on the salacious details. Ken Starr's report told everyone exactly when, and how Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky conducted their affair, describing sexual acts at length. Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler, immediately offered Ken Starr and his team writing gigs for his magazine (I am not kidding about that). In the meantime, every single Speaker of the House during the Clinton Impeachment was later found out to have engaged in sexual improprieties during the impeachment proceedings (Gingrich was having an affair, Livingstone was having an affair, and Dennis Hastert was pedophile rapist who was paying off his victims [again, I am not kidding about that]). So, most of us viewed this as a personal failing of the President, but hardly affecting his work in office.
For the Democratic Party, meanwhile, the impeachment of Bill Clinton had long-ranging repercussions. For one, Al Gore, the Democratic nominee for President in 2000, was limited in his attacks on George W. Bush, and had to figure out how to embrace the Clinton legacy (an amazing economy that benefitted everyone), while also distancing himself from Clinton's behavior. Hillary Clinton was able to win a Senate seat, but the spectre of her husband's impeachment, definitely had an effect on her 2016 campaign. It may not have been a big effect, but remember, she lost by a very small margin.
Anyway, back to the question of impeachment of Trump. Should the Democrats impeach Donald Trump? The answer is yes for a few reasons.
First, unlike Bill Clinton, and similar to what Nixon was caught doing in Watergate, the crimes alleged against Donald Trump relate to the democratic process of electing a President of the United States. Trump didn't just pay off Stormy Daniels, etc., to hide the affair from his wife, but he did it to hide the affair from the American people in order to influence the election. His campaign colluded with a hostile foreign power to influence an election which installed him as President. He used his powers as President of the United States to stymy a counter-intelligence operation. He used and continues to use his office as a way of receiving bribes from foreign powers like Saudi Arabia, who just murdered a writer for the Washington Post with a bonesaw - literally dismembering him while he was still alive - a act Trump will not condemn. That's not even getting to his horrifically inhumane treatment of people seeking legal asylum. All of these crimes have one thing in common - they all relate back to Trump running for President or being President. In short, if Trump can't be impeached for his crimes, no one can.
Second, unlike Bill Clinton, Donald Trump is wildly unpopular. His approval ratings average around 42% and his disapproval ratings are over 52%. Second, unlike Bill Clinton, Donald Trump is seeking reelection, and the only reason Trump isn't under indictment right now is because he is the President of the United States. His freedom depends upon winning reelection. As such, he will go to every extreme possible to win. By impeaching the President, and making him undergo a trial at the Senate, his position will be weakened.
The third reason for impeachment is that it will make every Republican officeholder in the country state their support or opposition to impeachment. This is especially true in the Senate. Will Senators up for reelection in 2020 really want to take a position on Trump's lawlessness? Of course not, but a trial will force them to do so.
By the way, one argument against impeachment relates to Presidential succession - if Trump is impeached, then Mike Pence will just take over as President. While that is true, I'm not as concerned about that because if Trump is removed from office, everyone in his Administration will be tarnished with the same brush.
What we also know is that while this was ongoing, Donald Trump's personal lawyer/fixer, Michael Cohen, was paying off various women who Trump had affairs with shortly after his current wife, and First Lady, gave birth. Cohen paid off these women, and then got reimbursed by the Trump campaign, and perhaps Trump personally, in order to hide the affairs from the public during the election. And when I say, this is what we know, I say that because Trump basically admitted to the payments and the reimbursement to Cohen over Twitter.
What we also know is that the FBI began to investigate the Russian interference with the 2016 campaign as a COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE investigation, and that Donald Trump fired the Director of the FBI in an attempt to stymy the investigation. We know this because Trump admitted that this was his plan to Lester Holt on national television.
What is also known is that the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York (under the supervision of a Trump appointee, no less), has basically accused Trump of multiple felonies involving the political process. And it is generally believed that the only reason Trump is not indicted for these felonies is because he's a sitting President.
If that sounds like a lot, it's because it is. Mueller's investigation as Special Counsel has indicted more people, and gotten more convictions than any Special Counsel in modern memory. Ken Starr, who had way more independence and funding, spent almost 7 years investigating Bill Clinton, and didn't garner a single conviction. Mueller, in 18 months, has one conviction, a half dozen or so guilty pleas, and another 20 some odd indictments. This isn't even counting the stuff out of the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). And keep in mind that we haven't even reached the endgame here. Nor are we talking about the emoluments stuff (where Trump may be taking money from foreign nations for favorable treatment).
So, with the incoming Democratic majority in the House, what should the Democrats do? While some argue caution, I am of a completely different mindset - if, the House Democrats come to believe that Trump has committed felonies, particularly with regard to the charges out of the SDNY, they have to impeach him.
Now, for those of you who weren't paying attention in your civics class, removal of a President goes as follows: the House of Representatives votes for impeachment. If the majority of the House votes for impeachment, the President is "impeached." Then the issue goes up to the Senate, who must vote whether or not to remove the President from office (by a 2/3rds margin), in a form of trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
And it's this trial in the Senate that gives most pro-impeachment folk real pause. After all, since Republicans form the majority of the Senate, it would be impossible for Trump to be removed. This was similar to the issues surrounding Bill Clinton in 1998. The GOP controlled the House, but lacked the votes for removal in the Senate. Ultimately, the impeachment of Bill Clinton was seen as a Congressional overstep, and a couple of Congressmen lost their seats (namely San Diego Congressman Brian Bilbray). But that was pretty much it.
The reason for this is pretty simple - most people at the time viewed the attacks on Bill Clinton as personal attacks. Although the affair with Monica Lewinsky took place in the White House, it seemed like a consensual affair (though the disparity in power was immense and now gives a lot of us pause), and the Republicans focused on the salacious details. Ken Starr's report told everyone exactly when, and how Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky conducted their affair, describing sexual acts at length. Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler, immediately offered Ken Starr and his team writing gigs for his magazine (I am not kidding about that). In the meantime, every single Speaker of the House during the Clinton Impeachment was later found out to have engaged in sexual improprieties during the impeachment proceedings (Gingrich was having an affair, Livingstone was having an affair, and Dennis Hastert was pedophile rapist who was paying off his victims [again, I am not kidding about that]). So, most of us viewed this as a personal failing of the President, but hardly affecting his work in office.
For the Democratic Party, meanwhile, the impeachment of Bill Clinton had long-ranging repercussions. For one, Al Gore, the Democratic nominee for President in 2000, was limited in his attacks on George W. Bush, and had to figure out how to embrace the Clinton legacy (an amazing economy that benefitted everyone), while also distancing himself from Clinton's behavior. Hillary Clinton was able to win a Senate seat, but the spectre of her husband's impeachment, definitely had an effect on her 2016 campaign. It may not have been a big effect, but remember, she lost by a very small margin.
Anyway, back to the question of impeachment of Trump. Should the Democrats impeach Donald Trump? The answer is yes for a few reasons.
First, unlike Bill Clinton, and similar to what Nixon was caught doing in Watergate, the crimes alleged against Donald Trump relate to the democratic process of electing a President of the United States. Trump didn't just pay off Stormy Daniels, etc., to hide the affair from his wife, but he did it to hide the affair from the American people in order to influence the election. His campaign colluded with a hostile foreign power to influence an election which installed him as President. He used his powers as President of the United States to stymy a counter-intelligence operation. He used and continues to use his office as a way of receiving bribes from foreign powers like Saudi Arabia, who just murdered a writer for the Washington Post with a bonesaw - literally dismembering him while he was still alive - a act Trump will not condemn. That's not even getting to his horrifically inhumane treatment of people seeking legal asylum. All of these crimes have one thing in common - they all relate back to Trump running for President or being President. In short, if Trump can't be impeached for his crimes, no one can.
Second, unlike Bill Clinton, Donald Trump is wildly unpopular. His approval ratings average around 42% and his disapproval ratings are over 52%. Second, unlike Bill Clinton, Donald Trump is seeking reelection, and the only reason Trump isn't under indictment right now is because he is the President of the United States. His freedom depends upon winning reelection. As such, he will go to every extreme possible to win. By impeaching the President, and making him undergo a trial at the Senate, his position will be weakened.
The third reason for impeachment is that it will make every Republican officeholder in the country state their support or opposition to impeachment. This is especially true in the Senate. Will Senators up for reelection in 2020 really want to take a position on Trump's lawlessness? Of course not, but a trial will force them to do so.
By the way, one argument against impeachment relates to Presidential succession - if Trump is impeached, then Mike Pence will just take over as President. While that is true, I'm not as concerned about that because if Trump is removed from office, everyone in his Administration will be tarnished with the same brush.
Monday, September 17, 2018
About Kavanaugh and Professor Ford's Allegations
So, when I made my last post, there were some free-floating allegations of sexual misconduct out there, but we didn't have all the facts. Nonetheless, there was enough there to be concerned. Now that it's out there that Professor Ford has, for at least 6 years, told people that Judge Kavanaugh tried to rape her when she was 15, and he was 17, we're left with something that we haven't seen since Anita Hill alleged that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her when both were employed at the EEOC.
Now, to be clear, this is a bit different (though it does appear that Hill's testimony was truthful, but we'll leave it at that), since the acts described are clear-cut - if Kavanaugh did what Professor Ford says he did, the Kavanaugh at 17 committed the crime of attempted rape. And Professor Ford, being a victim of attempted rape would not have forgotten about it.
Here's something else that I found striking - her prior consistent testimony. Professor Ford has been telling people, including her therapist, her husband, and the FBI since 2012 that Judge Kavanaugh tried to rape her. Now, that's important as far as determining her motive. Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that a prior consistent statement can be used to disprove motive. So, if Professor Ford was a big supporter of Roe v. Wade, and made her statement for the first time to anyone last week that Judge Kavanaugh tried to rape her, then that would be suspicious. But instead, she told lots of people not just before Judge Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, but before the #MeToo movement.
Also, and though a lie detector test is not admissible in Court, she told the FBI about the incident, and took a lie detector test. Now, that tells me that she is absolutely certain that Kavanaugh tried to rape her because lying to the FBI is a crime. And it isn't a crime that no one gets prosecuted for - people get prosecuted and imprisoned for it all the time. So, if she went to the FBI, and underwent a lie detector test, she did so with no reservations whatsoever.
These facts leave us with three paths:
1) Professor Ford is Crazy: This is always a possibility. Professor Ford could have seen Kavanaugh's name in the newspaper and attached a delusion on him. But I think this is unlikely for lots of reasons. First, Professor Ford is too old to just start having delusions. Schizophrenia and other mental diseases appear in the late 20's and early 30's, which means that by the time she started telling people about the attack, she should have been having delusions for 15 years, which people would recognize.
2) Professor Ford is Mistaken: Professor Ford was attacked over thirty years ago, when she was 15, slightly drunk, and attacked in the dark. Her recollection of her attacker may not have been as clear as it could have been. So, it is possible (though unlikely) that she recognized Kavanaugh as being one of the guys in the social group, two of whom later attacked her. That's possible, and will almost certainly be Kavanaugh's defense - that it wasn't him.
3) Kavanaugh Attempted to Rape Professor Ford: At this point, with what we know, this is the most likely scenario. Even though she was drunk when the attack occurred, this sort of attack has to be a sobering experience. The odds of her remembering this clearly, especially if she sought help from a mental health professional, are very high.
The other complicating factor is that Kavanaugh hasn't exactly been truthful in his testimony to Congress. He pretended to not know the name of a law firm one of his close friends works for, and has worked for for the past 15 years. He claimed to not know about the use of stolen emails when contemporaneous records show otherwise. All in all, his most recent testimony to the Senate had at least five instances of either perjury or testimony that came damn close. So Kavanaugh's denials are pretty worthless at this point. That doesn't mean he did it (she could have the wrong guy), but if he did, he would almost certainly lie about it.
The other factor is whether or not there are other women out there. Now, normally, I stick with my rule of 3 - after the third accuser comes forward, you can assume pretty much that the allegations are true - but here, given Professors prior consistent testimony, any other woman who comes forward would have to be believed at this point.
Now, to be clear, this is a bit different (though it does appear that Hill's testimony was truthful, but we'll leave it at that), since the acts described are clear-cut - if Kavanaugh did what Professor Ford says he did, the Kavanaugh at 17 committed the crime of attempted rape. And Professor Ford, being a victim of attempted rape would not have forgotten about it.
Here's something else that I found striking - her prior consistent testimony. Professor Ford has been telling people, including her therapist, her husband, and the FBI since 2012 that Judge Kavanaugh tried to rape her. Now, that's important as far as determining her motive. Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that a prior consistent statement can be used to disprove motive. So, if Professor Ford was a big supporter of Roe v. Wade, and made her statement for the first time to anyone last week that Judge Kavanaugh tried to rape her, then that would be suspicious. But instead, she told lots of people not just before Judge Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, but before the #MeToo movement.
Also, and though a lie detector test is not admissible in Court, she told the FBI about the incident, and took a lie detector test. Now, that tells me that she is absolutely certain that Kavanaugh tried to rape her because lying to the FBI is a crime. And it isn't a crime that no one gets prosecuted for - people get prosecuted and imprisoned for it all the time. So, if she went to the FBI, and underwent a lie detector test, she did so with no reservations whatsoever.
These facts leave us with three paths:
1) Professor Ford is Crazy: This is always a possibility. Professor Ford could have seen Kavanaugh's name in the newspaper and attached a delusion on him. But I think this is unlikely for lots of reasons. First, Professor Ford is too old to just start having delusions. Schizophrenia and other mental diseases appear in the late 20's and early 30's, which means that by the time she started telling people about the attack, she should have been having delusions for 15 years, which people would recognize.
2) Professor Ford is Mistaken: Professor Ford was attacked over thirty years ago, when she was 15, slightly drunk, and attacked in the dark. Her recollection of her attacker may not have been as clear as it could have been. So, it is possible (though unlikely) that she recognized Kavanaugh as being one of the guys in the social group, two of whom later attacked her. That's possible, and will almost certainly be Kavanaugh's defense - that it wasn't him.
3) Kavanaugh Attempted to Rape Professor Ford: At this point, with what we know, this is the most likely scenario. Even though she was drunk when the attack occurred, this sort of attack has to be a sobering experience. The odds of her remembering this clearly, especially if she sought help from a mental health professional, are very high.
The other complicating factor is that Kavanaugh hasn't exactly been truthful in his testimony to Congress. He pretended to not know the name of a law firm one of his close friends works for, and has worked for for the past 15 years. He claimed to not know about the use of stolen emails when contemporaneous records show otherwise. All in all, his most recent testimony to the Senate had at least five instances of either perjury or testimony that came damn close. So Kavanaugh's denials are pretty worthless at this point. That doesn't mean he did it (she could have the wrong guy), but if he did, he would almost certainly lie about it.
The other factor is whether or not there are other women out there. Now, normally, I stick with my rule of 3 - after the third accuser comes forward, you can assume pretty much that the allegations are true - but here, given Professors prior consistent testimony, any other woman who comes forward would have to be believed at this point.
Friday, September 14, 2018
An Open Letter to Donald Trump
Dear Mr. President:
As much as I hate to use the term, you are the President of the United States of America. Now normally, if you were on fire I wouldn't bother to piss on you to help you out, but as of right now, our interests may be aligned. So, while you'll never read this (because you don't read anything), I do have a bit of advice for you:
Pull Kavanaugh's nomination right now.
Now, sure, I'm a liberal, and I hate you, but hear me out. Right now, you have two big holds over the GOP and conservative movement - your supporters and the power of nominating conservative judges. And you've done the job that the conservative movement has wanted you to do. And you're up to the precipice of finally having enough votes on the Supreme Court to kill Roe v. Wade. And the conservative movement guys have been fighting for the past forty years for this exact moment.
But once Kavanaugh is confirmed, one of your two big levers to power goes away. The conservative movement won't need you anymore. Nor will they need your supporters because they'll have the votes on the Court to overturn every piece of legislation they want. And since Kavanaugh and the rest of the conservatives on the Court are in their 50's, they'll control things for the next 30 years.
In the meantime, you being, well, you, is a tremendous distraction and you're probably hurting the GOP's chances at staying in power come November. And the GOP professional class, those guys who wrote the op-ed in the New York Times trashing you, HATE YOU.
My guess is that them moment Kavanaugh is confirmed, they're going to force you out one way or another (probably through the 25th Amendment). Hell, if they claim that you are incapacitated, they can take away your ability to tweet and contact your supporters. They will drop your ass.
But what about your diehard supporters? These are the same diehards that backed George W. Bush - the guy you trashed throughout the 2016 campaign, while also shitting on his brother - they will move on if Fox News and the conservative hegemons tell them to. And they will.
So, if you want to keep being President, which to both our surprise, you actually do, you need to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination, and withhold a new pick to the Supreme Court for as long as possible.
Just an FYI. Also, I hope you rot in hell.
As much as I hate to use the term, you are the President of the United States of America. Now normally, if you were on fire I wouldn't bother to piss on you to help you out, but as of right now, our interests may be aligned. So, while you'll never read this (because you don't read anything), I do have a bit of advice for you:
Pull Kavanaugh's nomination right now.
Now, sure, I'm a liberal, and I hate you, but hear me out. Right now, you have two big holds over the GOP and conservative movement - your supporters and the power of nominating conservative judges. And you've done the job that the conservative movement has wanted you to do. And you're up to the precipice of finally having enough votes on the Supreme Court to kill Roe v. Wade. And the conservative movement guys have been fighting for the past forty years for this exact moment.
But once Kavanaugh is confirmed, one of your two big levers to power goes away. The conservative movement won't need you anymore. Nor will they need your supporters because they'll have the votes on the Court to overturn every piece of legislation they want. And since Kavanaugh and the rest of the conservatives on the Court are in their 50's, they'll control things for the next 30 years.
In the meantime, you being, well, you, is a tremendous distraction and you're probably hurting the GOP's chances at staying in power come November. And the GOP professional class, those guys who wrote the op-ed in the New York Times trashing you, HATE YOU.
My guess is that them moment Kavanaugh is confirmed, they're going to force you out one way or another (probably through the 25th Amendment). Hell, if they claim that you are incapacitated, they can take away your ability to tweet and contact your supporters. They will drop your ass.
But what about your diehard supporters? These are the same diehards that backed George W. Bush - the guy you trashed throughout the 2016 campaign, while also shitting on his brother - they will move on if Fox News and the conservative hegemons tell them to. And they will.
So, if you want to keep being President, which to both our surprise, you actually do, you need to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination, and withhold a new pick to the Supreme Court for as long as possible.
Just an FYI. Also, I hope you rot in hell.
Friday, August 24, 2018
What if Trump Flips? A Speculation
An interesting thing happened recently. Okay, a lot of interesting things, but this is a more subtle thing that happened. Just recently, a few GOP senators indicated that they would be open to the idea of Trump firing Jeff Sessions as the Attorney General. Now, previously, these senators had warned the President that if he fired the AG, they would not hold any hearing on the AG's replacement, which they totally can do. Now, they're open to it, but only after the elections.
Now, why would they do that? Some have suggested that its to shut down the Russia investigation, but everyone in DC but Trump knew that Sessions had to recuse himself as he was implicated in the whole mess. They all know the special prosecutor dance, and just have to suck it up. No, I think they're pissed over the prosecution of Michael Cohen and the Stormy Daniels payoff by the US Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) - which Sessions does still have nominal control over. Already we've not only seen Michael Cohen plead guilty, but in his allocution, he directly implicated the President in the campaign finance violations, which the President unhelpfully admitted to the very next day on Fox.
Worst of all, the charges the SDNY is bringing have state law equivalents, and so the information they gather can, and probably will, be used by the NY AG or the NYC DA, both of whom represent a state or locality that isn't exactly Trump friendly. In short, on the SDNY stage, the walls are closing in on the President, his business, and his family. And unlike the Feds, there's no outstanding opinion that by the NY AG or the NYC DA that would prevent them from indicting Trump while he's in office.
Now, if Trump was a normal politician, he'd resign. After all, he's now directly implicated in multiple felonies, and now that David Pecker of the National Enquirer and Trump's CFO have both received immunity deals, it's only going to get worse. The hope would be that by resigning, he could cut a deal for little to no jail time for himself and his kids.
But, as we've seen, Trump is not a normal politician, and his crimes are such that even if he wanted to set up a deal for no jail time, he may not get it. Additionally, in the 1980's, when pushed by the FBI, Trump provided testimony to the FBI about his contacts with the Mafia, particularly the Genovese family. If pushed hard enough, Trump will flip - he has before.
And what if he does flip? Obviously, his testimony on the tax fraud and campaign violations are of no use, as they have him dead to rights on those. No, if he flips, he's going to provide testimony about Russia, and the Russian collusion. As we know, the Russian collusion in the 2016 election went way beyond Trump. Russia placed a spy in the NRA, hacked numerous voting systems, and the GOP is voting down bills that would prevent further hacking. It's possible that this collusion could go deeper than we think.
If that's the case, then Trump flipping would be devastating to the GOP. Also, keep in mind that Trump is a narcissist, and when cornered he lashes out at his allies. Would he take the GOP down with him? Definitely. If anything, his anger towards the GOP would be greater than towards the Democrats.
I think that Senators Graham, et al., know that and are now deeply concerned about how the next few months shake out. And since this new pressure is coming directly from SDNY, and not Bob Mueller, their anger and frustration is focused on Jeff Sessions.
Now, why would they do that? Some have suggested that its to shut down the Russia investigation, but everyone in DC but Trump knew that Sessions had to recuse himself as he was implicated in the whole mess. They all know the special prosecutor dance, and just have to suck it up. No, I think they're pissed over the prosecution of Michael Cohen and the Stormy Daniels payoff by the US Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) - which Sessions does still have nominal control over. Already we've not only seen Michael Cohen plead guilty, but in his allocution, he directly implicated the President in the campaign finance violations, which the President unhelpfully admitted to the very next day on Fox.
Worst of all, the charges the SDNY is bringing have state law equivalents, and so the information they gather can, and probably will, be used by the NY AG or the NYC DA, both of whom represent a state or locality that isn't exactly Trump friendly. In short, on the SDNY stage, the walls are closing in on the President, his business, and his family. And unlike the Feds, there's no outstanding opinion that by the NY AG or the NYC DA that would prevent them from indicting Trump while he's in office.
Now, if Trump was a normal politician, he'd resign. After all, he's now directly implicated in multiple felonies, and now that David Pecker of the National Enquirer and Trump's CFO have both received immunity deals, it's only going to get worse. The hope would be that by resigning, he could cut a deal for little to no jail time for himself and his kids.
But, as we've seen, Trump is not a normal politician, and his crimes are such that even if he wanted to set up a deal for no jail time, he may not get it. Additionally, in the 1980's, when pushed by the FBI, Trump provided testimony to the FBI about his contacts with the Mafia, particularly the Genovese family. If pushed hard enough, Trump will flip - he has before.
And what if he does flip? Obviously, his testimony on the tax fraud and campaign violations are of no use, as they have him dead to rights on those. No, if he flips, he's going to provide testimony about Russia, and the Russian collusion. As we know, the Russian collusion in the 2016 election went way beyond Trump. Russia placed a spy in the NRA, hacked numerous voting systems, and the GOP is voting down bills that would prevent further hacking. It's possible that this collusion could go deeper than we think.
If that's the case, then Trump flipping would be devastating to the GOP. Also, keep in mind that Trump is a narcissist, and when cornered he lashes out at his allies. Would he take the GOP down with him? Definitely. If anything, his anger towards the GOP would be greater than towards the Democrats.
I think that Senators Graham, et al., know that and are now deeply concerned about how the next few months shake out. And since this new pressure is coming directly from SDNY, and not Bob Mueller, their anger and frustration is focused on Jeff Sessions.
Friday, June 8, 2018
Well Fuck. . .
It's been a while since I've blogged - new jobs, new kids, and new houses will do that - and I've been hit by a sudden responsibility streak that screams to me that I shouldn't publish some of the stuff I write. But today a guy who I really admired ended his life, and fuck this shit. I'm blogging like its 2008. And honestly, I don't know where to begin.
I kind of want to talk about Anthony Bourdain, and what he meant, but there really isn't that much for me to say that isn't out there already. He was a celebrity, and not just any celebrity, but the guy who every other celebrity wanted to be. Think about it - he traveled the world, ate good food, and wrote about it. Hell, even Obama when he was President wanted in on that.
But if that was all there was to it, then Anthony Bourdain would just be another Guy Fieri. In my life, there are certain people who I have met who feel deeper than other people, who understand what you've been through even if you don't. A good number of them struggle with drugs and alcohol because what they see affects them so deeply they need something, anything, to make the images and horror go away. Those that survive their addictions and make it out the other side to recovery are often the best people, the kindest people, the most Christian of people. I've never met Anthony Bourdain, but I'm pretty sure that describes him. For the next few days, we're going to read story after story about his previously untold kindness, and openness, and generosity, and we're going to feel tremendous sadness because he's gone.
I think its a bit worse now when a celebrity dies than in years past because social media gives a closeness that we didn't have before. I remember reading Roger Ebert's blog in his last few years of life and feeling a connection to him - he wasn't the fat movie critic on TV, but a humane being who loved movies. Following Anthony Bourdain on Twitter created a connection that existed in my own mind. That loss will be felt for awhile now.
And I also feel a deep sadness in wondering if Anthony Bourdain felt trapped by fame, and felt that suicide was the only way out. As the head of a production crew, he must of felt tremendous responsibility to keep being "Anthony Bourdain" so that his camera crew could keep paying the bills. What a horrendous way to feel.
And by the way, to those of you who are famous, and feel trapped - when you feel that way, get out. Go to a beach, and hide out for a few years. Don't take your own life. If you go to the beach, you can always come back. But Anthony Bourdain is gone now forever, and that's awful. Not as awful as 5,000 people dying in Puerto Rico because Trump refuses to accept that Puerto Rico is part of the United States, or as awful as 5 year old children being torn away from their parents by ICE, or as awful as the fact that FLINT STILL DOES NOT HAVE CLEAN DRINKING WATER, but it is awful. And my day started out bleakly.
But there was hope. There is always hope. For me, hope comes in the form of my daughters. Today, I got to see my oldest daughter sing songs with her preschool class. And then the class after her, the preschool kids who are heading off to kindergarten sang "Three Little Birds" by Bob Marley. And in that moment, I felt hopeful. There is nothing so wrong about America and our world that can't be fixed by what is right and good about America and our world. So, to end this first blog post in way, way, too long, I thought I would give you something similar to what I witnessed this morning. The kids aren't nearly as young, but their singing is a lot better.
Take care of yourselves. Get help if you need it, and if you see someone hurting, reach out.
I kind of want to talk about Anthony Bourdain, and what he meant, but there really isn't that much for me to say that isn't out there already. He was a celebrity, and not just any celebrity, but the guy who every other celebrity wanted to be. Think about it - he traveled the world, ate good food, and wrote about it. Hell, even Obama when he was President wanted in on that.
But if that was all there was to it, then Anthony Bourdain would just be another Guy Fieri. In my life, there are certain people who I have met who feel deeper than other people, who understand what you've been through even if you don't. A good number of them struggle with drugs and alcohol because what they see affects them so deeply they need something, anything, to make the images and horror go away. Those that survive their addictions and make it out the other side to recovery are often the best people, the kindest people, the most Christian of people. I've never met Anthony Bourdain, but I'm pretty sure that describes him. For the next few days, we're going to read story after story about his previously untold kindness, and openness, and generosity, and we're going to feel tremendous sadness because he's gone.
I think its a bit worse now when a celebrity dies than in years past because social media gives a closeness that we didn't have before. I remember reading Roger Ebert's blog in his last few years of life and feeling a connection to him - he wasn't the fat movie critic on TV, but a humane being who loved movies. Following Anthony Bourdain on Twitter created a connection that existed in my own mind. That loss will be felt for awhile now.
And I also feel a deep sadness in wondering if Anthony Bourdain felt trapped by fame, and felt that suicide was the only way out. As the head of a production crew, he must of felt tremendous responsibility to keep being "Anthony Bourdain" so that his camera crew could keep paying the bills. What a horrendous way to feel.
And by the way, to those of you who are famous, and feel trapped - when you feel that way, get out. Go to a beach, and hide out for a few years. Don't take your own life. If you go to the beach, you can always come back. But Anthony Bourdain is gone now forever, and that's awful. Not as awful as 5,000 people dying in Puerto Rico because Trump refuses to accept that Puerto Rico is part of the United States, or as awful as 5 year old children being torn away from their parents by ICE, or as awful as the fact that FLINT STILL DOES NOT HAVE CLEAN DRINKING WATER, but it is awful. And my day started out bleakly.
But there was hope. There is always hope. For me, hope comes in the form of my daughters. Today, I got to see my oldest daughter sing songs with her preschool class. And then the class after her, the preschool kids who are heading off to kindergarten sang "Three Little Birds" by Bob Marley. And in that moment, I felt hopeful. There is nothing so wrong about America and our world that can't be fixed by what is right and good about America and our world. So, to end this first blog post in way, way, too long, I thought I would give you something similar to what I witnessed this morning. The kids aren't nearly as young, but their singing is a lot better.
Take care of yourselves. Get help if you need it, and if you see someone hurting, reach out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)