January 31, 2020--His Majesty the President

If you are wondering why Nancy Pelosi took so long before authorizing the House Intelligence Committee to begin an impeachment "inquiry," wonder no more. 

Just look around at what is going on and the reasons should be clear.

As I write this (Thursday afternoon), it looks as if Mitch McConnell has the votes needed to beat back attempts to call witnesses and  turn documents over to the Senate where the impeachment trial is underway.

If this is true--and we will know by Friday afternoon when the vote about witnesses takes place--Mitch if nothing else is as good a vote counter as was Lyndon Johnson when he presided over the Senate. And, if necessary, Mitch is about as good as it gets when he sees it necessary to twist arms.

So, expect to have witnesses voted down by at least one vote from among the Republican caucus of 53. And almost immediately after that, Friday night, under the cover of darkness, expect to see Trump exonerated by all 53. He will be able to trundle off to the Super Bowl where he will take a bow and then, a few days after that, deliver his State of the Union address before an  ecstatic sea of congressional Trumpers and disgruntled Democrats.

Susan Collins and her wobbly colleagues will be able to say they voted for witnesses; and even though they ultimately voted to find Trump not guilty, this they feel will provide enough political cover for them to eek out close reelection victories. Thus this means the GOP will retain control of the Senate.

How will this be regarded by Democrats, those in Congress and millions among the general population? Not well. With a likely weak candidate nominated to take on Trump, his reelection is more likely, but not certain, than when the impeachment process began.

Anyone who knows political history and human psychology, like Pelosi, knew these outcomes were easy to predict.

How then to think about this? 

I am hearing from friends and family members that, "It's all over." With the "it" being our way of life and representative democracy. The Constitution, they contend, failed us.

When I disagree they accuse me of being a lazy optimist.

Perhaps.

For what it's worth here's what I think--

Yes, if the obvious scenario plays out, we will indeed be in peril. Four more years of Trump could see us as a people"crossing a bridge" of no return.

Those who feel this way, to me, are missing the three most powerful of our remaining checks and balances--an activated free press, the federal courts which have as yet not weighed in, and ultimately the people themselves when we vote in November.

In regard to the courts, perhaps the most significant aspect of the Senate trial is the fact that Chief Justice Roberts was required to sit through dozens of hours of debate where Trump's lawyers came up with preposterous arguments to bolster their defense. It is difficult to imagine that as Trump-related cases make their way to the Supreme Court Roberts will forget what he witnessed and how dangerous the Trump view is of the president as monarch.

But, if the free press is abrogated, if SCOUS because of a perverse reading of Article Two votes to allow the president to "do whatever he wants," and, by far most important, if we either sit out the election or nominate weak candidates, it is indeed over.

So, our future is in our own hands. Where it should be.

January 30, 2020--Chaos Theory

If you're obsessing as I am about the Trump impeachment trial, your focus is likely on the struggle about witnesses.

Almost all Republican senators appear to oppose having any and want to get to the business of exonerating Trump to allow them to get home in time to watch this weekend's Super Bowl. (This is literally true.)

And it appears that all Democratic senators will vote to include witnesses. Especially John Bolton.

To include witnesses and documents the Dems have to secure at least four maverick Republicans to get to the required 51 votes. This Kabuki drama is being fueled by the cable news networks that like nothing better than covering political horse races.

Republican senators are saying if four members of their caucus bolt and vote with the Democrats to call witnesses, as a quid pro quo, they will insist on subpoenaing Hunter Biden, who, along with his father, they contend, is at the center of all things Ukrainian. Including corruption. 

A few reflections--

If the Republicans are so eager to haul the Bidens in to testify under oath they can arrange that for later this afternoon. 51 votes are all that are needed to compel that and with 53 members the GOP already has the votes they need to force the Bidens to appear before the House.  

Speculate away as to why they do not seem eager to do so. My view is that they really do not want to have even the Bidens as witnesses since they know there is no significant dirt there to stir up and one never knows what will leak out if there is an open process. Perhaps, the truth.

And, if they are ready to vote to keep Trump in office, they also have the votes for that and could get that done in time for the kickoff.

I therefore see it to be likely that Mitch McConnell has the votes to squelch any move to call witnesses and therefore will let the witnesses and expulsion votes occur on Friday. He and Trump and all but two or three Republican senators are on board for that. They also assume the public, 75 percent of whom want witnesses, will be upset about a Senate coverup but within just a week or two will have moved on to the next outrage. Call it outrage overload. 

If you've been following what I've been writing you know none of this disturbs me. In fact, the opposite as I wrote last week--"the worser the better." 

The more things drift toward chaos, the better it is for Democratic chances to defeat Trump in November and take control of the Senate. The voting public will make Republicans pay for this shameful coverup.

I would feel otherwise and be focused on the upcoming House votes--on witnesses and Trump's fate--if there was any chance of attracting, say, 10 Republican to vote with the Democrats. That would be a different story with very different outcomes. 

I am thus a proponent of chaos. 

January 28, 2020--Bolton's Bombshell

For some time, in defense of Trump as he moved toward impeachment, Republican senators who hold his fate in their hands have disparaged the Democrats' case, asserting that all their witnesses were one-off. 

These witnesses did not have direct contact with the president. Thus, what they knew and were testifying about was, in effect, hearsay, which they claimed, is not admissible in trials. Their testimony was based on what they heard second-hand from governmental colleagues and the people to whom they reported.

Putting aside the fact that the impeachment hearing underway in the Senate is not a civil nor criminal trial and has its own rules and procedures, including allowing what otherwise might be considered hearsay, there may be an opportunity that, if allowed by the GOP Senate caucus, would help move proceedings closer to the truth. The truth all senators, in their special impeachment oath, swore to follow.

"Bring us just one witness with direct exposure to Trump," Republican senators promised, "and we will listen to what she or he has to say.

Well, as of Monday night there is indisputably one such potential witness.

John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Adviser.

The New York Times reported that copies of Bolton's book about his time in the Trump White House are being circulated among senior staff who have been asked by Bolton's publisher to review it to see if any of it threatens national security. This is routine for any former staff member writing about his or her time serving in the administration.

Bolton claims there is nothing in the draft for the White House to be concerned about. But, more significant, the Times has obtained a leaked copy of the manuscript and it contains in-depth commentary about Trump's dealings with the Ukrainians. Dealings about which Bolton had extensive and direct access to Trump.  Specifically, Bolton writes that he witnessed Trump for months knowingly withhold congressionally-approved military aid the Ukrainians desperately needed to defend themselves against the invading Russians until President Zelensky agreed to open an investigation to gather "dirt" about his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son.

With Bolton's book in hand, Republicans can no longer assert that there is no one who can serve as a direct witness to Trump's impeachable behavior. To gather Bolton's evidence all they need to do is vote to have it available to the House impeachment managers, Trump's legal team, and the full Senate.

January 24, 2020--Adam Schiff

Overnight friends have been leaving messages about the Trump impeachment.

One said--

"Since we do not as yet have. a strong candidate to run against Trump, how about Adam Schiff? He's smart, experienced, passionate, has a clear sense of history, and even a sense of humor."

"Minimally," I wrote back, "if the Democrats manage to win in November, we have our Attorney General."

January 23, 2020--The Worser the Better.

I'm hearing from people who are so frustrated that they are stepping back from paying attention to the 2020 election. They can't take any more either from or about Trump.

They are trying to do other things with their lives. Things such as listening to music, reading again, talking to their spouses, and watching diverting programs on TV. Rona and I, for example, via Netflix, have been working our way through the 153 episodes of Gilmore Girls--seven years worth!--and immersing ourselves in Miles Davis CDs. 

I can't say that I blame my exhausted friends. They need to get their rest. And a grip.

The current predicament is the struggle to disengage from the day-to-day while still obsessed with the impeachment trial underway in the Senate. Not exactly a sitcom, but still it's an historic event and hard to click away from. And how much Shark Tank can one take?

Those who I'm hearing from haven't yet managed to kick the Trump habit and can't stop themselves from watching the trial. It will take awhile for them (and me) to detox. 

Is there a 12-step program we can join?

Knowing that there is no way for Trump to be removed from office by the Senate--Mitch has the votes to prevent that--we are zeroed in, therefore, on whether or not my Maine senator Susan Collins, to save her political skin, can find three others to vote with her to force McConnell to subpoena witnesses. Actually, not witnesses but John Bolton, who claims he has a story to tell. It must be a really good one because he has a $5.0 million book deal.

I've been saying to friends who see having Bolton testify as the meaning of life that they are failing to keep their eyes on the prize. That prize is making sure Trump is defeated in November. If we agree about that, the best way to help that along would be for the Republican-controlled trial to turn into a fiasco, including screaming, yelling, and ignoring the Chief Justice who is presiding and will plead for civility.

McConnell does not agree to witnesses and will ram a vote to acquit down the throats of his people. And once Bolton's book is published (I suspect right after Labor Day) everything he has to say will enter he public record just weeks before the election. That will be the October Surprise.

All the major news outlets will clamor to interview him. He will appear on the five Sunday talk shows and be on Sixty Minutes for the full hour. Reviews will be published above the fold on the front pages of the Times, Washington Post, and WSJ.

What Bolton will have to say will be a disaster for Trump.

The only down side? Trump will try to get us into a distracting hot war.

But one way or the other, Trump may be cooked.

In sum--the worse things get the better they are.

January 22, 2020--Trump Dream Team

Trump continues to fill out his dance card of impeachment lawyers, including one former member of O.J. Simpson's dream team--Alan Dershowitz--and the most famous special counsel of them all--Bill Clinton tormentor Kenneth Starr.

True to form Trump is seeing his trial in the Senate as an opportunity to produce and script a TV reality show. Sort of like Keeping Up With the Kardashians or The Apprentice. I'm sure he's aware of the fact that the Kardashian sire was Robert Kardashian, another O.J. lawyer.

As the Trump saga continues to inflate things get curiouser and curiouser.

One curiosity being speculated about is why Trump would add to his team lawyers such as Dersh and Starr. Mostly, it is being said, because he wants them on his team because they are frequently on Fox News and are thus well known to him and his redoubtable base.

This is true but why would Trump, who has his own sparsely spoken about relationship to sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, who specialized in providing to powerful men underage girls (see picture below), why would Trump want these compromised men  serving as the most visible of his defenders?

Both Dershowitz and Starr were on Epstein's own dream team of defense attorneys in 2008 when he was convicted of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl and procuring another for prostitution.  The lawyers did such a good job that Epstein avoided jail time and served just 13 months under house arrest. A slap on the wrist considering the heinous nature of his crimes.

In addition, the aforementioned Dershowitz was accused in 2019 by one of Epstein's under-age girls of having being directed by Epstein to provide sexual massages to the Harvard professor. The case was settled out of court with the disposition sheltered from public view. Dersh, though, has said that he "kept his underwear on." 

There have been no equivalent accusations directed at Starr though he was a key member of Epstein's legal defense team and lost his job as president of Baylor University in 2016 when he ignored sexual assaults on campus.

And let us recall that the Starr Report about his investigation of Bill Clinton was full of lurid sexual details that went way beyond what Clinton was accused of, including an entire section of the report that discussed Clinton's penis. 

One could say that Trump really knows how to put on a TV show. Or one could say that Starr and Dershowitz are fun guys for the likes of Trump to pal around with.

January 20, 2020--Hunter Biden & John Bolton

The current fight among senators is about whether or not to call witnesses during the Trump impeachment trial.

If he could get away with it (and he may), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would exclude any testimony and this afternoon would get the trial over with after an hour's debate and a voice vote to dismiss the whole thing. In other words, not only no witnesses but no trial. Next.

The Democrats of course want what they are calling an "open and fair" trial with witnesses and testimony.

If there are to be witnesses, the Republicans have indicated they want to cross examine Congressmen Adam Schiff, the Democrats' lead investigator, and Joe and Hunter Biden.

The Democrats have said no way. Adding that they want to gather the testimony of acting White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, Rudy Giuliani, and especially John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Advisor who called the Trump machinations in Ukraine a "drug deal." 

Both sides are dug in and there seems to be no way out.

I have a suggestion--

Rather than resisting subpoenaing Hunter Biden the Democrats should agree to calling him as part of a Bolton for Biden deal. Better, with, as he claims, nothing to hide, Biden himself should indicate that not only would he agree to appear but wants to testify--"Give me 24 hours notice and I'll be there."

Not a bad tradeoff. Republicans get to interrogate Biden and the Democrats get Bolton, who has signaled he has a "story to tell." The fact that he has a $5.0 million book deal suggests it's quite a story.

January 14, 2020--Jack On Iran

"I know you don't want to talk with me. I get under your skin. But this won't take long. I'll talk, you listen. You don't have to say a word.

That sounded like a good deal to me and so I said, "OK," put the phone on speaker, and continued to sip my coffee.

"So, all right, here's the dope on Iran. I assume you're following what's going on there." He paused to lure me in. I remained silent. "I know from things you've written that you think Trump's various ways of tormenting the Iranians is a wag-the-dog thing. To lure them into a confrontation. Increasing economic sanctions, pulling out of the arms control deal, and most recently taking out their number two--Soulman or whatever he's called. Was called."

Under my breath I said, "Soleimani."

"I heard that, "Jack said, "and stand corrected. I'm assuming you and your friends think Trump doesn't have a big-picture strategy, that everything he does is impulsive, self-serving, and political. And his moves in the Middle East will result in a potentially big war that will drive a further wedge between us and the Arab world."

That about summed up my position. Though Iran isn't an Arab country.

"Actually," Jack said, "I think some of that is true and not attractive."

Attractive? I thought that didn't begin to scratch the surface.

"But when it comes to Iran what Trump's been up to has been very smart. And is working. You'll find out how well come November."

He raced on. "Take a look at what's going on there. In Iran for months there have been street demonstrations that are aimed at toppling the current regime. Many hundreds of the protesters have been killed by the Revolutionary Guard--they don't mess around--and more than a thousand are already in prison. Trump's people have been trying to find ways we can help them as have other countries in the area. Saudi Arabia, for example.

"The economic sanctions have been working. Iran is pretty much broke. They're having trouble selling their oil to China and Japan. Inflation is out of control. A lot of the young Iranians are well educated but there are no good jobs for them. They're among those protesting. But the protests also includes even poorer rural people. In fact they appear to be among the leaders of the revolt. They traditionally side with the religious leaders. But not this time. 'It's the economy, stupid, works for them as well." 

Jack said, "Some who are experts say the regime may be vulnerable to being overthrown. That would be a big deal since many Iranians seem to have good feelings about America. If this was to happen it could be a game changer.

"But your people, who reluctantly admit Soleimani was a bad guy and it's good he's gone are beating up on Trump for not consulting with Congress and abusing his power as commander in chief. Ignoring the War Powers Act which was passed when Nixon was president and the Vietnam War still had two more bloody years to go.

"The Democrats are missing the political point so let me tell you about Grenada. You remember Grenada?"

"Grenada?" Unable to stifle myself, in frustration I shouted in response to his seeming non sequitur.

"How back in 1983 President Reagan invaded that small Caribbean country because it was allegedly taken over by Communists and that could threaten the region, The invasion was over in what seemed like a couple of hours. They didn't have a real army and couldn't defend themselves. Reagan did this to tell the world not to mess with us. That he was willing to use our military to protect our interests.

Jack said, "I see similar things going on with Iran. After being criticized for incendiary rhetoric--mainly Tweets--he has consistently backed off. Threatening but not acting. So like Reagan, with Iran he's putting on display his willingness to use force.

"He bombed Soleimani but when he spoke publicly about it didn't take a victory lap or turn up more heat. In fact he did the opposite. For him what he said was pretty moderate.

"So here's the bottom line--as a result Trump gets to look tough (I bet the North Koreans have taken note of that) and like Reagan doesn't make a big mess. And then of course he will reap the political rewards."

"We'll see," I said, now fully engaged, "Iran has 80 million people and a pretty advanced military, and so . . ."

Jack cut me off, "Don't forget what's goining on in the streets. The ayatollahs, who are corrupt, have made things worse for themselves, shooting down that plane and lying about it."

"There are these demonstrations, you're right about that, but the military there as you said doesn't mess around so we can expect to see the protesters squelched."

"We'll see," Jack said, "One final thing, the New York Post yesterday, on page one, had a picture of the demonstrators being careful not to step on Israeli and American flags that were neatly spread out in the road. And they were not shouting 'Death to America,' but rather 'Death to Supreme Leader Khamenei.'"

January 13, 2020--Jack Will Be Back

I will return tomorrow with Jack's views on Iran. I hope it will be worth the wait.

January 9, 2020--Trump the Nation Builder

Virtually all presidents shy away from talking positively about nation building. They know from experience and history (a few presidents actually know something about American history) that more frequently than not it doesn't work and that the nation attempting to carry out the nation building usually winds up paying a huge political price.

Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon come to mind. Both presidencies collapsed as the result of sinking into the quagmire that was the Vietnam War. 

And then we have George W. Bush who, during the October 2000 presidential debate with Al Gore, when asked by Jim Lehrer about nation building, said--

I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win wars. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops . . . I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the strategy obvious.

Then, ignoring his own advice, Bush authorized nation building after invading Afghanistan and Iraq. In both instances this turned out to be an expensive, bloody disaster that to this day many years later continues to fester.

And now we have Trump who as a candidate and later as president spoke contemptuously about his predecessors' nation building efforts.

Trump though now finds himself in an ironic situation. Like it or not, after mocking Obama and Bush he too finds himself supporting nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran where neo-con advisors such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been pressing him to abrogate the de-nuclearization deal struck by Obama and a number of allies and to act more confrontationally.

I refer to current pressures that Trump is placing on Iran as ironic because the demands he is making and the aggressive military actions he has authorized are having unanticipated consequences.

Until Trump turned up the volume of threatening talk, bragging that we have the capacity to bring down the current regime and devastate the country, there were dissident political factions in Iran that might very well, with the right kind of support, have had enough power to challenge the ruling ayatollahs.

But the decision to assassinate general Soleimani so inflamed Iranian national pride that the contesting factions are now fully united in their hatred of Trump and America. Now everyone in Iran is chanting "Death to America."

For this example of nation building they and we have Donald Trump to thank.

January 8, 2020--"Imminent Attack"

Do you remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? Back in 1964 it authorized then president Lyndon Johnson to expand our military involvement in the Vietnam War. 

The U.S. command claimed that one of our ships, a destroyer, in international waters, was attacked by three North Vietnam torpedo boats. Based on this assertion, Congress voted to allow LBJ and the Pentagon to enlarge our footprint in the region and the resolution was cited frequently during subsequent years to justify direct attacks on North Korean cities, harbors, and military facilities.

Then do you remember how George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and his senior national security and military staff claimed that the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq in January, 2003 was justified because Iraq was actively building weapons of mass destruction and would soon have the means to deploy them against the American homeland and our European allies? Recall how National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke vividly about how if we failed to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein it would lead to "mushroom clouds" over European capitals.

Though seemingly unrelated, these two incidents have a number of things in common--most significant the threats they identified were  largely untrue. 

The North Vietnamese had not initiated an attack on one of our naval vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin, and Iraq was found after our invasion and occupation not to have WMDs.

This brings us to today where the current administration is unleashing the dogs of war.

Trump authorized "taking out" Iranian general Qassim Soleimani because he was allegedly plotting an "imminent attack" on U.S. military and diplomatic assets in the Middle East.

Since neither Trump nor his national security team have provided credible intelligence evidence to justify this explanation it sounds suspiciously like the way the Gulf of Tonkin incident and WMD claims were represented. 

Perhaps in coming days we will hear more, but I remain skeptical. This feels all too familiar and Trump of course is constitutionally incapable of telling the truth.

January 6, 2020--Trump's Benghazi

If you are still wondering about why Trump gave the order last week to "take out" Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most powerful military leader, it's simple.

It's not because Suleimani was about to launch a terrorist attack on U.S. troops in Syria, or because he was planning an invasion of Israel, or just that Trump wanted to wag the war dog to distract the public from his impeachment. 

Bill Clinton did a version of that in mid-December, 1988 just as the House of Representatives was about to impeach him. He had the military join Britain in bombing Iraq because they failed to comply with UN resolutions to not build weapons of mass destruction. 

It didn't deter Iraq but did work to slow down the process. Just slow it down as the House only a few days later voted two articles of impeachment.

Rather Trump has us bombing in the Middle East because of Benghazi.

Remember Benghazi?

In September 2012, in Libya, in the city of Benghazi, within the walls of a CIA annex, American ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by rebels along with three other embassy officials. The killers torched the facility and one or more of the Americans was burned to death.

Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time and Republicans held her personally responsible for not authorizing sufficient security to protect our citizens. It became an enormous political issue as she was preparing to run for president in 2016. 

To that end, in an act of political theater, three years later, in 2015, GOP congressmen hauled Clinton before the House Select Committee On Benghazi and put her through 11 hours of interrogation.

They and nine other congressional committees searched for evidence that Clinton and others in the Obama administration lied about and covered up the truth about the raid. 

None of the investigations turned up any incriminating evidence.

Subsequently, in 2016, Clinton became the Democratic nominee but was defeated by Trump.

Last week when Trump saw photos and videos of the fire-gutted facilities in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad that was attacked last week by Iran-supported Iraqi militia it made him think it was deja vu; but this time he, not Hillary would get the blame for not adequately protecting and defending our embassy and staff. 

The last thing Trump wanted was to be associated in any way with the Clintons, especially Hillary. To be linked to a woman when being accused of not protecting American interests was more than macho, misogynist Trump could bear. And thus he gave the impulsive order to assassinate Suleimani.

This is also a huge political gamble. If the Iranians respond with restraint that could contribute to reelecting Trump. But if things more likely do not go well his already riled isolationist base (including the likes of Fox News' Tucker Carlson) will be even more outraged and some, a few will abandon him. Perhaps enough to contribute to the election of the Democratic candidate.

January 3, 2020--Nominee Bernie? President Bernie?

The just released report on how much Democratic candidates took in during the last quarter of 2019 confirms that Bernie Sanders is a prodigious money-raising machine. 

In addition to the $34.5 million he netted (considerably more than his closest rivals--Buttigieg's $24.7 million and Joe Biden's $22.7) Bernie noted that since launching his campaign for the 2020 nomination, more than five million individuals contributed to his campaign.

This coupled with his nearly one million volunteers, shows him to be a political force to reckon with.

In effect, he will ultimately net about as much money to deploy on the election as multi, multi billionaire Mike Bloomberg has allocated.

His true power as a candidate will be on full display on Super Tuesday, March 3rd, when 15 state caucuses and primaries will select about 40 percent of the delegates needed to secure the nomination. Bernie appears to be poised to do exceptionally well. 

Like it or not, it may be time to predict that Sanders has a clearer path to the nomination than Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, or even Joe Biden.

This assumes that Warren continues to falter and most of her potential voters shift to Sanders and that Mayor Pete also slips back and a majority of his supporters find their reluctant way to Biden. 

This would leave Sanders and Biden standing and since there look to be more progressive Democrats than so-called moderates among the electorate, I can see Sanders securing the nomination if a brokered nomination process can be avoided.

Having said this I might as well go further out on the limb and suggest that if Bernie wins the nomination he could as well win the general election. After we hear testimony from Bolton and Giuliani, all bets on Trump are off.

January 2, 2020--Jack: Impeachment

"I can't believe you guys stepped in it."

"Make it quick Jack, I only have a few minutes for you." 

This was not true, I had time on my hands as I usually do during the holiday season, but I was in no mood to get involved with him. I'd rather be staring at the ceiling. 

"I'm talking about impeachment. Especially what your Dems are up to."

"Going after Trump, that's what we're up to. And I say, it's about time."

"So he's got you snookered too. I love that." I could hear him chuckling. 

"I repeat--I only have a few minutes for you."

"I'll bet you never heard of this one." I stifled myself, not responding, and so Jack continued, "She fell right into his trap. Trump's" He paused, trying to engage me. I continued to hold my tongue, "How did this whole impeachment thing get started?"

"Enlighten me." I didn't know where he was going with this.

"By Trump ordering the release of the written transcript of his conversation with the newly-elected president of Ukraine. The so-called extortion or bribery conversation where he told Zelensky he would release the authorized military assistance money to Ukraine if they agreed to dig up dirt about the Bidens."

"Of course I know about that. It was pretty stupid for your boy to try to get away with that."

"At the time a lot of media people and liberals were also gleeful, thinking he gave them the smoking gun up front. With Nixon the smoking gun was at the end of the impeachment process with Trump it was up front. Your people thought he shot himself in the foot and off they raced to get impeachment going. You remember, I'm sure, that Nancy didn't want to go there. She was worried that like with Clinton if Trump got impeached by only the Democrats his favorables would go up. It would help him get reelected. But when he released the transcript Pelosi couldn't continue to duck going for impeachment. She had no choice but to unleash Schiff."

"So far, we agree."

"Good. Now let's look at this from where the situation is going rather than where it is--stalled in the House because Nancy doesn't want to send the articles of impeachment to Mitch in the Senate until she has rules in place to call witnesses and examine subpoenaed documents. Mitch is happy about her slowing the process down because as soon as he gets back from New Years he'll start to claim the Dems are engaged in a coverup. They know Trump is not going to be voted out of office. That the Democrats are engaged in a witch hunt. Blah, blah. You've heard all this before. But best of all Nancy is playing right into his hands. She's been smart up to this point but very soon her political strategy is going to come crashing down."

I said, "About this we disagree. Mitch is going to have to allow a few witnesses since if he doesn't it will look like what it is--that he and his senators are engaged in a coordinated coverup. Can you imagine what Bolton and Rudy have to say as witnesses? They may turn out to be the real smoking guns."

"Some of this could happen," Jack said, "but it won't matter. Whatever the Dems come up with--witnesses, emails, stuff like that--Trump is not getting kicked out of office. He's going to be found not guilty and ten minutes after that vote he'll embark on a 10-city Exoneration Tour, boasting there was no collusion, no bribery, no obstruction. Then he'll get the Clinton bump."

"What a nightmare," I said under me breath.

"If you see things unfolding that way--and I'm sure you do," he chuckled again, "it's obvious Trump is behind the whole thing. He's the only one smart enough to come up with this scenario and sucker the Democrats into moving against him. He wanted to be impeached. He engineered the whole thing. And now he'll expose Nancy's failed strategy and take Biden down at the same time. Sort of like a trick shot in pool. Two for one. And that will leave the Democrats with Bernie as their candidate. A trifecta for our president."

My head was throbbing. Was I ever sorry I answered the phone. I swore that next time . . .

January 1, 2020--Jack On Thursday

Yes, Jack will be back with thoughts about impeachment.