March 9, 2020--Bernie: Likable Enough?

Famously, in 2008, during the run up to the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, at the debate that featured Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, when the moderator asked Clinton whether she had the personal appeal to defeat her opponent, before she could answer, Obama interjected, "You're likable enough, Hillary."

The audience moaned and during the next few days Obama was widely criticized for his insensitivity and, as some claimed, his sexism. For interrupting her, for discussing her personality rather than her ideas and qualifications. They next thing, some speculated, he'd be talking about her clothes.

It was more than implied that he would not have behaved this way if he had been debating a male opponent.

Ultimately and ironically the bottom line was that Hillary lost the nomination because, among other things, the postmortems found, many potential voters didn't vote for her because they found her not to be likable. 

It could be that this time around Elizabeth Warren suffered the same fate. She too may have lost because many felt she too was not likable enough.

Sexism was again surely an issue. To smooth some of her rough edges she should have appeared on Saturday Night Live earlier in the primary season and done a little campaigning with her burrito-snatching dog, Bailey.

There is president for that. Remeember, Bill Clinton appeared on the Arsenio Hall Show and, donning shades, played a little sax. Even the dour Richard Nixon tried to demonstrate he had a sense of humor (he didn't) and showed up on Laugh-In, where he called for them to "Sock it to me." He was that desperate.

Speaking about likability, how likable is Bernie Sanders? 

To his followers, likability doesn't begin to characterize their fervor.  But to many, including voters who he has to appeal to now to defeat Joe Biden, his anger and grumpiness are turnoffs. After Trump they are looking for someone who can win but also calm things down.

Perhaps because of the absence of likability Bernie's mien is becoming aggravating and his numbers in the polls are sliding. Sexism for him is. not an issue.

Biden is clearly not a policy machine equalling Warren or Sanders, but an increasing number of Democrats are finding him . . . likable. Someone with whom they would like to have coffee or a beer.

This may not be the best way to pick a president, but there you are.

September 25, 2019--Impeachment

In light of Speaker Pelosi yesterday announcing that the House will begin an impeachment inquiry, this, first posted in June, may be worth a second look--

Speaker Pelosi understandably, from a political perspective, has been reluctant to unleash her Democratic colleagues who are pressing to begin the process required to impeach Donald Trump.

She knows her history and saw Bill Clinton's favorability numbers skyrocket when Republicans in the House of Representatives, which they controlled at the time as the Dems do now, moved to impeach him on two counts--lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

Pelosi is worried that she and her fellow Democrats will experience deja vu all over again--in the House Trump will be impeached minimally for abuse of power but will not even come close to receiving the two-thirds vote that is required to remove him from office. As a result, she fears, like Clinton he will emerge more popular, more emboldened than ever, and sprint in 2020 to reelection.

Thus she has held AOC, Jerry Nadler, and others in check, citing these political concerns.

Putting aside for the moment whether political considerations should determine what to do, there may be an historical flaw in Pelosi's reasoning.

She is right about the Clinton example and it should worry anyone who feels that ridding ourselves of Trump in 17 months is even more important than holding him to his constitutional responsibilities.

But that is just one example. 

In our history there is only one other instance when Congress impeached a president--Andrew Johnson who had been Lincoln's vice president and assumed the presidency after Lincoln was assassinated. He subsequently abandoned Lincoln's Reconstruction agenda and as a result alienated virtually all Republicans who promptly passed the 14th and 15th Amendments and resisted Johnson's efforts to fire his inherited secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. He was impeached in 1868 by a wide margin but was not tossed out of office, though Republicans had the required votes in the Senate, because enough of them did not want to put Congress's powers to a constitutional test. He was retained in office by just one vote.

Being impeached did not in any way enhance his political or electoral viability. He is still considered one of our worst presidents.

Many think that Nixon was impeached. He was not. He certainly would have been if he had not resigned, but in fact he was only charged by the House judiciary committee. Their recommendation to impeach was never voted on by the full House. And we know Nixon as a result did not receive an impeachment bump in the polls. His numbers plummeted and for that reason alone he chose to leave office.

And now there might be Trump. 

Let us stipulate that he is not as unpopular as either Johnson or half-impeached Nixon. But, for the sake of seeking historical parallels it is important to point out that he is not as popular as Clinton was even after he was exposed as having had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. 

In other words to compare Trump to Clinton (the one example we have of a president whose approval ratings rose while he was being impeached) we have to factor in their relative political power. It is my view that Clinton, by comparison, in spite of all his misdeeds began the impeachment process in much better political shape than Trump. More jobs were created than at any other comparable time in our history, the budget was throwing off surpluses not as now mountains of new debt, and we were not at war. Also, and important, Clinton was an eminently likable rogue.

In addition, the facts about Clinton's malfeasance were well known before impeachment hearings began. After all, his story was full of sex and violence (remember Vince Foster?). Subjects the public turned to for their daily fix. 

With Trump, as the Mueller Report reveals, we have been dealing with relatively complex legal hairsplitting so it is no wonder that the majority of American's to this point couldn't care less. 

In other words, Speaker Pelosi, there may not be that many political consequences to fear if there were impeachment hearings. They would be on television and one might be able to make the case that when the public finally tunes in they may be furious to learn the sordid details of what Trump and his party of grifters have wrought. 

In addition, to move to impeach may be the right thing. Sometimes it's important to do that too.

July 10, 2019--White Male Privilege

Continuing to ponder the gender implications of the large vote Trump received in 2016 from white women, Guest Blogger Sharon wrote--

One of the questions I keep hearing is should Dems try to get Obama/Trump voters back or go full out Progressive to motivate more new voters.

As much as I hate many aspects of data mining and micro-targeting, it would probably help if the Dems knew more about these and other more reasonable Trump voters and those Dems that didn’t vote in 2016.

With that said, I suspect the real challenge isn’t what candidates say or how they say it but who they are. There just might not be anyone with a wide enough appeal. I cringed when Bill Maher said the only one who could beat Trump for sure is Oprah. But I fear he may be right.

It’s a tiny sample but when a friend from the Midwest had brunch with a friend from New York, he asked him why he and friends voted for Trump. His reaction was people knew him. For me that was a dis-qualifier. But with so many people not paying attention, this may be the key. 

As for more civilized discourse, an acquaintance assisting at the polls on Democratic primary day last month said a woman drove into the church parking lot screaming at her about representing “the party of death” and how she’d never vote for a Democrat. I thought this might just be a disturbed individual. Then I  googled our moderate businessman Senator and former Governor Mark Warner.  The first entry is an ad to defeat him in 2020 because he sides with the “party of death.” Interesting new branding. Not encouraging. 

I wrote--

The most recent ways the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot is to give so much attention to AOC and three (three!) of her colleagues. This gang of four is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP now that they have someone even better than Nancy Pelosi to demonologize. How self-defeating can we be.

And then Jill Davenport wrote--

I was just this minute reading your blog about women and I believe you’re exactly right. And Bill Clinton was exactly right when he spoke about white men dying of broken hearts.  

There’s another reason as well, and this affects both genders . . . the white male privilege is on shaky ground, and so is the privilege thereby extended to their female counterparts.  They are terribly fearful of the most awful thing that they can imagine . . . being outnumbered by people of color who by nature they believe should be shining shoes in airports.  

Having a black man for president was an unspeakable affront to the proper order as they see it and they thus feel it needs to be restored.  

Obama brought out the latent and carefully hidden racism which came forth like a toxic flood when T-name took over "my" White House.  All of it is, of course, the result of just fear. 

I thought--

Jill's new idea about how for many conservative women male privilege is extended to them is something important to ponder. For me it helps explain why so many white women voted for Trump and how important it is for progressives to understand this in order to find ways to prevail.

July 8, 2019--Make American Men Great Again

For more than two years, my sister-in-law, Guest Blogger Sharon, and I have been attempting to understand why so many women, white women, 53 percent of them, voted for Trump. It seems so against their best interests. 

Recently she wrote-- 

I still haven’t totally figured it out, including what role religion may have played. I think there are people whose world view or “values” may trump (sorry) self-interest. Just look at the number of women who voted for a misogynist. Or are so pro-life that they are willing to give up control of their own bodies.

Then I wrote--  

About the women who voted for Trump: like you I've been obsessed with trying to understand this since he was elected. Some of it is a version of Evangelical belief about the appropriate place for women in the social and family hierarchy. "In their place" below men. But I have come to conclude it's less about religion than about gender. 

Likely for most of Trump's white men the women's movement tripped off all sorts of scary bells and whistles. Having in many cases to deal with female bosses; having to deal with dramatic changes in sexual behavior where women have come to assume an almost equal role; needing wives to enter the work force not for career reasons but because the men couldn't earn enough to pay the bills and sustain them as stay-at-home wives and mothers, often with the women earning more than their husbands, as a result feeling dispossessed, these men are angry about their shrinking hegemony within the family and the larger society, and voted for Trump in the belief that he would restore things to their natural, their rightful gender dispensation.  

And then for the these women--they want their husbands back. The ones who could support them, dominate them, and make them feel protected and secure. They too feel that something profound has been abrogated, overturned. Thus, that is what making America great again means to them. It really means how to make men a regressive version of great again. 

To progressive women this represents a retreat from all that has been fought for and accomplished during the past 50-60 years; to conservative women this would represent a restoration of the natural order.

The Dems need to figure out how to relate to this in a non-condescending manner for at least two reasons--they'll lose again if they don't and because it's the right way to engage Trump supporters--with understanding and sensitivity. Doing so, though, doesn't mean we need to roll over and come to agree about everything. Or very much. But we do need to show respect for how they are experiencing life in a changed America, and try to find some empathetic common ground.

Toward the end of Hillary Clinton's campaign, when it finally dawned on her and some of her advisors that they were losing white working-class voters--women as well as men--some of her people who had kept Bill Clinton at arms length from participating in campaign strategizing, realizing he was in fact their best strategist, finally asked him what he thought was going on with these voters, mainly the men. He said, "They're dying of a broken heart."

He was right. And since it was too late to reach out to them in appropriate ways, Hillary Clinton lost their votes and ultimately the election.

Fair warning. 

June 17, 2019--Impeachment

Speaker Pelosi understandably, from a political perspective, has been reluctant to unleash her Democratic colleagues who are pressing to begin the process required to impeach Donald Trump.

She knows her history and saw Bill Clinton's favorability numbers skyrocket when Republicans in the House of Representatives, which they controlled at the time as the Dems do now, moved to impeach him on two counts--lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

Pelosi is worried that she and her fellow Democrats will experience deja vu all over again--in the House Trump will be impeached minimally for abuse of power but will not even come close to receiving the two-thirds vote that is required to remove him from office. As a result, she fears, like Clinton he will emerge more popular, more emboldened than ever, and sprint in 2020 to reelection.

Thus she has held AOC, Jerry Nadler, and others in check, citing these political concerns.

Putting aside for the moment whether political considerations should determine what to do, there may be an historical flaw in Pelosi's reasoning.

She is right about the Clinton example and it should worry anyone who feels that ridding ourselves of Trump in 17 months is even more important than holding him to his constitutional responsibilities.

But that is just one example. 

In our history there is only one other instance when Congress impeached a president--Andrew Johnson who had been Lincoln's vice president and assumed the presidency after Lincoln was assassinated. He subsequently abandoned Lincoln's Reconstruction agenda and as a result alienated virtually all Republicans who promptly passed the 14th and 15th Amendments and resisted Johnson's efforts to fire his inherited secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. He was impeached in 1868 by a wide margin but was not tossed out of office, though Republicans had the required votes in the Senate, because enough of them did not want to put Congress's powers to a constitutional test. He was retained in office by just one vote.

Being impeached did not in any way enhance his political or electoral viability. He is still considered one of our worst presidents.

Many think that Nixon was impeached. He was not. He certainly would have been if he had not resigned, but in fact he was only charged by the House judiciary committee. Their recommendation to impeach was never voted on by the full House. And we know Nixon as a result did not receive an impeachment bump in the polls. His numbers plummeted and for that reason alone he chose to leave office.

And now there might be Trump. 

Let us stipulate that he is not as unpopular as either Johnson or half-impeached Nixon. But, for the sake of seeking historical parallels it is important to point out that he is not as popular as Clinton was even after he was exposed as having had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. 

In other words to compare Trump to Clinton (the one example we have of a president whose approval ratings rose while he was being impeached) we have to factor in their relative political power. I is my view that Clinton, by comparison, in spite of all his misdeeds began the impeachment process in much better political shape than Trump. More jobs were created than at any other comparable time in our history, the budget was throwing off surpluses not as now mountains of new debt, and we were not at war. Also, and important, Clinton was an eminently likable rogue.

In addition, the facts about Clinton's malfeasance were well known before impeachment hearings began. After all, his story was full of sex and violence (remember Vince Foster?). Subjects the public turned to for their daily fix. 

With Trump, as the Mueller Report reveals, we have been dealing with relatively complex legal hairsplitting so it is no wonder that the majority of American's to this point couldn't care less. 

In other words, Speaker Pelosi, there may not be that many political consequences to fear if there were impeachment hearings. They would be on television and one might be able to make the case that when the public finally tunes in they may be furious to learn the sordid details of what Trump and his party of grifters have wrought. 

In addition, to move to impeach may be the right thing. Sometimes it's important to do that too.

Andrew Johnson

May 6, 2019--Jack's List

"I hear you're coming my way."

"In fact we're already in Maine."

"Thought you could slip into my territory without my noticing did you?"

Jack was half right. We did get to Maine on Sunday and to tell the truth I wasn't that eager to be under pressure to see him.

"I'm ready for you," he said, sounding rambunctious. "In fact, in anticipation of your showing up I even made a list of the things we need to talk about."

"Need?" I had the hope that his catch-up list was more about the Red Sox and Yankees than Trump and Barr.

"Top of my list," he said, "is our attorney general, Barr."

So much, I thought, for the Yanks and Sox.

"Barr, for example. He seems to pride himself as being a linguist," Jack said. "A couple of weeks ago, to give you an example, in response to a congressman who was questioning him, he said something about 'abjure.' It's the first time I ever heard that word. And since it appeared that was also true for some House members, Barr smirked and said 'OK, forget the 'abjure.'"

"We have to talk about this? I'm not in Maine to . . ."

"It came up when he was pressed about his saying, the last time he testified, that the FBI was 'spying' on Trump's campaign and when he was called out about it he said, and I'm quoting. I wrote it down so you couldn't wiggle off the hook."

"What does his calling what the FBI was doing in its routine work, investigating possible criminal activity by some of Trump's people, rather than calling it 'investigating' them he used a loaded up term--'spying'-- to slander their efforts and make what's going on sound conspiratorial? From the Deep State?"

In spite of myself I was all riled up.

Ignoring me, Jack said, "Let me read a snippet about this from, I think, your New York Times: "Barr called 'spying' a 'good English word' and expressed no regrets for previously testifying that President Trump's campaign was spied on." Jack added, still quoting, 'I'm not going to abjure use of the word 'spying.'"

"You're exhausting me, Jack. Why do we have to talk about this. You put this at the top of your list? With all that there is to talk about . . . ?" Not that I wanted to talk with him about any of it.

"Like Clinton's, Bill Clinton's famous 'It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.'"

"I can't believe with everything that's happening this is what's on your mind. Top of your list." 

I realized Jack, cleverly, to snare my attention, was trying to divert me into a deep discussion, of all things, about Barr's syntax. Which is largely overblown and pseudo-intellectual. It's almost as if Barr wants to say that though I may be the illiterate Trump's mouthpiece, notice by my choice of words, mainly Latinate, and sentence structure, compound sentences, I'm not one of them. I operate on a higher plane.

I thought Jack was doing a version of the same thing. By plucking "abjure" from Barr's hours of testimony he was attempting to say something about himself. That he, Jack, operated on that high plane as well.

"I've got to go," I said. "But do me a favor."

"Anything."

Let's agree to talk about the Red Sox. At least until I'm settled in."

"As long as you don't ask me to abjure them as they struggle to get started this spring."

"Ugh."

"Or we could always talk about Benghazi. That's on my list too."

I hung up.

May 1, 2019--Black Women

How sadly ironic that the spouse of our first black president and the first women to secure the nomination of a major political party lost the election because black women did not turn out in traditional numbers to vote for her.

The "her," of course, is Hillary Clinton and the "first back president," designated as such by Toni Morrison, is Bill Clinton.

So, if Joe Biden is to have a chance to win, especially in the hotly contested Electoral-College-rich Midwestern states--Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan--he needs to do better with black women.

Initially in the primaries and then, if he is nominated, in the general election.

It is very early to make responsible predictions but since this is a critical issue, following the lead of the New York Times, which published an article Monday about how well Biden might do with African-American voters in these swing states, here are a few observations--

The Times dispatched a reporter to Pennsylvania, where there are many minorities, to get a sense of how Biden is faring with black voters.

Supported by recent polling data, it seems quite well.

At Bobbie's Coffee & Books in Germantown, when talk turned to politics, patrons said that Biden was either at or near the top of their list, mainly because of his partnership with Obama. 

Clara Walker, a small-business owner, said that Biden would have her vote "just for assisting Barack."

This was a common theme--Biden's support for Obama's agenda and how his presence and assistance contributed significantly to Obama's success.

Kerry Chester, a network engineer, said, "I'm going to be completely honest: I think with the country going the way it is, I think we're kind of safer on the Democratic side going with a white man right now."

Working class white folks said much the same thing--

For example, Kevin Frantz, a retried firefighter, said, "I like his sincerity, his personality, his experience. I think he cares."

No wonder worried Trump sent out a stream of nasty tweets about Biden as he made his way successfully across his home state.

One further thought about Biden's appeal to black voters--

In most work situations African Americans report to white people. But in Obama's White House, white workers, beginning with Biden, reported to a black man--the president.

Biden was known to have had nothing but fondness and respect for Obama and was as loyal a second banana as a vice president has ever been. This has been widely noticed among African Americans and contributes in uncountable ways to his rapport with the former president and through that relationship to black voters.

We will learn more as the campaigns develop, but at this early stage it appears that Biden will not have a Hillary problem.

April 23, 2019--Impeachment

And now the I-word.

It is clear from his report that Robert Mueller did not feel comfortable indicting Trump for obstruction of justice though the case for it in the report is much stronger than the uncertainty about its appropriateness or legality.

There is that Justice Department policy that states that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. It is a policy, not a law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Count, a "policy," never challenged in any court. And not an ancient one at that. 

It does not go back to the Founders but rather was written in just 2000 at the end of the Clinton administration. After Watergate and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. After decades of special prosecutors.

In his peport Mueller presents an overwhelming case for obstruction of justice but punts what should be done about the evidence to Congress. In the initial instance to the House of Representatives which has the constitutional authority to initiate impeachments.

It should thus be clear, again from Mueller's mountain of evidence, that the House Judiciary Committee should get right to it.

But then there is politics.

It is evident that Nancy Pelosi is not enthusiastic about the prospect of Democrats taking responsibility for the process. 

She has laid out a number of thresholds that need to be crossed before she would allow that to happen. The one that is an easy deal-breaker is that impeachment hearings should not commence until the prospect for articles of impeachment are bipartisan. This means the Democrats should not move ahead until there is Republican support.

The likelihood of that, as my Aunt Madeline would say, is "zero, less than zero."

Unspoken but evident is the historical evidence that the Republicans, who controlled both the House and Senate in 1998 and moved aggressively to impeach Bill Clinton, lost seats in both and also the speakership when Newt Gingrich, who was held responsible for the debacle, was unceremoniously dumped. 

It is agreed that by taking a partisan approach to impeaching Clinton, Republicans paid a huge price. Pelosi wants to avoid a similar circumstance.

During the impeachment debate and subsequent trial in the Senate Clinton's popularity soared 10 percentage points. He was already quite popular but still his favorability numbers rose to about 70 percent. 

So Speaker Pelosi and the House senior leadership, including Congressman Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, are nervous about moving toward impeachment, fearing that Trump will see a similar bump up in popularity. His people and others will see this as an effort to overthrow the results of the 2016 presidential election and thus Democratic overreach.

To me, though, this is not a sufficient reason to avoid the issue of impeachment.

First, Trump is no Clinton. A majority of voters liked Clinton but fewer than 30 percent feel the same way about Trump. A poll from Monday morning showed Trump's approval numbers falling six points, down to 37 percent after the release of the Mueller report.

Then, though the economy is currently doing well for the top 10 percent, a large majority are not feeling as positively about their well being as they did in Clinton's day where not only were many millions of jobs created but the federal budget deficit was wiped out. In fact, there were annual surpluses.

Yet the concern about losing congressional seats is at the heart of the Democrats' political fears.

Then there are the profiles-in-courage constitutional reasons why it may be important to move to impeach Trump.

Our constitutional system is one where checks and balances define what is unique about our democracy. They are designed to check and balance any attempt by any of the three separate branches of our government to overwhelm and dominate the others.

Our system is designed to limit the power of Congress, the courts, and most potentially concerning the administration, the presidency.

We fought the Revolution to overthrow tyranny and wrote a constitution to marshal forces against that ever happening in the United States of America.

To impeach Trump would be a reminder about what ur Founders intended and what makes us special and kept us strong.

The Mueller report exposes Trump's disregard for constitutional government. It calls for the preeminent branch, Congress, to confront this. It reminds us that ours is a "constitutional system of checks and balances and the principal that no person is about the law." Including, especially, not the president.

I therefore say impeachment must be on the table.

February 5, 2019--Executive Time

Remember during the 2016 campaign how Trump made a big deal out of all the time Barack Obama was away from the office playing golf? How during his eight years as president, Trump ranted, he played 333 rounds? If elected Trump promised he would be "so busy working for the American people that he won't have time to play."

Fact checking shows that a little more than two years into his presidency Trump has already played golf 156 times. If he is reelected (heaven help us) he is on a trajectory to play about 600 rounds, nearly twice as many as Obama.

The cost thus far to taxpayers for all the back and forth to mainly Trump courses in Palm Beach, Bedminster, NJ, and Trump country clubs near the White House has been about $86 million. 

Extrapolated to eight years, this will swell to nearly $345 million. About four times as much as the cost of Obama's trips. Quite a piece of change.

Trump also criticized Obama for all the times he flew back and forth on Air Force One to vacation in Hawaii. Especially how much that cost. In fact, while president, Obama visited Hawaii fewer than a dozen times. Trump in just two years has already been to Florida more often then that.

Is there a scent of hypocrisy about this?

Also, do I sense a hint of racism? You know, how black people are lazy?

Then yesterday, AXIOS got their hands on and posted Trump's day-by-day schedule for the past three months. It shows him to be mainly alone when in Washington, spending more than 60 percent of his waking hours engaged in what his staff calls Executive Time. 

Time when Trump watches TV (presumable mainly Fox News), tweets, and talks on the phone to cronies who serve as informal advisors and enablers. These include Fox personalities such as "Judge" Judy, Laura Ingraham,  and Sean Hannity.

His meetings are mainly with the chief-of-staff and tend to last less than half an hour. He rarely has policy meetings with cabinet members or senior staff. He can barely sit still for more than a few minutes when he receives his daily national security briefing. Briefers are told to use charts and not words and to avoid including anything that might make him angry. Especially assessments of global threat with which he disagrees.

Picking up the AXIOS story the New York Times, Washington Post, as well as commentators on CNN and MSNBC have been expressing outrage that Trump is so off the case.

I have a different view. 

I welcome this. The more Executive Time he indulges in means there is less time for him to do the traditional work of being president. In other words, the less harm he might otherwise do if he followed a more conventional presidential schedule. 

It was felt by many that workaholic (and golfer) Bill Clinton and micromanager Jimmy Carter got in trouble by being so obsessed with minutia that they lost sight of the big picture issues that are the preferred purview of chief executives.

So, I say, let's stop criticizing Trump for lying around all day in his pajamas glued to the TV and Fox & Friends. The alternative could be worse. 

August 27, 2018--As He Lay Dying

A day or two before the end, as his old best friend, John McCain, lay dying, as we have seen Lindsey do before, he couldn't keep his hands off his new best friend, Donald J. Trump. 

Senator Lindsey Graham is such a suck up for hunky men that when he encounters one, or one pretending to be one, he seemingly can't control himself.

This time, with Trump, the gift he brought was to clear a path that would enable him to fire the Attorney General with minimal political dissent or outrage. This he gift-wrapped for Trump, the one man John McCain clearly despised. At least he could have waited until after the funeral. We know Trump won't show up, isn't welcome, and now I wonder about jilted-by-death Lindsey. Will he have the cajones to show his face at the service. 

This gift about when and how to dump Sessions was hand delivered by the same swooning Lindsey who only a few months ago said that if Trump fires Sessions there will be "holy hell to pay."

Late last week Graham noted that Sessions has clearly lost Trump's confidence (this is news?) and that he, Lindsey, a leader in the Senate, did not necessarily object to Trump replacing him after the midterm elections. 

Presumably the congressional elections will result in deep loses among Republicans and, Graham suggested, as presidents in the past have done, Trump should "reshuffle" his cabinet mainly to deflect blame for the election results from himself to his hapless underlings. 

And by reshuffling Graham means dumping a few cabinet officers, not just Sessions, so he won't stick out so much. It would appear to be more a house cleaning than retribution because Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation and refused to see his job as protecting Trump from his own worst proclivities.

I suppose this advice constitutes something other than what Lindsey considers hell to pay.

Think Clinton in 1994, George W. Bush in 2006, and Barack Obama in 2010. All of whom reshuffled their cabinets after off-cycle election results.

And think how President Lyndon Johnson got around being pressured to make Bobby Kennedy his running mate in 1964. LBJ despised RFK even more than McCain hated Trump or Trump hates Sessions. 

He announced that his choice would not be from anyone serving in his cabinet (Bobby was still Attorney General) because there was so much work to do that he couldn't spare anyone's full-time attention. 

Everyone at the time knew what he was really doing--jettisoning Kennedy--and before long Johnson had become so politically toxic that he little choice but to withdrew from the 1986 race.

If only history could in this case repeat itself.

Rona has another theory about what Lindsey Graham is up to--

She thinks he is too smart and weaselly to give into his infatuation and is trying to trick Trump into not firing Sessions until after the midterms. He believes that Trump firing Sessions before November would so inflame voters that the Republicans would do even worse than is currently predicted.

Interesting. 

In that case let's hope Trump fires Sessions at the end of  October. Let that be the October Surprise. That would be better than bombing North Korea.

Then we could begin to speculate who Trump will attempt to appoint (I say "attempt" because Democratic senators will filibuster).

Top of the list could be Rudy or Chris Christie (remember him?). Or perhaps from Trump's world of reality TV--Judge Judy, Judge Jeanine, Judge Nepolitano, or Laura Ingraham who is a lawyer.

Perhaps most confirmable by the Senate is, why not, Lindsey Graham.

July 20, 2018--Jack: When No Is Yes

I have been so agitated about Trump's pathetic behavior at the Helsinki summit and then with his attempts to walk back a number of the more outrageous things he said, that I found myself calling Jack to get a few things off my chest.

"I want you to just listen," I said, not even beginning with "Hello."

"You have 15 minutes before my next appointment. So shoot. There I go again with the shooting business." He chuckled at that. I ignored him as I didn't want to get sidetracked into an argument about the Second Amendment.

"Just listen," I said, racing on, "There have been numerous examples of politicians, including presidents, who said stupid things that they or their people subsequently attempted to clean up, to explain away.

"Let me begin with John Kerry when he was running for president in 2004. He was accused, not entirely unfairly by George W. Bush, of being a flip-flopper. The most enduring example was when he tried to have it both ways when it came time to vote for or against a supplemental defense bill that authorized $87 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"He said, 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.' Typical John Kerry and so he lost the election.

"Next there's what President Bill Clinton, under oath, said to the grand jury about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. I wrote it down so I can quote him--

"'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. . . Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

"I'm running out to time," Jack said, "But thus far I like what you're saying--taking it to those two phonies--Kerry and Clinton."

Again I didn't take the bait and continued--"Now let's turn to your boy. Trump."

"Shoot." I could hear him laughing.


"Trying to wiggle out of what he said about Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, on his return to Washington from Helsinki, Trump 'clarified' his position on Russian meddling in the election. Again I wrote it down--

Trump now claims he was 'very strong' with Putin on election meddling

Read more

“'I thought it would be obvious, but I would like to clarify just in case it wasn’t. In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t.’ The sentence should have been: ‘I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t, or why it wouldn’t be Russia,’ sort of a double negative. So you can put that in, and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.'

Among other things do you really believe he knows anything about double negatives?" 

Jack didn't say a word. "So here's another one for you. Also about the aftermath of the summit with Putin. This time about the meaning of 'no' and 'yes.'"

"When asked during a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday if he believes Russia is still seeking to meddle in U.S. political affairs, Trump initially answered, 'no,' a remark that led to criticism even from some Republican lawmakers.

After Trump's remarks, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders again tried to, quote, 'clarify' what Trump was saying 'no' to--she said he meant that he wasn't answering any questions at all, that he wasn't responding to the reporter's question itself."

I took a breath--"This is right out of Orwell's 1984. It's doublethink. And before you say that Trump was only doing the same thing as Kerry and Clinton, let me set you straight about that. Kerry was engaging in political spin and no matter how reprehensible it was for Clinton to have sex with Lewinsky and lie about it, what Trump did was of a higher order of magnitude, or a lower order--he violated his oath of office--he wasn't defending and protecting the Constitution conservatives so cherish. That alone justifies considering impeachment."

"Are you done?" Jack asked, "Because if you are I have one thing to say back to you--an Axios poll just came out out about how voters feel about the Helsinki meeting. The poll focused on the joint press conference that you and your people are all bent out of shape about. Well, 79 percent of Republicans said they approved of Trump's performance. What do you say to that?"

"Two things--they're still drinking the Kool-Aid, and 79 percent, as pathetic as that is, is not the usual 90 approval rating Trump gets from people like you. And further, I'll bet that at least half of these people are OK with the Russians meddling in our elections as long as they were helping Trump get elected."

With that, feeling a bit better, I hung up.

April 20, 2018--Trump's End Game

Many of us have been comforted by the belief that even if Robert Mueller is fired and his report gets squelched, even if President Trump pardons 20 or more people, everyone from son-in-law Jared Kushner to Paul Manafort to Michael Flynn and especially his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, all or most of them would still be prosecutable by state attorney generals such as New York's Eric Schneiderman for violating state law because presidential pardons pertain only to federal law.

For example, if Cohen secured a home equity loan from a New York bank, claiming it was to renovate his apartment but then used it to buy Stormy Daniel's silence, he might have committed bank fraud and thus could be pursued by Schneiderman.

Well, it may turn out, not so much.

Just two days ago the New York attorney general asked Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature to pass a new law to cover a potential loophole in the current law that might not allow the state to prosecute anyone who had received a blanket federal pardon by a president. That to do so might be a technical form of double jeopardy.  

A quick analysis of how possible it would be to pass such a law suggests it could be quite unlikely. Though the New York Senate has a slim Democratic majority it is hard to believe that it is solid enough to go along with Schneiderman's request.

And so . . . 

In this circumstance, "and so . . ." is not very comforting.

Also on Wednesday, at his press conference in Florida with Japan's prime minister Abe Trump, Trump was asked if he is going to fire deputy attorney general, Ron Rosenstein, or Robert Mueller. His response, "Well, they're still here."

They are, and more germane, so is he. Trump will continue to be here, he is gambling, even as the circle of protection closes in on him.

Here's how that might work--

Of course he pardons everyone in sight who has been investigated, questioned, deposed, or indicted by Mueller's people. That could include pardoning himself  

Then he fires everyone in sight associated with the Justice Department (Rosenstein, Sessions, Mueller) and in the federal southern district in New York City where the Michael Cohen case now resides.

Then all the Trump-associated lawyers move to shut down the possibility of any state attempting to prosecute him or any of his people via state law, claiming that would constitute double jeopardy.

There of course would be a firestorm of outrage. A "constitutional crisis" (whatever that means). All but Fox News and the right-wing crazies on talk radio would seethe, investigate, and run six-inch high banner headlines decrying these step toward a tyrany. And it would be that. A big step in that direction.

Some would see this scenario to be unlikely. Trump would instantly become the most reviled president in history. His ego is such that he wouldn't willingly take on all the abuse that would be heaped upon him. He'd rather take his chances. This could include impeachment, though he wouldn't be convicted. 

Most constitutional lawyers say that sitting presidents can't be criminally indicted. Couple that with the knowledge that the two presidents who have been impeached (Nixon, though he came close, never was) were not convicted and tossed out of office by the Senate. 

Thus, in Trump's mind there is a case to be made for standing pat. For letting things play out. In fact, Bill Clinton became more popular after being impeached. Andrew Johnson is a whole other story.

Trump has already been more fully exposed (almost literally) then any other president. ("Best sex ever!") He perversely seems to thrive on being humiliated. It's the old story of not caring what's said about you as long as they spell your name correctly and keep the spotlight on you.

So, he could be thinking, ride it out. How long will members of Congress go on cable news and rail about him and what he is bringing down upon the country? More than two weeks? I doubt it.

And so there he might continue to sit. Still with Air Force One available to whisk him back and forth to Mar-a-Lago. And he'll continue to be commander in chief, having his hands on all those terrible toys.

I know this is darkly pessimistic. But if any of it is true we have to face it and deal with it.

So here then is the good news--

THIS SCENARIO IS IN OUR HANDS TO RESIST AND OVERCOME.

By voting first in November and then in 2020. 

It really isn't that difficult. We don't need to take up arms. We just need to vote and get everyone we know to do so.

If the Democrats take over the House, investigations and articles of impeachment will follow quickly. If Democrats gain control of the Senate, though there will not be enough of them even with a few courageous Republicans to convict him--that requires a two-thirds vote--but Trump will be effectively neutered. That will get us safely to 2020 when he will be eminently defeatable. As long as we don't get stupid and nominate someone sure to lose. A list of those to follow one day soon. Hint--it includes Bernie and Warren.

Then the rebuilding will begin. Don't forget, we fought a Civil War that tore the country apart. But we survived and emerged stronger than ever.

Eric Schneiderman