March 9, 2019--Saturday's Rats

This past week saw heated competition for Saturday's Rat. Who among Trump's closest people tried to push their way to the top of the gangplank in a panic to get off his sinking ship? 

First there was House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, whose anti-Semitic trope last November claimed that Jewish money provided by George Soros, Mike Bloomberg, and Tom Steyer was being deployed to "buy" the midterm elections. He tweeted this anti-Semitic canard and then a day later deleted it--

"We cannot allow Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg to BUY this election! Get out and vote Republican November 6th"

McCarthy had been on a campaign to cultivate Trump in the hope that he would allow the California congressman to ascend to and keep the House leadership seat abandoned by Paul Ryan.

But McCarthy could take only so much. Especially after seeing the disastrous results of the midterm election and then sensing Republican members of Congress acting friskier and friskier, wavering somewhat in their blind devotion to Trump.

Fearing for his own fate, McCarthy screwed up what little courage he has to squeak out a statement that though he agreed that Trump has the authority to declare a national emergency wouldn't it be better not to do so. 

Trump smacked him and as with the Jewish-money allegation he quickly backed off. No profile of courage here.

So McCarthy was a contender, but there were other Republicans who showed a bit more independence. Senator Rand Paul, for instance. He led the effort in the Senate to reject Trump's emergency declaration, speaking more forcefully and not willing to back off even if it meant no more visits to Mar-a-Lago. 

Paul sounded genuine and it was clear that establishing a few degrees of separation from Trump is perhaps a good strategy for him if he intends one more run at the presidency. 

Here is a little of what Paul said--

"I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits.”

Moving quickly down the list of aspirants, there are a couple of others scrambling for the title--Mat Drudge in the Drudge Report declared Trump "swamped" after the Cohen testimony and the collapsed summit with Kim Jong-un; and Trump fave, Lou Dobbs who excoriated the president for his failed immigration and economic policies. He said Trump and the White House, "have lost their way."

Runner up though in the rat race is Ty Cobb. Not a household name, he was among Trump's first small group of lawyers hired to deal with the Mueller investigation. He is one of Washington's most esteemed attorneys and some wondered why he would want to sully himself by association with the likes of Trump. 

A fair question but one with an easy answer--even the most reprehensible individuals are entitled to strong legal representation. 

But Cobb, after leaving Trump, seeking to reestablish his reputation among the Washington establishment, in an interview with ABC News, felt the need to clarify why he agreed to be involved with Trump.

Among other things he said-- 

Mueller is an "American hero" and the probe he is leading is not a "witch hunt." He rejected the president's repeated characterizations of the Russia investigation and the man leading it.

This week's Saturday Rat, though, is Matt Whitaker. 

Remember him? Trump appointed Whitaker acting Attorney General after he finally tortured Jeff Sessions enough that he quit. At the time, as Whitaker was so obviously unqualified, it was thought that he got the job because he publicly boasted that he, like Michael Cohen and others, would "take a bullet" for Mr. Trump. This led Trump to assume he would take the initiative to fire Mueller.

That even a dunderhead such as Whitaker refused to do, but he may have perjured himself when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

The Wall Street Journal reported--

"The House Judiciary Committee believes it has evidence that President Trump asked Matthew Whitaker, at the time the acting attorney general, whether Manhattan U.S. attorney Geoffrey Berman could regain control of his office’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and his real-estate business, according to people familiar with the matter."

After the next Attorney General, Robert Barr, was confirmed and took office, Whitaker was given a no-show job at the DOJ. But after just a few weeks, under cover of darkness, like Omarosa, he departed. No one seems to know where he is and what he might be up to.

My favorite speculation, which I am attempting to promulgate is that he is in a safe house somewhere, spilling what he knows to Mueller's investigators in the hope they will grant him immunity from prosecution for lying to Congress. 

Wouldn't it be confirming if he could provide corroborating evidence that Trump did in fact try to get him to assign a Trump-friendly U.S. attorney who would back off from investigating Trump and his family's nefarious business dealings in New York City?

Therefore, though there are other strong contenders, Matt Whitaker is this week's Rat!

February 21, 2019--Putin

The Mueller investigation is reaching a crescendo. 

The New York Times story that yesterday was widely read and circulated revealed how Trump for more than two years has attempted to cover up and undermine that investigation. In fact it shows how Trump attempted to have Mueller fired, as if that would pull the plug on it. He forgot to recall how when Nixon fired almost everyone during the Saturday Night Massacre it didn't end the Watergate crisis but instead was like adding an accelerant such as gasoline to an already smoldering fire.

For some time I have been arguing here that though Mueller and the Attorney General might be fired, minimally, what Mueller has unearthed will come to light. I feel certain that he or members of his team have copied emerging iterations of their report on a jump drive and, if all else fails, will make sure the public learns what they have uncovered.

All they need to do is make a copy on a thumb drive that would fit easily in a pocket, walk out the door, and call 1 800 New York Times. A version of the same thing Daniel Ellsberg did to circulate the formerly secret and devastating Pentagon Papers.

I also have speculated that as his work begins to wrap up, as an additional strategy to make sure the public and Congress is informed, he will begin to allow the leaking of key findings. To that end, I suspect someone high up in Mueller's operation is the key source for the Times story.

So expect more leaks and ultimately copies of the full report. Bootleg if necessary. 

It is possible that the new Attorney General, Robert Barr, will act honorably, not seeing himself as former acting AG, Matt Whitaker, perceived to be his role--Trump's protector. As he was quoted in the Times, Whitaker was the person designated to "jump on a grenade" for Trump. Which incidentally he did not do when asked to by his president.

And while Mueller is at it, in addition to the 25 Russians and three Russian companies he has already charged with crimes, why not, as Rona wryly suggested yesterday morning, indict Vladimir Putin? Though he would not be extradited to face trial in the United States, it would make quite a statement about how we view the rule of law and, though our president is, we aren't Putin's puppets.

January 30, 2019--Kamala's Got the Goods

My early impressions had not been positive. I got the appeal but not the substance. The sizzle but very little steak.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee she participated a couple of weeks ago in the interrogation of Robert Barr, Trump's nominee to replace Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. It was a star-turn opportunity and so I tuned in hoping to be impressed but came away disappointed.

She spoke too much from notes and did not light up the room with her smarts or tenacity. A ho-hum performance  Not much evidence of fire in the belly. She seemed already too much a member of the Senate club after having been there a scant two years.

But, for me, Sunday changed all that. 

After informally announcing she was running for president two weeks ago while interviewed by Rachael Maddow she organized a rally in her home town, Oakland, CA, where she offered a full-throated declaration she was running for the highest office in the land.

With crowd size an important metric in assessing the strength of candidates (remember Trump's obsession with how many showed up for his inauguration?) it was impressive that at least 20,000 turned out for Harris. To organize such a massive rally is no mean trick, especially so early in a national campaign.

And then there was the speech itself. Unlike other candidates (think Hillary Clinton) who struggle for up to two years on the campaign trail to offer a convincing answer to the classic Roger Mudd question, the one back in 1979 he popped on Ted Kennedy who was seeking to unseat Jimmy Carter: "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy effectively lost any chance of securing the nomination after struggling to offer a coherent answer.

With a nod to rhetoric at times used by Barack Obama, Senator Harris at the Sunday rally kept it simple and eloquent.

She concluded-- 

“We are here because the American dream and our American democracy are under attack and on the line like never before. And we are here at this moment in time because we must answer a fundamental question: ‘Who are we? Who are we as Americans?’ So, let’s answer that question to the world and each other, right here and right now: ‘America, we are better than this.’’’ 

As they say, the crowd went wild and her polling numbers a day or two later soared--Biden had it all his way in the polls until then. His numbers lingered comfortably in the high 20 percents, hers languished at 5 percent or less. 

But as of now they are in a statistical deadbeat. Yes, it is still very, very early but this suggests Harris is tapping into a powerful vein of national aspiration. 

People are still longing to be optimistic, to have hope for a better future.

Further, she was radiant. Unlike so many others who on the trail feel as if they are campaigning begrudgingly, Kamala Harris seemed totally in her element and appeared to be having a deeply-felt joyous time. A star was being born.

And so, an early prediction--

Kamala Harris will win the nomination or wind up as the vice presidential candidate on Joe Biden's ticket. Far out on a limb I see the former to be more likely.

January 21, 2019--BuzzardFeed

Late on Friday did you, like me, feel the air rushing into the balloon and then just as quickly flowing out?

I'm referring to the reaction to the BuzzFeed report that claimed President Trump explicitly instructed his fixer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress when he testified before them. 

If true (remember these two little words), this would have Trump pinned in the crosshairs of having committed at least two felonies--witness tampering (technically, suborning perjury) and conspiring to cover up evidence of a crime. Both almost automatically impeachable offenses. 

And so, the responsible media, numerous Democrats in Congress, and almost everyone I know immediately cheered that it was time to stop fooling around with investigations and such and get to the main event--impeachment--as there was now more than ample evidence that Trump was, yes, a crook.

Then a funny thing happened.

The Mueller investigation's spokesperson took the very unusual step of calling aspects of the BuzzFeed report into question. He usually says nothing about everything. So let me quote this--

BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.

Trump and his people were gleeful while I and most everyone I know moped. We had thought it was about to be all over and now Trump is taking a victory lap. The head of the witch hunt, he claimed, had just slipped him a get-out-of-jail card.

Not so fast.

Nothing of much consequence happened except a glimpse at the political leanings of most in the media and how beneficial this mess is to Trump as he struggles to save his skin--"You see, witch hunt, fake news, corrupt judiciary. It's all about Democrats trying to overturn the results of the last presidential election."

But I digress. Back to Mueller's spokesman. He did not say that Cohen hadn't lied and he didn't say that Trump is in the clear. Mueller also isn't saying that his office hasn't gathered powerful evidence about Trump and collusion with the Russians. Rather, it is and only is that BuzzFeed's characterization of documents and testimony obtained by the Mueller office are not fully accurate.

This means that Cohen may have lied to Congress (in fact, he already pled guilty to that) and might have documents that he shared that provide corroboration. Which, if true (if true), would be of great consequence.

But friends, there is not yet a smoking gun. We need to be patient, calm down. Grinding is the nature of investigations of this kind.

One further thing--

With Dems in control of the House and investigations about to pop up expect much more leaking as congressional staff learn more about what is to be learned. This is not entirely a bad thing even though much of what is leaked will be discredited. 

The reason it is a good thing, however, is that the more the public gets to know about what went on inside the Trump organization and campaign the less likely it will be that the new Attorney General, Robert Barr, if inclined (and I don't think he will be), will choose not to release the Mueller report as a good portion of it will in this informal way already have been made public and any attempts to obscure it will fail. The politics on the ground will not allow that.