July 25, 2019--Mueller's "Labored Performance"

I'm still under the weather so this will be brief.

That is how the New York Times referred to Mueller's appearance before committees of the House of Representatives--"labored"--and so his testimony included little for Democrats to pick over.

There was virtually nothing new that could be used in a march toward impeachment.

It was sad to see--the great man reduced in stature--but perhaps ultimately good political for progressives.

Good in that moving to impeach Trump much less actually impeaching him--I'm with Nancy Pelosi about this--is significantly bad for the Democrats' long-range agenda: ridding us of Trump.

The vast majority of Americans, including Democrats, do not want to see Trump impeached. Not that they want him to continue in office but they realize it would paralyze the government such as it is and ultimately lead to nothing. The Dems will tear themselves apart (as are the still 20 seeking the nomination) and it would only give Trump the opportunity to operatically claim he is being persecuted because of his policies.

For months it will be all Trump all the time.

So I am thinking that Mueller's labored testimony is a blessing in disguise.

Or is this thinking the result of my cold that never seems to want to go away?

May 31, 2019--Googling

I take Google and Googling for granted.

I've heard some of the criticism and think I agree it can be a corporate bully. But I do not know enough about the claim, from say Elizabeth Warren, that it is a search engine monopoly and should be broken up in much the same way AT&T was broken up, Google says, in 1984. Perhaps it should be, maybe not. I'm not sure about what's at issue and what would be the public benefit if it were required to disaggregate. 

But more than anything I know I would have difficulty living without it. 

Take Wednesday for example, the morning Robert Mueller, who the New York Times referred to as the Sphinx of Washington, finally spoke directly to the public about his investigation and its findings.

Talking about it afterwards, Rona and I disagreed about what Mueller said or didn't say about the Department of Justice's policy that sitting presidents are immune from federal prosecution. I thought he did not state this explicitly in his report and that Wednesday was the first time he did so.

Rona said she remembered that he dealt with this in his report and the other morning merely reiterated it.

We went back and forth about this for five or ten minutes until Rona said, "Let's Google it." Which she proceeded to do.

I suggested that if she did so it would likely be found in the introduction to the second volume of the report where Mueller dealt with claims that Trump obstructed justice.

One, two, three, with Google's help, in much less than a minute Rona found the quote in the introduction and was reading the germane passage where he, nice going Rona, explicitly stated that he did not charge Trump with obstruction because, as a sitting president, federal guidelines do not allow the special counsel to do so.

A point for Rona who has a better memory than I, and more than just a point for Google which built this powerful system that is an essential tool for accessing so much of the world's accumulated knowledge.

May 17, 2019--The Surprising Supremes

The struggle between the Trump White House and the Democrats in the House of Representatives is heating up. 

Congress is attempting to do its constitutionally mandated oversight work. They want access, for example, to the full Mueller report; they are also subpoenaing Trump's tax records; and they want to gather direct testimony from Mueller and, along the way, to have Donald Jr. testify about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Trump is stonewalling everything, claiming executive privilege.

None of this will be resolved as it usually is by negotiations. There is too much bad blood for that and Trump knows how devastating it would be for him if the truth were exposed. 

It will then for certain take months or years for these disputes to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, at the state level, Alabama just passed legislation to eliminate abortions under virtually all circumstances. Including if a women becomes pregnant as the result of rape or insist. This piece of legislation was not designed to be implemented but rather was carefully crafted to reach the Supreme Court and give the now conservative court the opportunity to consider overturning Roe v. Wade and thereby making abortion illegal in all 50 states.

Conservatives feel that with a majority of the nine members of the current court named by Republican presidents (Thomas by George H.W. Bush; Roberts and Alito by George W. Bush; and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by Trump) Roe v. Wade is threatened as are affirmative action and all forms of support for voting rights. 

But maybe for conservatives it is too soon to celebrate.  

It is by no means certain that Roe and other examples of progressive Supreme Court decisions are doomed. They are seriously threatened, but it is not yet clear they will be overturned. 

Recall that Chief Justice Roberts joined the four liberal justices to uphold Obamacare. I speculated at the time and subsequently that Roberts, perhaps feeling everything that is decided on his watch will be attributed to the "Roberts'" Court, perhaps concerned about how he would be regarded by historians, he abandoned his up-to-then predictable conservative voting record and joined the four liberals to sustain a program that provides medical coverage for 20 million Americans. He did not want to see the Affordable Care Act shredded while he was serving as Chief Justice. He therefore contorted himself and found a way to support it.

But here's the real surprise--the voting pattern of the most recent member of the court: Brett Kavanaugh.

Recall, he is the justice who was accused of sexual harassment and confessed during his conformation hearing that he had a drinking problem. He testified rapturously about how he "loves beer." So much so that he repeated it half a dozen times. 

Did anyone after this and looking at his judicial record think he would even one time vote with the liberal block?

Well, he has been. In fact, he has voted with the liberals more often than any other justice.

In recent months, for example, he voted with Ginsberg and Sotomayor on the death penalty and criminal defendants' rights. In both instances not agreeing with Trump's other appointee, Neil Gorsuch and the other conservatives.

It is premature to speculate how he might vote when it comes to disputes about Trump's claims about executive power. 

There have been more than a few surprises when it comes to justices voting contrary to what one would have expected. There were numerous times when Franklin Roosevelt appointees voted against New Deal legislation and Byron (Whizzer) White, named by Kennedy, turned out to be more a conservative than a liberal. And then there was David Souter, protected by lifetime tenure, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush but turned out, once on the court, to be dependably liberal.

So, keep an eye on Kavanaugh. Along with Roberts he may turn out to be unpredictable. He too may have an eye on history.

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.

March 25, 2019--Barr Report: Blessing In Disguise?

To say I am disappointment is an understatement. 

I was hoping that the Mueller Report massaged and published by Attorney General William Barr would find that Trump and his gang conspired with Russians to undermine the 2016 election and that Trump like Nixon before him would be found to have directly led the effort to cover up that collusion, which in turn would mean that they obstructed justice. And thus the denouement would be history.

For Mueller and Barr to conclude there was no such conspiracy made it effectively moot that there was obstruction of justice because if there is no crime to obstruct there can be no justice to obstruct.

I say this in spite of the fact that it appears that Mueller, in fact, concluded that it's 50/50 that Trump was involved in obstruction. That it was Barr himself who disagreed with that assessment and "determined," after barely 48 hours, that Mueller was wrong and that there was no obstruction crime. Thus, the Mueller Report morphed into the Barr Report.

Out of this disappointment, what I next have to say may be more spin and wishful thinking than the truth.

And so on. 

As many have said and I have asserted here for well over a year, politically Trump in 2020 would be best dealt with by the voting public. He would not, perhaps should not be driven out of office by the press or even by the impeachment process. Yes, with Democrats controlling the House there was and still is the possibility that Trump could be impeached, but with the sycophantic Senate there is no way he would be voted out of office. To round up 67 votes for that is more than impossible.

So the focus has to be on nominating someone who can beat Trump in the Electoral College (he will again lose the popular vote) and for voters to work hard starting today to defeat him at the polls.

All polls show that voters do not care about collusion with Russia. A majority do not want to see the country obsessed with impeachment. Indeed, realizing this, Nancy Pelosi had her caucus back off from talking about impeachment 24/7. She knows from having lived through the Clinton impeachment how that is a losing strategy. It's likely that Trump, as with Clinton, would see his approval rating rise as he, victim-like, gets dragged through the process.

Voters are concerned about health care, the economic future of their families, the larger economy and how it is being permanently affected by artificial intelligence. They want to see the end of endless wars, the changing climate confronted, and of course education.

The media hates covering these issues because they are boring compared to the soap opera that Trump engenders. Would most people rather talk about Stormy Daniels or how much debt their college-age children are amassing? 

But with investigations and congressional hearings likely to slip back a notch or two in importance and entertainment value after a couple of weeks of us collectively exhausting ourselves with March Madness and Barr v. Mueller, with Democratic presidential candidates shifting focus to the issues that voters actually care about, that will present opportunities for them to scrutinize Trump's policy failures. How, for example, his tax cuts not only mainly benefitted the very wealthy but that they contributed to record budget deficits and the national debt reached an all time high on Trump's watch. Also, and related, that we recently saw the largest trade deficit in history.

We'll have the chance in the public eye to debate expanding heath care coverage and how to confront climate change. Potentially all good issues for Dems who, with less Mueller on the air, might be able to break through and actually talk about their ideas for how to deal with them.

Again, spin? Wishful thinking? Perhaps but this is what I'm thinking.

March 20, 2019--Trump: How It Will End

On July 27, 2017, nearly twenty months ago, I posted a piece of informed speculation about Donald Trump's ultimate denouement. 

As with everything else having to do with him, it will be about the money.

I thought, with the blockbuster piece about Trump's relationship to the Deutsche Bank in yesterday's New York Times, I would repost my piece because the paper of record forgot to include one thing--where the bank's money came from. 

About that, here is what I wrote--

No one should be surprised. Least of all Donald Trump. It has been clear for a half year or more where all this is headed.

It's always been about the money.

The denouement will not be about Paul Manafort's money or Michael Flynn's or Jared Kushner's or Ivanka's money, nor even Don Junior's.

It will be about Donald Trump's money.

A good question--if he is so proud of his wealth how come he has refused to reveal his tax filings?

On the simplest level, he has resisted because he lies about how much money he has. He has a lot, about a billion or two, enough for most of us, but not the 5 to 10 billion he has long claimed.

Remember how Marco Rubio's crack during the primary debates about his small hands got under his skin? Well, this is the same sort of thing. Manhood. Size always mattered more to guys than to women.

But, he somehow managed to get elected and reluctantly moved to Washington and into the White House. Back in New York, in his Trump, Inc. operation, which was and still is a mom-and-pop business, he was used to being the only one whose ideas counted and he had no one ever pushing back on him when he went off and did something stupid. Like getting involved with gambling casinos in Atlantic City and Miss Universe pageants.

Over time, with the big boost The Apprentice gave to his image, he effectively became a brand. Selling his name and endorsement to the highest bidders, raking in the licensing money with little effort other than keeping his name and gold-foil life style in public view. Thus, even the parade of girlfriends and wives, as he aged and swelled, ones younger and younger, were a part of that charade.

Zeroing in--

When Trump needed to ante up money for a project or bail himself out of an impending bankruptcy, where do we think he turned for money? Citibank? Chase? Wells Fargo? Goldman Sachs? No chance.

We're talking chop shops like loan sharks, offshore money, and especially money from laundries such as Deutsche Bank, which until a few years ago was a favorite place for Russian kleptocrats to sanitize their dirty lucre.

In 2008, Trump Jr. on the record said that, "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

At least someone in his family is capable of letting the truth slip out.

Even a casual perusal of Trump's tax returns would reveal the sources of his money and income. Would it surprise anyone if we in this way discovered that he engaged in all sorts of shady deals and shenanigans with lots of money coming from Russia?

So when it finally dawned on Trump that special counsel Robert Mueller has the power to demand his tax and other financial documents, something Trump incredibly seems to have begun to pay attention to just this week, bells and whistles went off and that immediately became Trump's line in the sand--he told the New York Times he might fire Mueller if he pressed to scrutinize his or his family's finances.

We know for sure following the money trail is looming. It's Special Counsel 101.

And then, of course, Mueller would also see son Junior's and son-in-law Kushner's tax filings, which would make matters even worse.

What we'd be likely see is the inner financial machinations of a crime family.

Donald Junior is reported to be whining that he can't wait for this presidency to be over.

Well, he may soon get his wish. He may not have to wait an endless three-and-a-half years.

If Junior is unravelling as quickly as it appears, Trump's oldest son, feeling squeezed by the implosion, may follow in the footsteps of one of Bernie Madoff's sons. I can't bring myself to spell this out. If you don't remember the details, you're on your own to look them up.

So, here are the final steps. They will happen quickly because we have a talented and mobilized press corps. Much more so than during Watergate. Trump is getting back in kind for what he dished out to the "fake-news" press. I wouldn't have recommended messing with that sleeping giant.

I suspect he'll skip the firing-Mueller step and move right to the pardons. Sacking Mueller, assuming Trump has the power to do that, would bring down the wrath of not only Democrats (that would be predictable) but also rouse the up-to-now hypocritical Republicans who despise Trump but support his agenda, such as it is.

Thus, Trump has been asking about what pardon powers he has and boasting about it. They are constitutionally wide ranging. He'll pardon Flynn and Manafort, which should keep them from throwing Trump under the bus (elegant metaphor), and he'll pardon all his family members. Then, and he is looking into this as well, unlike Nixon who had his successor Jerry Ford pardon him, Trump will try to get away with pardoning himself.

This will go to the Supreme Court and, who knows, with Gorsuch recently nominated by Trump, he might prevail, 5-4. Remember Bush v Gore in 2000. Or then again, he may not.

Then we'll see what happens in the streets. Progressives will demonstrate once or twice but use most of their energy appearing on and watching CNN and The News Hour.

Trump people (that hardcore 35 percent) will go crazy. They'll see this crucifixion of Trump (that will become their preferred point of reference) as part of the ongoing liberal conspiracy. Tune into late-night talk radio if you want a preview of that. It will make Benghazi look like a tea party. 

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 18, 2019--Next Under the Bus

Two nights ago, on CNN, Rudy Giuliani unleashed another drunken rant. As with previous ones, embedded in the incoherent parts was genuine news. 

This time it was back to the persistent subject of collusion, Trump's default bête noire. It appears to be the one thing that always gives him grief.

Running out of cards to play, collusion is a clever thing for Trump to obsess about because (1) it is not a crime, and (2) it keeps folks from focusing on conspiracy, which is related to collusion but is a crime. A serious one.

Wednesday night Rudy took Trump one step further down the path to impeachment. And with BuzzFeed's overnight report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about plans for a Trump condo in Moscow, things are looking precarious for the president.

"I never said that there was no collusion," Rudy in effect said, "In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there was collusion. I've said that before [lie] and I said if there was the president wasn't involved in it [lie]. About senior campaign staff? That I couldn't say. [lie]"

There's a pattern here, which I suspect will play out again next week when Mueller likely moves to reveal more of his findings. The pattern is that every time Rudy reveals something new shortly thereafter the Mueller team takes some serious action. Rudy serves as a kind of harbinger.

This may be because as a courtesy and possible requirement that prosecutors through the discovery process share their allegations and exhibits with the defense, Rudy in that way earlier this week may have gained a preview of what is to come--perhaps even that Trump himself did in fact collude with the Russians or, minimally, knew that senior members of his campaign staff did. Thus, the need to distract, obfuscate, and blame others.

In regard to who those others might turn out to be take note of the "senior staff" reference because they are the ones who Trump will attempt to blame. In other words, throw under the bus to save his own skin.

Like me are you thinking these senior campaign staff may include Paul Manafort (who was campaign manager for months), son-in-law Jared Kushner, and oldest son, Don Junior? If not them, who else?

If I had been a senior member of the Trump campaign staff at about now I'd be taking to drink. Or thinking about a pardon. We may be getting close to pardon time.

December 31, 2018--New Year Nightmare

On Sunday Rudy said that it's time for Mueller "to put up or shut up."

He went on to say that there is no credible evidence that Trump or any of his people knowingly colluded with the Russians. And, by the way he reminded us, collusion is not a crime. So, again, put up or shut up.

My snappy first reaction was that the person who should be doing the shutting up is Rudy himself . . . and his client.

My second reaction, my nightmare is--what happens if Giuliani turns out to be right??

We thus far have little direct evidence from the Mueller investigation. Even the most liberal, anti-Trump commentators acknowledge this. They do point out, though, that the dozens of indictments, guilty pleas, and jailings speak for themselves--there is something very rotten in Trumpworld. There is both fire and smoke.

But, I am feeling forced to consider, isn't it responsible to consider the possibility that Mueller may not have enough to force a Trump resignation or a congressional impeachment?

I haven't been sleeping well lately and my exhaustion may be overwhelming my ability to reason, but . . .

So I took a long nap and awoke from it calmed down and thinking more clearly.

Putting together all the evidence we in fact have there is a strong case to be made that not only was there collusion (admittedly not a federal crime) but a felonious conspiracy to work with the Russians to rig the 2016 election and enough felonious obstruction of justice to impeach Trump and indict him even while he is in office. 

(The Justice Department finding that sitting presidents cannot be indicted has never been litigated by the Supreme Court, so if Mueller, as I suspect he will, wants to take that step even this current Supreme Court--with Roberts as the potential swing vote--might very well allow that. "No one is above the law" is carved in precedent as well as in the very Vermont-quarried marble of the Supreme Court building itself.)

I suspect that Mueller will "put up" early in the new year and that Trump minimally, like Nixon, will be cited as an unindicted co-conspirator

Yet then . . .

November 29, 2018--Triple Agent Paul Manafort

Paul Manafort may be all the bad things he has pled guilty to and even worse all that juries have found him guilty of, but though he may not be the shiniest penny, in regard to things important to him (money and power, especially money) he may actually be brilliant.

For someone so seemingly unimpressive he somehow managed to amass millions--tens or hundreds of millions--mainly by finding ways to be of serious service to some of the world's sleaziest operatives in some of the most complicated and corrupt regions of the world. Especially in parts of the former Soviet Union, more specifically, primarily in Ukraine.

He also managed for a while to put on a glittering show of opulent living, with houses and apartments in Manhattan (including in Trump Tower), East Hampton, and Brooklyn as well as his reputed million-dollar bespoke sharkskin wardrobe.

But now we see him being wheeled in and out of courtrooms, looking pathetic in an orange prison jumpsuit, seemingly brought low. But who knows, considering his slimy skills, he may be hatching a way to fool almost everyone and manage to walk away largely unscathed.

This could be because, after working in Eastern Europe where nothing it was it seems and there is someone scheming to cut you down at every turn, he has so mastered the art of subterfuge that he may have found a way to work for the Russians (Putin) and Trump while pretending to be working for Robert Mueller. 

In other words he may have figured out how to operate as a triple agent, playing these three sides against each other. 

And through one of the seams that connect these pieces Manafort may find a way to slither out to some version of freedom.

Working with the Russians, Manafort has more goods on Trump to market that are essential puzzle pieces that fit with the covert material the Russians already have on Trump--remember that dossier and what it allegedly contains about Trump's escapades with, among other transgressions, prostitutes in Moscow. If Manafort working as a secret agent for the Russians is true, think of the resulting additional leverage they have on Trump. It helps explain Trump's wimpy behavior when it comes to anything Putin.

Working concurrently for Trump as his campaign manager (my favorite part--for free) he managed to keep the Trump-Russia collusion going while on the surface doing all the basic gofer things campaign managers routinely do like getting a platform written that everyone can agree to and ultimately ignore.

And then, with Robert Mueller, the very smartest of his handlers, Manafort seemingly turned the tables on Trump to become a valuable resource to the special counsel and his investigators. In that role, other than Trump's boys who know all the family felonies, by ratting on Trump and his inner-inner circle, Manafort could help Mueller connect all the illegal dots while auditioning for the part of star witness before grand juries, congressional committees, and eventual impeachment hearings and criminal trials. For these services Manafort could expect to be rewarded by not having to do any jail time and might even wind up with his own show on Fox News.

That seemed to be where things were headed until a few days ago when Manafort was discovered to have been lying to Mueller's team. As a result Mueller puled the plug on Manafort, leaving the investigation bereft of anyone who could testify with direct knowledge about the BIG picture.

Furthermore, in his role as a secret agent mole within the Mueller operation, a few days ago we learned from Trump's lawyers that Manafort's lawyers have been colluding with them, leaking to Trump's people inside information about the workings and strategies of the Mueller probe. 

When it comes to Manafort so much is complicated and seemingly self-inflicted. 

So much so that most of the print and cable legal analysts are left scratching their heads, frustrated that they can't seem to make sense of Manafort's recent moves--lying to Mueller and his people after making a sweet deal to get a reduced sentence by cooperating truthfully. Apparently  as a result of lying to Mueller, Manafort seems to be facing at least a decade of hard jail time.

It could turn out that Manafort blew it. But it may mean he will be pardoned with gratitude by Trump for undercutting arch-villain Mueller (he will be pardoned in a matter of just weeks) and figure out a way to skulk back to Ukraine where he can live out the rest of his natural life in whatever splendor Ukraine has to offer. This assumes, of course, that he will find a way to keep from getting killed by a Putin hit squad.

In Manafort's line of work, you win some and you lose some.

November 27, 2018--South of the Border

Silly me, all along I thought Trump would wag the dog when Robert Mueller's findings were about to be published by bombing nuclear installations in North Korea or Iran. To distract from the main Mueller takeaway--the indictments of half the Trump family--he would start a war either place and watch his approval ratings soar. 

Don't they always when a president shows muscle? Like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon did in the early days in Vietnam, Ronald Reagan did in Grenada, as George H. W. Bush did in Panama and Iraq, as Bill Clinton did in Bosnia, and George W. Bush did in Afghanistan and again in Iraq. Approval numbers in all instances went off the charts. 

But then (is there a lesson here?) in almost all cases the numbers came crashing back to earth. In fact so low for LBJ and Nixon that for this and other reasons they both wound up having to resign the presidency. (Lesson here as well?)

But now I think Trump's first (note that--first) wag situation will not be with Iran or North Korea but along the 1,900 mile border with Mexico.

With our border patrol people already using teargas and rubber bullets à la Israel to contain asylum seekers and Trump authorizing the use of "lethal force" if they or the military he has deployed to the area have rocks thrown at them, the visuals are already so intoxicating to the cable-news-addicted president that how can he be expected to resist a wider, more telegenic little war? And of course not have to worry that these fleeing Guatemalans might lob nukes on San Francisco or Trump Tower in New York City.

While all this excitement is going on who will care about the beans spilt by former campaign manager Paul Manafort or former fixer Michael Cohen? Who will notice that Trump pardons Don Junior, son-in-law Jared, and Ivanka? Who will pay attention to the legal spatting about the constitutionality of subpoenaing or indicting a sitting president?

After running this riff by Rona, she said, "A little snarky, don't you think?"

"Maybe a little," I said, "But this is serious."

"And for something this serious you think snark is the right tone? Thousands in the caravans are suffering and back in their home countries there are millions more being preyed upon by violent gangs, collapsed economies, and governmental corruption."

"So what are we supposed to do? Open our borders and let anyone in who wants to work and live here? I agree the situation is serious but what are we realistically supposed to think much less do? I get the demagoguery and the rhetoric, how Trump is playing with these people's lives for his own political purposes. To feed his base of terrified haters. If you were president what would you do?"

"It is very complicated," Rona said, "Look at what happened to poor Hillary the other day. When she said in an interview in The Guardian that 'Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame' of nationalism in England, Western Europe, and with Trump the U.S. too. She got beat up, most claimed, for not getting off the stage and letting the next generation of Democrats move into the spotlight. But I think she was castigated because she told the truth. The truth that American liberals don't want to deal with because they fear it will alienate some members of their own base--those who want more open borders and a permissive approach to immigration."

"What we need," I said, "Is a whole new immigration policy. It needs to be humanitarian and efficient but also has to place limits on who we can admit to the country and need for our economy. That's the hard part."

"We can and should talk more about this because I can't figure out what I would like to see. But in the meantime I agree with you about Trump. You can safely bet your last two dollars that he's hoping for some significant violence along the border to justify a more and more aggressive response by our security forces. Sort of like how Lyndon Johnson jumped on a supposed incident in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam to justify a major ramping up of our commitment to defeat the Vietcong. My guess is that Trump is looking for his Gulf of Tonkin opportunity to take the focus off Mueller."

"In the meantime," I said, "Back to the snark."

November 6, 2018--Final Predictions

While people are still voting and before there are any results, to distract myself here are a few predictions and speculations--

The numbers in the Senate will remain the same with the GOP continuing to hold a one-seat majority.

Arizona and Texas will flip from Republican to Democratic with Beto O'Rourke emerging as the brightest new Democrat star. By Thursday, no, by tomorrow he will become the frontrunner for the 2020 presidential nomination and two years from now will defeat Mike Pence.

Obviously, this means that Donald Trump, for one reason or another, will not serve out his first term. Early next year he will declare Mission Accomplished and turn the keys to the Oval Office over to Pence.

In the House we will see a real "wave election." Still stung for getting 2016 wrong (no one predicted Trump would win, including Trump himself), pollsters and media pundits are being very conservative this time in analyzing the data and making projections. The consensus going in is that the Democrats will eek out just enough flipped seats (they need 23) to take control. I suspect they will do much better, winning close to 50 currently Republican-held seats.

As it should be, this will be the headline. 

Anticipating this, Trump in recent days has been saying he's been concentrating exclusively on the Senate. There are too many seats in the House for him to pay attention to, he said, and thus he won't be surprised if the Democrats take control of the House. "We'll work it out," he has been saying. 

Since he's all about winning, "losing" the House will be what will motivate him to not run in 2020. Better to declare victory than try to deal with losing.

In early January the Democrats, who will control all House committees, will begin a judicious number of investigations. To launch too many will make it look as if there is in fact a witch hunt going on, that the election to Democrats was all about the opportunity to overturn the 2016 election. 

These congressional investigations, where the Dems will have subpoena power, will focus on Trump's finances. Especially his business dealings with the Russians. The Mueller report, which will be submitted within the month, will cover the same ground, and with both dominating the discourse it will make Trump crazier than anything else that might be revealed about him. In a panic he will fire Attorney General Sessions, Rob Rosenstein, and Mueller himself. 

But this will not impede the House's work. The genie is coming out of the bottle and it will lead to Trump's downfall. Giving up the presidency will not stall this momentum much less end the investigations.

Most important, tomorrow's results will be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency and will ultimately lead to his own more personal decline because there is so much corruption and criminality waiting to come to light that even he, as nimble as he has been at surviving (his whole life has been about wiggling out of trouble) will not be able to squirm free. After decades, his luck is finally running out.

This is why people today are voting in record numbers: it is to say to him--"Enough."

Unpacking the polling data later this week we will discover that ten percent of his supporters will have either stayed home, not voted because they can't bare to vote for Democrats, or held their noses and pulled the lever for those who opposed Trump.

Republican survivors in Congress who have been among his enablers will begin to abandon ship. All they care about is having power; and with Trump now a liability, they will cut and run. Even Lindsay Graham will be looking for another macho man to suck up to. 

In addition, there is considerable pent-up schadenfreude that needs to and will be expressed. 

My final prediction is that all will begin to turn out for the best, The system will have been shown to work. That's a very big thing.

September 26, 2018--Jack: Freaking Out

"Not me. You." Jack was on the line.

"Huh?"

"Freaking out. You must be freaking out because it looks like the president is about to fire a whole lot of folks, starting with that weasel Rosen-Rosen, or whatever his name is."

"To tell you the truth, I am a little. I mean, freaked out about where this might be headed and maybe how Trump will figure out how to get away with murder."

"You mean like the Clintons and Vince Foster?" He laughed at that reference.

"Not a bad one," I said, "I'm impressed you remember that conspiracy theory with all the ones circulating these days."

"I never forget anything," Jack boasted. From what I know about him, though we disagree about pretty much everything, he does have an amazing memory.

"But to tell you the truth," Jack said, "if Trump fires Rosen and replaces him with some flunky who fires Mueller and while he's at it fires Session and half the senior people in the White House, there'll be a lot to be made crazy by. That's why Hannity and the other Fox people are urging him, publicly begging him not to fire Rosenberg."

"The Fox world is one I don't really know my way around in. Half the time when I tune in for a while to see what they're spinning (and the hosts do seem to get the same talking points every day so if you listen to one it's like listening to them all), I don't know what they're talking about. It's like they speak in shorthand or code with their unhinged viewers. So weren't you also surprised that they were pressuring Trump not to fire anyone? I would have thought after Rosenstein was outed by the New York Times, which revealed that early in his history as deputy attorney general he thought about wearing a wire to gather evidence about Trump that could then be used to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. Wouldn't Fox want Rosenstein out of the picture?"

Jack said, "One could come to that conclusion. Especially if one doesn't get what's going on." [That someone he referred to being me.] "How firing Rosenthal and the rest of them would be a political disaster for Trump. It would be at least as big a nightmare as Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. There are a few clever Democrats and they are setting an obstruction of justice trap. If Trump fires Rosenthal it will be viewed as his doing so to get him off the case. To stamp out the investigation of Trump, his family, and his American and Russian associates."

"In other words, to obstruct justice?"

"Yup."

"If you're right about this," I said to Jack, "and I think you may be, those Fox people really do have Trump's back."

"Yes and no."

"Because?"

"Because it may be too late."

"Really? I mean, I hope so."

"By now Mueller has tons of evidence from all the Trump people who have flipped, the people they deposed, and of course Mueller has access to all of Trump's and his people's tax and financial records."

"I suspect this is true, but wouldn't pulling the plug on Rosenstein and reining in Mueller put a lid on things? Bury evidence and documents from public view with Trump slipping out of the noose?"

"That wouldn't work," Jack said, "because I suspect a pretty complete Mueller report has already been drafted with him waiting for the best time to drop it. I suspect soon after the midterms. If he's allowed to do that, we'll all see it then. All the ugly details."

"I can only wish that you're right. But . . ."

"Let's say your Rosenman does get fired and an acting DAG is appointed by Trump. Ordinarily it would need the deputy's approval to release the findings and recommendations. Or not. Mueller or whomever follows him reports to the deputy attorney general. The findings go to the new DAG who could decided to squelch them, claiming they're too sensitive or whatever."

"So there you go," I said, end of story."

"As usual you're forgetting two very big things," Jack said, "First there are the midterms. All signs point to a big turnover in the House. If the Dems take over, and I suspect they will, as of January 2nd they'll begin their own investigations and will have the power to subpoena everything Mueller gathered. Probably even calling him as a witness."

"I'm tracking this."

"And then there's one more even bigger thing." He took a deep breath, "I assume you know all about the Pentagon Papers?"

"I do."

"Hundreds, thousands of pages were copied at a time when the only way to do so was to Xerox it page-by-page. Now, in a few minutes the whole friggen Mueller report can be copied onto a thumb drive, put in a jacket pocket, taken home, and plopped in the mail to the New York Times or Washington Post. In other words there's no way to hide it. To keep it from the public. So the Fox people wanted to help Trump from making things even worse for himself." 

He paused to gather himself, "And that's why I'm freaking and why you shouldn't be."

"Of course I hope you're right. Maybe I'll be able to sleep tonight."

"Really, one final thing--with Trump I could be wrong about all of this. He could just as easily fire Rosen-Rosen on Thursday, in part to distract from the Kavanaugh hearings, and get his replacement to . . . ."

Jack broke off and I was left as confused as ever.

Rosen-Rosen

September 24, 2018--Rosencrantz & Rosenstein Are Dead

Friday afternoon the New York Times, in a bombshell report, revealed that deputy attorney general, Ron Rosenstein, after just two weeks on the job, was so upset by the president's aberrant behavior that he thought seriously about "wearing a wire" to record some off the mayhem. 

He even thought about talking to the vice president and attorney general (his boss) about the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment, which sets forth the conditions under which a president can be removed from office. Mind you, again, all this after just two weeks on the job.

Not only did Rosenstein contemplate this but he also told work colleagues about his concerns. Hence, the leak to the Times and the revelations.

This may have a devastating affect on the Mueller investigation in that he reports to Rosenstein and could easily wind up being fired by Trump along with the deputy AG, thereby potentially driving a stake in the heart of Mueller's efforts.

From this self-inflicted error, Trump must feel as if he died and went to heaven. 

Just as Trump was reeling from Paul Manafort flipping and the Kavanaugh nomination potentially collapsing he gets handed a get-out-of-jail-free card by his nemesis, Ron Rosenstein.

How stupid is Rosenstein? Let me count a few of the ways--

If he was so upset by what he was witnessing in the Trump White House and needed to talk about it are FBI and Justice Department colleagues the best people to whom to confess? We can only assume that as soon as Rosenstein finished unburdening himself and drifted down the DOJ hall they speed-dialed 1-800-New York Times. They had some story to share!

Doesn't Rosenstein have a wife with whom he could share this? One who would say, "I hear you darling, but one thing--make sure not to talk about any of this in the office. Especially anything about a wire or the 25th Amendment."

I know I'm sounding cynical but Mueller's investigation is as a result more precarious and Republicans now have validation for their conspiracy theories--witch hunt, rigged investigation, Deep State. I wouldn't be surprised to see GOP poll numbers increase for their midterm election candidates.

To be frank, between now and November 6th all I'm interested in is winning. Until then I don't care who's telling the truth or, for that matter, what the truth is. We're in a political life-and-death struggle and everyone has to be persistent, ruthless, and smart.

In other words, behave like Republicans.

August 22, 2018--The Fall of the House of Trump

On split-screen TV, on the same day, during the same hour, with the conviction of Donald Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort, the guilty pleas of Trump fixer Michael Cohen, who will now sing like a canary, with the reminder yesterday that former National Security Advisor and confessed felon, Michael Flynn is still spilling the beans to the Mueller investigators, and the promise of more troubles to come (like the indictment of Don Jr?), well short of two years into his presidency, before our eyes, Trump World is unraveling.

As a result we can expect to see a great deal of desperate, out of control behavior by our deflating president.

There will be firings, there will be pardons, expect an intensification of insults and threats to soft targets such as Little Rocket Man, expect distractions, including some wave-the-dog military action. Expect more unhinged rallies like the one last night in West Virginia, and of course there will be more tweet storms with Mueller and Sessions in the crosshairs as Trump also continues to savage Omarosa, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary. 

Melania will disappear from sight (also yesterday she announced she's about to take off on a solo trip to some "s-hole" countries in Africa) as will the Kusners. Unless Jared as well finds himself under the Mueller bus.

One thing not to expect--more than a handful of critical comments from wimped-out Republicans. They helped create Trump, rode his coattails to congressional leadership, doubled their bets on him as the midterms approached, and now will trickle down to insignificance with him. 

It is too late for these "rats" (Trump's word) to abandon ship. Live by him, die by him. As Tennyson wrote, to class up this sordid tale, we are seeing "Nature red in tooth and claw."

No one in Congress is writing a profile in courage.

And don't expect anything Trump perpetrates to protect him beyond Election Day. Even if Mueller is fired, like the Pentagon Papers, his report will see the light of day and, as a result, after Democrats win control of the House in early November, investigative hearings will begin January 2nd, Trump will be impeached by the House by the fall of 2019.

Though he will not be convicted by the Senate even if Democrats retake the majority since that requires an impossible 67 votes.

But in spite of this Trump will not retain the presidency beyond 2020. Knowing he can't win reelection, after declaring "mission accomplished," expect him to opt out for "health reasons." He will do a Nixon and turn the keys to the White House over to Mike Pence. Another nightmare in waiting.

But rather than focusing on that, let's enjoy the moment and the evidence from yesterday that the "system" may be working.

Paul Manafort Mugshot

August 7, 2018--Under the Bus or Taking a Bullet?

Donald Trump in a Sunday morning tweet appeared to throw his son, Donald Jr., under the bus. 

He pled him guilty to committing a federal crime that forbids a candidate for the presidency or his agents to accept any form of material help from a foreign citizen or government. This includes both direct donations of money or in-kind assistance that has monetary value. 

Asking Russian agents to help gather "dirt" about Hillary Clinton ("an opponent") surely qualifies. 

The pertinent section of the federal code (52 U.S. Code 30121) reads as follows--


(a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—

(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

(A)

a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B)

a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C)

an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2)

a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

Sunday morning Trump tweeted--

Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it. 

8:35 AM - Aug 5, 2018

This would appear to be Trump throwing his progeny under the bus to save his own skin when he denied he knew about his son's meeting in Trump Tower. If there is anyone to blame, this tweet appears to say, it is his "wonderful son."

One thing Trump gets right--gathering dirt, or engaging in "oppostion research" (oppo) in a political campaign is done all the time and is not per se illegal. On the other hand, seeking assistance in this by foreign agents is seriously against federal law.

This, however, is not going to be the end of the story. First, some possible context--

It is not a coincidence that all sorts of information is just now leaking, flooding out of Robert Mueller's thus-far leakproof investigation.

This is because he is following the Justice Department 60-day rule--not to report publicly less than 60 days before Election Day about an investigation that might include candidates for office. FBI director James Comey violated this unofficial rule just weeks before the 2016 presidential election when he reported out about allegations that Hillary Clinton used a private server for her official work as Secretary of State.

If Mueller is to observe the 60-day rule, if he has indictments to announce before November, he has to get that done by Labor Day. Thus, he is likely right now, as part of the discovery process, telling people he has been investigating that he is about to indict them. This doubtlessly includes Trump Jr. If the young Donald has been thus informed you know he shared that news with his father.

Among other consequential matters affecting Trump's state of mind--the Manafort trial, the Michael Cohen tapes, the subpoenaing of Trump's accountant (Allen Weisselberg)--the impending indictment of Donald Jr. has father Trump in a panic. As I mentioned yesterday this unraveling has drawn Hope Hicks back into the mix. And has Trump flailing about in a tweet storm. Including Sunday's in which for the first time he admitted there was collusion. After months of denial, even though collusion occurred, according to Fox News's and Trump's and his people's twisted logic, it is not a crime. 

As my grandmother used to say, "We'll see."

In spite of Trump reflexively dumping all of this on his son, if there are three or four people in the world he cares about (and this may be stretching the limits of his caring) it is his boys, Ivanka, and again Hope Hicks. 

If true, expect at least one of two things--

First, he will begin to churn out a bushel of presidential pardons. For  all his children as well as for Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, his accountant, and of course Hope.

If and when he does this there will be the expected outcry from all Democrats, a few Republicans, and Fox. Whether this will turn out to be more than a week of stories will depend on how it is absorbed by his base--35 percent of the adult public. Will they let him get away with this "murder" as they would if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue?

For the most part I think they would. The pardons will be spun as the actions of a loving father who acts to protect his children from the "enemies of the people" and rogue players such as Mueller, who are leading the biggest "witch hunt" in American history. Forget Salem for the moment and the abuses of Joseph McCarthy.

Then there is the Watergate alternative--Trump seems sincerely to want to meet one-on-one with Mueller and to tell him his version of the story. This won't work and I suspect even Trump with his colossal ego is aware of this. More than anyone else (except for Putin) he knows Mueller has the goods on him. Mueller may have already told Trump's attorneys he is about to be cited as a target of his investigation and soon may be designated an unindicted co-conspirator.

Why then does Trump appear to be so insistent on meeting with Mueller? 

Perhaps, with Hope Hicks counseling and soothing him, he will agree to make the biggest deal of his life--taking a page from Richard Nixon, he would agree to resign the presidency in exchange for Mueller pulling the plug on the rest of the investigation.

Or a third version--Trump and Mueller agree to both options: a host of pardons plus a deal that includes resignation.

In this admittedly unlikely scenario, instead of others taking a bullet for Trump he takes one to protect the very few people he cares about. 

And then he takes a victory lap, relishing in the cheers of his people as he declares his mission as president accomplished.