Trump's Real Time, Slow Motion Self-Destruction Was Always Inevitable, Wasn't It?

Underwater by Nancy Ohanian

Aaron Zitner reported on yet another poll-- this one always a lagging indicator with a very conservative bias, and done over the weekend for the Wall Street Journal and NBC News-- shows that a majority of Americans back the impeachment probe. What normal Americans are undying around is that is that "Trump's actions regarding Ukraine are a serious matter and merit an impeachment inquiry by Congress." Most want to wait and see before backing removal from office. "Presented in a separate question with just two options-- impeaching Mr. Trump and removing him from office, or doing neither-- some 43% said lawmakers should push Mr. Trump from office, while 49% said they shouldn’t do so, based on what the public knows now... Independents view the accusations more as serious than politically motivated, 51% to 42%. But asked about impeachment, some 45% of independents oppose removing Mr. Trump from office, with 39% backing impeachment and removal."

A poll with a less conservative bias, Morning Consult's-- which was conductedMonday and Tuesday, which were terrible news days for Trump-- show a larger number of registered voters want Trump impeached and removed from office-- 50% to 43%. Those numbers for impeachment-- particularly among independent voters-- is about to rise.

The unserious letter of non-cooperation Trump's laughing stock legal team sent Congress was a semi-intellectual version of TRump's twitter strategy. It will appeal to the 30-some odd percent of voters who have been brainwashed by Fox and Hate Talk Radio into worshiping Trump. And no one else. Americans see right through the kangaroo court defense and Trump's ongoing attempt to delegitimize democracy, just as any authoritarian pig try to do. Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer: "OK, so now we see for sure what the White House strategy is. It’s not only to refuse to cooperate in the impeachment probe, but it’s also practically to deny that Congress has any legitimate right to impeach" Señor Trumpanzee "period. This shouldn’t be surprising. We’ve been headed in this direction for a while now. It basically ensures the president will be impeached for interfering with the work of Congress."

The Washington Post was of the same mind: "The White House letter, which lacked substantive legal arguments and echoed Trump’s political broadsides, capped a day of defiance and challenges as House Democrats have tried to force recalcitrant administration officials to divulge potentially incriminating information over Republican objections." But the Trumpist strategy isn't meant to appeal to them, just to his moron base. That base is fracturing a tiny bit over the disgrace of abandoning the Kurds to the tender mercies of Erdogan who will be butchering them by the time you read this post.

South Carolina sycophant and closet queen Lindsey Graham was fighting two battles at once-- bashing Trump for betraying the Kurds ("I think he's putting the nation at risk, and I think he's putting his presidency at risk") on the one hand, while mouthing the White House's anti-impeachment talking points on the other. On Fox & Friends yesterday, Graham blamed impeachment on House Democrats instead of Trump's lawless behavior. "They're about to destroy the nation for no good reason," he drawled. "And I want Nancy Pelosi to know that Republican senators are not going to impeach this president based on this transcript, so she can stop now before she destroys the country." Willie DeVille had a perfect description of Lindsey back in the late 1970s when Graham was still licking his wounds after being rejected by every good law school he applied to.





In any case, Jonathan Swan described the Trumpist strategy to stay in office as a burn-down-the-House plan. One would expect nothing less from the contemptible lowlife in the White House. This country, patriotism, country-above-self... no abstract concepts have ever crossed his rigid, calculating mind. It's always been about him, him, him... "Trump," wrote Swan, "while nervous about the historic stain of impeachment, is throwing everything he has into this fight: refusing all cooperation, running ads to profit politically, and torching every person who stands in opposition to him. When it all boils down, Trump really only trusts his own instincts. And his instincts here are the same as they were with the Mueller investigation: Fight like hell."

• No nuance or apology-- not a hint of it.
• Turn the leader of the investigation (in this case, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff) into a conservative media villain.
• Condemn Trump enemies in the most incendiary and exaggerated language possible (treason, traitors, coup, etc.).

Lindsey with his amigo, Dutch fascist Geert Wilders

In 1998 when Lindsey Graham, then a member of the House from a backward region in up-country South Carolina and an impeachment floor manager against Bill Clinton, was arguing for impeachment, he brought up the Nixon case. "The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury." Has he now changed his mind so as to get in synch with Trump, who insists the Nixon decision was flawed and wrong?

All Eyes On Flake-- Will He, As Is His Wont-- Disappoint Us Again?

When The Arizona Republican Party first selected Flake as its candidate for the open U.S. Senate seat in 2012, he had already served 6 terms (12 years) in Congress. Before that he had been executive director the the Barry Goldwater Institute. His credentials as an extreme right-wing kook-- with a libertarian bent-- could not be challenged. His first primary was against 4 conservatives, although Flake was by far the most conservative. In the House he was a bit of a pest to establishment Republicans as he fought to end earmarks and special interest corruption. He was never interested in bipartisan compromise and was considered the most hardcore conservative in the Arizona delegation. He was narrowly elected to the Senate-- 49-46% and started trending slightly more bipartisan than he had been. Now-- having announced he isn't running for a second term after feuding with Trump-- he's the guy who can scuttle Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Sunday, on 60 Minutes, he and Chris Coons (D-DE) were asked "if Judge Kavanaugh is shown to have lied to the Committee... nomination's over?" Flake immediately responded "Oh yes" and Coons followed with "I would think so." Watch:



There's only one way that could happen. All the Democrats vote against confirmation and they are joined by at least one-- but more likely, two-- Republican senators. Will Flake be that senator? Will Susan Collins? Lisa Murkowski? Apparently there is literally not one other Republican senator who cares whether Kavanaugh lied or not. Tuesday morning, writing for the Washington Post Sean Sullivan shined a spotlight on Flake's year-long jihad against "tribalism". [I'm no fan of Steve Kornacki's MSNBC appearances but his book on tribalism is very good.] Flake was (subtly campaigning for president in New Hampshire Monday) and Sullivan wrote that he warned that the FBI must thoroughly investigate allegations against Kavanaugh, "as he made a long-shot plea to use the moment to bridge the divides that have deepened" since Trump occupied the White House and exacerbated centrifugal forces already tearing the country apart that benefits no one but America's most determined enemy, Russia.

“We’re wanting to make sure that is a fulsome investigation-- that it’s not limited as some worry that it might be,” Flake told reporters here.

Decrying tribalism, partisanship and “the politics of vengeance” in a speech that served as an unmistakable shot at Trump, the Arizonan signaled he intends to use the polarizing court fight to amplify his long-standing calls for more civility and cooperation in Washington and across America.

“Tribalism is ruining us. It is tearing our country apart. It is no way for sane adults to act,” said Flake, a possible 2020 presidential candidate.

But the near impossibility of his task came sharply into focus in this early primary state as he faced dueling pressure from both sides of the Kavanaugh divide after forcing the Senate to delay a vote so the FBI could reopen its background check of the federal appeals court judge.

Flake remains a pivotal swing vote with the potential to sink Kavanaugh’s nomination, making him the target of liberal demands to keep him off the court, as evidenced by the anti-Kavanaugh protesters he faced here and in Boston on Monday. He is also the focus of conservative insistence that Kavanaugh be swiftly confirmed.

As he awaits the outcome of the FBI probe, which will determine his decision, he is poised to be a hero to one side and a villain to the other. “I sometimes feel like a man temporarily without a party,” Flake said.

But he is not without an audience. Flake is trying to turn the Kavanaugh standoff into a teachable moment that he hopes will help usher in a new political era, one that will produce greater compromise and expand the appeal of a Republican Party he says has put its long-term survival at risk by appealing to a narrow swath of Americans.

That pitch has become increasingly consequential as Flake, one of Trump’s most vocal GOP critics, prepares to retire from the Senate. His presence in this first-in-the-nation primary state has stoked speculation that he will run against Trump in 2020, a possibility he did not rule out.

It has become a career-defining moment for the mild-mannered lawmaker, who is at the epicenter of the collision between the #MeToo movement and the Trump presidency as he pursues pragmatism in a Senate riven by strident partisanship.

In his speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, Flake emphasized the themes that he has returned to repeatedly during Trump’s presidency, preaching civility and comity over rancor and recriminations.

“We Republicans have given in to the terrible tribal impulse that first mistakes our opponents for our enemies,” Flake said. “And then we become seized with the conviction that we must destroy that enemy.”

...Democrats have voiced concerns that the scope of the FBI probe will be limited. Flake urged the FBI to conduct a “real investigation” and said he was in touch with the White House counsel’s office and his colleagues to ensure that happens.

“It does no good to have an investigation that just gives us more cover,” Flake said. “We actually need to find out what we can find out. And we have to realize that we may not be able to find out everything that happened.”

Flake said he is “waiting for the additional information that will come from the supplemental FBI investigation” to inform his decision on how to vote on Kavanaugh. He said the thrust of the probe is to see whether there is corroboration for the account Christine Blasey Ford delivered under oath at a Senate hearing last week... If Kavanaugh lied, Flake said, that should disqualify him.

I've seen lists that show Kavanaugh lied 49 times during his testimony. Monday Elle lied to the Committee, under oath, about his drinking habits, definitions of words he had written in his year book (like "Devil's Triangle," "boof," "ralph," and "Renate Alumnius"), his bullshit about witnesses contradicting Ford, his Yale pedigree, and, of course, the allegations themselves.

At the hearing, Kavanaugh was asked when he first heard about the sexual harassment allegations from Deborah Ramirez, who alleges Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party while the two were at Yale. He responded by saying,"In the last-- in the period since then, the New Yorker story," referencing the New Yorker piece that first publicized the allegations.

However, according to a new report from NBC News, Kavanaugh and his team were trying to get former classmates to discredit Ramirez's claims before the piece was ever published, leading many to believe that Kavanaugh did know about the allegations beforehand.

Elaina Plott, writing for The Atlantic also shined a bright spotlight on Flake yesterday, reporting that he called the Kavanaugh’s interactions with lawmakers "sharp and partisan" and that "We can’t have that on the Court." She paints him-- as would anyone who's watched-- as someone who comes off as mixed up, shook up and confused. I bet you don't remember Mink Deville. This is one of their best songs performed in Montreux in 1994, over a decade after their "heyday":



"Flake," she wrote, "seemed to be wavering in recent days over his willingness to confirm Kavanaugh. On Friday afternoon, mere hours after stating he would vote to send the judge’s nomination to the Senate floor, he struck the agreement with Coons, and urged his colleagues to support the week-long probe before moving forward." Later he said he would vote to confirm after the FBI investigation. Then he said Kavanaugh was done for if he lied, which he clearly did. His past record indicatesnhe will vote to confirm regardless of what the FBI finds. He just doesn't have it in him to do more than whine. Collins has bigger cajones than he does, I don't expect her to vote NO either... unless she can get Murkowski to do it with her.

Which Mousketeer will save the Republic?