The Carpentariat

Sorry but I forgot to mention that I need to attend the local hospital either late this morning or early afternoon for a fill-up.   

At last, one honorable Republican

The real thing, the Honorable Justin Amash, U.S. representative from Michigan's 3rd Cong. District, has become what I hope isn't the last Republican member Congress to openly charge that the president has hit the 'threshold of impeachment.'"

Amash's singular act of conservative conscience came in an avalanche of Trump-like tweets. This, of course, incurred he inevitable: "Jim Lower, a [pseudo]conservative state representative, suggested he might run against Mr. Amash next year." In the Republican Party, truth is both rare and dangerous.

Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee member Jamie Raskin (Md.) said, in the words of the NY Times, "that an increasing number of his colleagues were moving toward a conclusion that some kind of impeachment proceeding was inevitable." Said Raskin himself: "We have to keep this in proportion with everything else we’re doing, but believe me, the anger and frustration is growing, not just in the public, but within the ranks of Democrats, too."

Last week, in what I assume was merely a placation of her caucus' more militant members, Speaker Pelosi "declared her openness … to initiating an impeachment inquiry as a means of forcing administration officials to comply with the subpoenas of the six House committees investigating Mr. Trump’s conduct." His reaction, I imagine, was one of base-invigorating joy.

Here is just a handful of Amash's more poignant Twitter fusillades (to really appreciate his full bombing campaign, you should access his account read them all):

Few members of Congress even read Mueller’s report; their minds were made up based on partisan affiliation—and it showed, with representatives and senators from both parties issuing definitive statements on the 448-page report’s conclusions within just hours of its release.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019

Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019

The evidence against Trump mounts, and mounts, and mounts

Mueller's obstruction count against Generalissimo Trump remains firmly at 10 — irrefutably.

A federal judge ordered the release of a "public transcript of a November 2017 voice mail involving Flynn. In that sensitive call, President Trump’s attorney left a message for Flynn’s attorney reminding him of the president’s fondness for Flynn at a time when Flynn was considering cooperating with federal investigators."

The transcript of the conversation —much  more than merely "sensitive" — reads:

"[I]t wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with ... the government," [Trump's] attorney said in the voicemail message.

"[I]f... there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue [so] ... we need some kind of heads-up. Just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can .... [R]emember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains."

How is that not conspiracy to obstruct justice? How is not witness tampering? The denial of both, in a federal court, would be legally gossamer at best.

This was brazen mobster activity. Gee, Michael, it would be a shame if you were to lose the president's "fondness" for you by telling the truth. So much for a pardon.

And this line was so screamingly criminal, even to a non-lawyer such as myself, it makes one wonder why Robert Mueller didn't defy DOJ "regulations" (not the law) and have Trump and his lawyer summarily indicted: "[I]f... there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue [so] ... we need some kind of heads-up. Just for the sake of protecting all our interests."

Just for the sake of protecting all our interests.

Even the now-delightfully dead John Gotti was smarter than to put incriminating telephone messages on tape. But then again, Gotti didn't own the DOJ, as the Generalissimo does.

Partisanship, not love of country, is all that is left

One of Trump's "best people" is, unsurprisingly, merely a grifter, who can't even bring himself to defend his wife's honor. He'd rather she go down, excuse the pun, rather than stand up like a man and accept the consequences.

"Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson broke the law when he failed to report an order for a $31,561 dining room table set for his office as well as the installation of an $8,000 dishwasher in the office kitchen, the Government Accountability Office found in a report published Thursday.

"Carson canceled the table order after it surfaced in news reports in early 2018, and he appeared to blame the fiasco on his wife, Candy, in congressional testimony. HUD spokespeople offered conflicting accounts of what Carson knew about the order."

Yet here, this morning, is what's troubling Carson's boss:

"Will Jerry Nadler ever look into the fact that Crooked Hillary deleted and acid washed 33,000 emails AFTER getting a most powerful demand notice for them from Congress?"

After two-plus years of Trump's banana-republic offensiveness, I'm beginning to lose sight of what the "rule of law" once meant in the United States. I recall congressional Republicans' pious belief in the rule of law, when they were pursuing a multitude of ultimately pointless investigations of the Obama administration. But then came their man in the White House, and Republicans' piety vanished overnight.

These are frightening, disorienting times. And if the rule of law loses to authoritarian disgracefulness (one of Trump's favorite words) in 2020, our fright and disorientation may simply morph into indifference. And then we'll be lost. 

Boy was Trump ever right about that

Just a little reminder that before his dementia and autocratic fantasies took hold, Donald Trump presciently got a few things right. From Nov 2012:

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

Now it's 20. Why not 30 - or 50?

This is becoming ridiculous. The Dems now have 20 "major" presidential candidates, most of whom are actually vice-presidential candidates. (Hello, Sen. Harris.)

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is the last to inflate an already unmanageable number of White House hopefuls. Yet in his own city, 76 percent are opposed to his candidacy. His overall job approval, according to Quinnipiac, is underwater: 42 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable. That's almost Trump territory.

The overall numbers are misleading, however. "Support for the mayor varies widely by race as well as borough," reports amNY. "While de Blasio’s job approval rating sits at 66-23 percent among black voters; Hispanic voters were split 40-40, and whites disapprove by 58 percent to 31 percent. Staten Islanders are most critical [no surprise] of the mayor (30-64 percent), with Bronx residents the most supportive (50-38 percent)."

These numbers are depressing, based as they are on race alone. De Blasio has provided New Yorkers with a "$15 minimum wage. Paid sick leave. Guaranteed health care. Free pre-K for all," reports New York magazine. And yet his white approval rating is nearly as low as Trump's ethics. Strike that. Trump has no ethics.

The principal point is that de Blasio's entry into the presidential contest is as useless as an Alabama lawmaker. He hasn't a chance, and what's more, he's not even a credible vice-presidential prospect. Joe Biden will select as his running mate a woman — as he should — and probably a black woman (which brings us back to Kamala Harris' rational decision to run).

De Blasio has no rational reason to run — and this ungovernable count of 20 major presidential candidates has become a farce. The party should unite behind the almost inevitable nominee — Biden — and therefore unselfishly speak with one voice and one party leader.

With 20 candidates, the Democratic debates are going to be an even greater charade than the Republicans' of 2016, which allowed Trump to split his somewhat qualified opposition and grab the nomination by default. Thus the Dems are playing a potentially dangerous game with so many candidates. Diversity?. What they need is unity.

Trump: from geostrategy to tweets

This fascinating piece, from Politico, underscores, in an even more terrifying way, the message of my post immediately below.

Shortly after President Donald Trump announced plans to yank U.S. troops out of Syria last December, a group of lawmakers came to the White House to talk him out of the idea, which critics called a threat to national security.

Trump responded by calling in the man who oversees his Twitter account.

"Get Dan Scavino in here," Trump called out in the middle of the meeting....

"Tell them how popular my policy is," Trump instructed Scavino, who … proceeded to walk lawmakers through the positive reaction he had picked up on social media about Trump’s Syria decision.

The sudden pivot from geostrategy to retweets and likes surprised the lawmakers. It was a remarkable moment given that not long ago Scavino was managing Trump’s golf club....

With few allies left in the West Wing, Trump frequently leans on his unassuming social media guru for affirmation and advice about how his most sensitive policies will be received.

It leaves you stunned and speechless — that this president of the United States sees the world only through the lens of his policies' domestic "popularity." What's even more staggering is that POTUS doesn't seem to realize that all those "retweets and likes" are coming only from a sliver of the American electorate. 

Once again, Trump is blaming his confusion on his advisers

"The intelligence that caused the White House to escalate its warnings about a threat from Iran came from photographs of missiles on small boats in the Persian Gulf," says the NY Times.

"But just how alarmed the Trump administration should be over the new intelligence is a subject of fierce debate among the White House, the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and America’s allies…. Europeans, Iraqis, members of both parties in Congress and some senior officials within the Trump administration said Iran’s moves might mostly be defensive against what Tehran believes are provocative acts by Washington…. Either way, the questions about the underlying intelligence, and complaints by lawmakers that they had not been briefed on it, reflect a deep mistrust of Mr. Trump’s national security team."

Which, rather comically, includes Mr. Trump himself — the man who would hire only the "best people."

Reports the Washington Post: "Trump grew angry last week and over the weekend about what he sees as warlike planning that is getting ahead of his own thinking."

Of course just about any planning, other than that of professional con artistry, would get ahead of Trump's thinking. The blowhard is missing too many active brain cells; he won't read, nor could he comprehend, written briefings; and innumerable accounts have reported that he can't concentrate during oral briefings.

Terrifying — and not at all comical — is that this is the nincompoop who will make the final decision on war. He can't understand foreign policy intricacies — for instance he utterly ignored his own military's advice not to cancel the Iran nuclear accords — so his decision will be, as always, political. If he believes his base is hot to attack Iran, then so it will be.

"The Trump Doctrine" ineptly explained, by - who else? - a Trumper

In the most recent issue of Foreign Policy, Trump’s former National Security Council spokesman, Michael Anton, attempts the impossible: to define "The Trump Doctrine."

"The administration calls it 'principled realism,'" writes Anton, "which isn’t bad — although the term hasn’t caught on. The problem is that the Trump Doctrine, like most presidential doctrines, cannot be summed up in two words. (To see for yourself, try describing the Monroe, Truman, or Reagan Doctrine with just a couple of words.)"

Challenge accepted: "Stay out," "Butt out," and "Belligerent bankruptcy."

But you won't believe this other Anton observation: "In perhaps his most overlooked, understudied speech … in November 2017 … [Trump] encapsulated his approach to foreign policy with a quote from The Wizard of Oz: 'There’s no place like home.'" OK everyone, let us click our ruby slippers ... and believe, along with Tinkerbell.

It gets worse. "The other, more familiar phrase for the president’s foreign policy — 'America First' — is much maligned, mostly for historical reasons," continues Anton. How lighthearted he is about that term, which in historical fact meant let Hitler dominate Europe and subordinate Britain and we shouldn't care. Yet Anton see the phrase as "almost tautologically unobjectionable. After all, what else is the purpose of any country’s foreign policy except to put its own interests … first?"

I'll let (former?) neoconservative Max Boot answer that:

"Adolf Hitler was putting his country first by invading Poland, Hideki Tojo by bombing Pearl Harbor, Josef Stalin by occupying Eastern Europe, Kim Il Sung by attacking South Korea, Saddam Hussein by annexing Kuwait, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by developing a nuclear program."

The simple "realism" is that Trump has no doctrine — but far worse, no principles and no historically informed knowledge of world affairs. He bounces from one incongruity to another. He is a jack-in-the-box reactor. And that, in time, will spell even more trouble for the world.

To an American minority, we are North Korea

I ran across this passage in Vox, which left me spinning in incredulity:

"As hard as it may be for Americans to grasp, millions of North Koreans appear to truly believe their government’s pronouncements."

North Korea's population, as of 2018, was 25.6 million. Yet in 2016, nearly 63 million Americans (46.1 percent of the electorate) voted for a Republican presidential candidate who essentially professed a belief in dictatorial power, just as Kim Jong-un has demonstrated.

As far as we know, roughly the same percentage of American voters — almost twice the entire population of North Korea — will again support the sitting president because, just like brainwashed North Koreans, they "truly believe their government’s pronouncements."

So why is that "hard … for Americans to grasp"? For Christ's sake, there are more ignorant Americans than North Koreans. And that is a fucking fact.

The ultimate answer to Alabama lawmakers' "principles"

Presidential candidate Kamala Harris says "we will not stand for" this, but it's not "our" or a president's decision. It will be up to the U.S. Supreme Court. God help 51 percent of the American population.

"The Alabama Senate approved a measure on Tuesday that would outlaw almost all abortions in the state, setting up a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade....

"The legislation bans abortions at every stage of pregnancy and criminalizes the procedure for doctors, who could be charged with felonies and face up to 99 years in prison. It includes an exception for cases when the mother’s life is at serious risk, but not for cases of rape or incest."

In other words, if some goon (or deranged father) decides to impregnate a woman (or daughter) against her will, well that's just tough for the woman (or daughter). In effect, the "rights" of the goon or deranged father are enforced, but not those of the abused.

I understand the intellectual and emotional complexities of abortion. I have, at times, struggled with them as well. But it also seems to me there is only one "conservative" answer: guarantee the woman's right to choose (as already decided by the highest court); keep the government's nose out of the woman's personal business; and leave the woman's decision between herself, her doctor, and her god.

But I suppose there is one other, indeed ultimate, answer: require Alabama lawmakers to adopt and care for the thousands of children delivered against the mothers' will. Enact that legislation, and watch how fast the lawmakers reverse their "principles."

Hey, hey, Donald J., how many kids will you kill today .. or tomorrow?

Mind-boggling:

"At a meeting of President Trump’s top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons" — which Trump belligerently has been pushing Iran to do since he withdrew the U.S. from President Obama's successful nuclear accord.

But get this: "They do not call for a land invasion of Iran, which would require vastly more troops." The main clause is good news; yet once deciphered, it means the U.S. could conceivably redeploy up to 120,000 American troops into Iraq, as well as Syria, where Iran has regional interests.

It is, as noted, simply mind-boggling that Trump — the man who as candidate promised no more of George W. Bush's "stupid wars" — would ponder the reintroduction of American troops into those bottomless sinkholes of human destruction.

But who hasn't suspected that at some point — some politically dangerous point for Trump — that this sociopathic president would not put thousands of American lives at risk, just to save his desperate hide? And remember, the rootin-tootin. psychopathically jingoistic John Bolton has his ear. Bolton has wanted to blow Iran off the map for two decades; now he has an ignorant, weak-minded president who just might go along for — what else? — his personal, rally-'round-the-flag salvation.

It seems that assaulting, if not utterly destroying, the liberal international order and infuriating our allies and coddling dictators have not proved enough damage to the U.S. for Trump to get his game-playing giggles. Thus I shall leave you with this colossal irony:

"The most recent National Defense Strategy … concluded that … the United States must do more to ensure a rising China does not upend the world order."

The Dems, labor, and Trump's trade war

Trump's trade war with China has been devastating to markets, manufacturing employees, and farmers. "These were all foreseeable consequences," writes Catherine Rampell. What perplexes her, though, is this:

Where are the Democratic presidential candidates on Trump's trade-war devastation? They "should be shouting from the rooftops. They should be sharing soybean-farmer sob stories and damning stats with any voter still considering following Trump off the protectionist cliff."

So why the candidates' silence? Organized labor, of course, which is profoundly protectionist — and loud in its support of such — even if trade wars hurt them more in the long run.

Comparatively, labor is now a small percentage of the Democratic Party and quite the minority on protectionism. "67 percent of Democrats," reports Pew Research, "believe that free-trade agreements have been good for the United States." But special-interest labor votes, and far too many non-one-issue Democrats do not.

Rampell argues that the Democratic presidential candidates' "pandering" to labor is "short-sighted." But labor's outsized, internal power is also a political reality, thus it would be even more short-sighted to anger and alienate labor in the silly season. 

The trick will be returning an Obama Democrat to the White House, who will proceed to join TPP and make other intelligent trade choices. At this time, though, the Dems should not want a war with labor.

A moment with Joe

When a woman yelled, "You can hug and kiss me anytime, Joe."

The opposite of "The Thinker"?

I really cannot get enough of Ann Telnaes' brilliant work:

The massive Trump crime family

Said candidate Trump about some of Hillary Clinton's aides: "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment. The mob takes the Fifth." (He himself once invoked his Fifth Amendment right 97 times, in 1990.)

Writes former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman: "Current reports are that Trump Jr. intends again to rebuff the [Senate Intelligence Committee] by invoking the Fifth Amendment. That is of course his right, but only on the ground that his truthful answers would tend to incriminate him."

Thus, according to the sitting president, his son, Donald Trump Jr., is a mobster. Which is true, since he's an "associate" — meaning he hasn't yet taken the candle and blood oath of omertà — of his father, the nation's leading crime boss.

Litman is of course correct when he writes that invoking the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination is a cherished, time-honored American right. Trump Sr. was also correct, however, in saying that "taking the Fifth" is generally an admission of wrongdoing. As Litman further notes, only if Junior told the truth would he incriminate himself; otherwise his statements before the Intelligence Committee would render him perjurious.

All of this is clear enough. But what persists in puzzling me — even though I'm not commonly this dense — is that so damn many American voters are indifferent to Trump's staggering contradictions, his lies, his offensive assaults on legitimate law enforcement ("any effort even to question the probity of a Trump must be borne of deep-state corruption," observes Litman), his tenfold obstructions of justice.

It's as though roughly 60 million Americans would have voted for Al Capone — and then defend him and his crimes to the death. These are your neighbors with perhaps pretty green lawns and the Protestant work ethic — and yet they're also treasonous "associates," in a big way, of the Don.

Putin's Amerika

Under Trump, the U.S. is becoming Russia, what with Consiglieri Giuliani's recent attempt at meddling in an Eastern European nation's politics, so that this nation's crime boss can remain in power.

Giuliani’s expressed intent was to politicize an investigation in a country where, for years, the Americans have encouraged Ukrainians to travel a difficult road toward the rule of law. Time and again U.S. officials have pleaded with Ukrainians to cleanse their justice system of politically-tainted investigations. It was as if a doctor had suddenly recommended taking up smoking.

“Sounds like a shameful play — the arguments and motivations that U.S. Republicans are making seem all distorted," Natalia Gumenyuk, head of Ukraine's independent Hromadske television, told The Daily Beast.

It indeed quacks and waddles like a "shameful play" — except to Daffy U.S. Republicans, who have no shame.

Trump's famous last words

Even Trump's top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, has conceded that American consumers "will pay" for the president's trade war with China. "Both sides will suffer on this," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Kudlow’s acknowledgment of economic pain, while widely shared by economists, contradicted the president’s view that trade wars are easy to win and that the burden falls disproportionately on America’s trading partners," reports the Times. Still, "Trump again asserted on Monday that there was 'no reason' that American consumers would pay the tariffs."

The first line of Trump's tweet yesterday reads like something Hitler was still saying about the Allies and Russia, early 1945.

We are right where we want to be with China. Remember, they broke the deal with us & tried to renegotiate. We will be taking in Tens of Billions of Dollars in Tariffs from China. Buyers of product can make it themselves in the USA (ideal), or buy it from non-Tariffed countries...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2019

Pelosi: the new "grown-up in the room."

I loved this passage from Michelle Cottle:

"The speaker’s politics are progressive, but she’s never been a purist. She was born into an old-school Democratic political dynasty in Baltimore…. Deal-cutting and constituent-tending are in her blood — and were crucial as she sweated, charmed and slashed her way to the head of the congressional boys’ club."

Cottle's gist is now that Speaker Pelosi is "Caught between an outrageous president and her outraged base," she "increasingly resembles less a 'San Francisco' crusader than the staid grown-up in the room."

Until a Democratic presidential nominee is chosen, she's the new Obama.

Her approach is much the same as the former president's: Hold the middle, since that's where Middle America is. Rumblings about impeachment — for now, anyway — as well as the "Green Dream or whatever" (a Pelosi classic) are dangerous to the mainstream, which is what elected Pelosi's House majority.

Even as a democratic socialist, I have never understood why progressives refuse to grasp this most elementary concept in American politics. Leftist politics are just peachy in deep-blue districts, but they constitute not a majority of 435. The arithmetic is as elementary as the concept.

Yet onward our progressive soldiers march — who, leading the party, would only march us deeper into the abyss.

Giuliani cancels but Trump persists

Late but necessary news — Friday night is always "trash night" in politics. From the NY Times:

"Facing withering attacks accusing him of seeking foreign assistance for President Trump’s re-election campaign, Rudolph W. Giuliani announced on Friday night that he had canceled a trip to Kiev in which he planned to push the incoming Ukrainian government to press ahead with investigations that he hoped would benefit Mr. Trump.

"Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, explained that he felt as if he was being 'set up' by Ukrainians critical of his efforts, and he blamed Democrats for trying to 'spin' the trip."

This won't be the end of it, of course. Has Trump ever needed anything even remotely related to facts to attack a critic or political opponent?

And then there's this:

"Trump has suggested he would like Attorney General William P. Barr to look into the material gathered by the Ukrainian prosecutors."

Quadrennially we have been told by the political media that the next presidential contest will be the dirtiest in our nation's history. They never counted on Donald J. Trump. Because of him, our 2020 election will be more criminal than dirty. What does Trump have to sweat? He has the Department of Justice in his pocket.