August 30, 2018: Fool's Gold Mouth, Poverty of Learning and Culture, Disgustus' Masturbatory Fantasy.

“from the fool's gold mouth

piece the hollow horn
plays wasted words
prove to warn
that he not busy being born
is busy dying”

----Bob Dylan “It's alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding”

Robin Leach, host and voice-over for the 1980's television program “The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” died over the weekend. At his funeral many will no doubt lament that he passed too soon. Some of us would say that he stayed too long. The broadcast of the program best known for celebrating excess with a clipped British accent and raising the envy of the nation. There was no mention of either learning nor culture; for, indeed, money, as Caesar Disgustus so amply demonstrates, can lay claim to neither. “Lifestyles” is most responsible for shoring up the underpinnings of the 'Reagan Revolution” by telling Americans that not only was gluttony to be accepted but it was to be celebrated. By so doing, Leach helped reinforce a trend that was decades in the making—a trend away from one's identity based upon ones family, geographical origin, or upon what one produced to identity as a function of what one consumes.

It has been left to the tRUMPs to teach us to what unsavory end this poverty of learning and culture would lead.

Tracing the origins back to Coco Channel and the coincidental rise of fascism in Europe, Rhonda Garelick draws the parallels:

“Chanel's alluring life became her most bankable commodity. Women clamored for Chanel products (or inexpensive imitations) not just for their sleek looks, but because they seemed to grant entry into the designer's enviable world....

“Chanel invented a business model that fashion companies still use in which success depends as much on a glamorous life 'narrative' as on particular garments. Within this models which I call 'immersive dreamscapes,' customers buy not just products but also aspirational identities. By acquiring merchandise bearing logos or signatures, they label themselves with the desired identity.” (1)

So began the twentieth century transformation from identity as occupation, clan or location; identity revealed in our very surnames-- Carpenter, Baker, Smith, McDougal, McDonald, MacBeth; Chesterfield, London, French—to identity based upon what we consume. 'Keeping up with the Jones'” became less our striving and soon became our very identities.

“Not coincidentally, Chanel's influence peaked between the two world wars,” continues Garelick, “precisely as fascism became a pan-European force. Like luxury-logo fashion, fascism offered an alluring narrative about an exclusive world (the myth of the superior Aryans) and a logo (the swastika) betokening membership in that world. Chanel traveled in fascist circles and invented her double-C insignia in 1921, just a year after the Nazis adopted [from Christianity] the swastika, which they treated like a fashion label, stamping it on jewelry, clothing, even lingerie, in addition to military uniforms.

“To be clear, wearing Chanel does not make one a Nazi. But the joint rise of her brand and fascism came about because both tapped into certain all-too-human, paradoxical yearnings, particularly resonant at the time: to belong to a select elite and to lose oneself in the crowd, to conform. Chanel was deeply in dialogue with her era's politics—as is Ivanka Trump.

“We can trace the descent of 'dreamscape' businesses from Chanel, to Ralph Lauren (Bronx-born Ralph Lifshitz, peddling a dream world of polo-playing WASP privilege), through Tory Burch, directly to Ms. Trump, whose brand, which she announced this week is shutting down, employs both her full signature and initial insignia...

Ms. Trump's attraction to aspirational makes sense—it's the linchpin of her family fortune. Donald Trump's empire was always more about branding than building. He based his career on outer-borough fantasy of aristocratic privilege. This is why he bought Mar-a-Lago, once the estate of socialite-philanthropist Marjorie Merriweather Post. This is why he created an imitation heraldic Trump family crest to ennoble cuff links, shirts and cologne. Mr. Trump's success has always derived from the implication that to embrace him, to buy into his brand, was to enter his fantasy luxury universe.” (3)

No doubt a marketing strategy gleaned directly from the pages of Playboy demonstrating that all those hours spent in youthful masturbation were not entirely lost.

Understanding the all-too-American craving for community and status, in a world where community is increasingly fragmented and one's status is constantly shifting while under assault, “She created an aspirational universe geared toward working women who yearned for advancement, wanting to fake it till they make it. It was a 'C-suite' feminist look—pastel sheath dresses; structured bags conjuring Celine or Prada, but often made of vinyl; pumps and flats that closely imitated higher-end shoes (including Chanel), overall the brand offered watered-down simulacra of luxury goods, accessibly priced, elite-seeming but poorly made.” (4)

Of course, Ivanka invented nothing here, merely paying homage to her ancestral roots aping the Orangutan that produced her. One has to look no further than TRUMP University, Trump meats, champagne, ties and apparel, not to mention the grandiose Trump Taj Mahal to see how thin the veneer; how transparent this facade.

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” the Wizard commanded Dorothy and her new-found friends. “He asks that we accept increasingly fictional narratives, to believe the literally unbelievable, enjoining supporters in Kansas City to disregard their own senses. 'What you are seeing,” he intoned Tuesday, 'is not what's happening'--a chilling apt instruction for losing yourself inside an aspirational branding narrative” (5).

It isn't enough to lament the emergence of 'identity' politics. We have always had identity politics. But heretofore our identities were rooted in time and place, clan and kin, occupation and production. Now they are increasingly being replaced by not only mere consumption but by the mass consumption of the shoddy.

This is what happens when one is hopelessly lost in adolescent masturbatory fantasy. For the glossy identities cataloged by popular media are as real as the intimacy portrayed in popular pornography. Perhaps Playboy was, in the larger social context, pornography after all and Donald John Trump and family have spread this pornography first into the business and social life of the country and now into our politics as well.

“An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison

______________________

1. Garelick, Rhonda. “Ivanka's Aspirations” The New York Times. Friday, July 27, 2018. Page A25
2. Ibid
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid
5. Ibid

August 28, 2018: Oh Lordy, We Have Tapes, Honor Among Thieves, Sliver of Shame

“Oh Lordy, I hope there are tapes.”

----former FBI Director James Comey appearing testifying before Congress

Yes, Virginia, we have tapes. Experience is powerless to instruct, and never so much the case as with your Rescumlickan. One would think, in the wake of Nixon and all that he taught us, that the very idea of allowing recording devices into the executive mansion would be abhorrent to every White House. And, indeed, it has—until now. In an administration in which one must swear fealty to one's lord—in this case “The Donald”, and in which Non-Disclosure Agreements, or NDA's are ubiquitous, someone has overlooked the modern equivalent of the good old tape recorder.

It transpires, in this White House where there is no honor among thieves—and, apparently even less loyalty and trust—that everyone is 'ratting' on everyone else. The leaking from this ship is legendary as contents of meetings and descriptions of cabals dance in headlines and broadcasts. Now comes direct evidence in the form of recordings by two of the most trusted among those that have attached themselves to the mantle of our Caesar Disgustus.

“Omarosa Manigualt Newman,” writes Michelle Goldberg, “the reality show villain who campaigned for Donald Trump and followed him into the White House, is an amoral, dishonest, mercenary grifter. This makes her just like most people in Trump's orbit. What separates her from them is that she might be capable of a sliver of shame.” (1)

“Naturally,” continues Goldberg, “Manigault Newman's new book 'Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House,' is self-serving, a way to avenger her 2017 firing and make money telling us what we already know about this wretched administration. Nevertheless, she had other options for cashing in. She has revealed that she was offered a $15,000-a-month position on the Trump re-election campaign in exchange for keeping her mouth shut. She could have had a career in right-wing media; an African-American celebrity willing to say that the Republican Party isn't racist will always find patrons.

“Instead, she chose to speak out against the man who made her a star and repent for her complicity in electing him. She may be a manipulative narcissist, but she's behaving more honorably than any other former Trump appointee.

“That's not a high bar, and I wouldn't take most of the claims of 'Unhinged' at face value. But we don't have to, because Manigault Newman has receipts. When I got a prepublication copy of the book,...I wasn't sure what to think of the scene in which Trump's chief of staff, John Kelly, fires her, making thuggish threats to destroy her reputation if she doesn't go quietly. On Sunday, 'Meet The Press' played her recording of the exchange which unfolds exactly as she described”.(2)

And then came her recording of a telephone conversation between Omarosa and the daughter-in-law of Caesar Disgustus in which Eric Trump's wife offers her a job at the campaign in exchange for her compliance. Reports have surfaced which claim that she has more than three-score such recordings; recordings that have, in at least one instance, penetrated into the very holy-of-holies—that most secure of places—the White House Situation Room. What manner of security exists when a man so knowingly corrupt requires Non Disclosure Agreements but fails in the basic task of checking the door? As noted before in these columns, it is only upon the sheer magnitude of incompetence that the survival of this republic now hangs.

Then, there is Michael Cohen, the personal attorney to now Caesar Disgustus. Apparently Michael, trusting no one—especially one Donald John Trump, recorded everything and when federal officials raided his office and apartment and seized his phones the discovered a veritable treasure of evidence—including tape recorded phone conversations that, among other things has our Bastard President scheming with his attorney about setting up a shell company through which one can funnel money to buy the silence of several women just before the election; actions designed not only to deceive the public but circumvent federal law governing elections and financing.

It is left to some speculation to what we owe these epiphanies. In Omarosa's case, Goldberg suggests that the former Democrat-turned-tRUMPist enabler earned the calumny of the friends she made while a student at the historically black Howard University, or the friends she made while working in Bill Clinton's White House, or her stint on HRC's campaign. In Cohen's case, it is reported that his grandfather once said to him, in the wake of Charlottesville, that he didn't survive the holocaust to have his grandson defile the family name. But if it is true that Disgustus “floated the idea of being sworn in on 'The Art of The Deal' instead of the Bible” (3) I'd love to hear the tape—Lordy, I hope there are tapes.

“Studies have shown that the people who are most likely to leave cults are those who maintain intimate links to people outside them. Manigault Newman, who last year married a pastor who campaigned for Hillary Clinton, could never fully sever ties with Trump Critics.” (4) And, likewise, Michael Cohen could not sever his ties with civilization.

Disgustus took to the airwaves last week in the now infamous interview on tRUMP-State Television, otherwise known as Faux News, and said openly that he discovered the payments later...this in the teeth of taped conversation with Cohen about setting up shell companies to make the payments earlier. Disgustus' only talent is lying with a straight face. But there are tapes...Lordy, there are tapes, there are lots of tapes. There is no honor among thieves and less honor in this White House. Disgustus, now tangled up in them, becomes increasingly 'unhinged'.

“An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

____________

1. Goldberg, Michelle. “Welcome to The Resistance, Omarosa” The New York Times. Tuesday, August 14, 2018. Page A21
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. Ibid

August 27,2018: End of Justice, New Urgency, In the Balance.

“This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now” our birdbrain-in-chief 'twitted' early in August, “before it continues to stain our country any further, Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to the USA!” (1)

The only thing accurate about this early morning rant by our increasingly unhinged 'president', is the opening assertion that this is a “terrible situation”, made terrible by our mobster in charge. Publicly calling upon the Attorney General to stop the wheels of justice, 'le Infante Terrible proceeded to again characterize the probe as a 'Rigged Witch Hunt'. If so, it it is hardly rigged for it has bagged a veritable coven of 'Witches' with over a score of indictments of Russian nationals, Russian organizations and a half-dozen tRUMP campaign operatives. And we haven't yet probed the depths of the racketeering and money-laundering, let alone state and federal tax evasions.

As stated before in these columns, Caesar Disgustus is a standing criterion of value—for whatever he calls someone else he is projecting his very own shortcomings upon the motives and actions of others—others by whom he feels threatened.

That the probe “continues to stain our country” is fair enough, but the source of the stain is not the investigations but the actions which the investigations are revealing and will reveal. The real stain upon this nation is not the Mueller probe it is the objects of the federal inquiry—Caesar Disgustus and this band of pirates who have taken over and are now stinking up the forum. It will take decades to remove the stench of this administration.

Mueller is not totally conflicted. Disgustus is the conflicted one and, of course, it is not Mueller's investigation that is the disgrace to this country but one Donald J. tRUMP.

That just leaves the puzzling reference to 17 angry Democrats. Why 17? It used be 12 in his rants. Why 17? The truth, of course, would be more accurately served by saying that all Democrats are angry. Millions of independents could likewise be added. Hell, one could throw in a few million Rescumlickans now troubled by his clearly criminal nature and intent. Why a mere 17?

What makes 17 such a magic number is that the 17^th letter of the alphabet is Q, a reference to a burgeoning movement called Qanon, a group of psychotic, paranoid conspiracy nuts much in the tradition of the old John Birch Society that are now making their presence felt at tRUMP rallies. And, since Disgustus sees only what is in front of his nose—and that only on very clear days—they have become the new reality in this political version of reality television.

Welcome to the madness of the king-hell rat.

Now Disgustus has taken to Faux News (2) and rants about his miscreant Attorney General recusing himself and therefore failing to protect him from the long arm of the law, failing to recognize that the Attorney General is not the president's personal attorney and is sworn to uphold the constitution and the rule of law. The A.G. Represents the people, not the president nor the office of the president. Likewise the office of the White House legal counsel. Disgustus understands none of this, imagining himself a mafia 'Don', running a far-flung syndicate.

The front-page article in The New York Times reporting on the latest presidential rant is quite right characterizing the ongoing feud with federal law enforcement as taking on “a new urgency”. The feud, now more than a year old, is indeed reaching critical mass, as Mueller has now secured convictions on 8 counts of former tRUMP campaign manager Paul Manafort as well as guilty pleas from Deputy Campaign manager Rick Gates.

As the noose tightens about the bloated throat of our bastard 'president', rumors run rampant of presidential pardons and moves to close down the investigations. Disgustus has openly mused about taking over the investigations himself and has, several times, publicly called for them to end. He has ordered the White House legal counsel to fire Mueller, but backed off when faced with resignations. Now as the latest rounds of pique hit the internet, the airwaves, and the print media the very survival of justice hangs in the balance.

Heretofore, several Rescumlickan Senators have stood firm. McConnell holding to the position that congressional protections of the investigations are unnecessary, remains literally mute, refusing to come to their defense. But the most troubling of all are the actions of other prominent members of the chamber. Grassley of Iowa—best known for the charge that passing ObamaCare would 'unplug grandmother'--chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who once held that he would not hold hearings on a new nominee to run the Justice Department now intimates that there is now time on the calendar to hold such meetings. And, let us not overlook the most spineless of them all Lindsay Graham who said this week that Sessions had clearly lost the confidence of the president and that the president should have the right to have someone running the department in whom he has confidence. Overlooking that this came from a senator who late last year said that if tRUMP moved to remove Mueller there would be “holy hell to pay”, it should be clear to even this dolt that confidence for this 'president' means confidence that his appointment would move swiftly to eviscerate the investigations into the president's behaviors. That is, to obstruct justice. But we must ask ourselves: how big can the balls be of a man whose mother named Lindsay?

With the scales held in hands such as these will justice and the rule of law survive? Everything now hangs precariously in the balance.

“'an Br'er Putin he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

_________________

1. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie; Sullivan, Eileen; and Benner, Katie. Trump's Tweet Urges Sessions to Halt Inquiry.” The New York Times. Thursday, August 2, 2018. Pages 1 and 15.
2. Benner, Katie. Fandos, Nicholas and Rogers, Katie. “President Vents At Justice Dept.; Sessions Objects.” The New York Times. Friday, August 24, 2018. Pages 1 and 14.

August 26, 2018: Like a Whorehouse, Raffish and Unsavory, House of Pancakes

“The Rescumlickans run the country like a slum lord runs a tenement house; Caesar Disgustus runs the White House like a mafia 'Don' runs a whore house.”

----from “The Quotations of Chairman Joe”

Mark Landler, writing in The New York Times, describes “A world of raffish types with unsavory connections and unethical methods”. (1) Landler isn't the first to discern more than a tinge of the Mafioso in the countenance of our Caesar Disgustus.

What inspired Landler's essay was an interview with Faux News in which Disgustus, whining about how unfairly he has been treated, discussed the plea agreements reached between his personal attorney Michael Cohen and federal prosecutors.

'“I know all about flipping” Mr. Trump told Fox News this week. “For 30, 40 years I've been watching flippers. Everything's wonderful then they get 10 years in jail and they flop on whoever next highest one is, or as high as you can go”. (2)

Disgustus then went on a rambling critique of the practice finally admitting that if he were in Cohen's shoes he could understand why he would turn state's evidence.

Landler, familiar with the precincts in which Disgustus rose, aptly described the swamp from which he evolved.

“But the president was also evoking a whole world—the outer boroughs of New York City, where he grew up—a place replete with shady businessmen and mob-linked politicians, raffish types with unscrupulous methods, unsavory connections and uncertain loyalties.”(3) Quoting Nicholas Pileggi, a chronicler of the mob, Landler attributes the 'president's' language “to the Madison Club, a Democratic Party machine in Brooklyn that helped his father, Fred Trump, win his first real estate deals in the 1930's. In those smoke-filled circles, favors were traded like cases of whiskey and loyalty mattered above all.

“Mr. Trump honed his vocabulary over decades through his association with the lawyer Roy Cohn, who besides working for Senator Joseph McCarthy also represented mafia bosses like Mr. Gotti, Tony Salerno and Carmine Galante. He also gravitated to colorful characters like Roger J. Stone Jr., the pinkie-ring-wearing political consultant [and Richard Nixon operative] and Mr. Stone's onetime partner, Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who was convicted on Tuesday of eight counts of bank and tax fraud.” (4) And, if it hadn't been for one lone holdout would have been convicted on ten more counts.

'“It's kind of a subculture that most people avoid, “ said Michael D'Antonio, one of Mr. Trump's biographers. “You cross the street to get away from people like that. Donald brings them close. He's most comfortable with them”'. (5)

So the 'president' knows all about, in the parlance of the mob, 'flipping.' So does his now personal attorney Rudy Giuliani who, when he was United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, ran an operation that was then dubbed “House of Pancakes” (6) because of the frequency with which he got lower level mob figures to finger their bosses. This is how he corralled the likes of Mafia Boss John Gotti and nearly driving the mafia out of New York.

There is much in this story that puzzles. Why would Giuliani, once a crusading foe of organized crime, now finds himself defending a man so compromised, so soiled, so greasy and now—so desperate to call into question the legitimacy of every law enforcement effort to bring him to justice, criticizing those who—under pressure—turn state's evidence?

It was immediately pointed out, in the wake of the Fox 'interview', that Disgustus was not only calling into question the legitimacy of those turning state's evidence but perhaps sending a message to Manafort and others to hold tough. Disgustus talked about how he admired Manafort for his refusal to cooperate with federal investigators, criticized Cohen for turning state's evidence comparing him to the “Rat” John Dean who turned on Richard Nixon. Here Disgustus is doing more than questioning the legitimacy of the techniques of law enforcement; he is, by praising resistance to the investigation, as well as the person and family of those who now stand convicted and who threaten further testimony, perhaps implying a possible pardon, certainly engaging in an all-too-familiar mob strategy of witness tampering.

Landler also quotes James Comey who described his meeting with Disgustus much like “the New York Mafia social clubs, an image from my days as a Manhattan federal prosecutor in the 1980's and 1990's...The Ravenite. The Palma Boys. Cafe Giardino. I couldn't shake the picture. And, looking back, it wasn't as odd or dramatic as I thought at the time. (7)

But Disgustus has done more than ape the language and the countenance of the mobster. He has imbibed in the very culture. Look again at that interview. While his critique of the practice of turning State's evidence lingers—for once again Disgustus is undermining the very institutions of law enforcement and public order in a desperate attempt to save his ass—what wasn't covered is that he added “a lot of my friends”.....

Yes, one can only imagine his 'friends'--Lewie 'the torch', 'knuckles' Magoo, Al 'the enforcer', and “Bugs” D'Angelo. And one can only imagine how many of his 'friends' have “flipped” over the years as he drew close the “bucket of deplorables” and made them his own.

The problem, of course, is that our intrepid Disgustus does not have the stomach to be a true Mafioso. While he postures as a “Don” he is, in fact, merely “The Donald”; a pale imitation of the genuine article, in much the same way that 'reality' television is a pale imitation of the genuine article. The fact is that he is not, in a word, ruthless enough. The fact is that his overweening need to be liked, if not loved, prevents him from putting heads on pikes. The result is that he is left twisting in the wind as his maladministration, damaging everything about it, spirals out of control.

Caesar Disgustus had promised to “drain the swamp” and, instead, “Swamped the Drain”. He has turned the White House into a sewer into which the underbelly of American society is now flushed, defiling the office he holds and damaging the institutions that protect this country from enemies foreign and domestic.

“An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

___________________

1. Landler, Mark. “With Mob-Tinged Vocabulary, President Evokes His Native New York”. The New York Times. Friday, August 24, 2018. Page A14
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. Ibid
5. Ibid

August 25, 2018: Trolling tRUMP, Wicked Intent, Abbreviate A Nightmare.

Perhaps Frank Bruni is right: Melania Trump, fully disgusted with Disgustus is trolling our self-anointed Caesar. Citing a turning point he labeled Melania Monday, in which “wearing a pussy bow, (she) publicly chided cyberbullies at the same time her husband ranted and raged on Twitter, likening Robert Mueller to Joseph McCarthy and demonstrating a grasp of history commensurate with his grip on civility.” (1)

Noting that the reluctant First Lady, besides not sharing a bedroom nor hotel accommodations while on trips, has heretofore been distant—some say near invisible. Let's face it, Bruni reminds us, the job is a national embarrassment. “It's a ludicrous job. You're supposed to make a difference without making waves, find a passion while veiling your convictions and smile blithely through ceaseless forensic examinations of your every accessory.

“It's infantilizing. It's objectifying” (2) Bruni continues, and how the more accurate. It reminds one of the Royals, “heads of state” legally restricted from making any statements upon any subjects whatever of national importance, bobbing heads, waving arms, blithely smiling with vacant faces into faceless crowds. How fitting for our monarch in residence.

But Melania has had enough of it. Forsaking the marriage bed, she has left Disgustus alone with his cheeseburger and the company of Faux News. One can only imagine the depths of depravity. The First Lady has a higher calling and that, Bruni suggests, is trolling her husband. In addition to her pointed remarks on cyberbullying, she has announced a trip (without Disgustus) to Africa a continent, Bruni reminds us, “whose nations the president can't pronounce, let alone respect. She didn't choose that destination randomly, throwing a dart at a map. She chose it defiantly, throwing shade at her husband.” (3)

“We'll admire the wickedness of her announcement”...Bruni writes, coming as it does on the heels of other acts of defiance. When Disgustus went after LaBron James, Melania came to his defense suggesting that she is interested in visiting his Ohio school for disadvantaged children so that she could see for herself the good work done there.

There have been other furtive gestures. Wearing a white pants suite to his first State of the Union address, invoking Hillary Clinton; even causing a storm on Air Force One when Caesar discovered his wife watching CNN instead of true believer Sean Hannity. Not since Adam discovered Eve in the throes of orgasm with that snake...oh well, never mind. She's even used the words 'global community'.

What's important here, Bruni reminds us, is that as our Caesar Disgustus “teeters at the precipice of incoherence and self-destruction, needing only a shove (.) (W)ho best to administer it but a spouse with her own, separate bedroom in the White House...

“She inches ever closer to open contempt for him. She finds increasingly clever ways to show it. And its a perfect wedding of patriotism and payback for all the humiliations that he has heaped on her. (4)

With one not-so-gentle nudge, Melania could shove our 'unhinged' Caesar over the precipice and, concludes Bruni, “abbreviate a nightmare”. It cannot happen soon enough.

“An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

___________________________

1. Bruni, Frank. “Melania Trump's Call To Greatness” The New York Times. Wednesday, August 22, 2018. Page A19
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. Ibid

August 24, 2018: Hogwash, Ways of the Gumshoe, Manipulation And Attack.

Former Director of Central Intelligence, John O. Brennan, published a column in The New York Times aptly titled “Trump's Claims Are Hogwash”. Brennan, in position to know the ways of the 'gumshoe', put the chicanery in context:

“Before, during and after its meddling in our last presidential election,” wrote the former C.I.A. Chief, “Russia shaped political events abroad through its active measures program, which employs an array of technical capabilities, information operations and human intelligence spycraft. Electoral politics in Western democracies present an inviting target, as politicians, political parties, media outlets, think tanks and influencers are readily manipulated, wittingly or unwittingly, or even bought outright by Russian operatives....

“Having worked with the F.B.I. For years on counterintelligence investigations, I was well aware of Russia's ability to work surreptitiously within the United States, cultivating relationships with individuals who wield actual or potential power. .. (W)ell trained in the art of deception. They troll political, business and cultural waters in search of gullible or unprincipled individuals who become pliant in the hands of their Russian puppet masters. Too often those puppets are found.

“In my many conversations with James Comey, the F.B.I. Director, in the summer of 2016, we talked about the potential for American citizens, involved in politics or not, to be Russian pawns. We knew that Russian intelligence services would do all they could to achieve their objectives, which the United States intelligence community publicly assessed a few short months later were to undermine public faith in the American democratic process, harm the electability of Hillary Clinton, and show preference for Mr. Trump. We also assessed that Mr. Putin's intelligence services were following his orders. Director Comey and I, along with the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael Rogers, pledged that our agencies would share, as appropriate, whatever information was collected...

“Mr. Trump's claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash.” (1)

Brennan was in a position to know. Citing the myriad contacts and alluding to the personalities involved, Brennan laid out his suspicions—including tRUMP's direct call to the Rooskies to purloin those “thirty thousand missing emails”, (a directive, it has been pointed out, that the Russians acted upon immediately). While couching his accusations with the usual caution that “(T)he only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of 'Trump Incorporated' attempted to defraud the government by concealing the movement of money into their pockets.” (2) Brennan is here being the usually cautious intelligence operative, for Gates and Flynn have already plead guilty to conspiracy against the United States. But what stands out here is not only the flat assertion of 'collusion' which is another word for conspiracy if not—in the context of working with a hostile foreign power—sedition, but that he invoke the mafia-tinged reference to 'Trump Incorporated'.

Disgustus retaliated by revoking the Director's security clearance. He did this, Brennan asserts, to direct attention from the Mueller investigation, to create new narratives to replace—however temporarily—the ongoing narrative of deeply disloyal and unpatriotic behaviors. This much is true, but the revocation of Mr. Brennan's credentials had been in the works for weeks, for Brennan has been a harsh critic of this bastard presidency, even to the point of using the word 'treasonous'. Disgustus would have done it sooner, but what tipped the scales were the release of tapes by former White House adviser Omarosa Manigualt Newman, and the personal attorney to Caesar Disgustus Michael Cohen, both or whom have been dominating the news cycles.

Meanwhile it was announced at a White House press briefing that a list—an 'enemies list' of sorts—including former F.B.I. Director Comey, and other heads and functionaries of intelligence and law enforcement agencies had been drawn up to similarly receive punishment. Such punishments will be meted out not by some criteria like national security but, it was announced, whenever Disgustus needs to change the subject and take command of news cycles—as in the latest revelations by his former aides. In any case, like Nixon, Caesar Disgustus using his office to punish 'enemies', real or imagined but, unlike Nixon, is seriously damaging the “institutional memory” of our law enforcement and intelligence communities making this country even more vulnerable to manipulation and attack.

“an' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

_____________________

1. Brennan, John O. “Trump's Claims Are Hogwash” The New York Times. Friday, August 17, 2018: Page A25
2. Ibid.

August 23, 2018: Fight of Our Lives, Heads They Win, Tails we Lose.

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor and professor at both Harvard and Berkley, posted this comment on Facebook yesterday.  It is an ominous and, I think, an entirely accurate scenario should this country actually summon the courage to remove this swine from office.  Here is the professor's observation in its entirety:

"Will Trump survive? Many of the "insiders" I talk with are convinced that Cohen’s virtual naming of Trump as an criminal co-conspirator, combined with other bombshells Cohen can set off, and Mueller’s likely findings of Trump's collusion with the Russians, his longstanding business fraud, and obstruction of justice, will spell the end. Democrats will take back the House, begin an impeachment, pile up overwhelming evidence of impeachable offenses, and put enough pressure on Republican senators to convict him and send him packing.

I think this is way too optimistic. No president in history has been convicted by the Senate of impeachment. Besides, whatever happens in the House, Republicans will almost certainly remain in control of the Senate after November, and so far they’ve displayed the integrity of lizards. Fox News and the rest of the right-wing sleaze media will continue to distort and cover up – convincing 35 to 40 percent of America that Trump is the victim.

And Trump himself will never voluntarily resign. He’ll lie and claim a conspiracy to unseat him. Most Americans already knew he's a crook and a liar. After all, he’s spent his whole career engineering scams and riding above the law. But he's a superb conman, an entertainer-demagogue capable of sowing so much confusion and hate that he's already survived outrages that would have sunk a normally loathsome president -- Charlottesville, Helsinki, firings and coverups, racist rants.

We'll be lucky if he loses in 2020. And even if he loses, we’ll be fortunate if he concedes without being literally carried out of the Oval Office amid the stirrings of civil insurgency.

Bottom line: All of us who care about this nation and the world will continue to be in the fight of our lives."

The Secretary is quite right about this.  Following instructions from his Russian benefactors in the final days of the 2016 campaign, Caesar Disgustus told the nation that he would respect the election results only if he won.  Clearly the scum was prepared, had he lost the contest, to embark upon a national tour crying and whining that the election had been rigged and the office--so rightfully his--would have been stolen from him.  After all, let it never be forgotten, he has risen to national prominence on the back of the most egregious lie ever perpetrated upon the American People.  The lie that the President of the United States, a man duly elected by clear majorities twice (the first Democrat since Lyndon Johnson to get over 50 per cent of the vote and the first since FDR to do it more than once)  was not an American citizen, but a man born in Kenya.

Putin understood how useful his idiot would be, for he saw in Caesar Disgustus a potent weapon that had already clearly demonstrated that he could effectively call into question the legitimacy of a president and his administration.  So good is tRUMP at these stratagems that he, in fact, called into question the legitimacy of the returns even though he had won!   Yes, our intrepid Russian Agent has been a very useful Idiot in the service of Russian national interests. Heads they win, tails we lose.

"an' Br'er Putin he jus' laugh and laugh"

Impeach and Imprison. 

August 22, 2018: Franken on Kavanaugh, Pertinent Questions, Full and Fair Understanding.

Former Senator Al Franken posted a piece on Facebook today that strikes at the heart of the Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court.  I am here reprinting it in its entirety:

"When Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators will have an opportunity to examine his record, his judicial philosophy, and his qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

I wish I could be there. Because I have some questions I’d love to see him answer.

1. Judge Kavanaugh, welcome. I’d like to start with a series of yes or no questions. The first one is a gimme. Do you think it’s proper for judges to make determinations based on their ideological preconceptions or their personal biases?

He’ll say no, of course.

2. Good. Would you agree that judges should make determinations based on their understanding of the facts?

3. And would you agree that it’s important for a judge to obtain a full and fair understanding of the facts before making a determination?

This is all pretty standard stuff. Then, however, I’d turn to an issue that’s received a bit of attention—but not nearly enough.

4. When you were introduced by President Trump, you spoke to the American people for the very first time as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That is a very important moment in this process, wouldn’t you agree?

5. And one of the very first things that came out of your mouth as a nominee for the Supreme Court was the following assertion: “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Did I quote you correctly?

This claim, of course, was not just false, but ridiculous. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake (a Minnesota native) called it “a thoroughly inauspicious way to begin your application to the nation’s highest court, where you will be deciding the merits of the country’s most important legal and factual claims.”

It would be only fair to give Kavanaugh a chance to retract that weirdly specific bit of bullshit.

6. Do you stand by those words today? Yes or no?

If he says that he doesn’t, I’d skip down to Question 22. But, if he won’t take it back, I’d want to pin him down.

7. I just want to be clear. You are under oath today, correct?

8. So, today, you are telling the American people—under oath—that it is your determination that “[n]o president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

9. And that determination—it wouldn’t be based on your ideological preconceptions, would it?

10. And it’s not based on any personal bias, is it?

11. No, of course not. That would be improper. Instead, it is based on your understanding of the facts, right?

12. Was it a “full and fair” understanding of the facts?

Again, if he decided here to fold his hand and admit that he was full of it, I’d skip down to Question 22. But if not, I’d continue with…

13. Great. Judge Kavanaugh, are you aware that there have been 162 nominations to the Supreme Court over the past 229 years?

14. And do you have a full and fair understanding of the circumstances surrounding each nomination?

Of course he doesn’t.

15. Of course you don’t. So, in actuality, your statement at that press conference did not reflect a full and fair understanding of the facts—isn’t that right?

16. This was one of the very first public statements you made to the American people as a nominee for the Supreme Court. A factual assertion you have repeated here under oath. And it did not meet your standard for how a judge should make determinations about issues of national importance.

17. Let me ask you about some widely-reported facts. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump selected you from a list of 25 jurists provided by the conservative Federalist Society?

18. Are you aware of any other case in which a President has selected a nominee from a list provided to him by a partisan advocacy group?

19. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump spent just two weeks mulling over his selection—whereas, for example, President Obama spent roughly a month before making each of his two Supreme Court nominations?

20. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of any facts that support your assertion that—and I’ll quote it again—“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

21. And yet, you still believe that your assertion was based on a full and fair understanding of the facts?

Then I’d try to sum it up.

22. Judge Kavanaugh, do you believe that intellectual honesty and a scrupulous adherence to the facts are important characteristics in a Supreme Court Justice?

23: And would you say that you displayed those characteristics to your own satisfaction when you made in your very first public remarks (and reiterated here today under oath) your assertion that, “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

By the way: Once I had him pinned down on his ridiculous lie, I’d ask where it came from.

24: Let me ask you about something else. Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, have any input on your remarks at that press conference?

25: Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, instruct, ask, or suggest that you make that assertion?

I know this might seem like a long chase. Senators have a lot of ground they want to cover in these hearings: health care, choice, net neutrality, and a long list of incredibly important issues on which Kavanaugh has been, and would continue to be, terrible. After all, he was chosen through a shoddy, disgraceful process overseen by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

And, of course, Kavanaugh is a smart guy. He and his team no doubt know that his easily provable lie is a potential problem, and I’m sure they’re workshopping answers at this very moment.

But pinning him down on this is important, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it was exactly the kind of lie that has been plaguing our discourse for a generation, the kind that has become prevalent under the Trump administration. It’s just a totally made-up assertion that is exactly the opposite of the truth, flowing out of the mouth of a committed partisan who doesn’t care that it’s false. And if you’re sick of people doing that and getting away with it, at some point someone is going to have to start using a prominent stage to bust these lies. If they go unchallenged, then why would any of these guys stop lying, ever?

More to the point: This episode is a perfect illustration of what the conservative movement has been doing to the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process specifically, and the judicial system generally, for a generation now.

In theory, judges are supposed to be above partisan politics. They don’t make law, they interpret it. They don’t create the strike zone, they just call balls and strikes. You know the routine.

The truth is, for the last generation, conservatives have politicized the Court, and the courts. Kavanaugh is the very model of a young, arch-conservative judge who has been groomed for moments like this one precisely because conservative activists know that he will issue expansive, activist rulings to further their agenda. He has spent his whole career carefully cultivating a reputation as a serious and thoughtful legal scholar—but he wouldn’t have been on that list if he weren’t committed to the right-wing cause.

That’s why it’s critical to recognize that the very first thing he did as a Supreme Court nominee was to parrot a false, partisan talking point. Of course that’s what he did. Advancing the goals of the Republican Party and the conservative movement is what he’s there to do.

When the Kavanaugh nomination was announced, I saw a lot of statements from Senators saying they looked forward to carefully evaluating his credentials and asking him questions about his judicial philosophy. But anyone who ignores the obvious fact that this nomination, and the judicial nomination process in general, has become a partisan exercise for Republicans is just playing along with the farce.

Instead, we ought to be having a real conversation about what conservatives have done to the principle of judicial independence—and what progressives can do to correct it. I can think of no better example of the problem than Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and the bizarre lie he uttered moments after it was made official. And I can think of no better opportunity to start turning the tide than Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing—even if it means going down a rabbit hole for a few uncomfortable minutes."

Tell me again Chuck Schumer; tell me again Kristen Gullibrand: tell me again Claire McCaskill: Tell me again Debbie Stabenow: Tell me again Gary Peters; tell me again Dick Durbin and all you other spineless Democrats how the cause of decency was advanced by forcing this man from the Senate.  And where, incidentally, is the voice of the woman who took his place?

But that's the damn Democrats, always forming circular firing squads.

"an Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh"

Impeach and Imprison. 

August 21, 2018: Only Two Applications

"When Michael Cohen applied to law school he submitted only two applications.  The first to Kellogg's and the second to Post.  Kellogg's rejected him."
                          ---- from "The Quotations of Chairman Joe"

August 6, 2018: What Kind of Man? Usual Canards, Revenge of the Cheesburger

What kind of man throws his own son under the bus in an attempt to save himself?  Answer: only our very own Caesar Disgustus.

Not since Jacob put his son under the knife in service to a vengeful god have we witnessed such a breach of fealty.  In this case the base gods of greed and ambition have so unhinged our intrepid 'leader' that he readily, even flippantly, sacrifices his own.

In a 'tweet' today the birdbrain in chief, following his usual canards about "fake News" and the "witch hunt" protested his innocence by telling the world that of course the meeting at tRUMP Tower was about getting aid (in the form of stolen emails) from a hostile foreign power and that his 'wonderful son' Donny Jr had arranged the liaison for such a purpose.  Indeed in emails between Junior and his Russian contacts the Russians made clear their support of the campaign.  Not only did Disgustus inadvertently confess the real purpose of the meeting and the collusion but fingered his own son as the principle responsible.

Oh, in case of doubt, he ended his missive by protesting that he knew nothing about it.

No one and nothing stands above Donald John Trump when our misbegotten 'leader' sits upon the throne in the wee hours of the morning struggling to move the presidential bowels.  This is what happens when one is not only a disgusting narcissist but one who sleeps with cheeseburgers.  The burgers always work their revenge.  

August 1, 2018: Saxon Mother's Son, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Unfit to Serve

“The All-American, bullet-headed, Saxon mother's son”

                     ----The Beatles "Bungalow Bill"

So one can describe one Gerald Rudolph Ford. Ford, who parlayed local celebrity as a jock into several terms in the United States House of Representatives, eventually rising to minority leadership, was moved to quip as Jonathan Turley, professor of public interest law at George Washington University, notes that “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in history”. (1) Writing in The Washington Post in August of 2014 Turley added parenthetically, “This interpretation was, not surprisingly, part of a frivolous effort to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, whom Ford denounced for espousing “liberal opinions,” for defending the “filthy” Swedish film “I Am Curious (Yellow)” and for writing a magazine article that “praises the lusty, lurid, and risque along with the social protest of left-wing folk singers.” (2)

Giving as he did solace to those who were ardent to impeach Supreme Court Justices,  groups such as the John Birch Society, who campaigned to impeac Chief Justice Earl Warren for decisions ending school segregation, ruling that congressional districts had to be drawn so as to have as equal populations as possible (one- man-one-vote), and that police and prosecutors could not convict if they violate a defendant's rights of substantive and procedural due process (Miranda decision); the man, who in the words of Lyndon Johnson, couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time did, however, stumble upon a basic truth.

For it is a myth that the iniquities of power must reach the high bar of felonious assault upon the republic before the palliative of impeachment can be applied.

No, Virginia, there is no Santa Clause; and yes Virginia the president can be impeached “For Being Ye Publick Ass”.

“Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said, "...impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.”' (2)

“It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor", "maladministration", or "other crime". Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave". Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved "...for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official from office for subjective reasons entirely.

“ Alexander Hamilton said, "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."' (3)

Indeed the first federal official impeached and convicted was John Pickering, a federal Judge for “obnoxious behavior” arising from chronic intoxication.

“"High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes. The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them... (4)

It was from the English legal tradition that we borrowed the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors”, and here the example is telling:

“Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.”(5) Indeed, Nixon was impeached for, among other things, not spending money allocated by Congress. By these standards we can now add appointing unfit subordinates to the growing list of impeachable offenses.

No, Virginia, there is no Santa Clause; and yes Virginia the president can be impeached “For Being Ye Publick Ass”, among many more transgressions.

“An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

____________________

(1). Turley, Jonathan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-impeachment/2014/08/01/

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid
5. Ibid.