Quid Pro Quo

Josh Marshall's analysis of the "transcript" is very good. There's a key point that I hadn't noticed in other reports.  First, he notes that Bill Barr was hip deep in this.  Second, Trump presses a bunch of conspiracy theories. Third, there's the issue of firing the ambassador to Ukraine.

Fourth and most importantly, Marshall points to about as close an example of quid pro quo as you can get without the Latin:

Zelensky: "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javellin (missiles) from the United States for defense purposes."
Trump: "I would like you to do us a favor though..." he then goes on to talk about helping with his campaign and the Mueller Report, which had been the focal point of the previous day in DC.

In other words, Trump pivoted immediately from Zelensky's request for the military funds that he knows he has been promised and that Trump has withheld to a request for help with the server and some other issues.

Paired with Trump's refusal to release the funds appropriated by Congress...it's pretty damned clear that he is making those funds contingent on Zelensky helping his re-election campaign.

As Jon Chait shows, it's the context.

The Muddled Middle

This is a great analysis of what constitutes "moderate," "independent," and "undecided" voters.  They aren't a unified bloc, but they SHOULD lean Democratic.  While the author's point is that you can't really predict this group, because they are ideologically all over the map, the greatest number rest in the socially and economically "liberal" quadrant.  It's also interesting that the "pro-immigration"/"pro-markets" quadrant is basically empty.  That's the traditional Wall Street Republican position.  Trump ran as "anti-immigrant"/"pro-equality" candidate, saying he would expand health care and drain the swamp.  He's governed as an "anti-immigrant"/"pro-market" populist, but it's unclear that there are enough votes there.

Rudes

Rudy Giuliani being the one to rid us of Trump through his sheer incompetence would be so very, very sweet.

This Is Bonkers

Britain has no written constitution in the sense the US and other countries do, so judicial review has been pretty spotty. How do you declare an act of Parliament unconstitutional when there's no real constitution to compare it to?

So, today's ruling is an unbelievable step. Johnson has now been rejected by the courts, members of his own party and still has no plan for Brexit.  (Labour is scarcely more coherent, so it's not like he's under an immediate threat.)

Really the only solution is to have another referendum with a "No-Deal Brexit" vs No Brexit, because it certainly seems like those are the only two things that can result from all this.  The Leave campaign made a bunch of promises that turned out to be lies, and now all of that is coming home to roost.

Our Failed Media Experiment

If the Ukraine Scandal succeeds in destroying Trump, Ken Vogel will be the anti-Woodward and Bernstein. While some outlets like the Post have done a decent job of covering Trump, cable news and the NY Times have basically been hacked into becoming even hackier than they were before.

As many have noted, Trump's malfeasance in Ukraine is more or less out in the open.  He's admitted to much of what he's accused of.  But the media's inability to explain and focus on any one thing means that it gets lost in the blizzard of bullshit that emanates from the White House.  That's why I think there has to be a tape for this to really destroy him.  There has to be something that even the NY Times can't screw up.

How To Proceed...

Nancy Pelosi is not going to get out ahead of her caucus on impeachment. My guess is that she doesn't have a critical mass of Democrats in the House on board with impeachment. So, if you want Trump impeached, call you House member. 

Once that happens, Martin Longman has a nice roadmap of how to proceed.

Not Supremely Confident

Will the Ukraine Scandal be the thing that sinks Trump?  I'm not seeing it yet.  First of all, we don't know precisely what Trump said to the Ukrainian government.  Best guess is that he threatened to hold up aid payments until they dug up dirt on Hunter Biden.  If the whistleblower has some sort of tape, and on the tape is the President threatening aid payments and perhaps telling them to manufacture evidence...OK, now we are talking rank criminality.

The reality is more likely that we don't have a tape and that Trump violated campaign laws by asking a foreign government for help with his campaign. As we have seen, his cultists will excuse anything, so the GOP - which is terrified of his mouth breathing supporters - will not break with him over the arcana of campaign finance law.  (It is worth remembering that campaign law violations were at the heart of Watergate, and much of our current laws were in response to this.)

And of course, sadly, we will be dependent on the news media to report on what's really happening and so far, so bad. If there is one thing the NY Times has shown since 2015 is an absolute complete lack of perspective when it comes to violations by Trump as opposed to Democrats.  Most mainstream politicians push against the various rules that govern their behavior.  Trump shreds them with a chainsaw, burns the tattered remnants and then pees on the ashes. 

Because so much of this Ukraine scandal actually played out in the public domain this summer (Which is why I predicted it. Did I tell you I predicted it?  I predicted it.), Trump and the World's Worst Lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, have basically taken the tack of "How can it be a crime if it was so obvious what we did?"  Calling on Ukraine to tackle corruption before aid payments were to be released is completely legitimate.  So, again, unless there's a transcript or tape of him specifically targeting Biden (and there might be), then there is enough wiggle room for the GOP to excuse his behavior.  Again.

Giuliani - again, the World's Worst Lawyer - is now on record saying that Trump did not talk about a quid pro quo between the military aid and targeting Hunter Biden.  Given his previous performance, it seems now almost inevitable that there was a quid pro quo.  However, even this transparent lawlessness is unlikely to make a difference to the GOP.  They will simply say it's politics as usual.  Who WOULDN'T want dirt on their opponent, laws be damned.

Of course, Twitteramus Impatientica is demanding that Trump be impeached yesterday, despite our not having a clear idea of what was said or whether there was a tape.  This thread is a succinct corrective to the IMPEACH YESTERDAY crowd.  The simple fact that one of our political parties has embraced lawlessness means that we will not be unable to remove him from office before January 2021.  The variation of Murc's Law that suggests that Democrats have some sort of superpowers that they aren't using is damaging to people's understanding of the reality of the situation. 

The House has enough information right now to proceed with some articles of impeachment.  They could refer them to the Senate by Thanksgiving.  By Valentine's Day, Trump will be acquitted in the Senate.  Then what?  Probably by then, there will be new evidence of more wrong doing.  Impeach him again? You can, but most neutral people will see this as political grandstanding. The best plan is to drag the investigations into the winter and collect all the various threads of his lawlessness and dump them on the Senate in the spring.  Make Trump's corruption the theme of the 2020 election.  To a certain degree, Biden and Warren are already making this their general election focus.  (Warren is saying this goes beyond Trump, which is a better message that Biden who focuses on Trump's unique terribleness.)

As the Twitter thread above shows, a bunch of people who usually think they have some control over things are discovering that they can't get exactly what they want, when they want it.  DoorDash or UberEats can deliver any food to your door, while you stream whatever show you want exactly when you want to see it. But the political world doesn't work that way.

I wish I could say that there was a way to hold Trump accountable for his lawlessness and rampant obstruction of justice, but I'm struggling to find it.

Called It!

About an hour before a leak established that the foreign leader that Trump made an inappropriate request of was Ukraine, I called it on Twitter.

This means I get my own cable show.

I don't make the rules....

Good Thread

This is a great Twitter thread about the strident, desperate cries to "do something."

Most people simply aren't caring about Trump's violation of political norms.  They don't live and die by the news feed. There's a horse loose in the hospital, and they simply don't want to deal with it. This is why impeachment polls badly: most people simply don't care.  But most people want the horse out of the hospital.

The wailing about the timeline for getting the horse out of the hospital is largely a by-product of the closeness you feel towards the hospital and the amount of time you spend following the story.

Is This A Big Deal?

Every week, Donald Trump does or says something that should end his ability to function as President of the United States.  He engages in naked corruption, he uses inflammatory rhetoric, he divides the country, instead of uniting it, he is an objectively awful human being.

So, everytime a new revelation crests our horizon, we should take it with a grain of salt, if we are waiting for the thing that finally "gets him."

However, this seems like a Big Deal. Trump made a promise to a foreign leader, the Inspector General deemed this worthy of Congressional oversight, the Trump Administration is obstructing that legal requirement.  If it's something routinely horrifying, like Trump telling the Saudis he won't do anything about the assassination of Khashoggi, then it's probably just another log on the bonfire. But what if it's Putin?  Or Kim Jong Un? About something touching on state security?  The fact that they are violating the requirements of the whistle-blower law suggests that this is not some intemperate promise to Teresa May, but rather something truly troubling.  The IG agrees with the whistleblower.

But in 2019, it's so damned hard to believe anything will cause the Republicans to rebel against Trump.

Who Is The Constituency?

The Trump Administration is currently pursuing two policies that make very little sense.

First, they are going to hire out the US military to support Saudi Arabia, because....?

Second, they are going to actively work to make the climate worse.

Which Americans are served by this?  Does the military want to get involved in another war in the Middle East?  Are American troops eager to return to that theater?

And who is served by interfering with California emissions rules? Car makers don't want it.  California doesn't want it.  It has zero effect on other states really.  I suppose it helps gas companies, because cars might get worse gas mileage.  But will car makers really go all-in on making gas guzzlers when all the global trends are going the other direction and any Democratic administration will reverse this ruling.

Who are they working for?

What is the goal here?

Crises

I think about this a lot. The amazing thing about Trumpistan is that, so far, we haven't had a true crisis that will require a competent, cogent response from our government. Trump and the GOP have hollowed out much of the federal bureaucracy, especially at the policy level. The State department has been gutted, much of the financial policy team is filled with cranks and ideologues and national security is basically meatsack Mike Pompeo.

Staring at a potential war in the Gulf and/or a recession is scary for this reason.  Dubya was largely incompetent, but he had a Treasury Secretary in 2008 who wasn't a complete idiot. I guess Mnuchin isn't the WORST person in the executive, but....c'mon.

War Drums

A few things are likely simultaneously true:
- The attacks on the Saudi oil facility were likely carried out by Houthi rebels in Yemen.
- Iran likely supplied them with the weapons and possibly trained them how to use them, possibly even suggesting targets.
- Saudi Arabia has sponsored a vicious war against the Houthi.
- Iran is using the Houthi to strike at Saudi Arabia.

The ouster of John Bolton is a good thing for the coming weeks.  We have no coherent Middle East policy - Thanks, Jared! - and if Netanyahu wins re-election, that could drag the entire region closer to all-out war.

Iran is a bad actor.  Saudi Arabia is a bad actor. People who assume Saudi Arabia is our friend are the same sort of people who think their pot dealer is their buddy or that the stripper really likes them.  Because we are led by a blustering manchild, any one of the regional actors could think that he is easily manipulated, which he is, but that could lead to terrible miscalculations.

The amazing thing about the Trump Administration so far has been simultaneously its ability to shoot itself in the foot repeatedly, yet also not have to react to a truly global crisis.  Puerto Rico might be as close as we've come, but so far, Trump has only stepped on his own rakes.  He has yet to have the garden shed fall on top of him.  That could change soon.

Exactly Who They Thought They Were

Yesterday's report in the Times that the second person to allege that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted/harassed her - Deborah Ramirez - was not only credible by had corroborating witnesses that weren't interviewed by the FBI because the White House stopped it is among the least surprising reporting that is nevertheless a bombshell that I can recall.

Of course Brett Kavanaugh was a drunken, spoiled, abusive coil of shit.  Weren't we all watching?  His seething contempt for the women he assaulted was pretty much on display for the world to see.  By the way, his finances also don't add up, but I doubt we will know why any time soon.

Mitch McConnell's refusal to allow for Merrick Garland's hearings, combined with pushing through Kavanaugh might be exactly what the Democrats need in order to pack the Court.  There is no way that Gorsuch or Kavanaugh can be seen as legitimate neutral arbiters of the law. 

Oh, and Twitter? Impeaching Kavanaugh is well and good, but you aren't going to remove him from the Senate, so what good will it do?

Who Is Up For Grabs?

This piece by Dana Milbank makes a good, but tricky, point.  Trump is a racist, but calling him that explicitly might backfire against Democrats among persuadable voters.  Similarly, ignoring his racism might depress turnout among Democratic faithful.  Milbank goes on to note that there are ways of talking about Trump's racism that work better than just using the term racist.  There is good evidence that using the word racist can backfire and shut down important conversations.  Once racism is on the table, there's no progress.

A few caveats though.  Are there really persuadable voters who react negatively to calling Trump a racist?  Possibly, there are some of the Obama/Trump WWC voters who can be turned back.  My guess is those voters like Biden.  OK, Republicans reject the idea that the Confederacy was racist.  Who gives a fuck?  If you can't see that the Stars and Bars is a racist symbol, then you need to change.  You need to be educated that it is.  Of course, simply calling someone racist, again, stops the educative process.

I do think Milbank is on to something when he talks about framing Trump's actions as fundamentally Unamerican.  That fits into a broader frame: immigration is American; standing up to dictators is American; good government is American.  Trump is corrupt and he is racist, but it might work better in a different frame.