TWGB: Is This a Good Look?

Great night with the President. Republicans are united! pic.twitter.com/Ea60bt1EWM

— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) October 30, 2019

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy seems to believe that presenting a united front as a party is of more benefit to him than taking a strong interest in the impeachment process is. This is reasonable--I remember a handful of years back when the Freedom Caucus had so little use for him that they'd rather Paul Ryan be Speaker when John Boehner stepped down. They didn't even especially want him after Paul Ryan stepped down. So I reckon keeping tight with Trump keeps his fractious minority in some kind of unity--although that's kind of like teaming up with Manson to get your Gacys in a row. I mean--Trump is not what we'd call a mollifying influence on the Republican party's excesses. That's something to keep in mind when Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggests that Trump might shut down the government over the impeachment inquiry.

There's a reason the founders put the power of impeachment in the hands of congress, and then left process pretty much alone. Not to play at reading minds, but the powers vested in a unitary executive without oversight--without a check, leads to a destructive imbalance. Thus, the powers of government lie in separate branches with distinct powers to act as a check on a corrupting absolute power. They might have written extensively on this sort of thing, as it happens. Does that mean President Trump can't take his very good friends to dinner? Probably not. But does that mean his very good friends should think about the propriety of that image when they are determining whether he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors when a serious deliberation of that question is ongoing? On the off-chance it politically backfires as new details come out, or establishes House GOP members as less than independent representatives of their constituents' interests and more the subjects and cronies/lackeys of a makeshift majesty? And if Trump endangers the livelihood of any member's constituents in a petty flail against the due process he is getting while mostly being sad at being held accountable to the public he is supposed to serve--how does that make them look?

In other words--is this a good look for you, Kev? Or for your unmanageable caucus of coots--your Gym Jordan, your Matt Gaetz, your Ted Bleeding Yoho--eligible to attend depositions but refraining because the big words bore him, your Mark Amodei-incapable of finding extortion and solicitation of bribery in black and white, or even consider them wrong if they hypothetically happened.

What fine, principled motherfuckers McCarthy is leading! Loyal to their capo, dedicated to crimes. A great and amazing look for you, certainly. Do go on.

In the meanwhile, right-wing media covered itself over in less-than-glory in trying to smear Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman as I guess a Ukrainian double agent? This was so gross in aftermath that John Yoo, torture apologist and all-around unitary executive enthusiast, tried to walk this shit back. Yeah bruv, but we got you on the digitals. Smearing soldiers, like outing whistleblowers (one of Devin Nunes' friends is on that tip and House GOP tried to get the whistleblowers' name out of Vindman, but he says he doesn't know) or CIA agents is basically long been a part of the GOP deal, but--hmm! Still not a good look.

So what did Vindman say that was fucking them up today? Well, he indicated that the Bidens were a huge part of Ukrainian discussion despite denials of that by other senior officials and that yes, indeed, it was noted as being problematic. And if Perry or Sondland wanted to say this wasn't the case, they were straight-up lying. Also, Vindman was a first-hand recorder of the July 25th call and realized there were issues, and he explains that the White House-issued call summary is missing some valuable details that hammered home the quid pro quo aspects and indicate that Trump believed there was a tape of Biden pressuring someone.

This sounds to me like we would all really benefit from a full readout of the call. You know, in the name of transparency, which we are all supposedly about, right? Anyway, something about what Vindman recalled seems to have Sondland wondering if he understood what he was saying just right. It's amazing what things do look like when there is, uh, negative corroboration?

In the meantime, while we consider these bombshell-like things, let's also not forget that Trump's sloppy legal team is also paid in some sloppy interconnected ways with all kinds of folks. Keeping in mind Trump's weird Turkey phone call that precipitated some much movement in Syria, it is interesting to know that Trump was casting about for deliverables for Turkey's Erdogan. (I am warming up to this word-"deliverables". It has been used in connotation with Trump before.)

Let's also keep on the TWGB* back-burner the weird fate of former NSA Flynn, whose formerly great plea-deal has now devolved into a game of "I lied in my plea, so cut me a better one." I just...I mean....I am not a lawyer, but, is that even a thing? Or is the Flynn defense now suffering from what has been called Flynn facts? Also, consider the attempts of Giuliani et als in trying to put the 2016 election hacking on Ukraine--is this an attempt to clear Manafort in the public view enough to justify pardoning him for the favor of staying shtum? (I don't know, Ukraine is just a hinky-ass world to me.)

Is any of this a good look? We will probably have a better view once public hearings have started--want to bet?

(*"TrumpWorld Grab-Bag". I am doing a whole series and have collected the set here.)