Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Monday, June 12, 2017

Firing Mueller: How to respond

Yesterday, I said that the Republican psy-op specialists would begin their campaign against Mueller "any day now." It began that very afternoon. By this afternoon, we heard reliable reports that Trump is likely to fire the special counsel.

I can't write fast enough to keep up with events. Who knows what will happen by the time I hit "publish"?

Adam Schiff has responded by saying that Congress will quickly reinstate Mueller as a Special Prosecutor. That can't happen without Republican acquiescence. Where's the evidence that any GOP members of Congress will do the right thing? Schiff is having a wonderful dream -- and if Inception tech were real, I'd love to join him in his dreamworld. Alas, you and I are stuck with reality.

If you visit the big Democratic sites, you'll hear a lot of brave whistling in the dark. The truth is, Trump can do this and will do this -- and he'll get away with it. Many have spent this day recounting the tale of the firing of Archibald Cox -- an event which took place in a different political universe. In this universe, the Republicans control Congress, and they care much more about money and libertarian ideology than about honesty, democracy, morality or appearances.

For a typical mainstream response, check out Andrew Prokop of Vox:
But no matter the pretext, the firing of Mueller — who was appointed by Trump’s own hand-picked deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein less than a month ago — would have seismic implications. It would essentially be a declaration by President Trump that he is willing to fire anyone who dares to investigate him or people close to him. And it would make very clear that he is terrified about just what Mueller might have uncovered.
Putin would never have allowed an honest investigation of the apartment bombings that cemented his hold on power. And he got away with it. What can stop Trump from doing likewise?
It would also mean Republicans in Congress would have to face a choice: are they willing to defy the president and pass legislation to ensure that the Russia scandal is investigated and the rule of law is protected in America?

Or will they choose to become knowing participants what would then unmistakably be a presidential cover-up?
They will aid and abet the cover-up. Those who are insufficiently compelled by ideology are motivated by either pay-offs or kompromat. Remember what former NSA man Russell Tice said about the blackmail material collected by No Such Agency:
Okay. They went after–and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things–they went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the–and judicial. But they went after other ones, too. They went after lawyers and law firms. All kinds of–heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House–their own people.
Am I the only writer on the entire damned internet who believes that Tice knew what he was talking about, and that the things he discussed in 2005 are still going on today? Why, in order to retain quote "credibility" unquote, must I pretend that Tice never said these words, or that he got everything wrong? Is it not the case that our current predicament makes a lot more sense if we presume that this warning (and Tice was hardly the only person to sound such a warning) accurately describes how the world works?

Consider, for example, the otherwise inexplicable behavior of Paul Ryan.

All is not lost. Congress will not do the right thing if left to its own devices. But mass protest could change the situation. By "mass protest" I mean something terrifying, something that would make the post-inauguration "Women's March" seem like a romp through the daisies.

We need Tahrir Square on the Washington Mall.

We need a million people screaming bloodcurdling things. A million people may chant that which a single person may not say, for the simple reason that there are not enough jail cells to house a million. I do not advocate violence -- but I do advocate fear. A million voices can instill fear. Fear can be our ally. As a wise man once said: People should not fear their government; the government should fear the people.

I do not want our entire society to snap apart, but we can convey the impression that everything could snap, that everything may be on the verge of snapping, that our fury is held by tethers stretched to the limits of their elasticity. Even our blackmailed or purchased Congressfolk will do the right thing if they fear the mob, if they understand that they face a choice between Mueller or chaos.

That could do the trick.

Don't bet on a blue wave in 2018. The Trumpists are employing their secret weapon against the possibility of a blue wave -- a weapon named Bernie Sanders.

More and more people are coming around to my long-held view that Bernie Sanders is a Trump operative. We know that Bernie is a man with deep secrets. We know that the Russians were behind him, just as they were behind Trump.

The possibility of Mueller's firing prompted this twitter exchange:
One thing and one thing alone fixes this: A blue wave in '18 like no one has ever seen before...
This sentiment prompted a predictable response from "Teachers for Bernie"
This will completely depend upon the candidates. Neoliberals within the Dem party are just as likely not to get a vote as GOP members.
What more evidence do you need? The BernieBots are Trumpists in disguise.

Right now, I could not despise Bernie Sanders more if he strangled my dog in front of my eyes.
I think I despise Sanders more than I do Trump. There was no excuse whatsoever for him to ever run for president. So obviously he was a tool. So are his idiot diehard supporters.
So Abbie Hoffman was right to call the US "just another Latin dictatorship". What kind of regime is it where the concept of "conflict of interest" doesn't apply to El Presidente?

Why is there any acceptance in any circle that Twitler (or any other person!) has the right to sack a public investigator who may bring charges against him?
A DUP agreement to support a Tory minority government? I'll believe it when I see it. I am very sceptical about its chances.

How on earth will Theresa May persuade her own MPs to support a soft Brexit just because that's what the DUP want?

The elite in this country are often totally out of touch with what ordinary people want. There was no chance of the vast majority of Labour-to-UKIP switchers backing the Tories. I don't care how many people told pollsters otherwise. And in any case, a number of polling organisations are Tory-connected. Why was there little chance of a Labour-to-UKIP-to-Tory stampede? Because the reason former Labour supporters voted UKIP was because of immigration. It wasn't because they love right-wing inherited-wealth bourgeois arseholes telling them what to do. Many despise the Tories as much as they ever did.

The Tories called this election ostensibly to get a bigger majority so they could implement a hard Brexit. The simple fact is that a majority of MPs now OPPOSE a hard Brexit.

If I were advising the Tories, I would say call another election and go MASSIVE on xenophobia and immigration. That could well happen.

Here's the question: which will Tory MPs prefer out of the following three options?

1) Agree a deal with the DUP, keeping the Tories in office on condition that they implement the Labour policy of a soft Brexit.

2) Call another general election. In the campaign, go even further out to the racist right, which - let's face it - is where most Tory motherfuckers' real feelings are anyway. Perhaps with Saudi help they can even water the election with more blood than the last one.

3) Hand over to Jeremy Corbyn without a general election. Corbyn's response will be to form a minority government. I should have thought he would win the support of the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Green. That would still leave him with a minority, but it would be up to the Tories to vote against the queen's speech and trigger a new general election, in which case they might as well go for 2) right away.

Remember that any deal with the DUP must get past the 1922 committee. Option 1) requires 1922 committee support. Option 2) doesn't. Option 3) only does if the aim is to keep a weak Labour government in power, which could be done even if say 200 Tory MPs vote against the queen's speech and the rest abstain. A full-scale split in the Tory party seems unlikely. Tories are like lumps of excrement and when they need to they will stick together.

Bottom line: Tory Brexit policy is completely fucked, and so is Theresa May. Talking with some sash-wearing Orange crooks from Northern Ireland, even if they've got a lot in common and can swap tips on white hoods, is unlikely to help them much.
For the sake of the country's, Hillary's supporters should stop this shyness and timidness. They should be bold and defiant. They made the right choice and now they need to defend it. Don't let that old goat take over. Any candidate endorsed by him or his surrogates are out. The democratic party for democrats only, say it loud and often.
Well, to be precise, Sanders is not a Trump operative; Sanders and Trump are both Putin operatives.
Three flipped Senate Republicans will help more than a million frightening protesters. It will flip the committees, which will engender significant hearings, and more important, it might save your dog from suffering any further horrible hyperbole.
One of the surest ways to eliminate the possibility of a "Blue Wave" in 2018 is to further alienate the 40+% of Democrats who supported Bernie. It's a recipe for permanent minority status. Great job keeping the Democratic tradition of the circular firing squad alive, Joseph!
THE surest way to destroy the Blue Wave is to insist that purple or red-tinged districts be forced to choose between a more-or-less reasonable-sounding Republican or a far-left Bernie-approved candidate.

Bernie-ism = Trumpism. Bernie is a creation straight out of the Roger Stone handbook. If Bernie did not exist Stone would have had to invent him.
If there was any doubt about Bernie's agenda, check out last weekend's People's Summit. Just nonstop attacks on Hillary and the Democrats. Bernie was their keynote speaker. This is his base.
IIRC, Bernie took his honeymoon in the old Soviet Union.

Sorry, Prop, but I'm going with Joe on this one. Bernie's a mole.
I agree totally with the "mole" theory.

What the hell. He would know this stuff coming right out of the sixties' New Left.

Now the talk of him running in 2020 is starting in earnest. Those questions Joseph asks (and answers) need to be brought up:
What's the plan then for Hillary 2020? How can she turn round the (often crazy) widespread dislike of her? Calling Bernie a mole doesn't answer that question.

On an optimistic note, the Labour party in Britain now has its finest leader since Clement Attlee. In fact I might even put Corbyn above Attlee and nominate him as the greatest Labour party leader in British history.

Attlee undoubtedly achieved a very great deal and he is obviously head and shoulders above "Labour in name only" types such as MacDonald, Blair and Brown, and above shitters such as Callaghan and Kinnock too. But nonetheless it was fairly easy for him to get elected in 1945. Corbyn's task has been MUCH harder. And developing British nukes will forever be a stain on Attlee's record.

Jeremy Corbyn has

* increased Labour's voteshare from 30% to 40%

* won over the parliamentary party, supported by the majority of party activists (anyone who doesn't understand how difficult that has been doesn't understand what has happened)

* unified the party around a left-wing platform - which hasn't been done before in the entire history of the party (in 1945 the party wasn't divided in the first place; in 1983 the platform was good but it didn't bring unity)

* made a lot of ground in the face of a sustained and vicious campaign against him by the Tory media (including the BBC and most of the newspapers), who called him a traitor, pro-terrorist, and in particular, pro-jihadist, a few days after jihadists had carried out a horrendous attack in London

* successfully fought the election how he wanted and not how the Tories wanted, i.e. not on Brexit

* moved to only a short step away from becoming prime minister

I dearly hope that left-wing US Democrats can find someone of similar calibre!
The widespread dislike of Hillary is a weird concept considering she always ends up winning the popular votes. If you remember 2008 she had more votes than Obama. She lost the nomination only after the DNC took delegates from her and gave them to Obam. The MSM kept telling people about this widespread dislike and she was losing and to their dismay she kept winning till they it made clear they meant business, and she had to withdraw. Again 2016 primaries was a rerun of 2008 primaries. Her fault was that she didn't change her tactics to counteract the assault. As for the general election you know. The Anti Clinton propaganda rely heavily on their talking points are repeated often without scrutiny.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic